guanophore:
Ok, I am confused…
You are saying that Paul does not believe in the real presence based on this passage? I would like to know what you mean when you say “Paul knows no such thing”. What was it that Paul received from the Lord? I think what is written here is the liturgy of the early church, which is still preserved today in the Mass.
1 Cor 11:23-26
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 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.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
RSV
In the passage you post above, Paul repeats to the Corinthians what he received from the Lord concerning the Last Supper (cf Lk 22:19ff); where does Paul, or the Lord, assert “real presence,” in what Paul delivered to the Corinthians?
guanophore:
I will try to find this other thread. It seems to me plain that the context of the passages about eating the body and blood of the Lord are placed in the context of the celebration of holy eucharist.
I’ll explain it again.
The context is the church’s gathering together to eat the Lord’s supper,
but, Paul says,
for many, the Lord’s supper
is merely a pretext for the gathering. They
the many] are gathering
only to scarf down as much food as they can eat, while getting as drunk as they can get, and leaving little, or nothing for those who have nothing (1 Cor 11:17-19).
In so doing, Paul says, they despise the Church of God—the body of Christ—and put to shame those brethren who have nothing (vv20-22).
Paul says that those who partake of the Eucharist in such an unworthy manner—using the pretext of the Lord’s supper to scarf all the food, get drunk, and leave nothing for those who have nothing—are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27-28; cf Heb 10:29). Thus, he warns them to examine their behavior before they partake of the Eucharist in such a manner.
For, Paul says, the one who partakes of the Eucharist in the unworthy manner described in vv17-21, eats and drinks judgment to himself, because he is not “discerning the body,” ie., fellow believers v29; the judgment he eats and drinks to himself, is manifested in the weakness, the sickness, and the death of many of them v30.
Even if I were to grant “real presence” in the elements for the sake of the argument, real presence is not in view in v29—“
without discerning the body”—because
the body spoken of there is the Church, not the body of Christ in the elements.
Remember, the primary context of the epistle is against the factions, and the quarrels among those factions, in the Church (1 Cor 1:10ff); that is reiterated in 11:18-19.
guanophore:
Another puzzlement I have, why is it so important for Protestants to find ways to make this passage mean something other than what it says?
I am not “
making the passage mean something other than what it says,” I am telling you what the text says without reading anything into it.
Something is stopping you from seeing that.
What have I imposed upon the text that
is not in the text?
What am I leaving out of the text that
is in the text?
guanophore:
If the reader to admit that Jesus is really referring to his own body, and his own blood, what would the implications be?
Jesus is referring to the Last Supper as
a remembrance of His body crucified, and His blood poured out for the forgiveness of sin.
guanophore:
I can’t see any other reason that so many people left Jesus at that time. Clearly, it was a hard saying for the Apostles also. They wanted to run away too! Peter thought about it, and realized there was no where to run…
Could it be possible that those who left misunderstood what the Lord said?
