Theoblogian.org

Charlie on Am I unworthy at the Lord's Supper?

Charlie — 9/17/2005 11:56:00 PM

Thank you for your comments. But I am afraid I disagree, which I suppose is good because otherwise we would have nothing to talk about!
First, I think that Paul did not condemn their communal meals, only the way it was being conducted. Garland makes the comment that the poor of the time did not eat at home: only the rich could afford to do so. So he concludes that the command to eat at home was directed only to the rich, who were viewing the meal as a way to show off their wealth rather than proclaim the Lord's death. The problem is not that they are eating together, the problem is that the rich are oppressing the poor and the slaves present. Notice what else he says in verse 22: "Do you humiliate those who have nothing?" Surely this phrase is directed at the rich, and so it would make good sense to have the whole verse directed at the rich. Verse 34 is talking about the person who wants only to show off his wealth, not the poor person. For the rich person who wants to love the body of Christ and proclaim the Lord's death, they are welcome to eat together. Notice as well what it says in verse 33, after he has finished his discussion: "When you come together to eat." This I think assumes a meal is still present. Further, 1 Corinthians was written while Paul was at Ephesus (16:8), and most likely this is the Ephesus stay that is recorded in Acts 19. But in Acts 20, after he wrote 1 Corinthians, he "broke bread and ate" with the brotheres in Troas (verse 11). Most commentators on my bookshelf (Marshall, Bruce, Polhill, Kent, MacArthur), view this as communion plus a meal (Fernando does not take a stand and Longenecker says it is not communion). This means that Paul did not reevaluate his thinking about having a communal meal after his experience with the Corinthians, but kept on with his previous pattern of having a meal with communion.
Second, in relation to reverance. I agree that there is potential to miss the reverance. But I am not sure that the danger means we should avoid it. In the OT, Passover was a full meal, and it was supposed to be a time of remembrance, just like the Lord's Supper. This comparision is even stronger, of course, because the Lord's Supper was originally a Passover meal. I do think we should warn people not to overeat at the Lord's Supper (which is something I often pray for when I pray for potlucks anyway: "Help us to glorify you by not eating too much."). I think the greatest argument against your second point, though, is simply that the Lord's Supper started life as a meal. I would think that if food and reverance was not a good combination, then God might have noticed it before the Corinthians had their problems. On the other hand, perhaps food and reverance being a bad combination is a cultural thing, where we in America have trouble being reverant and eating.

Brian on Am I unworthy at the Lord's Supper?

Brian — 9/15/2005 10:37:00 PM

Charlie,
In your last paragraph you suggest taking a whole evening to celebrate the Lord's Supper. I am concerned about your suggestion to make it a meal on two counts. First, Paul was angry about their semi-communal meal -some folks getting drunk while others went hungry. This is why he told them to eat at home rather than shame their brothers. I do suppose that our habit of pot-luck dinners resolves this trouble. Second, the meal could distract from proclaiming the Lord's death. I am not saying that having stomachs growling while we serve communion following our morning service is less distracting. I think that the sacredness of the Lord's death would be missed in the midst of all the food.

Charlie on Am I unworthy at the Lord's Supper?

Charlie — 9/14/2005 6:53:00 AM

I was really trying to avoid the difficult question of what the body refers to in verse 29. I really want it to refer to the body of Christ as the church, but I am not sure I am right. With your second option, you end up in basically the same spot, if I read you right. But I think the context leans more towards "body" as shorthand for "body and cup." It is true that body can be used for church later on in Corinthians, but that is later on. As for your option 2, I like it a lot, and I really want it to be what Paul is thinking, but it seems you are reading too much into the "one loaf" idea. The focus of the body seems to be more on sacrifice rather on indwelling. But I am still pondering just what Paul is intending here.
As far as open communion, I think that it is clearly the better option. While I might not get there the same way as you, I agree that open is better. Paul is in 1 Corinthians makes several pointed comments about how the Corinthians are not the only church and how they can become more inline with other churches, and a closed communion would go against what Paul is intending in this letter. A closed communion puts up walls in the body of Christ that should not be there: we have enough problems with the walls that arise naturally we do not really need to raise more walls of our own making than we need to.
As far as my original question about how to make Communion more communal, what do you guys think about an idea where a church takes one sunday evening service every other month and dedicates it to the Lord Supper? The night could include a meal together, a chance to pray for each other, to share how God has been working, to focus more purposely on the death of Christ, and to just generally allow greater interaction within the body during the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

Sam on Am I unworthy at the Lord's Supper?

Sam — 9/13/2005 7:10:00 PM

You bring up an interesting topic. I agree. Kinda. When i last tried to study this passage i decided that the way you become "unworthy" is to not rightly regard the body of Christ (vs 29). In my mind the question becomes, how does one rightly regard the body? And i guess also, what is the body? It seems that we have three obvious options: 1. The body stands in for the sacrificial work of Christ. 2. The body stands in for the presence of Christ (for a fuller explanation of this, obtain my sermon on Mark 14:22-25). 3. The body of Christ is the Church.

While a good argument can be made for #1 (much better than for 3), i believe Christ used "body" in the meal to refer to his abiding presence communicated by the Holy Spirit (symbolized by the distribution of the one loaf of bread to all the members), and that Paul is likely using it here in the same way. If that is the case, then Paul is saying that the christians there in Corinth are missing the fact that the Son endwells all of them equally, not just the wealthy or socially/spiritually elite. The accusation then becomes a fairly broad way of saying, "You aren't living like Christians."

I imagine that many people, until they hear my convincing arguments for my view of "body" in the Lord's supper, will likely lean toward #1. They would then say that Paul is upset that the Corinthians aren't recognizing the significance of Christ's sacrificial death, and are treating it as a time to revel in the food and drink, totally missing the symbolism (or sacrament, if you lean that way...).

I don't know how much that has contributed to your question, charlie, but i'm interested in your take on these comments.

More to your question is the practice of closed communion. I'm in a church where closed communion has been the norm for some time. I tend to dislike it for many reasons, one being that i've never heard a good argument for it... If we are trying to embrace the "endwelling presence of Christ in all believersness" that i think Paul is talking about, then practicing open communion might be preferable...any thoughts?

Brian on Am I unworthy at the Lord's Supper?

Brian — 8/30/2005 9:29:00 PM

You are spot on with peeling away the guilt-inducing, self-centered application of "unworthy." Thank you. As I re-read your post, you need to bring in a bit more of the context.

Paul condemns the Corinthians for how they brought their divisions even into the Lord's supper. They were playing politics with the Lord's supper. We have removed the opportunity for flaunting wealth from our observation of the Lord's supper. Thimbles of grape juice and nibbles of crackers do not do justice to the extravagance of our Lord's sacrifice, but they do escape Paul's condemnation of the Corinthians.

So what is lacking from our remembrance? The purpose of it is to "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." We should care for the poor (just as we should examine ourselves for sin), but that should take place elsewhere. Notice that Paul didn't advise them to share equally, but to eat at home. The entire focus of the Lord's supper should be on his sacrifice. And as you pointed out: not even on my own sin.