Shaped by the Supper: The Eucharist as an Identity Marker and Sustainer—A Literary Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34

Abstract

This study demonstrates that Paul presents the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 as an identity-forming and identity-sustaining liturgical act. Through literary analysis, the research first highlights Paul’s deliberate fivefold use of the verb συνέρχομαι (“to come together”) to frame the passage, emphasizing the communal nature of the Eucharist. The meal is intended to mark the identity of the church as one body—set apart from the status-based divisions typical of Roman banquet culture. The current study also observes that Paul strategically places the early Christian confession of the Lord’s Supper at the center of his argument. In doing so, he calls the Corinthians to recall this tradition and re-engage in a shared act of remembrance—one that enacts the memory of Christ’s death and thereby reconstitutes them as a unified body. This understanding is rooted in Jewish conceptions of ritual memory, in which liturgical acts not only recall the past but renew and reinforce communal identity. Through such embodied remembrance, the church does not merely recall who it is; it performs and sustains that identity. Thus, the Eucharist functions both to form the church as one body distinct from the world and to maintain that identity through repeated, participatory remembrance.

1. Introduction

This study attempts to demonstrate that Paul presents the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 as a liturgical practice that both forms and sustains Christian identity, as revealed through literary analysis of the passage. Modern liturgical scholars broadly agree that Christian liturgy functions as a means of faith formation. Hwarang Moon observes that although faith begins as a gift from the Holy Spirit, it is trained and cultivated through the practice of liturgy (Moon 2015, pp. 21, 192). In other words, while liturgy does not create faith ex nihilo, it guides, molds, and deepens existing faith. Liturgy shapes faith especially by bringing the gospel to remembrance. Don E. Saliers and James K. A. Smith emphasize that participation in liturgical practices—particularly the Lord’s Supper—enables believers to better understand and internalize the contents of the Christian faith, as the salvific history of God comes alive in communal memory (Saliers 1996, pp. 13–14; J. K. A. Smith 2009, pp. 26–27). Smith writes that “The sights, smells, and rhythms of the Eucharist seem to make the story both come alive and wriggle into our imaginations in a way that it wouldn’t otherwise” (J. K. A. Smith 2009, pp. 198–99).

However, this strong affirmation raises a pressing question: On what New Testament grounds does this claim rest? In other words, can we move beyond theological or philosophical reflections and demonstrate, within the biblical text itself, how liturgy actively shapes Christian faith? This study seeks to answer that question by offering a literary analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. While it involves a range of features, a key aspect of literary analysis recognizes the importance not just of the content of the text (what is said) but also of its form (how it is said). Approaching Paul’s discourse, this perspective reveals that the form of each letter, paragraph, and even a small unit within a paragraph significantly contributes to our comprehension of their content and, crucially, enables us to better discern Paul’s original “intent” (Weima 2016, pp. 2–8). Through this approach, we can discern that Paul intended to present the Lord’s Supper in this passage as a formative and sustaining practice essential to Christian identity and faith.1 While this study emphasizes the horizontal and communal implications of the Eucharist, this focus does not exclude or diminish the vertical and Christological dimensions. Rather, as will be discussed below, it is grounded in them.

This study will be structured in three major sections. The first two explore the two primary functions of the Eucharist—identity formation and identity sustenance—by analyzing how Paul strategically addresses the Corinthians’ abuse of the Lord’s Supper. To support the formative nature of the Eucharist evident in the passage, historical, sociological, and archaeological insights will also be considered where appropriate. Finally, the last section will reflect on the contemporary implications of this reading for the practice of the church today.

