“27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a manner unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he doesn’t discern the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 31 For if we discerned ourselves, we wouldn’t be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are punished by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” (1Cor 11:27-32)

We move into an ominous sounding section. I’ve been in many settings where parts of this were read before the Lord’s Supper, and I had the feeling that the reader was trying to scare the audience a bit. Who wants to be guilty of the body and blood? Who wants to eat and drink judgment? Who wants to get sick and die?

So what does Paul want us to do? Many see in these verses a call for silent, individual contemplation. Sit and examine yourself, thinking about the sins you’ve committed. Discern the body (and the blood, they suppose). Think about Jesus’ sacrifice. Be sad, somber or at least still. Fight off all temptations to smile and by all means don’t interact with anyone else.

I do think that one aspect of the Lord’s Supper is the remembrance of what Jesus has done. But Paul here is especially calling them to something else. We need to keep in mind that one of the overriding themes of 1 Corinthians is unity. We need to remember that Paul begins this section by accusing them of ruining the Lord’s Supper by not waiting for one another and ends this section by offering the simple corrective of “Wait.” I’ve already suggested that the unworthy manner of which Paul speaks is the taking of the Lord’s Supper without considering others. What about the rest of this?

One of the key phrases is “discerning the body.” Is this the body of Jesus, like in the preceding verse? Or is this the body of believers, like in Chapter 10 and Chapter 12 of this same verse? I’ve heard lots of debate on this, but I think the answer is right here in this passage. I’ve used the World English Bible in the quotation above partly because they do a good job of consistently translating the verb “discern.” Most versions translate diakrino as “discern” in verse 29, then use a different word in verse 31, like “judge” or “examine.” It seems to me that we should notice this structure in Paul’s writing:
verse 29 – If we don’t diakrino the body, we drink judgment.
(verse 30 – parenthetical statement)
verse 31 – If we diakrino ourselves, we won’t be judged. (judgment in 29 comes from the verb judged in 31)
Verse 29 says what will happen if we don’t do this action, verse 31 tells us what will happen if we do. What changes is the object of the action. In verse 29, it is “the body.” In verse 31, it is “ourselves.” It seems to me that the two are parallel, therefore we can understand that when Paul says “the body,” he means the body of believers, that is, us. What he’s telling them here is that the Lord’s Supper is a fellowship meal. It can only have “verticality” when it has “horizontality.” When we ignore the fellowship aspect, when we are not even aware of what is going on with our brothers, we are not taking the Lord’s Supper. We are merely putting ourselves in a situation to be judged. [I think it’s unfortunate, in light of verse 32, that some versions speak of eating and drinking condemnation when they translate verse 29; the judgment we receive is to help us avoid condemnation, not experience it.]

The Corinthians needed to understand the significance of the Lord’s Supper and needed to remember Jesus’ sacrifice. But their biggest need was discernment, being able to recognize the body of Christ that is the fellowship of believers. They needed to see that taking the Lord’s Supper is not an individual event; it is a corporate meal. It is an act of the body, as a body.

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1Cor 11:23-26)

Here they are. The most read verses in our public meetings. In correcting the problem of Christians not waiting for one another when gathered to eat the Lord’s Supper, Paul takes them back to the beginning of this memorial.

Referring to the night Jesus was betrayed may just be a time reference or it may be part of the teaching. Judas’ betrayal was the ultimate betrayal of the significance of a meal in the Middle Eastern culture. Eating with someone creates a certain bond, an unwritten pact of mutual protection. Psalm 41 speaks to this: “Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalm 41:9) And each of the gospel writers emphasizes that aspect of Judas’ betrayal:

“The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.” (Matt 26:23)
“Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” (Mark 14:18)
“But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.” (Luke 22:21)
“Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon.” (John 13:25-26)

Could this be a reminder from Paul of the implications of table fellowship?

It’s interesting that Paul neither mentions that this was during the Feast of Unleavened Bread nor does he refer to the bread as being unleavened. What has come to be an important point for so many of us does not seem to have been so for Paul.

And Paul follows the same tradition as Luke, with Jesus referring to the cup as representing the covenant in his blood, whereas Mark and Matthew have it as the blood of the covenant. It’s obvious that the two ideas were so intertwined as to form one idea alone, a reference to Exodus 24 (see my earlier post on this point).

Here Paul twice uses the phrase “as often as” when referring to the taking of the Lord’s Supper. Despite what many would have him do, he makes no declaration on the frequency of taking the Lord’s Supper. His focus is on the how, not the how often. And he follows these verses with an important statement: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (1Cor 11:27-28) Please note that it is the manner that is unworthy, not the person. This is not a pronouncement in favor of closed communion. Nor is it a call for “sinners” to abstain from taking the bread and cup. Remember that Paul is correcting a problem, the problem of not waiting for one another. This statement addresses that issue. The unworthy manner is them not waiting for one another, failing to consider one another when taking the meal (as we’ll see in the next verses). Paul wants them to know that what they are doing is serious, the problem is serious and the consequences are serious.

The Lord’s Supper is a fellowship meal, or it is not the Lord’s Supper. When we forget that fact, we are in danger of taking it in an unworthy manner. We do well to hearken back to that fateful night when Jesus started this unbroken chain of remembrance.

