The Lord's Supper

We will study the verses commonly used in our churches when conducting the celebration of the Lord,s table.

VERSE 23 WHAT KIND OF BREAD

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: (1 Corinthians 11:23)

"Paul received the instructions concerning the meaning and the observance of the ordinance directly from Christ. Even though he was not in the upper room with the eleven apostles, he denied that he was indebted to them for his knowledge of the event (cf. Gal 1:1, 12). On several occasions, Christ revealed Himself directly to Paul (Acts

9:1-16; 18:9; 22:18; 23:11; 27:23-25; II Cor. 12:7; Gal. l:12; 2:2), and during at least one of them, the nature of the ordinance was given. As a faithful steward, Paul then delivered (paredoka, cf. 11:2) the ordinance to the Corinthians after they were converted (cf. Acts 18:1-18)." (Hodge)

"Their sin was one of irreverent disobedience, without the excuse of ignorance. Disobedience, because they had been told that Paul had received it from the Lord Himself, and without excuse because Paul had personally `delivered' it unto them." (H)

"The fact that the matter of the Lord's Supper was communicated directly to the apostle shows the importance that the Lord placed upon this ordinance." (H)

USE OF LEAVEN

While Hodge indicates that the bread taken by the Lord had to be unleavened since it had been part of the Passover meal, he denies that it makes any difference whether we use leavened or unleavened bread since "no part of the significance of the rite depends on the kind of bread used," etc.p128. This may be true, however, it seems quite significant that Paul in I Cor. 5:7 and 8, speaks about leaven in a negative sense.

Though speaking figuratively, he speaks about keeping the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. He also says, "ye are unleavened". This makes good sense if we understand the bread to represent Christ's body, the church. We are unleavened, because our sins have been washed away, and leaven is consistently a type of sin throughout the Bible. This speaks about our position in Christ and that is what is seen primarily in the bread.

VERSE 24 BROKEN BODY???

And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:24)

a. "when he had given thanks" It is in the transliteration of this word from the Greek that we get our word "eucharist".

b. "he brake it"

The bread broken. Note, it is the bread that is broken, and not his body. I have heard preachers refer to the "broken body and shed blood". In fact, the majority of commentaries seem to favor this treatment. For example:

Dr. M. R. DeHahn says in his commentary on I Cor. "When I take the bread and raise it to my mouth, I testify by that act that I believe that His body was broken for me etc." He was emphasizing the "for me" part, and it is, in my opinion, a careless statement.

In Matthew Henry's commentary, we read, "his body broken his blood shed etc." and,

Hodge on Corinthians, p. 129, commenting on the words, "broken for you" says: "Broken or given for you means slain or given unto death for you.

The words, "given for you" come from Lukes's account:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto

them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in

remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19)

Matthew and Mark do not record the phrase at all. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for this concept in the gospel accounts, and it should be understood that Paul was talking about the bread being broken rather than Christ's body. I don't believe Christ meant to teach anything about His body being broken. This arises due to a misunderstanding of what the bread represents. It is clear from the preceding chapter, "For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread", (1 Corinthians 10:17) that the bread represents the mystical body of Christ, the Church. Any sense of brokenness would express the very opposite of what Paul was emphasizing here, namely, the unity of Christ's body, His church. In fact, the scripture actually teaches that His body was NOT broken.

For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. (John 19:36)

Gromacki In "Called to be Saints" p. 143, however, states, and I believe mistakenly so, "Thus the bread represented His incarnate body offered on the cross for them". At this point he offers a note which adds to the confusion: "There is a problem with the words 'is broken'. They are not found in the critical text; thus the sense of substitution is left ('which is for you'). It is true that not one of his bones was broken (John 19:36), but his body was bruised with bones out of joint (Ps. 22:14). The concept of 'broken' is not wrong if understood correctly." (The critical text is the Westcott Hort)

The Trinitarian Bible Society has an article in their June '77 publication (#459) in which they show strong evidence against the Westcott Hort position. They feel that because some early transcribers of the Epistles of Paul evidently misunderstood the passage,they did their best to remove what they imagined to be a contradiction. I think we should recognize why they may have thought it was confusing to let it stand as it is in the KJV and especially since the concept of Christ's body being broken was not supported by the Gospel accounts. I have no problem with the words, "is broken for you" as long as we agree that they refer to the bread and not Christ's human body.