2. The Eucharist as an Identity-Marking Practice: The Formative Power of Gathering

Before exploring the formative function of the Eucharist, it is important to consider two preliminary matters: the two dimensions of the Eucharist and the significance of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 for this study. First, while this study emphasizes the horizontal and communal implications of the Eucharist, it is essential to recognize that the Lord’s Supper is rooted fundamentally in a vertical communion with Christ, from which the horizontal communion among believers flows. This dual relationship is evidenced in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17. In verse 16, Paul clearly states that during the Lord’s Supper, the participants “participate” (κοινωνία) in the blood and body of Christ. As Anthony C. Thiselton and Michael F. Bird rightly observe, the Greek word κοινωνία signifies fellowship or sharing, indicating a “vertical communion” with the presence of Christ himself (Thiselton 2000, pp. 761–64; Bird 2013, p. 894). Therefore, the Christological or Christocentric significance of the Eucharist cannot be overlooked.

From this vertical communion, the horizontal dimension naturally emerges, as seen in verse 17. As Ernst Käsemann notes, Paul transitions from describing the believers’ participatory relationship with Christ to their participatory relationship with the “body of Christ”, the church (Käsemann 1964, p. 109).2 In verse 17, Paul declares that “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we partake of the one bread”. As Hans Conzelmann rightly observes, Paul takes up the notions of “bread” and “body” from verse 16 and reorients them toward the unity of the church, emphasizing the shared identity of the gathered believers (Conzelmann 1975, p. 172). In short, vertical communion with Christ fosters a closer horizontal relationship among fellow believers (Bird 2013, pp. 834, 894).3

Second, it is important to consider why 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 warrants special attention. There are three primary reasons why this passage is crucial for understanding the theological and liturgical dimensions of the Lord’s Supper. First, this passage is the first and unique place in the New Testament where the phrase Lord’s Supper (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) appears. Since 1 Corinthians predates the written Gospels, this passage represents the earliest extant source describing the eucharistic practice of the early Christian community. In other words, we are examining the most primitive written witness to how the earliest believers understood and practiced the meal (Snyder 1992, p. 156; Knoch 1993, p. 3; Witherington 2007, pp. 20–21). Second, as David E. Garland notes, this passage is the only place in Paul’s letters where he explicitly cites a tradition about Jesus that corresponds to the narratives in the Synoptic Gospels (Garland 2003, p. 544). As will be discussed below, the convergence between Pauline and Gospel tradition suggests that Paul is offering an authoritative teaching regarding the Eucharist. Third, Paul addresses the issue of the Lord’s Supper within a broader discussion of worship practices. This section is framed by other liturgical concerns—preceded by his instructions regarding women’s head coverings in worship (11:2–16) and followed by a discussion on the abuse of spiritual gifts, particularly speaking in tongues, in the gathered assembly (chaps. 12–14).4 Thus, a close literary analysis of this passage may yield not only deeper insight into the nature of the Supper itself but also into the ways worship practices shape communal identity and faith.

2.1. Paul’s Strategic Framing of the Problem in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34

Because 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is filled with parenetic language—rebuke, exhortation, and calls for correction—it is tempting to reduce the passage to a practical “how-to” list for celebrating the Eucharist. However, reading the passage through a literary lens reveals that Paul is doing something far more deliberate. He explicitly frames the discussion of the Lord’s Supper as a matter of “coming together” (συνέρχομαι), a verb that serves as a structural and theological anchor throughout the passage.

One of the key concerns in literary analysis is the justification of textual boundaries. Jeffrey A. D. Weima observes that defining the boundaries of a passage ensures that our explanation begins and ends at the right place and that each verse is interpreted in light of its surrounding literary unit (Weima 2016, p. 92). In this case, the boundaries of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 are clearly marked by the repetition of the verb συνέρχομαι in both the opening (v. 17) and closing (v. 34) verses—a literary device known as inclusio.5 This verb, meaning “to come together” or “to assemble” (Danker et al. 2000, p. 969), signals that Paul is framing the Corinthians’ abuse of the Eucharist not merely as a ritual error, but as a failure of communal gathering.

