1 Corinthians 11:27-34 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
1st Corinthians 11.27-end
Milk
September 2nd 2018

Ok we left off at verse 26 where Paul has been addressing the proper way for the believers at Corinth to have or hold communion and speaking of the elements of it he wrote at verse 26

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”

We discussed this last week. Now at verse 27 Paul continues to speak of the communion and he speaks to some things that have haunted people for centuries. Let’s read:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

All right let’s go back to verse 27 which has been a bone-crusher for centuries on end.

27 Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

The wherefore refers to verse 26 where Paul said:

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”

Wherefore . . . (now that I have said all of this, wherefore) . . . whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Other translations do not really add anything to comprehension of this passage as they all essentially say the same thing.

We have a lot to wonder about relative to this passage.

The Greek word, “axios” means “deservingly or worthily” and the Greek word used here is “Anaxios” and it means the opposite – undeservedly or unworthily.

Was Paul talking about people who were gathering together to party who were getting drunk and eating without a care for others needs and really didn’t give a hoot about the Lord’s Communion as being undeserved of partaking or was Paul issuing a blanket statement that there was a moral worthiness that all partakers must possess in order to partake?

And if the later is the case, can a human being actually truly be considered worthy or deserving?

Contextually, the purpose of Paul even mentioning the Lord’s supper is in connection to their improper mode of observing it and I think that after he has taken the time to illustrate the real purpose and practice of partaking of communion he now steps forward to explain the consequences of partaking of it in an improper manner like the one he has described.

That is the contextual view, and while it is really tempting to read and view verse 27 as a standard of personal morality this would not be the proper, fair . . . and listen – or even possible – which is really important to remember.

I have been fascinated of late being a new member of the social media community to see how often Christians get on line and condemn one lifestyle or another, labeling it sinful and it’s practitioners evil.

I am always tempted to ask the poster what sin they have in their life and if there is any sin how are they justified calling others out on theirs?

This always troubled me as an active Mormon in worthiness interviews. I wondered constantly why I was so bad (like when I was a masturbating teen) and how the Bishops and Stake President were so perfect and worthy.

It wasn’t until later – but not much later – that I discovered that all of them – every freaking one of them that I knew personally, had sin. But most of it were the sins that we easily excused (like being judgmental, mean, stingy, or arrogant) which looking at the life and words of Jesus, seem to be far MORE egregious sins then “the sins of the flesh.”

So, to worthiness, and this passage, I am personally convinced that context allows us to properly understand the content and meaning of the verse.

Unfortunately, this word, unworthily, has caused a LOT of personal misery over the centuries as most people read the passage without noticing an important clue and as a result, say to themselves, in the context of partaking of what is already a misappropriated communion:

“I am unworthy to partake of this holy ordinance. To eat and drink will only expose myself to condemnation. I must therefore wait until I become “more” worthy, and then I will be better prepared to partake.”

What’s the key? It’s the difference between an adjective and an adverb!

Most persons interpret it as if it the passage speaks to people who are “unworthy,” instead of these Corinthians who were partaking of communion “unworthily.”

The former believe that the passage is speaking to “personal qualifications,” instead of the “manner or fashion” in which the communion is approached.

Paul is speaking to the way the Lord’s Supper has been approached and observed, not to the personal qualifications of those who were eating it in faith.

This is such an important clarification folks – not that I believe it has application to us today but because religious men and women today insist on continuing to observe communion as a means to be right with God I think a proper exegesis is important.

Now, we do have to address all that Paul says here because I think that there are principles at work that carry over to us today relative to examining our own heart and ways.

So, what does he say again – and I reiterate, to them in this context of their behaviors

27 Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

So, let me hit on some of the biggie commentators of old.

Doddridge puts it this way

“Shall be counted guilty of profaning and affronting, in some measure, that which is intended to represent the body and blood of the Lord.”

Grotius translates it,

“He does the same thing as if he should slay Christ.”

Bretschneider says

“Injuring by crime the body of the Lord.”

Locke says,

“Shall be guilty of a misuse of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Rosenmuller says,

“He shall be punished for such a deed as if he had affected Christ himself with ignominy.”

Bloomfield says,

“He shall be guilty respecting the body, i.e., guilty of profaning the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently shall be amenable to the punishment due to such an abuse of the highest means of grace.”

I suggest the following:

The believers who continue to do as Paul has warned against, were not true followers of Christ OR had chosen the celebration and the festivities over honoring His sacrifice and in this attitude adopted the same heart of those who had put Christ to death – because it challenged their love for tradition.

This view is entirely subject to being wrong but after reading all these other views and considering the context and the fact that Paul told them to stop approaching the Lord’s table in this manner, I stand by it – at the present.