c."this is my body" That is, "represents my body", just as the vine and the door were used by the Lord as picture words. The question, as has already been stated is whether Christ was referring to his physical body or His mystical body, the Church? There is a sense in which he was referring to both but primarily He had in view His mystical body, and if this is missed, the whole point of the passage is lost. His physical body corresponded to the body of the lamb that was to be eaten by the priests of the old covenant as indicated in 10:18. The Lord broke the bread so that each could participate, which, in so doing, they symbolically pictured their identification with Christ in His death, and the unity of the body (chapter 12) since they all partook from one loaf. This is what is stressed by Paul in 10:16 17. To put the emphasis on the physical body of Christ, and then to speak of it as being broken is to picture the very opposite of what Paul is teaching. They are not divided, they are one body, and when they eat the bread,that is what is being symbolized.

d. "in remembrance of me" We can hear some say, if you call the "body" the Church, then in what sense are we remembering Christ when we partake of the bread? Let us try to understand what Jesus meant. Did He mean, "every time you do this, think about me", or rather did He mean, "do this as a memorial to me"? When the twelve tribes emerged from Jordan in Joshua 4, they erected twelve stones on the bank as a memorial in order that future generations might be reminded of the event when they asked the question, "what mean these stones?" Think of the great memorial to Christ that is represented by the loaf when it is understood to be a picture of the Church. All one in Christ! Calvary is central to the whole concept of our oneness with Him and with each other. WE ARE THINKING NOT ONLY OF THE EVENT OF HIS DEATH, BUT THE GRAND RESULT! He has not only saved us as individuals, but He has formed us into a "perfect man" (Eph. 4:13)

This body is His fulness (Eph. 1:22 23) and certainly no true apprehension of its meaning will detract from Christ Himself! Changing the figure for a moment, the Church is His bride and as such is His glory since the woman is the glory of the man (I Cor. 11:17). She is "bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh" (Eph. 5:30). What a glorious mystery, and what God hath thus joined together, we will not dare to put asunder!

(It might be appropriate here to consider a bit of historical material)

PARENTHETICAL - SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

EARLY EMPHASIS

In one of the earliest Christian writings, "The Didache" or "The Teaching of the Twelve", in speaking of the bread, the formula of thanksgiving at the table reads; for the bread: "We give thanks to thee our Father, the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy servant: to thee be glory forever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and, gathered together, became one, so let thy Church be gathered together from the end of the earth unto thy kingdom, for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever."

TOTAL DISTORTION

In the ninth century Pascachius Radburtus first put in writing the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church which had been practiced already for centuries concerning the mass, or what had formerly been the Lord's Supper. He wrote it in a book dedicated to the king of what is now modern France, Charles the Bald. It was not until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 that it became official dogma of the Catholic Church, however. The teaching was that at the words of consecration pronounced over them by the priest, the substance of the bread and wine actually, mysteriously, became transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Thus a sacrifice of Christ's death is performed at each mass, and it is in the receiving of the wafer at the hand of the priest, that the communicant receives Christ.

REFORMATION CONFUSION

Martin Luther, in his work entitled the Babylonish Captivity (1520), rejected the doctrine of the mass, transubstantiation, and the withdrawal of the cup, as "strongholds of papal tyranny". Once free from his battles with Rome, Luther became enmeshed in a controversy with some of his fellow reformers over the meaning of the words, "this is my body". In his work entitled, Great Confessions on the Lord's Supper in 1528, Luther wrote what he intended, at the time, to be his last word on the subject. It is full of depth and force, but also full of wrath. He compares the writings of his opponents to the venom of adders. At the Marburg Conference in 1529 his dispute with Ulrich Zwingle and the Swiss reformers reached its height as they argued for days over the meaning of the words, "this is my body". It ended with each maintaining their original position, the Lutherans holding to consubstantiation, and the Zwinglians to symbolism. Luther refused to accept the men of the opposition as his brethren.

CONCLUSION

The reformers were wrong about a lot of things: the separation of church and state, infant baptism, the murder of Anabaptists, millennialism, covenant theology, etc. They would perhaps not have made so many mistakes if they had been more careful in seeking to

"rightly divide the word of truth". They also missed the point on this subject, and unfortunately they have carried the majority of Biblical commentators and expositors with them. Let us seek to learn from the context what the Lord's Supper is all about.

