How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29?

[NaturalMama]

I apologize if there is a thread for this. I tried to search on it, but didn’t find anything. My forum-searching skills are probably lacking.

How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29:

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves.

Thanks!*

 

[ltwin]

I apologize if there is a thread for this. I tried to search on it, but didn’t find anything. My forum-searching skills are probably lacking.

How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29:

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves.

Thanks!*

People who participate in Holy Communion without faith, without confession and repentance of sin, without love for their brothers and sisters in Christ and forgiveness for those who have wronged them are failing to take Holy Communion seriously and insulting the blood of Christ which was shed for us and the body of Christ which is the Church.

It is a warning to Christians who are willfully living in sin and unforgiveness to get their hearts right. It is a warning to non-Christians that they are bringing judgment on themselves by participating.

 

[DaveBj]

People who participate in Holy Communion without faith, without confession and repentance of sin, without love for their brothers and sisters in Christ and forgiveness for those who have wronged them are failing to take Holy Communion seriously and insulting the blood of Christ which was shed for us and the body of Christ which is the Church.

It is a warning to Christians who are willfully living in sin and unforgiveness to get their hearts right. It is a warning to non-Christians that they are bringing judgment on themselves by participating.

That pretty much goes along with what I remember. A particular emphasis in some of the circles thru which I traveled was that “not discerning the [Lord’s] body” meant specifically the bolded above.

 

[JonNC]

I apologize if there is a thread for this. I tried to search on it, but didn’t find anything. My forum-searching skills are probably lacking.

How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29:

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves.

Thanks!*

It is rather important to recognize that the bread and cup are the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, as He says Himself. When one receives the host, one is receiving His body. Churches do well when they ask perspective communicants if they believe in the real presence

 

[peter26]

This is certainly a well known passage for (at least more traditional) Anglicans, as it is quoted in the Book of Common Prayer’s Communion Service in what is known as the Third Exhortation. You can find it about half way down this page, it starts "Dearly beloved in the Lord’. This is to be read out shortly before the distribution of Communion. The point that is being made is that a person must examine their conscience to determine if they are sufficiently repentant of their sins. The perspective advanced therein is very much that one that emphasises St Paul’s remarks on receiving worthily: in the words of the BCP if someone was to recieve unworthily “For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord’s Body; we kindle God’s wrath against us; we provoke him to plague us with divers diseases, and sundry kinds of death.”

 

[rfournier103]

People who participate in Holy Communion without faith, without confession and repentance of sin, without love for their brothers and sisters in Christ and forgiveness for those who have wronged them are failing to take Holy Communion seriously and insulting the blood of Christ which was shed for us and the body of Christ which is the Church.

It is a warning to Christians who are willfully living in sin and unforgiveness to get their hearts right. It is a warning to non-Christians that they are bringing judgment on themselves by participating.

Pretty harsh for something symbolic.

I’m intrigued by your response.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I apologize if there is a thread for this. I tried to search on it, but didn’t find anything. My forum-searching skills are probably lacking.

How do Protestants interpret 1 Cor 11:29:

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body,* eat and drink judgment against themselves.

Thanks!*

In my humble Anglican(Protestant) opinion,it means that any who take consecrated elements without the knowledge that they are the true body and blood of Christ (Baptists, restorationists, some extreme evangelical Anglicans, and agnostics who go to church out of mere tradition, for example) bring damnation upon themselves.

 

[DeusExMachina]

It is rather important to recognize that the bread and cup are the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, as He says Himself. When one receives the host, one is receiving His body. Churches do well when they ask perspective communicants if they believe in the real presence

Exactly

 

[ltwin]

Pretty harsh for something symbolic.

I’m intrigued by your response.

I think we need to speak carefully of what is symbolic.The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ. However, that does not mean that Holy Communion is an empty ritual. They are symbolic of a spiritual reality–the Atonement of Christ–and it is nothing to play around with. If we fail do discern the reality behind the symbols, then we fail to grasp the cleansing, keeping, and healing power that the Atonement provides.

 

[rfournier103]

I think we need to speak carefully of what is symbolic.The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ. However, that does not mean that Holy Communion is an empty ritual. They are symbolic of a spiritual reality–the Atonement of Christ–and it is nothing to play around with. If we fail do discern the reality behind the symbols, then we fail to grasp the cleansing, keeping, and healing power that the Atonement provides.

