A biblical exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:27-31

[JC33andDivine]

Greetings! The Lord be with you all! I was interested in anyones opinion of 1 Corinthians 11:27-31 . What does it mean in your opinion?

1 Corinthians 11:27-31 (New American Standard Bible)
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be (A)guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

28But a man must (B)examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number (C)sleep. 31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged

[BillTBC]

JC33,

I see two things in this verse:

1) The real presence of Christ in Holy Communion (we can debate on what "real presence" means. It does not necessarily imply transubstantiation) - since eating the bread unworthly causes us to be condemned by the Body and Blood

2) The need to examine our conscience and repent of our sins before we receive communion (This does not imply Sacramental confession, but it does not preclude it either.) Holy Communion - no matter what tradition you're in - is a sacred event. We should recall Christ's passion, death, and resurrection before receiving, and, as such, recall our sins, repent, and confess (at a minimum to God in our private prayer, if not to a priest or counselor, too).

[JC33andDivine]

JC33,

I see two things in this verse:

1) The real presence of Christ in Holy Communion (we can debate on what "real presence" means. It does not necessarily imply transubstantiation) - since eating the bread unworthly causes us to be condemned by the Body and Blood

2) The need to examine our conscience and repent of our sins before we receive communion (This does not imply Sacramental confession, but it does not preclude it either.) Holy Communion - no matter what tradition you're in - is a sacred event. We should recall Christ's passion, death, and resurrection before receiving, and, as such, recall our sins, repent, and confess (at a minimum to God in our private prayer, if not to a priest or counselor, too).

Thank you. I believe in the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist and I think these verses confirm my beliefs. I had somehow overlooked this for years and had thought communion was nothing more than a ordinance. That there was no Presence there and it was just bread and grape juice..I was wrong. I'm just not a believer in the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation. The bread and wine are still bread and wine, iMO.

Thanks again for stepping to the plate.

[BillTBC]

Thank you. I believe in the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist and I think these verses confirm my beliefs. I had somehow overlooked this for years and had thought communion was nothing more than a ordinance. That there was no Presence there and it was just bread and grape juice..I was wrong. I'm just not a believer in the RCC doctrine of transubstantiation. The bread and wine are still bread and wine, iMO.

Thanks again for stepping to the plate.

One thing that irritates me about Catholic apologists is that they believe that "Real Presence" equals "transubstantiation". Transubstantiation is a complex philosophical concept that requires an intimate knowledge of the Aristotelian model of metaphysics to be able to understand, something many apologists, and certainly the average pew-sitter, does not understand. If we are going to come to some mutual understanding of the "Real Presence", we need to be willing to consider a different model. The Aristotelian model is not infallible and was not even predominant until Aquinas. The Catholic Church says that the Orthodox Church's Eucharist is valid. But their model for understanding it is different, and is based more on the work of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian ("Nazianzus").

Your profile says your Anglican. It is my understanding that Anglicans and Lutherans believer that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus, yet also remain bread and wine (correct me if this is wrong). Catholics will reject this view because they distinguish between accidents and substance. But this is an artificial distinction. I have a hunch that the Catholic and Anglo-Lutheran views are much more inline with each other, but I'm not qualified enough to make that decision.

[spitndirt]

...what I see is a group of unspiritual people in the preceeding verses mishandling the food and drink so that "...one goes hungry, another gets drunk..." thereby "...despising the Church of God and humiliating those who have nothing...". These did not recognize the Church itself as the true body of Christ - those who were purchased with His own blood. Had they recognized this they would not have mishandled the food and drink to begin with. Why did they mishandle it? Because they elevated the food and drink to a status that was above their brothers and sisters in the Lord.

The wafer and wine is for man...not man for the wafer and wine.

My thoughts.....

[hoobalkanoobal]

Here's a question: Paul here says "if we judged ourselves ["rightly" NASB?], we would not be judged" (NRSV 1 Corinthians 11:31).
Yet, in 1 Corinthians 4:3-4, the same letter, he writes "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me."