The next verse, however, is really really important – especially to the stance that God wants a direct honest open free relationship with all who claim Him. And this is so central to what Jesus did, even Paul brings all he has said back to the individual, and placing squarely in the subjective realm, states:

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

But let a man search his heart and see if it is right with the purposes of communion.

We must remember here that there was in all probability a number – perhaps most of the group – who really loved the Lord and wanted to do right but perhaps they got caught up in the festive nature of the meals and drink and we’re really aware of the level that they had fallen until Paul challenges them.

In all probability these would quickly turn (repent – change their minds) about how they were doing things and return to the order Paul established.

If they didn’t, I suggest that they probably had the same care and love for Jesus as those who were willing to open His flesh and shed His blood – as this would have been the result of someone with not only an indifference to the reverence communion would require but a love for their own desires over the commands of a living Apostle.

The principles we can take directly from the words of Paul and far reaching in a number of ways:

First, he tells them the facts about their approach to communion, but then he tells them to examine themselves – to see where they really stand in their heart.

This is so beautiful as Paul places the onus of each persons actions back on the individual.

We also notice that Paul does NOT write:

And if a person continues to eat and drink to drunkenness before the Lord’s Communion do not allow Him do so do!

Instead, after telling all to examine themselves, he adds:

“And so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.”

The sense is fairly plain – communion in that day was to be preceded by an honest and prayerful self-examination.

It was Socrates some 400 years earlier who wrote that, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

I would add that what Paul is saying here is “the unexamined Christian life is not worthy of communion.”

Why? It was apparent that whoever was participating in the communion pre-party had not taken the time to examine what their actual actions amounted to relative to why the Lord instituted it in the first place.

At verse 29 Paul throws another heavy promise or imprecation their way, saying:

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Remember that Paul was trying to move them to action and in order to get them to perhaps embrace a “deeper reverence” for what they had ultimately gathered to do, Paul presents another consequence of partaking of communion in an improper and irreverent manner.

Returning to the topic of unworthily, (instead of the personal condition of being unworthy) Paul says those who choose to continue to partake of the elements under the same conditions, “eat and Drink Damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

Now, this sounds like Paul was telling them that those who went against his order and eat and drank of the elements would be damned – as in they would go to hell.

But let me let you in on a little secret – there are times in the King James where the translators would read the Greek term Kreesis and would write judgement.

And there are times when they would read Kreesis and would write damnation.

But the Greek is the same. And where Damnation is only appealed to 11 times in the New Testament, judgement is appealed to more than seven times as much!

The meaning? All Paul is telling them is that if they continue to eat of the elements in the setting of a party, they would be judged for doing so – not damned.

To explain this out a little farther, when Jesus asks the Pharisees how they would ever expect to escape the DAMNATION of Gehenna, the better translation would be, how would they ever expect to escape the judgement of Gehenna – which was a place that literally burned with fire as a means to consume the city refuse.

Of course, the Pharisees did not escape such a judgement because many of their bodies were tossed into Gehenna at the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem – so prophecy fulfilled – the met the judgement of Gehenna.

In any case, Paul was not telling them that they would be damned in hell forever more – he simply said they would be judged for treating the commanded communion so lightly, which Paul said was the equivalent of “not discerning the Lord’s body.”

It is believed, and I agree with it, that what Paul meant is that the people involved had not discerning between the Lord’s body and body and the common bread and wine they were consuming at the pre-communion feasts.

Because this was the leading offense I think it enables us to interpret the line this way.

And then Paul adds an intriguing message:

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Now, we have a choice on how to understand this line. Let me name a few.

That Paul was speaking of a curse that fell upon them from God as a direct result of them eating the communion unworthily.

(With this we have to decide if such imprecations are still in place on people – which many religions try to suggest they are. I remember my LDS teachers trying to use passages like this to terrify me into confession.)
Or, perhaps, Paul was speaking to them-then and in that day there was a curse on them for the party environment they allowed surrounding the partaking of the Lord’s table.
Or perhaps, what Paul was speaking to was a natural result of people overindulging in food and wine – they got heavy, perhaps clogged their arteries, and perhaps had diabetes – where sleepiness is a certain description of.
Finally some may suggest that heart-disease and/or diabetes is a curse from God for those who cater to their fleshly desires – and this has nothing to do with a curse upon them because of eating communion in this fashion.

I don’t know the answer but I will say this:

The Church-Bride was under some real scrutiny in that age. Because they were privy to miraculous spirit filled manifestations, apostolic leadership and demands upon them to live pure lives so as to be a spot-less Church-Bride without wrinkle for Christ at His coming, perhaps God enhanced the natural results of human over-indulgence to reach them?

Really can’t say.

