An Exegetical Refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord's Supper (2): 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:27-29

  • Thread starter Thread starter TriuneUnity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TriuneUnity

Guest
For the Corinthian passages on the Lord’s Supper, I wanted to move this to a different thread so as not to confuse these texts with the synoptic accounts of the institution. I pray that it is beneficial for those who wish to participate.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25: egô gar parelabon apo tou kuriou o kai paredôka umin oti o kurios iêsous en tê nukti ê a paredideto tsb paredidoto elaben arton kai eucharistêsas eklasen kai eipen tsb labete tsb phagete touto mou estin to sôma to uper umôn tsb klômenon touto poieite eis tên emên anamnêsin ôsautôs kai to potêrion meta to deipnêsai legôn touto to potêrion ê kainê diathêkê estin en tô emô aimati touto poieite osakis a ean tsb an pinête eis tên emên anamnêsin
(For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” - NIV)

Paul’s account matches up almost perfectly with Luke’s. In verse 25 Paul records Jesus as saying, “Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

1 Corinthians 10:16: to potêrion tês eulogias o eulogoumen ouchi koinônia a estin tou aimatos tou christou tsb estin ton arton on klômen ouchi koinônia tou sômatos tou christou estin
(Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? – NASB)

For the context, 1 Corinthians 10 begins with a warning against falling into the sins we see in Israelite history. Paul draws the section to a close with this famous verse:

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. (v. 13)

In the next section he narrows his focus to one temptation the Corinthian Christians are
struggling with: participating in pagan sacrifices. Paul tells the Corinthians that to participate in pagan sacrifices is to participate with demons.

to potêrion tês eulogias: The cup of blessing was a technical Jewish term used for the cup of wine drunk at the end of a meal. The most honored guest at the table took the cup, lifted it up and said the benediction.

koinônia: Obviously this is the key word in the sentence. It does not have an article because the vocable meaning is stressed. The fourth definition listed in BAG3 is: “participation, sharing in something” (electronic edition). BAG3 later states: “But perhaps here (1 Corinthians 10:16) koinônia w. genitive means the common possession or enjoyment of something (electronic edition). 1 Corinthians 10:16 is listed under this section as are others. Three of them are:

Philemon 6 I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ.

Philippians 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.

2 Corinthians 13:13-14 All the saints send their greetings. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Paul then makes highly significant use of koinônia for the fellowship which arises
in the Lord’s Supper. Participation in Christ, which is known basically and perfectly in faith, is achieved and experienced in enhanced form, with no dogmatic implication, in the sacrament. In the first instance Paul classifies the Lord’s Supper with Jewish and pagan festivals. In terms of the common belief of antiquity it is self-evident for him that those who partake of the cultic meal become companions of the god… It is equally self-evident for him that those who partake of pagan feasts become koinônous tôn daimoniôn (v. 20). By analogy, those who partake of the Lord’s Supper are Christ’s companions. The real fellowship which arises here entails for Christians the very natural religious conclusion that they should avoid the cultic meals of alien deities (v. 21). Thus the nature of the Lord’s Supper is expounded by Paul in terms of fellowship with the person of Christ, namely, koinônia with His body and blood. For Paul the bread and wine are vehicles of the presence of Christ, just as the Jewish altar is a pledge of the presence of God. Partaking of bread and wine is union (sharing) with the heavenly Christ. To Paul the exalted Christ is identical with the earthly and historical Christ who had body and blood. koinônia is here expressive of an inner union. This is for Paul the important thing in the celebration. It is self-evident that for Paul real union with the exalted Lord should include the blessing of forgiveness which He won by His death. How this union takes place in the cultic meal Paul does not tell us either in respect of demonic or of Christian fellowship. The point that matters for Paul is the fact, not the nature, of this close communion. In the interjected statement in v. 17 Paul declares that at the Lord’s Supper, as at sacrificial feasts, there is also fellowship between the participants. This is not apart from Christ. It arises out of common union with Him, as Christ is represented by the one loaf.
 
