|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman Chapters 11 Next Section - Chapters 12 and 13
Propriety
In Worship (ch.11:2 - 16) I
originally wrote this commentary on 1 Corinthians in 2004 and re-edited it
in 2016.
It's now 2017 and I am rewriting parts of it again, including
chapters 11 through 14.
We should all be improving our understanding of the Bible, and for
this reason I am constantly rewriting my Bible commentaries.
By
now one might have the feeling that the Corinthians have strayed a long
way from what Paul originally taught them, but not so.
In verse 2 Paul commends them "for holding to the
teachings" that he "had passed on to them."
The church appeared to be doing many things right, yet at the same
time they were in need of some exhortation and correction in some areas,
primarily due to their pagan background and the pagan culture in which
they lived.
If you think of it, if the first century church, especially the church to which Paul is writing to here, didn't have any problems that needed correcting, then we would have less New Testament teaching to live by. I suppose the Lord would have provided another way for us to learn
Paul
says "I praise you" in verse 2.
It's always a good thing to give praise to someone before you
clobber them with the truth.
It just makes the truth a bit easier to handle, or, that's the
hope. Paul
praised these people for remembering him.
If you read Paul's second letter to these people it seems like this
sentiment has changed.
In 2 Corinthians Paul makes it clear that there has been a
disruption of his relationship with these believers, something he is heart
broken over. Paul
also said in verse 2 that he had passed on his teaching to these people
before. That
would have been when he visited them in person.
Paul
continues in verse 3 by talking to the Corinthians about what in theological
terms has been called "headship."
He states that the "head of every man is Christ."
We first must understand what Paul is talking about when he uses
the word "head."
Obviously he's not talking about a physical head.
Men don't ware Christ as their head on their shoulders.
Paul is using the word "head" to mean the place where one
receives direction for one's life.
It's the place of authority for the body.
Our body responds to signals from our brain.
In like manner, the signals directed towards men come from Christ,
whether they catch the signals or not. Some
commentators suggest that Paul is talking about believing men, but I don't
think so.
The text says "all men," not "believing men."
The simple point is that all men, whether they realize it or not,
are under the headship of Jesus.
Some day they will know that for sure, and by then, it will be too
late to take advantage of Jesus' headship.
Paul
then says something very culturally
What
I am saying here in this paragraph is really not culturally correct these
days. You
can consider what I am about to point out and come to your own
conclusions.
If you read Isaiah 3, you will note that God will bring severe
judgment on
Now
to be specific, a wife should find direction and input into her life from
her husband.
This places a great responsibility on the husband, a responsibility
that many husbands refuse to take seriously. When
men default on this responsibility, things fall apart, in the family, in
the church, and in a culture, just as they are doing in our western world
culture today.
Paul
then says that "the head of Christ is God."
This may sound confusing to some, but it's not.
Simply put, as we see throughout the New Testament gospel accounts,
Jesus finds direction from God His Father.
He submits to the will of God the Father. If
Jesus has to submit to God His Father, what does this say to Him being God
in human flesh?
What does this say to Jesus being one with God?
What does this mean about the Deity of Christ and Jesus and the
Father being co-equal?
All of these questions are valid questions.
God the Father and Jesus are one, but, the responsibilities are
different.
Jesus is responsible to God the Father for direction.
In
Matthew 28:18 Jesus said that all authority was given unto Him.
Who gave Him that authority? It
would have been God His Father. If
you read 1 Corinthians 15:20 to 35, which I will comment on when we get
there, you will see that right now Jesus rules the universe.
When everything is finally put under His feet, and that includes
death, then He will hand all things back over to God His Father and be
subject to Him. So, although
God the Father and Jesus are one, that is, in a Trinitarian way, both have
their sphere of responsibility and authority. What
I've just said about Jesus and God the Father apply to men and women, or,
husbands and wives.
Paul clearly says in his letter to the Galatians and elsewhere that
when it comes to salvation, both men and women are equal.
There is no distinction between men and women in the mind of God
concerning their salvation. Men don't have a leg up on the women.
That being said, the roll of men and women, their responsibilities,
like God the Father and Jesus, are not the same.
As direction comes from God the Father to Jesus, so direction
should come from man to woman, and, husband to wife.
To be clear, I don't believe Paul would say that the husband should
be making arbitrary decisions by himself without asking input from his
wife. This
is where many men go wrong.