VERSE 25 THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT

After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:25)

a. "when he had supped" Lukes account explains the word "supped". Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20)

b. "the new testament in my blood" What is blood, but the life of the flesh (Lev. 17:11)? It is an insult to the Jew to say that he must drink blood, but such was the statement of Jesus in John 6. It would be more difficult for them to learn the difference between the old and new covenants than to literally drink blood. Here is a stumbling block on which they stumble until this day. "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life". The new wine would not be able to be placed in the old wine skins. And what is this new wine? The life of Jesus through the Spirit, or as the Scripture puts it, "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", which is a new law under the new covenant (Rom. 8:2). Remember how often the analogy is made in Scripture between wine and the Holy Spirit? Blood and wine both represent the same truth. Now, what is the difference between the old covenant and the new? The life of God, through the Spirit, did not indwell the Old Testament saints. The preposition "with" indicates the old relationship while "in" is the word for the new relationship (John 14:17). The blood in the human body pictures what the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Christ, is to the new man. He is our life. "He that hath the Son hath life" (I John 5:12). So then, the blood was denied the Old Testament saints but when Christ came He said, "except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53). Then He went on to develop the truth in verse 56 "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in Him." Do you not see it? His body Ye in me; His blood I in you. (See also John 14:20) The words that He speaks, they are SPIRIT and they are LIFE (v. 63).

Therefore when we, partaking of the cup, think only of His blood poured out for us, we are getting only half the truth. He died for us that He might live in us, and the drinking of the cup speaks of His life made available to us. Think of the Old Testament sacrifices. Was it enough for the priests to offer the sacrifices? No, they were commanded to eat them as well, but without the blood. Under the new covenant, the blood is taken with the flesh, for the Spirit has now been given, and at Pentecost God,s new man, His body, the Church, received its new life through the Spirit. He is the great unifying principle of the Body and the answer to Jesus' prayer in John 17:21 "that they may also be one in us". "For we have all been made to drink into one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13). one Spirit "drink ye all of it". How can we miss the point that Paul is trying to make to these Corinthian Christians? Is he just informing them of how each individual should feel about Christ, or, is he not rather, laying down some very practical teaching based on the deep meaning of the symbols being used?

VERSE 25 THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT

After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:25)

a. "when he had supped" Lukes account explains the word "supped". Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20)

VERSE 26 SHEW TO WHOM?

11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

PROCLAIMING CHRIST'S DEATH

To whom is Christ's death being proclaimed at the Lord's Supper? Certainly not to the unsaved, generally, since they are not expected to be present. During the apostolic age the unbelievers were dismissed before the supper having been addressed in the earlier part of the service. Since we do not expect them to partake, there is little expectation that they were present.

Perhaps it is primarily before God and the angels that we celebrate Christ's death at communion. We do it to say we are remembering what He has done for us and it is certainly important that we rightly understand why and how His death effects us in its application.

Then too, it is in the midst of the Church that we show forth Christ's death and we know that there is no other entity on earth today as important as His body, the Church. Let us turn to Hebrews 2:9 15.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour;

that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10 For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make

the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call

them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2)

In the midst of the church, He who tasted death for us sings praises unto God and we who are one with Him join in that song of praise as His brethren (v.11).

What could we ever celebrate more joyously than the death of death itself, and the everlasting defeat of that prince of death, the devil?!!

There are at least two things that we should remember about Christ's death. First, its necessity if we are to be saved. With His death sin lost its power over those who believe. We read in I Corinthians chapter fifteen:

55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the

law. (1 Corinthians 15) Yes, the sting of death is sin, and He has

borne it all!

Let us turn to Isa. 53:10 and note that the death of Christ pleased Jehovah because in it God had made the soul of Christ an offering for our sins. That offering was satisfactory and complete and through it, victory over sin was achieved once for all.

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he

shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. (Hebrews 10:10)

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Romans 6:10)

As the disciples participated with the Lord Jesus Christ in that "first" supper so they participated with Him as his body went to the cross and emerged from that "baptism" to share His life as it was poured out on the day of Pentecost to form a new body, and so have we all who are saved.

Secondly, then, we see that there is no better way for us to "shew forth" Christ's death then to understand and celebrate our complete involvement in it as we contemplate our identification with Him in His death. The Scriptures teach that when Christ died, I died. See II Cor. 5:14:

For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that

if one died for all, then were all dead: (2 Corinthians 5:14)

And so, the second truth that we remember as we proclaim His death is that in the celebration of His death, I celebrate my own. It is to the extent that the church really comprehends and practices its identification with Christ in His death that it really "shows the Lord's death till he come". What do we mean by saying this? The answer to that question brings us to the next verses where the subject of discerning "the Lord's body" is brought up. It is here that we get into the practical application of what Paul is teaching. The test of my understanding what is really involved in Christ's death is how I will now treat my brethren. It was the failure of the saints at Corinth that launched Paul into this subject if you will remember.

