00 Project Overview

---

title: “1 Corinthians 11:17-34 — A Passage Study” status: scoping type: passage-study methodology: SCAR-illuminated exposition (not question-driven SCAR) related_prior_work:

• Vault/Archives/lemma/Meeting Structure/ # 2025 question-driven SCAR, same verses + ch. 14
• Vault/Resources/Theology/Lord’s Supper and Meetings/ # source library from prior project last_updated: 2026-05-28

---

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 — A Passage Study

What This Is (and Isn’t)

This is a passage-particular study of 1 Cor 11:17-34. It is not a question-driven tldrSCAR project — the prior “Meeting Structure” project (2025, archived) already used this passage that way and answered the meeting-structure question. This new study has a different job: walk the passage carefully, surface what it opens, map the positions without forcing one answer.

The SCAR Quadrilateral (Scripture / Christocentrism / Antiquity / Reality) still serves as a background-illumination tool when a topic in the passage demands historical or practical context. But the chapter skeleton follows the text, not the four pillars.

Why This Passage Now

TODO (Tim): One paragraph on what’s drawing you to 11:17-34 right now. Not a single question to answer — more like a description of why this text is on your mind. This sets the tone but doesn’t constrain the topic map.

Structural Proposal — Four-Movement Exposition

The passage has a natural four-movement shape that early commentators already followed:

Movement	Verses	What Paul is doing	Topics opened
A. The problem at Corinth	17-22	Diagnosis: their gatherings make things worse	Schism, “heresies must be,” the Supper as actual meal, social class at the Table, shaming “them that have not”
B. The tradition received	23-26	The dominical institution: what Paul received and delivered	Paradosis (what “received from the Lord” means), institution words, “this is my body,” anamnesis, the eschatological hinge (“till he come”)
C. Worthy participation	27-32	Pastoral consequence: how to come without bringing judgment	”Unworthily” (ἀναξίως), self-examination (δοκιμαζέτω), discerning the body (the great crux: Christ’s body? church body? both?), sickness/weakness/death as discipline, paideia vs. katakrima
D. Practical ordering	33-34	Apostolic regulation: wait for one another; eat at home; the rest comes later	Mutual order at Table, separation of ordinary meal from sacrament, “the rest I’ll set in order” — what we don’t have

Proposed File Layout

Projects/1 Corinthians 11.17-34/
  00-Project-Overview.md                  # this file
  00-Summary.md                           # written LAST
  01-Passage-and-Text.md                  # KJV + translation comparison + Greek key terms
  02-Movement-A-Problem-at-Corinth.md     # vv. 17-22
  03-Movement-B-Tradition-Received.md     # vv. 23-26
  04-Movement-C-Worthy-Participation.md   # vv. 27-32
  05-Movement-D-Practical-Ordering.md     # vv. 33-34
  06-Antiquity-on-this-Passage.md         # patristic commentary specifically on 11:17-34
  07-Reception-History.md                 # Reformation through modern, brief survey of positions
  Appendix-A-Greek-Word-Studies.md        # ἀνάμνησις, ἀναξίως, διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα, παράδοσις, etc.
  Appendix-B-Cross-References.md          # Synoptic parallels, OT background, ecclesial parallels
  Appendix-C-Topic-Index.md               # index of topics → where treated

Resources/source quotations land at:

Resources/Theology/1 Corinthians 11.17-34/
  ...   # populated as research proceeds

Topic Inventory (the live ground)

This is the inventory of topics 11:17-34 opens. Each gets treatment within its movement chapter; the heavyweights (marked ★) likely earn extended treatment with SCAR background.

Movement A (vv. 17-22):

• A1. Schism, faction, αἱρέσεις at the gathering
• A2. The puzzling logic of v. 19 — “heresies must be… that approved may be made manifest”
• A3. The Supper as actual meal — meal-context, agape connection
• A4. ★ Class division at the Table — the poor humiliated, the rich gorged

Movement B (vv. 23-26):

• B1. Paradosis — Paul’s chain of reception (“I received of the Lord”)
• B2. Relation to the Synoptic institution accounts (Mt 26 / Mk 14 / Lk 22)
• B3. ★ “This is my body / new testament in my blood” — survey of positions (transubstantiation, consubstantiation, sacramental union, memorial, spiritual presence)
• B4. ★ Anamnesis — cognitive recall vs. cultic re-presentation
• B5. “Till he come” — the eschatological hinge; Supper as proclamation

Movement C (vv. 27-32):

• C1. ★ “Unworthily” — what makes participation unworthy; is this about state or manner?
• C2. Self-examination (δοκιμαζέτω) — preparation traditions, fencing the Table
• C3. ★ “Discerning the body” — the great interpretive crux
• C4. Sickness, weakness, sleep — divine discipline as present temporal consequence
• C5. Self-judgment vs. divine chastening (paideia, not katakrima)

Movement D (vv. 33-34):

• D1. “Tarry one for another” — equality and mutuality at the Table
• D2. “If any man hunger, let him eat at home” — separating ordinary meal from sacrament
• D3. “The rest will I set in order when I come” — apostolic regulation; what’s NOT in our text

TODO (Tim): For each ★ topic, two-line note on what tradition/position you want to hold in tension. (E.g., for B3 “this is my body” — do you want to give Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Zwinglian, and Anabaptist positions each a fair hearing? Or hold a narrower frame?)

Scope & Treatment Decisions Still Open

1. Greek depth. How much Greek do we surface in the body text vs. Appendix A? Default proposal: English in body, Greek in parens for the key terms (ἀνάμνησις, ἀναξίως, διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα), full word studies in Appendix A.
2. Reception history scope. First four centuries are non-negotiable; Reformation debate on this passage is well-documented (esp. Luther/Zwingli, Trent). Modern (post-Vatican II Catholic, Believer’s Church, Pentecostal renewal of Table theology)? Default proposal: patristics deep, Reformation moderate, modern light.
3. Author voice. The methodology defaults to “Tim Uy” pen name (Author-Pen-Name.md). Same here, or different? Passage commentaries often have a more personal voice.
4. Reuse of prior project. The 2025 Meeting Structure project has substantial source work (Justin, Pliny, Tertullian, Plymouth Brethren, Wesley) that’s directly relevant. Default proposal: link to it from the relevant movement chapters, don’t duplicate.
5. Length target. Question-driven SCAR targets a 6-8 page TL;DR. Passage study doesn’t have one obvious target. Default proposal: 25-40 page total work, no separate TL;DR — the Summary at the end is a 3-page “what to take away,” not a standalone book.

TODO (Tim): Mark any of the five “default proposals” you want to change.

Working Notes

• KJV primary throughout; comparison translations labeled.
• “View” for positions, “argument” for reasoning (per SCAR methodology §6).
• Full quotations, never references-only.
• Acknowledge ambiguity. The passage has several genuine cruxes; do not force resolutions.
• Cross-link with the prior Meeting Structure project where its source work directly applies.

Next Steps

1. Tim fills in the four TODO blocks above.
2. Then: write 01-Passage-and-Text.md (KJV + translations + Greek key terms) — sets the textual base.
3. Then: Movement A chapter, working forward through the passage.
4. Antiquity and Reception History chapters are written as the movements call for them, not as standalone sweeps.
5. Summary written last.