We
see that Paul is talking about a chain of submission to authority.
Wife submits to husband; husband submits to Christ; and Christ
submits to God His Father. The
Greek word "hypotasso" is translated as "submit" in
the New Testament.
In Greek culture this was a cold harsh dictatorial word, but not so
in the minds of New Testament writers concerning submission to God,
submission to each other, submission to church authority, or submission to
a husband by a wife.
If you study how the New Testament treats this Greek word, you'll
note that submission is a simple yielding to another based on a loving,
caring, and mutual relationship.
It's actually a soft word in New Testament thinking, not a cold
harsh word.
Jesus loves us and gave His life for us and so we submit to Him.
The husband should love his wife and give himself to her, which
makes it easy for her to submit to him as Paul says in Ephesians 5:25.
As a matter of fact, as you study this chapter, Ephesians 5:22 and
following is another portion of Scripture to study along with this one.
With
all this submission in mind, I suggest that unlike Jesus, men are
fallible.
We make mistakes.
So, practically speaking, a man should give consideration to his
wife's input as one the Lord has placed alongside of him.
This is the picture of Adam and Eve at creation.
God gave Eve to Adam to be one alongside of him to help administer
his job in taking dominion over the earth.
Genesis 2:20 states that Adam did not have a helper, so God
created Eve for him to stand alongside him and help rule the earth.
That being said, the chain of authority as stated in the last
paragraph still stands.
In
summing up what I have just said; Paul was setting forth what I believe is
a Biblical, godly, principle, and that is headship.
God is head over Jesus. Jesus
is head over man. Man is head
over woman. This concept is
fundamental to what Paul is about to write, and, what he wrote elsewhere.
The
next couple of sentences are harder to understand and have been
interpreted differently over the years.
In verse 4 Paul says that men should not cover their heads when
they pray or prophesy.
First note the distinction between praying and prophesying.
Also note that men can and should prophesy.
If men do cover their heads, they "dishonour their head."
Paul's use of the word "head" here is not in reference to
man's physical head but to Jesus, or so I presently believe.
So, the obvious question is, "how does praying with your head
covered dishonour Jesus?"
I'm
not sure that I can answer this question to anyone's satisfaction because
people have differing opinions on the answer.
Historically speaking, Jewish men, who Paul was, covered their
heads when praying. We don't
know how far back in history this goes. In
Greek religious culture, males priests also covered their heads, something
Paul viewed as disrespectful. In
parts of Greek pagan culture, especially around
Again,
it is important to understand that Paul is writing to predominately
Gentile believers in Corinth. He
would have their Roman culture in mind since he's writing to Romans.
Roman men for the most part wore their hair short.
Women had long hair.
They also covered their heads with the marriage veil while in
public. Paul
might well being saying that even your Roman culture agrees to what I am
saying.
In
verse 5 Paul says that if a woman prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered she dishonours her head.
First of all, we see here that women can indeed pray and prophesy
in a gathering of the saints.
They are not restricted from participating in this way.
To keep our thinking consistent here, the "head" spoken
of here would be her husband.
Again, the same question is asked.
"How does Paul derive his logic?"
Again, I believe we can only speculate.
I know one thing, the culture Paul lived in and the culture he was
speaking to, that is, Gentile Greek/Roman Christians, is very far removed
from us.
For this reason, it's hard for us to follow Paul's logic.
In
some Christian circles today this tradition of head covering for women
carries on.
The word "tradition" brings up one interpretation of
these verses.
Some suggest that this was the early churches tradition and does
not necessarily apply to us today.
Some might suggest that it was part, not all, of the early churches
tradition.
Those holding this view suggest this was a localized tradition
among Greek Christians.
The
intent of head coverings in Paul's thinking was to show honour and respect
to authority.
I believe we should all be able to agree on that.
So, at least we can take this from Paul's teaching.
Wives should honour their husbands while husbands should honour
Jesus. One
thing we should note from verse 5 is that if a woman does cover her head
then she can pray or prophesy in a meeting of the saints.
Ultra conservative groups today who are strong on head coverings
for women also are strong on the idea that women cannot speak in a meeting
of the saints.
That's not what Paul is saying here. He
says here that women can speak in gatherings, but only if their head is
covered.
I would suggest that in our Christian circles today, women can
speak in meetings of the saints, if they have proper respect and honour
for their husbands and the male leadership in the church.