What we can say is there was a condition present among the Saints at Corith that manifested itself among the Saints as weakness and sickliness – and even death, which is probably what Paul means by many sleep because this is they way death is described in Daniel 12:2; John 11:11,12; 1st Corinthians 15:51; and 1st Thessalonians 4:14 and 5:10.

Paul adds

31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

In verse 28 Paul tells them to examine themselves and I think this is just a reiteration of this advice.

The reason is, he says, is because “if we would judge (or examine) ourselves,” he adds, we would not be judged.”

This passage further supports what I just taught about that word damnation because if Paul meant to say “if we judged ourselves we would not be damned.”

But because he said, “we should not be judged,” it shows that it was judgement that they faced for these behaviors, not damnation as the King James suggests.

And then at verse 32 Paul says something that is really comforting – and important to the idea that in their failures the believers were not going to be damned or go to hell as He says

32 But when we are judged,

Meaning, when believers are judged for things like this, which you have erred in – and may even continue to err in them and God judges them (in the here and now – which from this verse seems to be what Paul is warning them against) he adds something to remember:

“we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”

The sense is, that though they were thus afflicted by God in their meekness and sicknesses and death; and though he had manifested his displeasure at the manner in which they had observed the ordinance, yet his judgment was purposeful – His chastening has a reason.

Paul did not want them to see themselves as strangers to God who was now angry with them. Instead he seems to want to show them that God was dealing with them as Sons.

The writer of Hebrews threshes through this concept pretty nicely in Hebrews 12 saying at verse 5:

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

All the principles the writer of Hebrews I believe are at play here with the believers at Corinth.

God was not full of wrath or vengeance – but love as a Father has for his earthly brood. And loving parents chastise their children as a means to teach and lead and guide them.

Now listen to this verse again:

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”

Two words that are important here:

When we are judged
AND
That we should not be condemned with the world.

This goes back to our earlier comments about eating the communion unworthily, when Paul says that those who do will experience judgement (translated damnation in the King James).

Here again, Paul writes of judgment (Krino in the Greek) for the saints who had messed up and would not change, but he says that such a judgment is separate from the condemnation that the world would experience.

That word in the Greek is KATAKRINO.

Judgement/damnation is Krino or a deriviative of Krino, and suggests the chastisement of a loving parent for a child – for their growth and maturation.

KATAKRINO, translated condemnation means something else as KATA means downward and Krino judgement – so downward judgment.

We might think of Gods chastisement of judgement upon his children as horizonal love – it is a parent reaching out an holding an out of control son who is throwing a tantrum. It is a shoulder to shoulder type of loving reform.

Katakrino is vertical judgment – like a judge sitting on a high bench looking down and issuing forth punishment.

That same judge would punish his own son differently – because he is His. But in His duty as magistrate over an area it would be encumbent upon him – as a means to be good and just – to mete out condemnation, katakrino upon who?

The breakers of the Law.

Now lets put this into context. God had a people who were under the Law – they His Law. They were justifiably going to come under condemnation (katakrino) or as Paul puts it to the Saints at Corinth,

“that we should not be condemned with the world.”

I would suggest that what Paul is saying is that God’s KATAKRINO judgement was coming and Paul was telling the believers at Corinth that they needed to watch themselves so that they would not be katakrino’d with the world WHO deserved such condemnation having been recipients of the Law and the Prophets and the Messiah – and ignoring most of it all together.

That katakrino down-judgement would come down on them from God at the approaching end of that age.

So Paul was telling them to endure the chastisement of the Lord because as Sons they should expect it, but also it was a means to ensure that they would not take part in the coming katakrino that had been taught and anticipated for nearly 1500 years.

We wonder today if katakrino continues to exist? We’ll lets begin by asking if God continues to chastise his Sons and daughters as a means to lovingly grow and mature them.

I would have to suggest that yes, God continues to chastise those who are His as a Father chastises his children who He loves.

When it comes to the katakrino down-judgement of God upon the heads of people we have two possibilities since we are living in an age described in Revelation 21 and 22 as being very different from the former.

First, we have to consider the passages we just read from Hebrews 12, especially where he writes:

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

In light of this we might see God, to whom the whole world has been reconciled, as not dealing with those who are not His children by faith. In other words, being God He blesses them and assists them but perhaps, since they are not children of faith, he leaves them to their own devices – since that is apparently what they want – and He leaves them to their own devices here . . . and there.

Because Revelation in describing our age describes heaven as either being in the New Heavenly Jerusalem or NOT – and the not do not seem to be suffering, but more like they are left to their own devices, we might wonder if those outside the gates are as bastards to God – not His, and therefore not directly disciplined.