The importance of this framing is reinforced by the repetition of συνέρχομαι five times within the passage (vv. 17, 18, 20, 33, 34). Remarkably, this verb appears only twice elsewhere in all of Paul’s letters—both in 1 Corinthians 14 (vv. 23, 26), likewise in the context of gathered worship. This concentrated clustering strongly suggests that Paul is using the term intentionally to underscore the significance of the church’s assembly in relation to the Eucharist. Moreover, from a literary standpoint, συνέρχομαι not only recurs but also functions structurally—appearing three times (vv. 17, 18, 20) within the introduction (vv. 17–22), where Paul introduces the problem, and twice more (vv. 33, 34) in the conclusion (vv. 33–34), where he offers corrective instruction. Between these two sections, Paul inserts a citation of the Eucharistic tradition (vv. 23–26) and an exhortation grounded in that tradition (vv. 27–32). In this way, not only the paragraph as a whole but also its individual sub-units are framed around the idea of gathering together—a practice that the Corinthians have failed to embody even as they attempt to partake in the Lord’s table.

What is particularly striking about this framing is how it exposes the core problem in the Corinthians’ practice. The issue becomes clear through the appearance of the word σχίσμα (split, division, dissension, or schism) in verse 18. In other New Testament contexts, such as Matthew 9:16 and Mark 2:21, σχίσμα refers to the tearing of a garment—an image of rupture and disunity (Danker et al. 2000, p. 981). Paul had already identified the presence of such divisions earlier in the letter (1:10), and here he makes clear how those divisions have disrupted the proper observance of the Eucharist. Instead of eating the Lord’s meal (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, v. 20), the Corinthians were each partaking in their own private meals (ἴδιον δεῖπνον, v. 21), thereby undermining the communal essence of the Supper. As will be discussed further below, this behavior nullified the identity-marking function of the Lord’s Supper—one of the very purposes for which the church was called to gather as one body. For this reason, Paul opens the passage by arguing that their gathering was doing more harm than good (v. 17).

2.2. The Identity-Marking Function of the Eucharist: Body as Boundary

2.2.1. Imitating Empire: How Corinthian Eucharistic Practice Reflected the Roman Banquet

The issue with the Lord’s Supper among the Corinthians was that its intended function —shaping communal identity—was not being realized. At the root of the problem was the fact that the Corinthian observance of the Lord’s Supper had come to resemble, in both form and social effect, the function and symbolic meaning of the Roman banquet—reinforcing status divisions and exclusion. There is a general consensus among scholars that early Christian meals were nearly identical in format to that of traditional Roman banquets. What matters most, however, is not merely the form but the function of such meals. On the imperial level, the Roman banquet served as a means to promote imperial ideology, define the boundaries of community, and reinforce allegiance to the Roman order (Taussig 2012, p. 30; Streett 2013, p. 7). In short, it functioned as a tool of political and ideological formation. On the individual level, the banquet acted as a social marker—solidifying one’s standing within the Roman hierarchy (D. E. Smith 2012, p. 111; Streett 2013, p. 9). Whom one ate with and where one sat were deeply tied to one’s identity.6 The banquet was, in every sense, a ritual of belonging—a way of answering the questions: Who am I? Who belongs with me? Whose authority do I acknowledge?

The problem in Corinth was that this same boundary-marking function, now operating under the name of the Lord’s Supper, was being used by the wealthier members of the church to separate themselves from those of lower status—just as it functioned in Roman society. Archaeological evidence underscores this dynamic. In typical Greco-Roman banquets, participants reclined on three large couches and ate, and most scholars agree that early Christian meals likely followed a similar pattern (D. E. Smith 2012, p. 9).7 The issue was the size of dining rooms in Roman homes. As Richard B. Hays notes, archaeological studies of Roman homes from this era reveal that the dining room (triclinium) typically accommodated only nine people reclining at the table. Additional guests would have had to remain in the atrium, where space was available for another thirty to forty individuals to sit or stand (Hays 1997, p. 196).8