If they don't have such honour, they should be silent in the
church.
In the Roman culture of Paul's day women were gaining more independence than what they had in times past. In the mid first-century B C what has been called the "new woman" was rising in the Roman culture. These new women were more educated and more involved in local business and politics. They also were sexually active outside of marriage, much like their husbands. What is important about that is that if a wife removed her marriage veil in public that suggests that she was either a prostitute or a married woman who wanted sexual relationship outside of marriage. This, thus meant, that if a woman removed her marriage veil in a gathering of the saints, that was saying she considered herself one of these new, liberated, women. It would be similar to a woman today removing her wedding ring. That would suggest that she is sexually available. One
thing we see here is that Paul is going against his own Jewish tradition
when it comes to head coverings.
Jewish tradition always had men cover their heads in praying.
Now he says just the opposite, and the reason for this switch, has
been highly debated, but in my thinking, it has everything to do with the
culture in which these believers lived.
In verse 6 Paul says that if a woman does not wear something on her head when she prays or prophesies it is like having no hair at all to cover her head. It was common practice among some prostitutes back then that they had short hair or were even bald. Again, the removal of the marriage veil would suggest that these women were being identified with prostitutes, and that would not be the godly thing to do. Paul might well be exaggerating a bit here to make a point. By this I mean that it is an exaggeration to say that if a woman removes her marriage veil, she might as well shave off her hair. He said something similar to men concerning circumcision in Galatians 5:12, where he said that if a man gets circumcised for the means of salvation, he might as well emasculate himself, meaning, cut off his penis.
Another
thing to consider here is that culturally speaking, the new Roman woman
wore veils in public, but when they were at home in a gathering of
friends, as in a meal or a party, they would remove their marriage veil.
Culturally thinking, this would be inappropriate. Again, if women
removed their marriage veil in a gathering of believers in a home, they
would be associating themselves with the new, liberated, Roman wife and
woman. In
verse 7 Paul says that a man should not cover his head because "he is
the image and glory of God."
God created man in His likeness and image so in one sense of the
word man is the glory of God, or at least was at creation, not so much
now. Paul
then says that woman was made from man and therefore woman is the glory of
man. Some
wonder what Paul is saying here.
In Genesis 1:26 the text states that God created "man" in
His likeness and in His image.
Paul is interpreting the word "man" in Genesis to be men,
not "mankind," as in both men and women, as some scholars
suggest it should be interpreted.
So again, we have a bit of a problem that needs further thought. In
verse 8 we see Paul's logic.
Woman came from man.
Man didn't come from woman.
He is clearly right on this count.
Throughout Jewish history it is understood that the first born
should be in the place of authority in the family structure.
It was not that the first born was better than those born
afterwards.
It was just that the first born, maybe because he is the oldest,
should be in charge.
So, Adam came first, while Eve came second.
It's only logical for a Jewish man to conclude that the man should
be in charge.
In
verse 9 Paul makes a statement that is far from political correctness in
our day.
He says, that "man was not made for woman, but woman for
man."
This is clearly seen in the creation account. God
thought that it was important that the man He created was not alone.
He, therefore, made from Adam's own body a woman for him.
Some modern people might suggest that Paul's words here are more
tradition than God's will, but I don't think so.
Paul isn't talking about wearing hats or having long hair in this
verse. He's
talking about what really happened at creation.
In Genesis 2:20 God saw that Adam did not have a helper like the
animals had so He created Eve.
In this sense of the word Eve was indeed created for Adam.
In
verse 10 Paul says "for this reason the women ought to have a sign of
authority on her head."
The Greek word translated as "head" here means
"rights."
If a woman wares a covering on her head, in the new Christian way
of doing things, she can honour her authority, both her husband and Jesus,
when she prays or prophesies.
Again, I see Paul giving women rights here in the gathering of the
saints; rights that women didn't have in Judaism.
It was common practice in and around certain Roman cites that messengers, maybe even covert messengers, were sent to spy on people, especially the new liberated women. If something was being done that was not legally or culturally correct, then it would be reported to the local authorities. If one of these messenger spies had come to a meeting of the saints and saw unveiled married woman in a public meeting, that would be illegal. Paul did not want such an illegality.
