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

[Radical]

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.

Hey, TU…I’ve got some time so I thought I’d address this thread. I am happy to note that anyone who is disinclined to agree with you, can find all the ammunition he needs within your posts…but of course, I’ll add some more.

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.

Well, of course they would and should make that observation. Earlier you had noted that:

Paul tells the Corinthians that to participate in pagan sacrifices is to participate with demons.

…and:

…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…

…and:

How this union takes place in the cultic meal Paul does not tell us either in respect of demonic or of Christian fellowship.

The obvious thing is that, if a RP is not necessary for the koinônia of the Jewish and pagan festivals, then it isn’t necessary for the koinônia of the Lord’s Supper either.

Paul’s whole point is that the bread and wine have something in common with, share something with, the body and blood of Christ.

Hmmm, it could be that the thing in common is what is stated in scripture, namely that like Jesus’s body, the bread was given to his disciples and that like Jesus’s blood, the wine is poured out for his disciples?

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]… 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.”

If Chemnitz’s point is that the passage can’t be used to disprove a RP, then he is correct. The passage, however, also does not establish a RP. As I have said elsewhere, Paul applies the “sharing” to the Jewish altar where one eats one thing and then shares in another thing. That application establishes that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, consumption of the thing one shares in, is not required. Paul then states that one can become a “sharer” with demons establishing that, for the sharing Paul envisioned, a real bodily presence is not required. It should be just that simple.

 

[Radical]

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: …(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: …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).

As indicated the “therefore” could refer only to the fact that with the Lord’s Supper we proclaim the Lord’s death and therefore it doesn’t in any way affirm a RP. The only way to get to a possible indication of a RP is by intentionaly skipping past the proclamation aspect of the supper to the words of the institution…and even then the verse does not serve to establish a RP.
From what I have written elsewhere: In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RP being involved.

 

[Radical]

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.”

yep, and it has already been admitted (by you) that the Lord’s body and blood need not be present for a sin to be committed against them…or is it that you want to argue that the Lord’s body and blood need not be present for a sin to be committed against them except if the act of sin involves eating bread/drinking wine?

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.

and? The sin Paul was addressing was committed through the act of eating and drinking…why would he go about addressing all the other ways a sin could be committed against Christ’s body and blood (which are not really present)? Further, a derogatory treatment of the RP in the bread and the wine could also be done in a number of fashions. He doesn’t address those either…perhaps b/c the idea of a RP never occurred to him. Instead, Paul sticks with what was actually happening and describes the nature of that specific sin.

Paul is wholly true to his own report of Christ’s words: “This is my body” which the Lord gives us to eat.

I get the feeling that necessity is not just the mother of invention…she is the mother of interpretation too.

God bless you.