Again, the main point is that the basic meaning is to have things in common. Reformed theologians say that the word koinônia has many different meanings and can support a figurative meaning of the words of institution. They are right that the word can have different meanings but miss the basic meaning of the word. Paul’s whole point is that the bread and wine have something in common with, share something with, the body and blood of Christ. Martin Chemnitz makes the same point: “Further, with no reasoning can it be established that when Paul speaks of the “communion” (koinônia) of the body of Christ he has in mind that in the words of the Supper the word “body” should be understood not as referring to the very substance of the body but only to its communication [or communion]. For the word koinônia never excludes or removes the substance itself from that action in which the communion (koinônia) takes place. For when Paul in Rom. 8:9 and 1 Cor. 6:19 says: “The Holy Spirit dwells in you,” he is saying the same thing that he says in 2 Cor. 13:14, where he speaks of the “communication of the Spirit.” Are we going to say with the fanatics that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the believers with His essence, that His essence is far removed from us, and that in His place only something drawn from the substance of the Spirit, namely, His gifts and powers, is present in us? The gifts of charity which were collected for the poor saints and sent to them are called a koinônia in Rom. 15:26 and 2 Cor. 8:4. Does this mean that not the substance of these gifts but only something abstract was given and sent to the poor? The word koinônia means a communication—sometimes actively, that is, a distribution; sometimes passively, that is, a participation; and sometimes the thing itself which is offered and received, as we can demonstrate by individual examples. But in no way does it follow that Paul by the use of the term “the communion of the body” is suggesting that therefore the words of the institution are not to be understood as referring to the distribution and reception of the very substance of the body of Christ.”
 
1 Corinthians 11:27-29

For the context, in the previous verses Paul had written the words of institution as part of his general remarks about the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians were in danger of making a mockery of the Lord’s Supper with their divisions, their drunkenness, and their general disregard for what was happening in the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s point in relating the words of institution was to remind them that they were receiving Jesus’ very body and blood. Verse 26 immediately follows the words of institution: For (gar) whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Verse 27: ôste os an esthiê ton arton touton ê pinê to potêrion tou kuriou anaxiôs tou kuriou enochos estai tou sômatos kai ab tou aimatos tou kuriou
(Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. - NIV)

ôste: BAG3 defines the word: “introducing independent clauses for this reason, therefore, so” (electronic edition). The word could refer back to verse 26 (when we eat the bread and wine we proclaim the Lord’s death) or to the previous number of verses (which include the words of institution stressing Jesus’ presence in the Lord’s Supper). Chemnitz puts a lot of weight on this particle in his exegesis of this verse. He argues that Paul is referring back to the verba with the particle and the definite articles before bread (ton arton) and wine/cup (to potêrion). He writes: “Therefore the whole force of this Pauline statement lies in this subordinate particle, which brings out the meaning and causes it to depend on the words of institution, from which the meaning of this statement is clear, namely, that those who eat unworthily in the Lord’s Supper become guilty of that thing which they have violated by eating unworthily.”

Note that Chemnitz did not use the argument:
Major premise: The object you sin against must be present
Minor premise: The object sinned against in the Lord’s Supper is Jesus body and blood.
Ergo: Jesus’ body and blood must be present.

The major premise of the syllogism is false. It is possible to sin against something if it’s not there. When someone violates the seal of a royal official they are violating the royal official even if he or she isn’t physically present. The Greek word translated “guilty of” (enochos) simply means: “to denote the person (or thing) against whom the sin has been committed” (BAG3, electronic edition). There is no connotation of the person or thing needing to be present. Yet the passage does powerfully speak to the real presence.

The vital point in Paul’s own words is omitted by those who seek to remove the presence from the Sacrament, especially in the case of those who commune unworthily. Like all other true defenders of the presence, Lutheran theologian Quenstedt writes: “But whoever in the Lord’s Supper eats this bread, which is the koinônia (communion) of the blood of Christ, unworthily, eo ipso, by this very unworthy eating and drinking, becomes guilty of the body itself and of the blood itself of Christ.” Theologia Didactico-Polemica, IV, 251, etc. Luther emphasizes the same vital point: “St. Paul here joins together the bread and the body of Christ.… How is it that the sin against the body of Christ is connected with the eating if that body is not to be present in the eating or bread? He would have had to say: ‘Whoever eats this bread unworthily sins against the Lord’s Supper, or against God, or against the command, or against the Lord’s order.’ Now the nature and the manner of the words compel the conclusion that he who eats unworthily is guilty in regard to what he eats… For the text mightily compels that the sin occurs in the eating and the drinking…and yet it says that the sin is committed against the body and the blood of the Lord.” The sin of which Paul speaks is not some derogatory treatment of the bread and the wine as symbols (diploma, sigilla) of Christ’s body and blood. This sin could be committed in various ways, for instance, by just thinking slightingly of the symbols. The sin named by Paul is committed only in one way, by unworthy eating and drinking. Paul is wholly true to his own report of Christ’s words: “This is my body” which the Lord gives us to eat.

enochos: BAG3 defines the word this way: “to denote the person (or thing) against whom the sin has been committed” (electronic edition). In some languages the equivalent of ‘being guilty’ is expressed in terms of the justification for an accusation. Accordingly, this expression in 1 Cor 11.27 may be rendered as ‘he can rightly be accused of sinning against the Lord’s body and blood.
 