Never quite heard that take on it. Very interesting.

Is that common Pentecostal teaching, or something relatively rare? I’m not being snarky - I’m legitimately curious. You know the Catholic position on the Holy Eucharist, but I’ve never heard anything close to your interpretation of that verse and what it means.

My father in law is a former Pentecostal minister and several of his apologetics books are dead silent on 1 Cor 11 as it pertains to the Eucharist.

 

[Wannano]

Never quite heard that take on it. Very interesting.

Is that common Pentecostal teaching, or something relatively rare? I’m not being snarky - I’m legitimately curious. You know the Catholic position on the Holy Eucharist, but I’ve never heard anything close to your interpretation of that verse and what it means.

My father in law is a former Pentecostal minister and several of his apologetics books are dead silent on 1 Cor 11 as it pertains to the Eucharist.

Itwin has done a very good job of explaining and it is not rare at all. It would be a common understanding in most Evangelical Churches. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus taught us to pray that God would forgive us our sins as we forgive others their sins. We often hear how God cannot forgive the sins of someone who refuses to forgive others. Jesus taught that we should all be one. So in the congregation we are to examine whether we are at peace with both God and man in so far as it lieth in you. If we are, then we have discerned the body and are ready to commune as one in remembering His sacrifice.

 

[MartinJordan]

Itwin has done a very good job of explaining and it is not rare at all. It would be a common understanding in most Evangelical Churches. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus taught us to pray that God would forgive us our sins as we forgive others their sins. We often hear how God cannot forgive the sins of someone who refuses to forgive others. Jesus taught that we should all be one. So in the congregation we are to examine whether we are at peace with both God and man in so far as it lieth in you. If we are, then we have discerned the body and are ready to commune as one in remembering His sacrifice.

So this means you trace the teaching directly from Jesus himself and through his Apostles? Those who hear you hears me?

MJ

 

[Wannano]

So this means you trace the teaching directly from Jesus himself and through his Apostles? Those who hear you hears me?

MJ

What part of it do you not think is Biblical?

 

[ltwin]

Is that common Pentecostal teaching, or something relatively rare? I’m not being snarky - I’m legitimately curious. You know the Catholic position on the Holy Eucharist, but I’ve never heard anything close to your interpretation of that verse and what it means.

I think its a pretty common explanation among evangelical Protestants in terms of the need for self-examination of our spirituality, conduct,and relationships within the body of Christ. It shows up in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. He’s a charismatic Reformed Baptist theologian.

My father in law is a former Pentecostal minister and several of his apologetics books are dead silent on 1 Cor 11 as it pertains to the Eucharist.

I’m not surprised. Pentecostal theologians have not been very reflective when it comes to Eucharistic theology. However, that appears to be changing. In The Lord’s Supper: Five Views edited by Gordon T. Smith, Pentecostal theologian Veli-Matti Karkkainen describes the Pentecostal view:

On the one hand, in keeping with the memorial nature of the meal, there is a need to reject the kind of “real” presence that both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions affirm . . .

. . . On the other hand, there is a need to affirm the “spiritual” presence of Christ and the spiritual significance of the celebration of the meal. Therefore, the celebration can also be called a “point of encounter” between believers and Christ or a "divine contact point."24 But how that is to be affirmed theologically is not usually discussed.

He also quotes from a work by Assemblies of God bible teacher Peter Christopher Nelson in which the Lord’s Supper is described as a “Healing Ordinance”:

"If you are sick or afflicted in your body and can discern the healing virtue in the body of our Lord, typified by the bread, you may receive healing and strength for your body as well as for your spiritual nature (1 Cor. 11:30-32)."33

 

[rfournier103]

rfournier103;14556178:

Is that common Pentecostal teaching, or something relatively rare? I’m not being snarky - I’m legitimately curious. You know the Catholic position on the Holy Eucharist, but I’ve never heard anything close to your interpretation of that verse and what it means.

I think its a pretty common explanation among evangelical Protestants in terms of the need for self-examination of our spirituality, conduct,and relationships within the body of Christ. It shows up in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. He’s a charismatic Reformed Baptist theologian.