Before we go to the next verse we need to look at some verses that show how Paul applied the principle of identification practically. Go to Col. 3:3 9

3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. 8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; (Colossians 3)

See also Gal. 2:19 21, along with 5:19 24

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2)

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Galatians 5)

To conclude with the comments on this verse, We have seen that there is much to be considered when we speak of Christ's death, and we must be sure we understand what is being symbolized as we eat the bread and drink the cup, for it is in doing these things that we "show' or proclaim His death. In the next verses we see that it is possible to do this"unworthily", and thus to bring judgment upon ourselves.

VERSE 27 PARTAKING UNWORTHILY

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27)

The word "wherefore" connects the thoughts of the preceding verses with these that now follow, and show that Paul has been leading up to this application. It is clear from these verses now under consideration that Paul believes the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to be primarily disciplinary.

"Unworthily" Any study in depth will show that this is not a warning to the unsaved as often thought by the casual reader. It is the Christian who is partaking unworthily. Thesimple conclusion, if our analysis of the preceding verses is correct, is that for oneto eat celebrating the oneness of Christ's body and drink celebrating the unifying powerful life of that body and yet is harboring any sin that causes schism or division, he is clearly a hypocrite. He is guilty of doing violence to the truth that the body andthe blood represent. Moffat translates the latter part of this verse as follows: "will have to answer for a sin against the body and blood of the Lord" Zwingli seemed to understand this to mean a sin against the church as quoted by D'Aubigne in History of the Great Reformaton, Vol.III, p. 318. "He relied", says D'Aubigne' "especially on the words of St. Paul `because there is but one bread, we being many are one body'..." "Whoever" said Zwingli, "acts unworthily is guilty of sin against the body of Christ of which he is a member".

ILLUSTRATION

Here is the picture: Brother Smith eats the bread with the assembled church. The meaning of his act is that he is one with Brother Jones seated next to him. In fact, Brother Jones bears Christ in his body but brother Smith will not speak to brother Jones, having some offence against him. He is saying that he loves God whom he does not see, but he is hating his brother who sits next to him. In God's sight he is hating not only his brother, but Christ, who indwells his brother. Now, he contends that he would like to be different but he is unable to change yet he takes the cup which represents the all powerful life of Christ and drinks of it saying that Christ lives in him. Can the Spirit in these two men be anything but grieved over the failure to remember the results of Christs death? It is sheer sentimentalism on the part of brother Smith if he is thinking about the event of Christ's death and supposing there is some blessing in the communion for him. He is utterly deceived! He must leave his gift at the altar (Matt. 6:23,24) and be reconciled to his brother, or else he is sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

The ordinance of the Lord's Supper represents not an act of individual worship,but rather an act of the corporate body, the assembled local church. The individual may commune with the Lord at any time and should regularly be dealing with sin on the basis of I John 1:9. Certainly he should not wait until the Supper is celebrated by the local church before he confesses hs sin and receives cleansing. But in order to maintain purity in the local church he is expected to come to the Supper as evidence that he is in fellowship with the Lord and thus not affecting the "lump" by the leaven of his unconfessed sin. If in the Old Testament God considered that Israel had sinned when one man had taken of the accursed thing, how much more jealously does he guard the purity of the church. If "one member suffer all members suffer with it" (I Cor. 12:26).

VERSE 28 SELF EXAMINATION AND THE CHURCH

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. (1 Corinthians 11:28)

a. "But let a man examine himself" Connected with the Supper is the thought of self examination. This should precede the partaking, and perhaps should be done prior to the event of the Supper itself. The Lord's table should be an act of praise, so we should be preparing to have an attitude of joyfulness. In other words, this should not be a morbid occasion. Again, the emphasis should be on the results of Christ's death.

There IS the matter of self examination, however, and we must not miss this emphasis in the passage because it has to do with the Apostle's concern for the irregularities that were occurring in the Corinthian church. These believers were obviously not examining themselves and thus they were suffering the judgment referred to in verse 30.

In what respect were these believers to examine themselves? Was it only to see if they were saved, such as Paul called for in II Cor. 13:5?