While it is difficult to determine the number of attendees in the Corinthian gathering, it is clear that not everyone could participate in the Eucharist in the same space. In the early Christian community, the Eucharist and the communal meal (ἀγάπη) were not yet separated; in fact, they were often two names for one and the same ritual (Barclay 1975, p. 100; Blue 1993, p. 578; Knoch 1993, p. 3; Blomberg 1994, p. 229.).9 This means that higher-status members, including the host, would eat in the triclinium, while lower-status members—such as freedmen and slaves—were relegated to the outer atrium during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Hays 1997, p. 196). As noted earlier, Roman meals functioned to form the identity of a group within a stratified society. In this light, the fact that a small number of Corinthians were eating in the dining room while others remained outside signified precisely the kind of status-based exclusion that the Eucharistic gathering (cf. συνέρχομαι) was meant to overcome. This social dynamic gives weight to Paul’s piercing question in verse 22: “Do you humiliate those who have nothing?”

2.2.2. The Eucharist’s Role in Forming One-Body Identity

This section now turns to two key questions: What kind of identity does the Eucharist form, and how does it shape that identity? To begin with, the Eucharist shapes Christian identity as one body in a world marked by fragmentation and social division. It does so by drawing believers together (συνέρχομαι) in a visible, communal expression of their shared life in Christ. The fivefold appearance of the verb συνέρχομαι in this passage, as we saw above, underscores Paul’s concern with true gathering—not merely assembling physically, but forming as a unified body. Paul’s emphasis on gathering is reinforced in verse 29, where he warns that “Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”. As Thiselton observes, a longstanding interpretive tradition—beginning with Justin and Augustine and extending through Thomas Aquinas, Peter Lombard, and Beza—reads the body in this verse as a reference to the Eucharistic elements, distinguishing them from ordinary bread from the table (Thiselton 2000, p. 892). Another compelling view is that “the body” refers to the Lord’s physical body, given “for you” (v. 24), signifying the death of Christ (Barrett 1968, pp. 274–75; Schweizer 1971, pp. 1067–68; Danker et al. 2000, p. 984; Thiselton 2000, pp. 892–93; Gardner 2018, p. 515). However, beginning with Käsemaan, most modern commentators agree that the context points clearly to a different referent: “the body” here refers to something communal and relational, the gathered community itself (Käsemann 1964, pp. 132–33; Bornkamm 1969, p. 149; Marshall 1997, p. 121; Hays 1997, p. 200; Ciampa and Rosner 2010, p. 555; Fee 2014, p. 564; Kwon 2022, p. 467).

There are at least three pieces of evidence for this interpretation. First, when Paul refers to Jesus’s physical body, or symbolic representation of it in this passage, he consistently includes both the bread and the cup (vv. 26, 27, 28). In verse 29, however, he refers only to “the body”, with no mention of the cup—suggesting a shift in reference (Fee 2014, p. 623). Second, Paul refers to σῶμα (body) 18 times in 1 Corinthians, and 9 of those occur in chapters 10 and 12—the chapters immediately surrounding this passage. In those contexts, σῶμα refers predominantly to the community of believers, the body of Christ understood as the church (Y.-J. Lee 2012, pp. 584–85). Third, text-critical evidence supports this reading. While the NIV adds “of the Lord” after “the body”, the phrase τοῦ Κυρίου (of the Lord) is absent in earliest and most reliable witnesses (𝔓⁴⁶ א* A B C* 33 1739 cop^sa, ^bo al) and was likely a later addition (cf. א^c C³ D G K P al). Metzger further highlights that, with such strong manuscript support, the shorter reading—without τοῦ Κυρίου—is likely original (Metzger 1994, p. 496; Thiselton 2000, pp. 890–91).

Paul’s omission of the phrase “of the Lord” in verse 29 appears intentional, distinguishing it from verse 27 where he explicitly refers to “the body and blood of the Lord” (τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου). By doing so, Paul likely signals a shift in meaning—from the sacramental elements to the communal body of believers. This interpretation aligns with Paul’s statement in 12:13, “we were all baptized into one body”, where he emphasizes that Jew or Greek, slave or free, all belong to the church as one unified body. Similarly, in 10:17, Paul writes that “Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one loaf”—directly connecting Eucharistic participation with communal unity.