That being said, because the New Heavenly Jerusalem is said to have four gates in it open day and night, perhaps in His eternal mercy and love all are welcome into the city where God and Jesus are the light of it.

And perhaps, the closer a person outside the city walls gets to the city, the more the things they love and have loved, that are of the world, and carnal, are purged by His light.

Perhaps the letting go of all some people have created themselves to be is one of the most painful, uncomfortable experiences a person can have – and not being willing to suffer it, most choose to remain outside a relationship with Him?

Just somethings to consider.

The point being, however, is katakrino, because of Christ and His finished work, does NOT seem to be part of the post New Testament age as it seems to have been fulfilled in God’s wrath coming down on His own who were under the Law in 70AD.

So, Paul returns to his teaching and instruction of the believers at Corinthians, and he summarizes his comments with:

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

The word tarry EK-DECK-OMAHEE just means to wait. Wherefore brethren when you come together to eat, wait for each other.

We aren’t sure and the commentators are divided on whether Paul is talking about eating the love feast prior to Communion OR if he is speaking of eating the Communion itself – or perhaps both, meaning, WHENEVER you come together and eat anything, wait on each other.

However the last verse of the chapter let’s us know that Paul here was talking about Communion only. When you eat communion, wait on each other, is what he means.

The principle is you are one – a gathering, a body of Christ – do things as one – especially eating the Lord’s table together.

It seems like the scene before was one of bacchanalian mayhem of sorts, where once some were present they would indulge in food and wine without a care for others and their needs and perhaps they even went on and did their own communion service too.

Paul tells them directly to wait . . . on each other – show some selflessness, some unity, some respect both for the Lord and others.

This principle certainly abides in the Christian life today no matter what we are talking about, right?

We try our best to include and help people feel that they belong and try to accept them as they are rather than living out our agenda without a care for them.

When I was 11 my parents moved into Huntington beach from Whittier California and my older sister Shannon was sort of forced to attend what was called Mutual – a mid-week youth-gathering.

She didn’t know anybody at all and asked if I would come with her. So I went – even thought I was too young, I didn’t look it.

When we arrived all the kids of all ages allowed at mutual were in the cultural hall and were equally divided into two sides.

The game was underway.

My sister and I rested against the stage and watched for a minute, and one of the kids said between points:

“Come on in!”

I was following the lead of my fairly shy sister and she kind of gave a look to the girl that said, “I’m really not good at sports.”

The girl repeated, come on its okay, but out of the blue an adult leader, who would serve to torment me for years to come, said,

“Just let ‘em stand there.”

I was only 11 but that tone, those words, and the look on his face told me that there was no love in that man, that with him it was either conform or be cast out.

Looking back I’m grateful for the difficulty of situations like these because in them I learned in real time what Christian love looked like – and what it wasn’t.

In those times as years went by as loving leaders considered the needs and ways of others, waited on them, reached out selflessly to include them, I knew it – and saw God.

Paul wraps out time up, speaking about the love feast not communion, and says:

34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

This is a direct command – stop the love feasts of bacchanalia. If you are hungry, eat at home, he says.

In this we learn that the Lord’s Supper is not a common feast and it was never meant to be about consuming food and wine.

It is a commemoration that uses food to illustrate a point important to believers in that day and age.

Paul says keep the eating for hunger separate and if they are hungry satisfy their hunger at home . . .

“That ye come not together unto condemnation.”

Again, the King James translators get wild on us and translate the word, KRIMA, which means judgement, and give us condemnation instead, which is an English word that should be used with katakrino.

Not consistent. Not fair. Not clear and not good.

Then Paul adds, “And the rest will I set in order when I come,” which in all probably refers to additional matters that required some apostolic attention.

From this it is evident that Paul had decided to go to Corinth to set things in order that had so quickly gone haywire.

I want to wrap this chapter up by pointing a few facts out that we need to consider from this chapter:

First, we see that groups of people will almost always, when left to their own devices as an organization under practices, go south.

We WILL do things that are out of harmony with God’s will.

The second thing is to realize that God, knowing this, set apostles over His church so that the gates of hell could not prevail against it.

This leadership is essential, was essential, to keeping people out of trouble and as Paul said, OUT from under judgement – even katakrino condemnation.

Third, since this is the case, biblically proven, we have a decision to make:

Do we belong to a church with apostles that will oversee the physical church and ensure that things do not get out of hand so that Jesus, when He comes for His church that the gates of hell have not in anyway prevailed against it?

OR

Do we admit, as the Bible describes, that the expectations on the nascent church have been entirely fulfilled and that we now live in an age when all things – individuals, gatherings, and the body of believers around the world, are guided by God in them by the Spirit and all the attempts at church playing are over?

Let’s open up for Comments and Questions

PRAYER