No, we must see that the question there is not one of justification, but of sanctification; it is the behavior of the saints that is in view throughout the epistle. These people were to examine themselves concerning an attitude towards their brethren, which reflected their attitude toward their Lord. There are so many Christians who want to keep their dealings with the Lord in the realm of the abstract, but God always brings us to the concrete. "How is it between you and your brother?" That is the gauge by which your love for the Lord is best determined, and this also will determine your worthiness or unworthiness at the Lord's table. I may eat meat offered to idols, or not eat it; I may keep one day holy or think of all of the days alike; if my heart does not condemn me in what I allow, then neither does the Lord. But if in any of these things I am being a stumblingblock to my brother, there is much in the Word to condemn me. Yes, it will be a convenient method of mental escape from that which would otherwise condemn me if I only think of myself as an individual when I come to examine myself before the Lord. "Yea Lord, thou knowest that I love thee". Peter had said to the Lord, and swiftly came the practical admonition, "Feed my sheep".There is an obedience to love which always seems to be the test of its validity. Relationships to men will ever be the test of our relationship to God.

EXAMPLE

Here is a brother who runs to three or four different churches in order to get fed, but refuses the responsibility of belonging to any one of them. At time of communion, he shows up at your church, he examines himself and is satisfied that he loves the Lord, and on that basis he partakes. It may be said that it is a matter strictly between this man and the Lord, but is it? If it is the duty of individuals to help a brother who is overtaken in a fault, is it not much more the duty of the church? We might reason that if we say anything to him he may stop coming and we will lose him. This is the same indulgent attitude that some parents have toward their children. "If I spank them, they won't love me." The truth is to the contrary! Discipline will strengthen love, and so it will be among the brethren. (If a church becomes too large to effectively carry out this kind of individual concern, then it is too large!)

A PERSONAL MATTER ONLY? There are those, certainly, who will say that this verse only refers to personal discipline, and that it shouldn't involve the other members. Such is shallow reasoning. Whether or not we see the body here as being the church, we cannot deny the vast number of Scriptures that indicate our responsibility to each other.The question is if the man does not examine himself, that is, he refrains from partaking, do we simply overlook it? Or if he is examining himself along with the brethren, but apparently is coming to the wrong conclusions do we let him go on in his error? Some will say, "leave the judging to God". But, if we will go back to I Cor. 5:12 we note that God judges them that are WITHOUT, and the church judges those that are WITHIN. If the man in our illustration is a member of the assembly and partakes unworthily, he judges himself as we will see later on. If he is not considered to be a member, but only a visitor and yet is allowed to partake (on several consecutive occasions), he is being robbed of the privilege of disciplinary care. He may come to the table for a few months, and then grow apathetic without really being missed because he was not "expected" He may be in some other assembly visiting the same as he was here. Who is going to be concerned for him, or think it is their duty to be concerned? Who will be praying for him until he gets back into fellowship, as would be done for all those who are members. He is like the man without a country, and where does the fault lie? Shall we blame the juvenile for his delinquency rather than the parent? Yet, can we treat this brother as though he were within the discipline of this local assembly when he does not so consider himself?

Look at the situation which we create. If the brother does not understand that the communion is that of the "body" with its "Head", and if he partakes unworthily due to a wrong relationship to the "body". will God visit him with judgement; and if He did, would this brother understand why he was being judged? If he were a member, the congregation would certainly be remiss in not seeking to restore him to fellowship. If it does not, the leaven permeates the lump and the whole congregation is judged by the Lord until its purity is regained. (As illustrated in the story of the defeat at Ai of Israel due to the sin of one man, and reaffirmed as to principle in the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.) This may be why many whole congregations (bodies) are weak and sickly and some die. What is God going to do with this erring brother who is not a member of any congregation? Certainly it must be that he is the responsibility of none other than the congregation with whom he communes, and that body will be held responsible. (See Deut. 21:1 3) If it does not exercise discipline upon him, the church will suffer, and if it is going to assume the responsibility for disciplining him, this must first begin with his belonging to that assembly. Does not church discipline begin then with belonging to the assembly?

b. "so let him eat" There is also the question that often arises; namely, should a Christian with unconfessed sin absent himself from the table? Many think that it is more serious to come with a wrong attitude than to stay away, and some almost commend themselves on being so humble as to refrain from the table if they think themselves "unworthy". Two wrongs, however, do not make a right; and while it is wrong to come with unconfessed sin, it is just as wrong to refrain from partaking. THIS IS AVOIDING THE ISSUE. The purpose of the regularity of this ordinance is to maintain the purity of the body of Christ locally, assuring that the members are consistently judging their sins. When one refrains from partaking, he is only revealing his guilt to the assembly; and it is then their duty to act in an effort to restore him. There are, then, three alternatives open to him. He can judge his sin and put it away; he can invite the judgement of God by partaking unworthily; or he can refrain and come under the scrutiny of the church.