One thing we should know here is that a Roman house has a room at the front that was somewhat of a public room. Beyond that, there was a private living room. So, if a meeting was being held, it would have been in this more open, public room where a stranger could come in from the street. Such a stranger could be one of these messenger spies.
Now
after saying the above, in verses 11 and 12 Paul adds a balancing thought
that should help the women feel a little better after what he has just
said. He
says, "in the Lord" woman is not independent of man and neither
is man independent of woman."
Even though woman was originally made for man, as Christians we
depend on, and need each other.
There is an element of working together, relating to each other on
the same level.
Why is this so?
Although woman was made from man, man is born of woman, so these
two thoughts complement each other, and to sum it up, Paul says that in
the long run "everything comes from God" anyway. The
fact of the matter is that in New Testament terms, there is no difference
between men and women when it comes to salvation. All
have equal rights to be saved and participate in the will of God.
What Paul is saying here is a dramatic departure from both Judaism
and paganism.
This does not discount order within the home and within the church.
Issues concerning order and authority are different issues. In verse 13 Paul asks, "judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" Paul is asking a question that few of us seem to be able to answer today, but again, we may have a cultural issue here. It was not proper for a woman to view a Christian gathering in the same way they would view a civic or social gathering where they did not cover their heads. The Roman tradition was for women to cover their heads with their wedding veils when out in public as a matter of respect for their husbands. Paul might well be suggesting that women have the same attitude in a gathering of the saints. He might be making a point by using the customs of his reader's culture. The custom would concern head covering. The point would be headship in Christ for both men and women.
One thing that scholars suggest from the Greek grammar of this verse is that the removal of the marriage veil was intentional. That being the case, the Christian wife was intentionally deciding to be like the new, liberated, woman who would be sexually available for men other than theirj husbands. In
verse 14 we see another hard statement that Paul makes.
He says that nature tells us that it is a disgrace for men to have
long hair. That was typically Roman culture. Paul
was using Roman culture to make his point to Roman Christians.
What Paul doesn't say here is that Jewish tradition, and this
one goes back to the Law of Moses, states that long hair is a sign of a
commitment to God.
It's the Nazirite vow.
The Law of Moses stated that if a man made a covenant to God, he
should let his hair grow long until the covenant was fulfilled.
Samson had long hair. John the Baptist was a Nazirite, so he had
long hair.
Again,
Paul might well be using Gentile customs to make his point to his Gentile
readers.
Many people believer that Jesus lived under a Nazirite vow and that is why they picture Him with long hair. The rules set down for those who commit themselves to a Nazirite vow are found in Deuteronomy 6. They include not drinking wine or any alcoholic drink. One could not eat any thing with grapes in it and one could not touch a dead body. It is clear from the Gospel accounts that Jesus drank wine. One time was at the Last Supper. Jesus also touched a dead body as seen in Matthew 9:24 and 25. Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. A Nazarene is not one who is under a Nazirite vow. Jesus was called a Nazarene because He was raised in a village call Nazareth. The
only possible thing I can think of concerning Paul's statement here is
that he is speaking to Greeks, and for the most part, Greeks had short
hair. Again,
he might well be using Greek logic to make his point. Greco
Roman culture said that it was unnatural for men to have long hair.
Paul might be building an argument based on the Corinthian culture
as he often does.
I
once had long hair in the early 1970's.
Some traditional Christians criticized me for that because of this
very verse. I really don't
think we can build a doctrinal case on one verse, especially a verse I
believe was culturally motivated. If
a Nazirite Vow, part of the Law of Moses, was confirmed through long hair,
I suggest that there is nothing wrong with long hair on a man.
You can read Numbers 6:1 to 21 to learn about the Nazirite Vow. In verse 15 Paul says that "if a woman has long hair, it is her glory." Being a man, I do understand this statement, as I think most men would.
Paul
concludes this section in verse 16 by saying, "if anyone wants to be
contentious about this, we have no other practice – nor do the churches
of God". Could the word
"practice" suggest the answer to the questions we have about
this passage? Was this just
the early churches practice? Was
it their tradition? This was
indeed the early Greco-Roman church's practice, but it was their practice
because Paul did not want, neither men or women, behaving like their pagan
neighbors. Paul
was a Christian Jew speaking to a specific Greek Christian community that
is very far removed from us today.