My father in law is a former Pentecostal minister and several of his apologetics books are dead silent on 1 Cor 11 as it pertains to the Eucharist.

I’m not surprised. Pentecostal theologians have not been very reflective when it comes to Eucharistic theology. However, that appears to be changing. In The Lord’s Supper: Five Views edited by Gordon T. Smith, Pentecostal theologian Veli-Matti Karkkainen describes the Pentecostal view:

On the one hand, in keeping with the memorial nature of the meal, there is a need to reject the kind of “real” presence that both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions affirm . . .

. . . On the other hand, there is a need to affirm the “spiritual” presence of Christ and the spiritual significance of the celebration of the meal. Therefore, the celebration can also be called a “point of encounter” between believers and Christ or a "divine contact point."24 But how that is to be affirmed theologically is not usually discussed.

He also quotes from a work by Assemblies of God bible teacher Peter Christopher Nelson in which the Lord’s Supper is described as a “Healing Ordinance”:

"If you are sick or afflicted in your body and can discern the healing virtue in the body of our Lord, typified by the bread, you may receive healing and strength for your body as well as for your spiritual nature (1 Cor. 11:30-32)."33

I am not surprised that Pentecostals and other Protestants are taking the bull by the horns when it comes to 1 Corinthians 11. To me, that’s every bit as compelling as John 6 when it comes to the Eucharist; and it only makes sense that they would do anything they could to refute the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

As I said before, pretty novel. I’ve never seen, heard, or read that argument before today.

Am I understanding that there’s a spiritual presence of Christ at the meal? Like He’s at the table with you, and therefore only properly disposed Christians may partake in this communion? Lest they eat and drink judgement, etc…?

 

[MartinJordan]

What part of it do you not think is Biblical?

I didn’t ask about Biblical because there are hundreds upon hundreds of Biblical opinions. The Apostles didn’t hand out Bibles so I rely on** hearing which is where my Faith comes from.** So it’s not what I think about Biblical verses alone for myself, but the question of tracing Jesus’ words as heard as passed down Apostolically and taught.

Looking forward to your reply about my question.

MJ

 

[ltwin]

Am I understanding that there’s a spiritual presence of Christ at the meal? Like He’s at the table with you, and therefore only properly disposed Christians may partake in this communion? Lest they eat and drink judgement, etc…?

Yes, because in the Lord’s Supper we feed on Christ by faith.But it’s definitely a pneumatic presence rather than a corporeal presence. And yes, only believers should eat after having examined themselves.

Whenever I’ve been in a Communion service the pastor has always taught the necessity of self-examination and not eating/drinking unworthily. Parents are told to judge whether their children should or should not be allowed to participate.

I remember years ago a woman who went to our church was married to a man who was not living a Christian life at the time. He took Communion even though she told him not to and then got sick and had to leave church early. The wife was convinced it was because he ate unworthily.

 

[Wannano]

I didn’t ask about Biblical because there are hundreds upon hundreds of Biblical opinions. The Apostles didn’t hand out Bibles so I rely on** hearing which is where my Faith comes from.** So it’s not what I think about Biblical verses alone for myself, but the question of tracing Jesus’ words as heard as passed down Apostolically and taught.

Looking forward to your reply about my question.

MJ

If I don’t answer to your satisfaction let me know. I asked what part is not Biblical because I feel it all is. I realize you may form your faith from Tradition and not so much from the Bible but Tradition is not supposed to negate the Bible is it?

 

[MartinJordan]

If I don’t answer to your satisfaction let me know. I asked what part is not Biblical because I feel it all is. I realize you may form your faith from Tradition and not so much from the Bible but Tradition is not supposed to negate the Bible is it?

Jesus didn’t say to hand out Biblical tracts. That’s the Tradition I’m from. And since the Church put the Bible together I listen to that Church. So what did the Church say about it?Not me.

MJ

 

[a_priori]

In the 25 years I was an evangelical, and those years I was in leadership, the congregation was reminded that “this is just bread” that we use to remember Christ. It seems incongruous to say on the one hand “it’s just bread”, and on the other hand, eating it “unworthily” can lead to damnation. That’s quite a “piece of bread”.