These observations lead us to reconsider Paul’s expectations for gathering together (συνέρχομαι) for the Lord’s Supper. For Paul, the Eucharist was a formative practice, meant to constitute the community as one body—a community distinct from the world “out there”, where divisions of class and power prevail. The Corinthian celebration of the Lord’s Supper was therefore formative in two ways: First, it established an external boundary, identifying those who belonged to Christ through their participation in a shared meal. Second, it cultivated internal intimacy, fostering mutual recognition and solidarity among members regardless of their social or economic status (J. H. Lee 2018, p. xxiv).

These characteristics set the Christian Eucharist apart from Greco-Roman banquets. Michael J. Rhodes explains that a formative practice is “a telos-shaped, embodied, social action which intends to shape the character of God’s people, the politics of the community, and the world ‘out there’” (Rhodes 2022, p. 52). By gathering the church together—literally and theologically—the Eucharist forms Christians into nothing less than a new humanity, distinct from the status-based social order of the world (Rhodes 2022, p. 230). N. T. Wright observes that all human societies develop ways of “saying things by doing things”. A military salute, or a handshake to seal a deal—these are symbolic actions that carry communal meaning. In the same way, says Wright, communion shapes who we are (Wright 2002, p. 5). The Eucharist was intended to form the Corinthians into a distinct body by calling them to gather together and share the meal as one body.

3. The Eucharist as an Identity-Sustaining Practice: The Sustaining Power of Tradition

3.1. Paul’s Literary Strategy: Tradition as a Persuasive Device

Another literary insight into Paul’s strategy emerges from the internal structure of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. Paul’s response to the Corinthians’ abuse of the Lord’s Supper is not simply to issue commands; rather, he deliberately grounds his argument in foundational theological tradition, drawing from the story of the Lord’s Supper. To do this, he inserts two central sub-paragraphs, forming a clear four-part structure within the passage. As noted above, verses 17–22 form the introduction (cf. the inclusio formed by the repetition of οὐκ ἐπαινῶ in vv. 17 and 22), in which Paul states the problem. Verses 33–34 form the conclusion, where Paul offers the solution (cf. ὥστε and ἐκδέχεσθε). Between these sections, Paul inserts two central sub-units: the confessional material (vv. 23–26) and an exhortation based on that material (vv. 27–32; cf. ὥστε). Notably, Paul could have moved directly from the problem (vv. 17–22) to the solution (vv. 33–34). However, he deliberately places the tradition of the Lord’s Supper at the center of the passage to shape the Corinthians’ thinking and reinforce his corrective instruction.

From a literary perspective, confessional material10 is one of several liturgical forms Paul incorporates into his letters—others include prayers,11 doxologies,12 and hymns.13 Scholars have recognized that Paul uses these forms as rhetorical strategies to persuade his readers (Weima 2016, p. 134). In this case, before offering a direct command (ἐκδέχεσθε), Paul appeals to a shared tradition, reinforcing his argument with the authority of what has been “received and passed on”. To support this argument, it is necessary to demonstrate that what Paul is quoting in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 is indeed an authoritative tradition. The use of the verbs παρέλαβον (“I received”) and παρέδωκα (“I passed on”) in verse 23 strongly indicates that Paul is introducing a confessional or creedal formula. These terms, παραλαμβάνω and παραδίδωμι, are widely recognized as technical vocabulary used to describe the transmission of tradition (Ciampa and Rosner 2010, pp. 548–49).14