You my friend are on a roll! Great job! 😃

And I certainly don’t mean to demean any denomination that disagrees, but rather to point out what someone in overwhelming agreement with my beliefs are, has taken the time to post. 👍

DV
 
You my friend are on a roll! Great job! 😃

And I certainly don’t mean to demean any denomination that disagrees, but rather to point out what someone in overwhelming agreement with my beliefs are, has taken the time to post. 👍

DV
I appreciate the support, DV 🙂

God bless.
 
Verse 28: dokimazetô de anthrôpos eauton kai outôs ek tou artou esthietô kai ek tou potêriou pinetô
(A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. – NIV)

Verse 29: o gar esthiôn kai pinôn anaxiôs krima eautô esthiei kai pinei mê diakrinôn to sôma tou kuriou
(For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. - NIV)

diakrinôn: This is a present active participle. The present tense describes ongoing action. The participle is circumstantial and modifies the main verbs. The NIV seems to take the participle as an attributive participle modifying esthiôn kai pinôn. This catches the meaning of the sentence but doesn’t answer the question of why diakrinôn is at the very end of the sentence. The participle could be conditional in sense (if he does not discern the body). I would argue that it is conditional…answering the question “why the judgment for eating and drinking?” (because he does not discern …). The various opinions don’t change the meaning of the sentence at all. The main question to tackle is the meaning of the word.

Before a definition it’s important to note that Paul uses the word again just two verses later. He writes: That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment (v. 30-31). This should be kept with that parallel usage in mind. BAG3 states: “(3) to evaluate by paying careful attention to, evaluate, judge (a) judge correctly (Job 12:11; 23:10) the appearance of the sky Mt 16:3; evaluate oneself 1 Cor 11:31; recognize to soma vs. 29” (electronic edition). The basic idea of the verb is to discern. Paul uses the term often in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 4:7 For who makes you different (what distinguishes you) from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

1 Corinthian 6:5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute (to discern) between believers?

1 Corinthians 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully (discern) what is said.

The basic meaning of “discern” fits the two passages well. In verse 29 we can translate: “if he does not discern the body”. In verse 31 we can translate: “if we discern ourselves” (to perceive ourselves as partakers of the body and blood of Jesus). Luther’s idea in using unterscheiden to translate the participle is the following: “not distinguishing the body,” i.e., treating it like ordinary food. He has some justification for this conception since in all probability this was the fault that existed in Corinth. Yet what Luther seeks to conserve is taken care of by the translation “discern.” Whoever discerns the Lord’s body in the Sacrament will, as a matter of course, “distinguish” this heavenly food from ordinary earthly food.

This still leaves us with an important question: what does it mean to discern the body? Paul’s point is that we need to discern (realize) that Jesus’ body truly is present in the Lord’s Supper. A Reformed theologian might respond, “We need to discern (realize) that this special bread represents Christ’s body…which is now in heaven.” Martin Chemnitz comments: I am aware that this passage about the discerning of the body of Christ is interpreted by many people after taking it out of its context and then considering it, so that it can be treated in various ways. But if it is connected with the words which precede it and with the words of institution, so that it flows out of them, it will be perfectly clear that there is one simple and precise meaning for this passage. For all the words are connected by little hooks, as it were, and must be referred to the institution itself, from which they are also derived.”
 
Colossians 2:9; Matthew 28:18-20; 18:20; Ephesians 1:23.

Finally, it would be good to treat the passages listed above exegetically as well. Calvin said over and over again that the body and blood of Jesus are locally present in heaven and therefore cannot be present in the Lord’s Supper. Many Reformed theologians accuse the Lutherans of inventing the communicatio idiomatum to fit with our understanding of the Lord’s Supper (incidentally, Roman Catholic theologians formulated the communication before Lutheran theologians did. So to say it wasn’t present until the Church of the Reformation developed it, is factually incorrect). Nothing could be further from the truth. To maintain that Jesus is not present everywhere is to rob these and other passages of their meaning. To use passages that say that Jesus returned to heaven to argue that Jesus cannot be present according to His human nature is to add to those passages…and to fall into Christological errors.