Again, for those who might contend that the Lord's Table is for the individual, and his partaking or not partaking is simply a matter between the believer and His Lord, let us go a bit further. Regardless of the question as to whether or not this is primarily a church ordinance, whether or not the "body" here is the church, and whether or not it has to do with local church discipline; there is no question as to our responsibility toward a brother who is out of fellowship. So this becomes a church matter on this basis, if on no other, but we believe that the passage clearly indicates that since his eating unworthily is a sin against the "body", so his failure to come is the responsibility of the "body" also.

VERSE 29 DISCERNING THE LORD'S BODY

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:29)

a. eateth and drinketh judgement" (passes the sentence of judgement upon himself). The word "damnation here is the same root word as translated "judge" in verse 31. There is a law in Numbers 5:12 31 called the "law of jealousies" that quite well illustrates this verse. Christ is pictured by the jealous husband and the woman, His espoused bride (future wife). In this "memorial bringing iniquity to remembrance" (verse 15), etc., "the guilty one drank death and found it judgement, the faithful one drank death and found it victory", (C.H.M. Notes on Numbers p. 115). By the way, a study of the Notes will further strengthen the arguments set forth in these pages.

b. "not discerning the Lord's body" Dean Alford translates it, "appreciating". Strong's lexicon gives the following definition of the word, "to separate thoroughly, literally to withdraw from". It comes from the root word translated "judge" in verse 31 which means "properly, to distinguish; i.e., decide (mentally or judicially)". Here again, if the word "body" means Christ's physical body then the meaning is certainly obscure, but if it is the church then it is exceedingly clear. The person who eats unworthily is not seeing through what he is doing, or thinking through to the logical conclusion of the effect his action will have on the body. He does not appreciate the church's necessity for purity and that, in his unconfessed state he should shrink from defiling that holy lump. But instead, he attempts the highest form of fellowship with them and selfishly defiles them. He is like a father with a loathsome disease, caressing his children, showing them love outwardly, but meanwhile bringing disease and death to their pure bodies. The same Greek word as translated "discerning" here is translated "making a difference" in Jude 22. The unworthy partaker should make a difference between himself and Christ's body. Like the leper, he should cry "unclean, unclean"!

VERSE 30 A SERIOUS WARNING

For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Corinthians 11:30)

a. "For this cause" There can be no question as to the relationship between the judgement mentioned in this verse and the cause. Can we possibly make the Lord's Table just a beautiful expression of the believers personal love for the Lord in the light of such a warning? No, it must be more it must relate to discipline!

The effect of the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira produced "great fear" in the church. We must warn all communicants to greatly fear God's judgement if they come to His Table unworthily, and we should expect to see His judgement and its purifying effects when unrepentant believers continue to partake. It is possible that the reason why we do not see more of this judgement than we do is because we have not taught and sufficiently warned the flock, and either it is happening and they do not recognize it, or God is withholding His action since the church would not understand it, but in so doing He is leaving the church in a defiled condition. How long will such a condition prevail before the candlestick is removed? (Rev. 2:5)

VERSES 31 32 CHASTENED OF THE LORD

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11)

If we judge sin and put it away, we will avoid being chastened by the Lord; but if we do not, we will be chastened, or "disciplined" (Interlinear Greek English N.T.). It would be best if this chastening were to take place in this life, but if it doesn't, then we will be judged at the Judgement Seat of Christ. But of one thing we can surely be thankful we will not be condemned with the world.

VERSE 33 TARRY

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. (1 Corinthians 11:33)

"tarry one for another" wait until the whole body is assembled. This would lead us to the thought that we should be concerned when someone isn't in attendance who should be. But then, who do we expect to come? Does the fact that we have a time for our services to start solve the problem? No, it would seem that we should know who is expected and when one doesn't come (consistently), the elders of the church should find out why. Now this again points up the reason why the church must be composed of a certain number who make up the local body otherwise how would we know who was expected.