Several lines of evidence support this interpretation. First, there are equivalents to these terms in the rabbinic literature. The Hebrew verbs קבל (to receive) and מסר (to deliver) were used to describe the faithful handing down of authoritative teachings (Klauck 1993, p. 60).15 Second, the presence of pre-Pauline tradition is evident. The same pair of verbs appears in 1 Corinthians 15:3, where Paul introduces what is now broadly acknowledged as an early Christian confession (Gathercole 2022, p. 49). Weima offers several pieces of evidence for this conclusion: (1) many of the words and phrases in 15:3b–5 are atypical of Paul’s usual vocabulary—for example, “according to the Scriptures”, “he was buried”, “on the third day”, and “the Twelve”; (2) the four lines in vv. 3b–5 exhibit a carefully stylized structure, divided into two parallel units: Christ’s death (vv. 3b–4a) and his resurrection (vv. 4b–5); (3) each line begins with the conjunction ὅτι (that), a literary marker often used to introduce quoted material; (4) the confession itself places equal emphasis on Christ’s death and resurrection, whereas Paul’s surrounding argument in chapter 15 focuses primarily on the resurrection (Weima 2016, pp. 151–52).

Third, the content of 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 bears a striking resemblance to the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper. As Craig S. Keener notes, the similarities suggest that Paul and the Gospel writers are drawing on the same stream of tradition (Keener 2012, p. 98). While the phrase “from the Lord” (ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου) in verse 23 has prompted some to argue that Paul received the tradition directly by divine revelation (e.g., Lenski 1963, pp. 461–63; Morris 1985, p. 157; Alabi 2022, pp. 1–31), most scholars agree with Thiselton that Paul is referring to a tradition that originated with the Lord but was transmitted to him through earlier Christian witnesses (Thiselton 2000, pp. 866–69). Paul’s formulation—“I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you”—thus emphasizes both the apostolic origin and authoritative continuity of the Eucharistic tradition, reinforcing Paul’s argument in the passage. Therefore, we can conclude that Paul’s deliberate placement and framing of this tradition highlight its rhetorical and theological weight: it serves not only to validate his instruction but to anchor his corrective in what the church has received and always confessed.

3.2. The Identity-Sustaining Function of the Eucharist

As discussed above, Paul strategically embeds the tradition of the Lord’s Supper in the center of his argument, rather than moving directly from critique (vv. 17–22) to correction (vv. 33–34). This literary placement signals that Paul saw the tradition not merely as background information, but as central to persuading the Corinthians. The question now becomes How does this tradition function in his argument, and what does it reveal about the Eucharist’s role in Christian identity?

The tradition Paul cites in verses 23–26—passed down and rehearsed in the Lord’s Supper—functions both as a re-presentation of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, drawing believers into spiritual participation with him, and as a means of communal self-understanding, reinforcing who the Corinthians are in relation to Christ and to one another. By recalling the tradition of the Lord’s Supper, Paul invokes Jesus’s command, “do this in remembrance of me” (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν; vv. 24, 25), urging the Corinthians not merely to repeat the outward action of the Eucharist, but to participate actively in the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice and saving work (Fee 2014, p. 615; Gardner 2018, p. 511). However, Paul is actually saying more than this. His exhortation extends beyond recalling the vertical dimension of the Eucharist; it moves toward re-engaging in a shared, communal act of remembrance—one that enacts the memory of Christ’s death and, in doing so, reconstitutes the Corinthians as one body (σῶμα). As evidenced in this confessional material, the early Christians confessed that the bread representing Jesus’s body was for them (τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, v. 24)—they who are then described as “the body” in verse 29.

Participation in the Eucharist, then, is a form of embodied remembrance that reaffirms a shared identity grounded in that memory. Whenever they eat the bread and drink from the cup (v. 26a), they are reminded not only of the story of Jesus’s death on the cross (v. 26b), but also of their identity as one body. In this way, the Eucharist functions as an identity-sustaining practice, drawing the community together in the present (συνέρχομαι), binding them to the past, and pointing them toward the future—with the shared identity continually affirmed—until the Lord comes (v. 26c).

This understanding aligns with insights from social memory theory. Ritual practices like the Eucharist do not merely preserve memory—they activate and reshape it within a particular community, thereby realigning the participants’ sense of self and belonging (Duling 2014, p. 301; Rhodes 2022, p. 229). Paul’s appeal to the Lord’s Supper tradition fits this pattern: it is not a static reminder, but a dynamic act of reorientation. To put it differently, Paul does not invoke tradition merely for rhetorical effect, nor for the sake of historical continuity. He does so because the Eucharistic tradition embodies the memory that defines the community. By reminding the Corinthians of what they do and what it means when they gather at the Lord’s table, Paul seeks to sustain their identity as one body—formed by Christ’s death, bound by a shared confession, and re-formed through repeated participation in the meal (“as often as you eat and drink”, v. 26). In short, they become what they commemorate.

