- 17 In the following directives I have no praise for you,
- for your meetings do more harm than good.
|
V17. This is an echo of v2, where Paul praised the Corinthians for remembering directives like meeting together for prayer and prophecy. Although the clothing they were wearing was making a bad statement, at least the practice itself was being upheld. Here, however, the practice of the Lord’s Supper is on the whole, detrimental to their fellowship. In fact, given what follows, the “harm” is not merely to each other, but to themselves, because it is resulting in God’s discipline on them in terms of sickness and even death. |
- 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you,
- and to some extent I believe it.
|
V18. The first problem is that there are schisms. Back in 1 Cor 1:10, Paul urged agreement and unity so that there would be no divisions. And in 12:25 it appears that the issue of spiritual gifts is also causing schisms. So it appears that he attacks division in general in ch1, and then comes back to specific instances in ch11&12. In ch11, the Lord’s supper is somehow an occasion for division. From what follows, it seems that the division is between rich and poor, which translates into those who eat worthily and those who eat unworthily. Paul has already hinted at the inappropriateness of division in the Lord’s Supper in ch10, saying that the one loaf symbolises the unity of the many in the one body. But the problem of schisms is obvious from the irony that they are “coming together” only to divide themselves. |
- 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you
- to show which of you have God’s approval.
|
V19. Paul is not entirely surprised by the divisions, and makes the enigmatic point that the existence of “parties” or “differences” allows those who are “approved” or “tested” to be revealed by contrast. This seems to be a case of the divine passive, as the NIV translates it – that it is God’s approval which is thereby revealed. But the question remains as to how this is manifested. Given what follows, the most natural reading is that by those who become sick, we see which type of person is not approved by God, and vice versa for those who do not fall sick. The schisms then would be either worthy eaters vs unworthy eaters, or more strictly, poor vs rich. |
- 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,
|
V20. This appears to spell out the result of these schisms – that their meals cannot be called the supper of the Lord, because it is not done with any acknowledgement of the Lord. Coming after 1 Cor 11:2-16, the importance of rightly acknowledging the headship of Christ seems to still be in Paul’s mind. Even though Paul suggests there is at least one group who are “approved”, overall their meals are a travesty of the practice Paul taught them. The term “Lord’s Supper” is unique in the N.T., with the closest example being the “Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10), seemingly referring to the Sabbath – a similar symbol of reverence for the Lord. |
- 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else.
- One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
|
V21. The explanation is that no-one is waiting for anyone else, people just serve themselves. Or perhaps the rich were bringing their own meals and not sharing with those who did not have enough to eat. As a result, some are left hungry, and others over-indulge. There is no sense of the equity of believers that should characterised the fellowship of God’s people (e.g. Acts 2:42-47). |
- 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?
- Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
- What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
|
V22. Paul asks, rather sarcastically, where they have homes, since they appear to be treating the Lord’s Supper as just another meal for satisfying of human appetites. The implication is that this is not what the Lord’s Supper is for, and indeed Paul will suggest later that part of the solution is to eat at home before-hand, if ravenous hunger is causing their abuse of the supper. But for now, Paul offers the only other explanation, other than not having homes (which they clearly have) – that they both despise God’s church and the poor amongst his people. This puts their attitude starkly, and like in the first part of the chapter, shows that their actions are making a statement greater than what they might consciously be intending. To despise God’s church is to despise God, of course. As Paul said in ch8, to wound the faith of a brother for whom Christ died is to invite God’s own judgement. So to despise the church as a whole, for whom Christ died, is even more damning. In addition, despising the poor was one of major sins condemned by the prophets in the O.T., and one of the great signs of injustice that brought down the judgement of the exile. So this should be taken as an ominous warning from Paul. His tone is incredulous – “Will I congratulate you for this?” – as if to say, should I praise you for the fact that at least they are still eating for a meal like he taught them? No, he has already said there is more aggregate harm than good, and that it can hardly be called the Lord’s Supper at all. |
- 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you:
- The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
- 24 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.”