I would appreciate thoughts from anyone on the Biblical summation of the passages from 1 Corinthians 🙂
 
I would appreciate thoughts from anyone on the Biblical summation of the passages from 1 Corinthians 🙂
I am a one thread at a time kinda guy…I suspect that I won’t be able to accommodate this request for a few days
 
Verse 28: dokimazetô de anthrôpos eauton kai outôs ek tou artou esthietô kai ek tou potêriou pinetô
(A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. – NIV)

Verse 29: o gar esthiôn kai pinôn anaxiôs krima eautô esthiei kai pinei mê diakrinôn to sôma tou kuriou
(For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. - NIV)

This still leaves us with an important question: what does it mean to discern the body? Paul’s point is that we need to discern (realize) that Jesus’ body truly is present in the Lord’s Supper. A Reformed theologian might respond, “We need to discern (realize) that this special bread represents Christ’s body…which is now in heaven.” Martin Chemnitz comments: I am aware that this passage about the discerning of the body of Christ is interpreted by many people after taking it out of its context and then considering it, so that it can be treated in various ways. But if it is connected with the words which precede it and with the words of institution, so that it flows out of them, it will be perfectly clear that there is one simple and precise meaning for this passage. For all the words are connected by little hooks, as it were, and must be referred to the institution itself, from which they are also derived.”
Here’s where we have a difference of understanding-note that up until verse 29, the items are always paired “eat and drink” “bread and wine” “body and blood”. Note that even in verse 29 it starts out paired before going to the single item “body of the Lord”. Note that no blood is mentioned. Why the difference?

Let’s look back at verses 17-22:
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
The “body of the Lord” that they have not discerned is the assembly of saints. From the beginning of the Epistle, he notes their divisions, sexual sins, incorrect actions and the damage they cause the body, culminating in how their actions have even rendered their celebration of the Eucharist a curse upon them rather than a blessing.

Paul goes on from enumerating their sin, to providing explicit remedial teaching in Chapter 12 on the topic of the body and then additional teaching to further improve their assembling together. Taking the Epistle as a whole, and noting the shift in Paul’s writing from paired terminology to the singular term body, it becomes clear that he was referring to the divisions, public sin and lack of love among those presenting themselves for Eucharist rather than a defective view of the Real Presence.

Thoughts?
 
Here’s where we have a difference of understanding-note that up until verse 29, the items are always paired “eat and drink” “bread and wine” “body and blood”. Note that even in verse 29 it starts out paired before going to the single item “body of the Lord”. Note that no blood is mentioned. Why the difference?

Let’s look back at verses 17-20:

The “body of the Lord” that they have not discerned is the assembly of saints. From the beginning of the Epistle, he notes their divisions, sexual sins, and incorrect actions and the damage they cause the body, culminating in how their actions have even rendered their celebration of the Eucharist a curse upon them rather than a blessing.

Paul goes on from enumerating their sin, to providing explicit remedial teaching in Chapter 12 on the topic of the body and then additional teaching to further improve their assembling together. Taking the Epistle as a whole, and noting the shift in Paul’s writing from paired terminology to the singular term body, it becomes clear that he was referring to the divisions, heresies and lack of love among those presenting themselves for Eucharist rather than a defective view of the Real Presence.

Thoughts?
Triuneunity has done a great job of defending the position of those of us that believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Please excuse me if I misunderstand what you are saying, but to consume plain bread and wine is no sin. To consume the body and blood of Jesus in a state of serious sin is the question. For those of us that believe in the Real Presence, the Real Presence is there in either form. Completely! There is no distinquishing between the body and blood of Christ. They are complete in either sacramental form.

Again, if I’ve misunderstood what you have said, then please forgive me. I stand solidly with my fellow Christians that accept the doctrine of the Real Presence. At the same time I do NOT consider my brothers and sisters in Christ to be anything less than that because they have a different understanding. 🙂
 
Triuneunity has done a great job of defending the position of those of us that believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Please excuse me if I misunderstand what you are saying, but to consume plain bread and wine is no sin. To consume the body and blood of Jesus in a state of serious sin is the question. For those of us that believe in the Real Presence, the Real Presence is there in either form. Completely! There is no distinquishing between the body and blood of Christ. They are complete in either sacramental form.