I don't believe we have all the information or insight into what
was really going on in
It is still my thinking that the bottom line to the practice of head covering is all about the proper and godly place of both men and women relating properly and orderly to each other as husbands and wives, both in gatherings of the saints and in the home. I believe, whether right or wrong, at least at the moment, this is not a matter of externals, as in hair and head coverings, but a matter of internals, as in heart felt love and respect. It's a matter of loving respect for all, including the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
In all Biblical passages where we must consider cultural influences in the process of interpretation, we must dig deep beneath the cultural aspect to the text. As here, Paul was addressing a specific matter in a specific cultural community that is quite foreign to us today. As we dig deep beneath the culture, there is always a godly Biblical principle that applies to Christians in all cultures and in all generations. Let's not get hung up on the culture. Let's do the will of God expressed in the godly Biblical principles expressed in the text.
I have just one warning as I close this section. We should be very careful about using culture in interpreting the Bible. I can easily see here that there is a cultural sense in which we can or maybe should understand what Paul is saying in this section. However, we should not culturalize the true meaning of Scripture out of existence.
The
Lord’s Supper (ch. 11:17 - 33) This
section of 1 Corinthians 11 concerns what is commonly called the Lord's
Supper, the Table of the Lord, or Communion, depending on what segment of
the church you find yourself in.
One thing to consider prior to the study of this section is that
what Paul writes here was written prior to the gospel accounts, as many
Bible teachers believe.
So, what Paul writes about the Lord's Supper is most likely, as far
as we know, the first written commentary on the subject, even before it is
documented in the gospel accounts.
Traditionally speaking, much of our thinking about the Lord's Supper concerns our, what I call, vertical relationship with Jesus. What you will see Paul doing in this section is balancing our personal vertical relationship with Jesus with our horizontal relationships with those to whom Jesus has joined us in the Body of Christ.
Paul
is not very happy with the Corinthian believers in regards to the way they
gather for their meetings which includes what we call the Lord’s Supper.
He goes as far to say in verse 17 that he "has no praise for
you, for your meetings do more harm than good."
Now that doesn’t sound too encouraging.
I wonder what Paul might say about some of our church meetings
today. Notice
the word "directive" in verse 17.
This specifically tells us that what Paul is about to say is
instructive.
It is a teaching for these believers, and I might add, for all
believers of all time.
We
see one problem in verse 18 that Paul has with these people concerning
their meetings.
There are divisions among these people.
We saw this before in chapter 1, verses 12 and 13, where Paul pointed out that these
people had divided themselves into sects under certain leaders, but here,
he speaks of a different kind of division.
Notice
Paul speaks of the believers coming together as a church.
It's not "the" church but "a" church.
We should understand church here to mean an assembly of the
community of those belonging to Jesus.
Church is people.
It's not a place or a meeting.
When these people gather, they as people constitute church.
When they leave wherever they are, there is no church where they
once were.
In
trying to think of some kind of positive aspect to this problem Paul says
in verse 19 that the differences would show who has God’s approval.
Those who are in the right should be clearly evident, or so one
would think.
The
next problem is concerning the Lord’s Supper itself and how they are
participating in it.
First of all in the first generation church, the Lord's Supper, or
communion, as some call it today, was a part of a larger corporate meal.
This is important to know when understanding what Paul is saying
here. This
is why Paul in verses 20 and 21 says that some people start eating before
everyone gets there.
By the time everyone is there most of the food is gone and some go
hungry. Then,
on top of that, some people actually get drunk by drinking too much wine.
Remember, this is in a gathering of the church.
It is obvious that these people were not drinking grape juice.
You don't get drunk by drinking grape juice.
Paul, nor Jesus, did not have any problem with the consumption of
wine. Paul
says nothing about that here.
He only warns his readers not to get drunk with wine in Ephesians
5:18. Paul
did not tell these people to stop drinking wine but drink grape juice
instead.
He had other instructions as you will see. In
verse 22 Paul asks "don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?"
By this he is implying that getting together for a meeting of the
saints which included the Lord’s Supper is not really about eating and
drinking.
It is about fellowship with one another and with the Lord.
In
verse 22 Paul says that "you despise the churc of God" when you
eat in such a way. The Greek word "kataphroneo" is the word that is
translated as despise in this verse.
This word is made up of two words, "kata," meaning down,
and "phroneo," meaning mind.
Thus the two words together are translated "to think
down," suggesting a looking down on someone.