The problem is not just that in one place he criticizes self-examination and judgment while in another he holds it up as a necessary and vital part of Christianity. This tension can be somewhat reconciled by the fact that he seems to be saying in chapter four that he does not esteem himself highly, he is not worthy to deem himself adequate in the eyes of God, whereas in chapter eleven, he is extolling self-reflection not as an avenue for self-praise but as an opportunity for self-criticism.

The problem, as I see it, is that he implies in chapter four that self-reflection is fundamentally inadequate in the eyes of God, which seems to be a good position. Yet in chapter eleven, he reverses Jesus' "judge not lest ye be judged" to say instead "judge yourselves, lest God judge you." What fear of God is this? Isn't it a troubling understanding of what a man is to say that a man receiving God's judgment will be weakened, not strengthened, and to call upon men to avoid this? Doesn't a man's glory come from the glorification of God? And isn't God glorified in the judgment of sin?

[JC33andDivine]

Your profile says your Anglican. It is my understanding that Anglicans and Lutherans believer that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus, yet also remain bread and wine (correct me if this is wrong). Catholics will reject this view because they distinguish between accidents and substance. But this is an artificial distinction. I have a hunch that the Catholic and Anglo-Lutheran views are much more inline with each other, but I'm not qualified enough to make that decision.

Yes, all three denominations believe in the Real Presence.

[BoranJarami]

We must take these verses in context to understand their meaning. As spitndirt mentioned, Paul is warning the Corinthians about how they had been taking the Lord's supper. They had been doing it only for the food and drink and were selfish about it (I Corinthians 11:20-22). However, Paul tells them that it is to be eaten because the Lord told them that the bread was his body and the wine his blood (vs. 23-25). An important part to remember from these verses is that he tells us that when we receive the Lord's supper that it is to be in remembrance of him (same verses). So, first of all, the Lords supper is a remembrance of Christ's death on the cross.

Next we read:

For "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's death until He shall come.
(1 Corinthians 11:26)

Second, the Lord's supper is showing Christs death. In other words it is symbolic of his death.

In verses 27- 31 Paul describes what happens as a result of not partaking worthily of the Lords supper. Does such punishment mean that the Lord is specially present in the Lord's supper? I do not see how such conclusions is drawn.

Paul was describing how the church at Corinth was degrading the remembrance and symbol of Christ 's death and so were mocking the death of our Lord. I can certainly see how such an act could warrant such curses. The Lord's supper is a time that draws us back to God from wherever our lives have strayed through the remembrance of his ultimate sacrifice. Not only were these people not getting the benefit of this, they're selfish actions most likely hindered everyone else as well. Very serious actions indeed.

I do believe in the real presence of the Lord in communion, however he is not there for communion's sake. The real presence of God is anywhere that one of his children is.

The wafer and wine is for man...not man for the wafer and wine.

A well turned phrase and oh so true.

[JC33andDivine]

.

In verses 27- 31 Paul describes what happens as a result of not partaking worthily of the Lords supper. Does such punishment mean that the Lord is specially present in the Lord's supper? I do not see how such conclusions is drawn.

.

LOL.

And I don't see how it isn't drawn.

Who does the punishing here? If it's God then He is obviously present in the Eucharist.

I see Holy Communion as a spiritual experience. Kind of like water Baptism or simply meditating on the word. But I don't think it is necessary for salvation.

I do agree with this " The real presence of God is anywhere that one of his children is"

Amen.

[Abelard]

I don't see anything at all in this verse that elaborates what the nature of communion is or is not.

It seems to be all about the importance of understanding ourselves. Paul speaks of using communion as a tool in that exploration, but I don't think he says anything about the sacrament itself.

[BoranJarami]

And I don't see how it isn't drawn.

I do not mean to be speaking contempt. Could you explain how such a conclusion is drawn from the scripture?