“17 In the following instructions, however, I do not praise you, because your meetings for worship actually do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I have been told that there are opposing groups in your meetings; and this I believe is partly true. 19 (No doubt there must be divisions among you so that the ones who are in the right may be clearly seen.) 20 When you meet together as a group, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. 21 For as you eat, you each go ahead with your own meal, so that some are hungry while others get drunk. 22 Don’t you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or would you rather despise the church of God and put to shame the people who are in need? What do you expect me to say to you about this? Shall I praise you? Of course I don’t!” (1Cor 11:17-22)”

I promised an in-depth look at these verses, but I find that I’ve already jumped the gun a bit. I talked about some of this yesterday. Still, a good analysis can’t hurt our understanding:

11:17-19 Paul lets them know upfront his displeasure about how they are behaving in their assemblies, specifically the divisions that exist there. In the context of this letter, it’s obvious that verse 19 is meant to be sarcastic (though I’ve actually seen this verse used by those who want to justify division).

11:20-21 These verses go together. Kudos to the KJV, NASB, etc. who use the same word for “supper” in verse 20 as “meal” in verse 21. They are the same word, used by Paul for emphasis. “You’re not eating the Lord’s meal, each is eating his own meal.” [Question for the translators of the NIV… did you just forget to translate that word in verse 21?] Instead of pooling their food and joining together in a holy meal honoring Christ, they were each eating their own food. And they were not considering whether others had food or not. What was to be a holy meal shared in common had become just another meal for them.
As I pointed out yesterday, the problem sharpened due to the social differences in the church. Poorer Christians would have trouble arriving to the assembly on time (due to work constraints) and find it hard to have adequate food to bring. In Greek society, it was normal for the “important people” at a gathering to eat first, receiving the best food. Commoners and slaves made do with what was left. This societal norm had no place in the church of God.

11:22 If they just want to eat a meal, they have homes to do that in. The assembly of God’s people is for doing things together, not separately. Church meals are “common” because of the sharing, not because of their ordinary nature. And the problem was not the fact that they were eating together (we’ll see that later) nor that the Lord’s Supper was being taken during a meal; the problem was how they were doing it.

23 For I received from the Lord the teaching that I passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a piece of bread, 24 gave thanks to God, broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in memory of me.” 25 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, “This cup is God’s new covenant, sealed with my blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of me.” 26 This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

In tomorrow’s post, I’ll spend some time with these verses. For now, let me point out that Paul, as he often does, deals with a practical problem by getting to the theological root. By acting as they are acting, the Corinthians show that they can’t tell the difference between this special meal and any other meal that they would eat. Paul says, “If you truly understood what the Lord’s Supper is about, you wouldn’t act the way you are acting.”

Which leaves me to wonder if I will ever have the wisdom to do the same, be it with the Lord’s Supper or with other issues in the church. Will I ever learn that what seems to be merely a question of forms is often a lack of theological understanding? Especially when it comes to the Lord’s Supper.

As we move into a direct study of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, it would seem prudent to identify what motivated this discussion. What problem existed in the church in Corinth? Why did Paul feel the need to give instructions on the Lord’s Supper?

Fortunately, Paul makes it pretty clear. At the beginning of the discussion he states the problem: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.” (1 Corinthians 11:20-21) The problem was that the Corinthians were not waiting on one another. This division in the church probably reflected the social divisions that were present. The wealthy could come to the assembly at any time, while slaves were at the disposition of their masters. The richer members would arrive early and eat the food they had, leaving the poorer Christians to try and make do with the little food they could bring. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. [Someone asked how they could get drunk with those tiny communion cups!]

In case we have any doubts about the pertinence of this problem to the teaching that Paul gives, we can look at the final instructions he gives. “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.” (1 Corinthians 11:33) Paul begins the discussion by saying that they weren’t waiting for one another. He ends the discussion by telling them to wait for one another. What was the problem? They weren’t waiting for one another.

So what, you say (or not, if you’re more polite than I). Well, here’s the problem: people tend to rip verses out of context from within this chapter without even considering how they relate to the problem at hand! Paul wasn’t writing just to write. He was writing to correct a problem. Everything said in these verses relates to this problem in some way. If our interpretations can’t fit into that context, they’re not right!

To my way of thinking, this setting helps us understand much of what is said here and helps us to see other parts in a new light. In tomorrow’s post, we will take a closer look at verses 17-22 of 1 Corinthians 11. Wait for it!

Before launching into 1 Corinthians 11, we need to get a feel for the main purpose of 1 Corinthians. The vast majority of the letters in the New Testament, if not all of them, are occasional, that is, there was a specific something that caused the letter to be written. Something prompted the authors to write.

In Corinthians, we have a pretty good idea of what led Paul to write. First off, some men had arrived from Corinth (1 Cor. 16:17), seemingly bringing information from the church there. Paul speaks of receiving reports on what is going on (1 Cor. 1:11; 5:1) and throughout the letter speaks knowingly of the church’s situation. In addition, some in the church had apparently written to Paul asking questions about different issues (1 Cor. 7:1) and Paul responds to each question, often with a corrective.

Therefore it’s appropriate to talk about 1 Corinthians as having different “occasions,” different situations that Paul is responding to. In fact, Paul touches on no fewer than eleven different topics, sometimes going to great length to discuss the topic (chapters 8-10 on food offered to idols, chapters 12-14 on spiritual gifts). It would be oversimplifying to try to mention one theme as the theme of 1 Corinthians.

Being overly simplistic, however, I’ll give it a shot anyway. In ancient times, letters often included a prayer or appeal near the beginning of the letter which expressed the main purpose for writing. I think we find just such an appeal in 1 Corinthians 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” An underlying theme throughout the book is the lack of unity. This lack of unity was caused by spiritual immaturity and expressed itself in numerous ways, including division at the time of eating the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-22). As we study Paul’s instructions on the Lord’s Supper, we need to keep in mind that the essential problem being treated is a lack of unity.

Tomorrow we’ll move directly into the pericope we will be studying this week (I just like getting to use that word): 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Take some time to read it, and we’ll look over it together tomorrow.