Therefore, when the Corinthians think of their own selves and their
own stomachs ahead of their brothers and sisters in Christ, they are
looking down, or even despising, those people, who are the church.
They are despising the people of God.
I'd think this is a serious issue.
Beyond
despising the church Paul says that you "humiliate those who have
nothing."
These people humiliate the poor amongst them, and Paul will not
praise them for such actions.
This tells us that within the Corinthian community of believers
there were both the rich and the poor.
It also tells me that the poor should be looked after, and in times
of eating, the poor should be fed. What's
going on in the Corinthian church here is simply selfishness.
People, including Christians, just have a hard time putting self in
its place.
You might say it's the original sin when Adam and Eve put
themselves ahead of God and His command.
You
can see Paul's disgust with these people.
He asks if he can praise them for their actions.
His answer is an emphatic "no!"
I certainly believe that Paul speaks on the behalf of God on this
matter.
In
verse 23 Paul said that what he heard from the Lord he passed on to these
saints. This
is interesting.
What Paul is about to pass on concerns the Lord's Supper.
Paul was not at that supper.
He was not even a believer at the time.
So, what did he mean that he received the following instruction
from the Lord?
It must have been through a revelation, one of the many revelations
he had after giving his life to Jesus.
It was the risen Lord that Paul is now going to quote. In
verses 23 and 24 Paul says that Jesus, on the very night that He was
betrayed, sat down with the disciples.
He took the bread, gave thanks for it, and shared it with His
disciples who were present with Him.
Jesus them said that "this is my body that is for you, do this
in remembrance of me."
Jesus is clearly saying that the bread He was passing around
represented his physical body that would be massacred for them.
In Greek, the verb "which is broken" is a Greek present passive participle. A passive verb or participle is an action that is being done to you as a person. This means that the breaking of Jesus' body, although done to Him, was an action that eventually affected the disciples, and it was doing so in present time. It is interesting to note that as Jesus was saying these words, he was speaking in the present tense as if His body was presently being broken, when in reality, it had yet to be broken. This is typical Jesus. He often spoke in terms of a future even as being present. I think this is important for us today. When we take the bread and eat it in a communion service, the literal broken body of Jesus is a past event, but it is a past event that had present implications for us today. In other words, the breaking of His body in the past is an action that has a present day reality wit us. When I say this I am not alluding to Catholic doctrine that states the very bread becomes the literal body of Jesus within us. I am saying the once broken body of Jesus has significant present day implications for us.
If
you read verse 24 in the NIV and then read it in the KJV you will notice
there is a difference in translation.
The NIV reads "given for you" while the KJV reads
"broken for you."
The reason for the difference is that some Greek manuscripts have
the corresponding Greek word for our English word "broken" in
its text.
It is for this reason that the KJV has chosen to use the word
"broken" in its version of the New Testament.
In
verse 25 Paul says that then after the supper, that same night, Jesus took
a cup of wine and said, "this cup is the new covenant in my
blood."
Jesus also said that when you drink of the cup of wine, remember
me. We
remember the historical event when Jesus shed His blood for us.
The cup of wine represents the blood of Jesus which is the New
Covenant.
The old covenant, the Law of Moses, with the sacrifices of animals
has been laid aside forever.
There is now a new covenant that is based completely on the blood
of Jesus.
No other sacrifice is needed, nor should be attempted at.
If
you read Jeremiah 31 and surrounding chapters where the prophet speaks of
this New Covenant, you will notice that it specifically applies to the
Jews, not to Gentiles. If you
did not have the New Testament, you would not have any New Testament
understanding of the New Covenant to include Gentile believers.
What most Evangelicals miss is that the New Covenant is first and
foremost a covenant for the Jews and will find its ultimate fulfillment
when Jesus returns to earth and the remaining Jews who have survived the
Great Tribulation will be saved. In
verse 26 Paul says that "whenever you eat this bread and drink this
cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes."
This clearly states the reason why we share in the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the death of Jesus, and we
should proclaim His death in the Lord’s Supper until Jesus returns.
So, eating of the Lord's Supper is also a proclamation of the
return of Jesus to earth.
In
verse 27 Paul gets back to the problem at hand.
He says that when we eat of the Lord’s Supper in the wrong way,
as these people had been doing, we are sinning against the body and blood
of the Lord.
The improper way is not how we actually go about eating the Lord's
Supper. It's
not about whether we should drink wine or grape juice.