- 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying,
- “This cup is the new covenant in my blood;
- do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
- 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup,
- you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
|
V23-26. As a result, Paul now seems to remind them of the nature of the practise he did pass on to them, so they can see that the way they are conducting themselves is clearly not in the spirit of the Supper. The words of v24-25 are virtually quoted from Matt 26 and Luke 22. They recount Jesus’ own words that his body and blood are remembered in the breaking of bread and drinking of wine. They are remembered not only by example, but because they are “on your behalf” – implying the sacrifice of the cross for sins. By sharing the bread, Jesus gives his followers a “share” in his death – its benefits and its symbolic sacrifice. The symbolism also comes from the context of the Last Supper as a reinterpretation of the Passover. The wine in particular is symbolic of the new covenant, in contrast with the Mosaic covenant, relying on the Law and ultimately on a standard of holiness under which people could only be condemned. The new covenant fulfils the old by Jesus’ own blood fulfilling the role of the sacrificial system, whose sacrifice of animals was only ever a pointer to what Jesus would do. So the Lord’s Supper is set up as a remembrance of Jesus sacrifice by which people are brought into a relationship with God where their sins are no longer against them. Sacrifices in the O.T. were a “remembrance” (presumably of sin and atonement), and in Heb 10:3 these O.T. sacrifices are shown as only anticipatory of Christ because they are a regular reminder of, rather than a solution for, sin. And so the Supper can be summarised as a “proclamation” of the new covenant in Jesus death on the cross. This fits in quite neatly with 11:2-16, because the actions of the Lord’s Supper are a statement of Christ’s headship in salvation. They proclaim Jesus’ death within the church, as an exercise in faith and mutual edification. And they also proclaim Jesus’ death to the community and world as the core historical event upon which the meeting of Christians is founded. It is also significant that this is only “until he comes”. The Lord’s Supper anticipates Jesus’ return, because his new covenant is not just for the forgiveness of sins, but for eternal life. So the return of Jesus will be the final salvation and collection of his people for heaven. Thus the Lord’s Supper is, like the Passover festival in the O.T., a supper which is conducted with “one foot in the aisle”, ready for departure. |
- 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner
- will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
|
V27. Having reminded the Corinthians of the real purpose of the Lord’s Supper, he can now say why their conduct at the Supper is so heinous – it is to deny the gospel itself, a direct statement against the body and blood of Jesus. It is reminiscent of Hebrews 10:29, which talks about someone who falls away as deserving punishment for “trampling the Son of God under foot” and “treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him.” So here also, Paul says someone eating “unworthily” by being selfish and greedy to the neglect of other believers, is guilty of a gravely symbolic sin. |
- 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
- 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord
- eats and drinks judgment on himself.
|
| V28-29. The solution then, is for a person to “examine” or “approve” of themselves. The same word (but in verbal form) is used as in v19 for those parties or groups who are “approved” by God. The connection seems to be that by doing this self-diagnosis, they are to prevent themselves as being “disapproved” by God in terms of judgement. There is an appropriate introspection which pauses before the solemn symbolism of the Supper, to ensure it is approached with an attitude of reverence for the body and blood of Christ. The person who by their behaviour and attitude fails to recognise (by faith, we would say) the sacrifice of Christ made for them, is inviting judgment by their very own actions. It is possible the “body” here is meant to be read as the church – i.e. to cause division is to not respect the church. But since the Supper is a proclamation of Jesus’ death, it would seem the ultimate problem is not respecting Jesus, not the church. |
|
- 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
|
V30. Here we have a surprisingly direct interpretation of current events to God’s judgement. Paul says the explanation of sickness and death amongst them is God’s direct judgement for their abuse of the Lord’s Supper. This is problematic with respect to forgiveness on sins through the cross. How can a forgiven person still come under God’s immediate, intentional judgement? Of course Christians expect to suffer through the general judgement on the world due to sin, and through the persecution that Jesus prepared them for (e.g. Matt 10:25). But we would argue against one-to-one judgement for sin, because of the forgiveness of the cross. We would cite John 9 and Luke 13, regarding the danger of connecting suffering with sin too directly. And Paul makes no indication of some divine insight into their suffering, he just links their sin to their suffering directly. However, it could also be that he links the sin of some to sickness in the community more generally as a general judgement for schisms. Regardless, what follows interprets the sickness as God’s discipline. And it is by the discipline of the Lord, correcting his people toward repentance, that they do not ultimately receive condemnation for sin. In a sense it is an anticipation of the final judgement, and perhaps an example of what Peter says about judgement beginning with the household of God (1 Peter 4:17). For those who have “fallen asleep” we assume that they have not accepted the Lord’s discipline, but that raises the question of whether they were ultimately forgiven. Hebrews 12 discusses the issue of God’s discipline and seems optimistic that it is always aimed at a “harvest of righteousness” through the repentance of the disciple. Still, it does caution us not to “make light” of the Lord’s discipline, so perhaps physical death is the ultimate discipline, which nevertheless leaves hope of eternal life for the believer. |
- 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.
- 32 When we are judged by teh Lord, we are being disciplined
- so that we will not be condemned with the world.
|
V31-32. The solution then is for those who are abusing the Lord’s Supper to “judge” or perhaps “test” or “approve” themselves, and so, in a play on words, not come under God’s judgement. The principle here is quite an important one, biblically. That is, the imminent judgement of God should cause us to acknowledge our defencelessness before him, leading to repentance, and so avoiding that judgement. This is what comes out in the next verse, that by being “judged” through sickness, the Lord is actually aiding his people in not receiving final judgment with the rest of the world, by turning them back in repentance. So this passage is not a call to sinlessness as a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper, but repentance. |
- 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.
- If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home,
- so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
- And when I come I will give further directions.
|
V33-34. So Paul finishes by suggesting how practical repentance would look in their case – waiting for each other at the Lord’s supper instead of rushing in to serve themselves. The problem of hunger, which was partially causing the problem, can be practically be dealt with by eating at home before-hand. That way, their gatherings will be according to Paul’s original directives (i.e. acknowledging the body of the Lord), and so not result in harm (i.e. judgement) instead of good. That seems to be the interim instruction for addressing the problem, because Paul plans to come and give further directions on the matter. |
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Continuing the Discussion
You must be logged in to post a comment.