3.3. Remembering to Become: Jewish Foundations of Eucharistic Identity

To fully grasp the identity-inscribing function Paul assigns to the Eucharist, it is important to recognize that his understanding of ritual memory is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, where remembrance was not merely retrospective but a formative, identity-sustaining act. The Hebrew Scriptures frequently employ the verb זכר (to remember)—169 times in its various forms—not in a passive or merely cognitive sense, but as part of a dynamic process by which Israel continually re-appropriated God’s redemptive acts, such as the Exodus, in the life of the present community.16 This process of remembering found its clearest expression in Israel’s liturgical calendar, especially through the annual festivals (Childs 1962, pp. 74–75; Spaulding 2009, p. 39). These repeated celebrations did more than recall the past—they actualized the memory, enabling each generation to participate anew in the foundational events of their faith and, in doing so, to preserve and perpetuate their identity as the people of God.

This emphasis on ritual memory persisted into the Second Temple period, when Jewish identity was no longer monolithic but expressed through a wide variety of theological and cultural forms across both the Land of Israel and the Diaspora (Pearce and Jones 1998, p. 15). Amid this diversity, shared practices such as the pilgrimage festivals served as ritually enacted moments of corporate memory and identity reinforcement. These annual celebrations bound the community together not through doctrinal uniformity, but through embodied participation in commemorative rites—affirming a common story and sustaining a shared identity (Spaulding 2009, p. 43).

Paul’s appeal to the tradition of the Lord’s Supper mirrors this Jewish understanding of ritual memory as a formative act. His use of the phrase “do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24–25) reflects the same mnemonic logic of Israel’s festivals, which were designed not merely to recall, but to re-present the redemptive act in the present, so that communal identity might be reaffirmed through symbolic participation. Similarly, for Paul, the Eucharist is not just a cognitive recollection of Jesus’s death, but a commemorative event that connects believers with Christ’s saving act and reconstitutes them as one body defined by that act (Ábel 2022, pp. 101–2). In this light, Paul’s understanding of the Eucharist is in deep continuity with Jewish ritual logic: The Eucharist is a ritual in which memory is enacted liturgically to sustain the church’s identity. Through the embodied act of remembering, the church does not simply recall its identity—it performs and perpetuates it.

This understanding of Eucharistic memory is echoed in modern liturgical theology. Scholars such as Saliers and Moon emphasize that in the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine bring to the minds of participants the story of Christ—not merely through passive reflection, but through a multisensory encounter: listening, eating, drinking, singing, and communing (Saliers 1996, pp. 13–14; Moon 2015, p. 81).

4. Living the Memory: The Eucharist and the Church’s Identity Today

The Corinthians gathered to share meals in the name of the Lord’s Supper, yet, shockingly, Paul declares that they are subject to divine judgment for their abuse of the table. In verse 31, he writes that “If we examined (διεκρίνομεν) ourselves truly, we would not be judged”. The grammar here is significant: Paul employs a second-class conditional construction, which assumes the premise to be false. In other words, the statement “we would not be judged” is a simple assertion of a non-fact, implying that true self-examination is not taking place. From a rhetorical perspective, Ben Witherington observes that legal language permeates and defines the mood of this entire section, framing the Corinthians’ conduct in terms of judicial culpability (Witherington 1995, p. 252). Paul’s point is sobering—because the Corinthians are failing to examine themselves rightly, they are exposed to God’s judgment. This “examination” (διεκρίνομεν, v. 31) is directly connected to the “discerning” (διακρίνων, v. 29) of the body—understood, as discussed above, to mean the gathered community itself. Had the Corinthians genuinely evaluated whether they were living out their identity as one body, they would not be under judgment. What, then, does Paul’s warning say to the church today?