It's not about what kind of bread to use.
It's not about how many times a year we should eat the Lord's
Supper. Eating
the wrong way in this context is all about relational problems in the Body
of Christ.
It is this problem that Paul says needs to be addressed each time
we partake in this sacred meal. The
simple Biblical fact is that when we partake of the Lord's Supper and we
know that we have broken relationships with those we are sharing the meal
with, we are actually despising the very body and blood of Jesus who gave
His life for us.
Paul says that we are sinning against the blood and body of Jesus.
I would suggest that this is a serious matter.
The ripping apart of His body was meant to bring together His new
and replacement body, that is, the Body of Christ, the church.
Before
we eat the Lord’s Supper Paul tells us that we should "examine
ourselves" to see if we have the right attitude of mind and heart.
If we eat with the wrong motives we “bring judgment” on
ourselves.
Paul, in verse 30 goes as far to say that the reason why many of
the Corinthians are weak and sick and even have died, is because they are
abusing the Lord’s Supper.
They are making a mockery out of something that is very serious by
not fixing their broken relationships. Verse
29 is both hard to understand and it has been debated for years.
Paul says that anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the
body of the Lord eats and drinks themselves into judgment.
There are two ways of looking at what body Paul is talking about.
It's either the literal body of Jesus or the Body of Christ, the
church. You
can decide what view you think is best.
I think, at least at the moment, Paul is talking about the Body of
Christ the church.
One reason for this is because Paul is talking about relational
issues here.
That being said, I realize that in verse 27 the word
"body" was connected with the word "blood" and there
the word "body" must be talking about Jesus' physical body in
verse 27.
We
should note that many versions of the Bible say something like "body
of the Lord" or "body of Christ" in verse 29.
However, the Greek text simply says "the body."
There is no corresponding word for "of the Lord" or
"of Christ." If your
Bible has those words, the translators have inserted them. However
you view the word "body" in verse 29 the word
"judgment" applies.
If, when we eat the Lord's Supper and we have relational problems
with those we are sharing the cup and the bread with, there will be
consequences that Paul calls a judgment.
A judgment is a simple proclamation of guilt.
What God does about His proclamation of guilt is up to Him.
That is why in verse 30 Paul says that many of the Corinthian
believers, were weak, sick, and have even died.
That seems like a pretty drastic form of judgment on God's part.
Nevertheless, whatever the sentence of judgment is, there are
consequences to eating and drinking the Lord's Supper when you have
relational problems with some of those you are sharing the bread and wine
with.
The
way in which most churches eat the Lord's Supper these days is more of an
individual thing.
It's not a corporate thing where we actually share the bread and
wine with those who are with us.
For this reason, we don't think much of the Lord's Supper as being
a relational thing between brothers and sisters in Christ.
We think of it in terms of the relationship between us and the
Lord. I
think this is to our detriment.
In
verse 31 Paul says that we should judge ourselves concerning our personal
relationships in the Body of Christ.
The reason for this is simple.
If we judge ourselves and correct our situation we will not be
judged and sentenced by the Lord, which by the way, could be a pretty
severe judgment as Paul says in verse 32. Also
in verse 32 Paul says that this judgment is God disciplining us.
That means it is quite different than the judgment of wrath as seen
in the book of Revelation.
In
verse 32 Paul says that if we judge ourselves we will not be condemned as
the world is condemned.
This is yet another tough statement to figure out.
If our sins have all been stricken from God's records, how could it
even be possible to be judged in like manner of the world?
At the moment, the only way I can understand this verse is that if
we continue to eat the Lord's Supper in an improper way, the sin that is
causing us to eat improperly might well lead us to forsake the Lord
altogether, and in my theology, that would mean you lose your salvation
and thus would be judged along with the world.
Paul
closes this section in verses 33 and 34 by saying that when these people
come together they should wait for one another and if you are really
hungry, they should eat at home.
He wants these people to gather together in the proper way so that
they will not bring God’s judgment on themselves.
I would dare say that many churches and denominations over the
years have fallen into God's judgment due to such sins as we see in the
Corinthian church.
This is most likely why some churches are in decline and have
actually fallen from existence.
This
is all Paul was prepared to say about this matter in this letter.
He closes by saying, "when I come I will give further
instructions."
I wonder what else Paul could have said on this subject.
I would love to have been there to hear Paul's further instruction.
|