Again, if I’ve misunderstood what you have said, then please forgive me. I stand solidly with my fellow Christians that accept the doctrine of the Real Presence. At the same time I do NOT consider my brothers and sisters in Christ to be anything less than that because they have a different understanding. 🙂
There is a bit of misunderstanding. I accept the Real Presence. I agree that Paul’s discussion of Christ’s words of institution contribute evidence toward belief in the Real Presence. Where I disagree is the interpretation of Paul’s phrase “the body of the Lord”. In verse 29 I believe Paul to be speaking of the church as Christ’s Body. That doesn’t demean the Real Presence in any way, but shows that Paul went beyond wrong belief to also include wrong action on the part of a body of believers as making them liable to judgment-to partake of the Sacrament that should reinforce their unity as a body while they rend themselves from one another brings judgment upon them. It raises the bar for the church, it doesn’t lower it.

Does that help to clarify what I’m saying?
 
Here’s where we have a difference of understanding-note that up until verse 29, the items are always paired “eat and drink” “bread and wine” “body and blood”. Note that even in verse 29 it starts out paired before going to the single item “body of the Lord”. Note that no blood is mentioned. Why the difference?

Let’s look back at verses 17-22:

The “body of the Lord” that they have not discerned is the assembly of saints. From the beginning of the Epistle, he notes their divisions, sexual sins, incorrect actions and the damage they cause the body, culminating in how their actions have even rendered their celebration of the Eucharist a curse upon them rather than a blessing.

Paul goes on from enumerating their sin, to providing explicit remedial teaching in Chapter 12 on the topic of the body and then additional teaching to further improve their assembling together. Taking the Epistle as a whole, and noting the shift in Paul’s writing from paired terminology to the singular term body, it becomes clear that he was referring to the divisions, public sin and lack of love among those presenting themselves for Eucharist rather than a defective view of the Real Presence.

Thoughts?
I would actually say that both interpretations can be correct in the situation as described by Paul. It is only with the understanding that the body and blood of the Lord are what bring the church together collectively as one body.

I think that is what Chemnitz is getting at by saying that the discernment of the body flows from the text of the institution.
 
I would actually say that both interpretations can be correct in the situation as described by Paul. It is only with the understanding that the body and blood of the Lord are what bring the church together collectively as one body.

I think that is what Chemnitz is getting at by saying that the discernment of the body flows from the text of the institution.
I can’t get you to fight about anything, can I? You’re letting the team down, Triune-how are we supposed to be the divided, contradictory, constantly arguing non-Catholics that Catholics tell us we are if we keep agreeing on things? :rolleyes:

😃

(And if that is what Chmnitz is saying, I can go along with it) 🙂
 
I can’t get you to fight about anything, can I? You’re letting the team down, Triune-how are we supposed to be the divided, contradictory, constantly arguing non-Catholics that Catholics tell us we are if we keep agreeing on things? :rolleyes:

😃

(And if that is what Chmnitz is saying, I can go along with it) 🙂
LOL…I know! We’re supposed to be hopelessly fractured and schismatic!!
 
LOL…I know! We’re supposed to be hopelessly fractured and schismatic!!
We’re just going to have to start a thread to prove that we can be hopelessly divided! 😃

God bless you all, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ!
 
I can’t get you to fight about anything, can I? You’re letting the team down, Triune-how are we supposed to be the divided, contradictory, constantly arguing non-Catholics that Catholics tell us we are if we keep agreeing on things? :rolleyes:

😃

(And if that is what Chmnitz is saying, I can go along with it) 🙂
Okay…ya wanna be divided? Just tell me you’re a Yankee fan! 😃
 
I’m a Yankee fan. Sorry if you’re team hasn’t won 27 World Series.

LOL
You’re just a plain old heretic! 😃

Hmmm…what is the only baseball team to come from 0-3 and win 4 straight…then win 4 more straight to win the World Series? 😃

At least you had the decency to put that in teeny tiny letters!
 
I’m a Yankee fan. Sorry if you’re team hasn’t won 27 World Series.

LOL
Wait just a minute! How does a good Christian from SD become a Yankee fan? (Don’t tell my father about this. He’s 77 and one of those misguided people.) 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top