While it is unlikely that churches today will repeat the Corinthian error in precisely the same form, the underlying tendencies toward division, status-seeking, and social exclusion might still persist. The fact that such dynamics often unfold outside the formal celebration of the Lord’s Supper does not diminish their seriousness (Seifrid 2016, p. 124). In a fractured and stratified world, the church is called to be a sign of new creation by embodying a reconciled and unified community (J. K. A. Smith 2009, pp. 202–3). The communion table has historically served as a space where reconciliation is not only remembered but enacted. According to 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, the Eucharist is not merely symbolic—it is a formative practice that shapes and sustains the church’s identity as one body. For this reason, the church today is called to recover the Eucharist’s original function by gathering in genuine unity, free from partiality and division, as a visible sign of Christ’s body in the world. The church has one head—Christ (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 2:10)—and is thus called to live as one body (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24) (Bird 2013, pp. 833–34). As discussed above, this identity is not merely remembered cognitively but enacted ritually. The Eucharist functions as an embodied act of remembrance, one that renews and reinforces the church’s shared identity. It is at the table that the unity of the church becomes not only proclaimed but made visible. Similarly, in traditions where sacramental theology has been minimized and the Eucharist is often reduced to an act of cognitive remembrance, this passage challenges churches to recover the Eucharist as an act of formative participation—not only in Christ but also in one another. Concrete steps could include restoring the communal dimension of the meal and emphasizing reconciliation and shared life within the congregation, which is the body of Christ. To conclude, from a literary perspective, 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 reveals a vision in which communal memory, ritual participation, and ecclesial identity are inseparably intertwined—calling the church in every age to become what it remembers, and to remember who it is by gathering as one body around the table of the Lord.

5. Conclusions

This study has sought to determine whether the New Testament—particularly Paul—supports the claim advanced by liturgical theologians: that Christian liturgy, and especially the Eucharist, plays a vital role in forming and sustaining faith. Through a literary analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, the findings affirm that it does. The conclusion based on this observation may be summarized in two points: (1) Paul intentionally frames his discussion of the Eucharist with the verb συνέρχομαι (“to come together”), signaling that the issue at Corinth was the failure to embody communal identity. The Eucharist is intended to form the church as one body—distinct from the status-based divisions characteristic of Roman banquet culture. (2) Paul deliberately places the early Christian confession of the Lord’s Supper at the center of his argument, presenting the Eucharist as a dynamic act of remembrance that reconstitutes the community around Christ’s saving work. This understanding, as demonstrated, is deeply rooted in Jewish conceptions of ritual memory, in which liturgical acts not only recall the past but renew and reinforce the communal identity. At the heart of the Eucharist, however, is not merely the formation of Christian identity but first and foremost participation in the presence and redemptive work of Christ himself. As Paul indicates especially in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, believers partake in a vertical communion (κοινωνία) with Christ’s body and blood, and from this union flows the horizontal communion with one another as one body. Thus, the sustaining of Christian identity in the Eucharist is inseparably grounded in participation in Christ’s saving sacrifice.

The significance of this study is as follows: First, it advances current scholarship by grounding the formative function of the Eucharist more explicitly in the biblical text. While previous liturgical theology has often explored this function from philosophical or psychological perspectives, its exegetical basis in Paul’s letters has been comparatively underdeveloped. Second, the literary approach adopted here—attentive to rhetorical structure and authorial intent—sheds fresh light on Paul’s Eucharistic theology and offers a more textually anchored challenge to the contemporary church: to recover the formative and sustaining function of the Supper in shaping Christian identity. Finally, as a proposal for future research, similar literary analysis could be applied to other Pauline texts associated with liturgical forms—such as doxologies, hymns, and confessional formulas—placing them in dialogue with insights from liturgical studies. Such interdisciplinary engagement will deepen our understanding of how early Christians conceived of worship not simply as expression, but as formation.