Where does the Bible say that "communion is only for the immersed believer?

Let me save you some time.....don't bother with the 1 Cor. 11 passage......we all know that Paul is referring to the Christians in Corinth who were abusing the Lord's suppers.

Besides.....how much more condemnation can a person who is already going to hell....reap upon themselves by partaking of communion "in an unworthy manner??"

So the question remains......where specifically does the Bible say that communion is for the immersed believer only??"

So you know I'm not specifically setting you up.....I have always allowed my children to partake of communion as soon as they understood what the emblems represented.

Did Jesus not say...."that such is the kingdom of heaven?" Aren't my children believers.....even though they have not reached the age of accountablity (whenever that is)??? Wouldn't my children go to be with the Lord if something tragic happened to them??

Then why shouldn't they take the Lord's supper?? Upon what Scriptural basis would you prohibit them??

One thing is for sure......2 of my 3 children have become Christians....(the other one at 8 is approaching the time)......and none of them have ever been baptized "in order to take communion."

I ask the question because I've had people in the past tell me I'm wrong for allowing my children to take communion "before they have been baptized."

When I ask for the Scriptural basis for such....if I get anything....I get a misunderstood application of 1 Cor. 11....which I translate into.....no Scriptural basis at all.

It simply becomes...."Well....that's what I was taught."

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Answers

Marc.....

It seems to me that your children know plenty enough to take communion. Remember....all communion is......is a memorial meal of what Christ has done.....is doing....and will do for us.

We err in the Christian Church of allowing Catholicism to creep in to the point that we "mystify" communion. You ever notice how we always sing songs slower during communion?? Why??? The early church called the communion "Eucharist" which means...."Thanksgiving."

In too many churches, communion seems more like a funeral than a celebration.

Let me ask you Marc.....if Jesus were to come to your house to have dinner.....would you send the kids out?? And if you did.....what would Jesus have to say about that??

As per you second question.....from my personal perspective, I could not in good conscience take those folks communion. I, in essence, would be condoning and comforting them in their disobedience to Christ.

Thanks for the discussion.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Dr. Jon.....

I agree with your understanding that the biblical practice was to allow any Christian the right to serve the supper.

We in the Christian Church have pretty much followed this practice, although there are some churches that have been ignorant enough to place in their "by-laws" that only Elders and Deacons can serve at the table. I guess they had to do something. (LOL)

And then there are other churches that insist you wear a coat and tie.....or at least a tie when you serve around the table. Fortunately, I've never served at one of those churches. However, one time, I would like to be at a church where they required a tie.....and buy myself one of those t-shirts with the tie painted on!! That would be a hoot!!

Dave.....

I agree with everything you say. I just don't think it applies to children....especially those who are raised in Christian homes.

Again...I appreciate the "thinking through."

So far....my point has been proven.....much of what we consider "right" in the practice of the Lord's Supper....has no Scriptural support.

Seems like the older I get....the more I'm noticing this is the Christian Church.

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

Again, Marc.....that is one of those "traditions" that has absolutely no scriptural support.

I have no problem whatsoever in a woman helping in the serving of communion and have in fact, encouraged the practice in past congregations.....and seen it successfully carried out.

In my current congregation.....wouldn't even think of it touching that one. It ain't worth it.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2000

Robin....

Your question: "Do verses 27 and 28 apply to us as Christians today?"

Answer: Yes!

Your question:"What exactly is the unworthy manner of verse 27?"

Answer: Great question....and an easy answer. The unworthy manner is what he has just spent vss. 18-22 explaining. We must keep in mind that in the first century church, the Lord's supper was served in the setting of the Agape feast....(or in our modern vernacular....a church potluck). Communion was not put in with the worship service until the mid to late second century. The Corinthian church was racked by factions and division and as such it manifested itself during the Agape feast. Take note exegetically.....

vs 20....Paul says when you come together it is "not to eat the Lord's supper." Our Baptist friends like to use this verse to suggest that communion was not something the church did the first day of every week. This is a gross misinterpretation. Paul's point is....you are so divided among yourselves....that when you come together it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. He seems to be using a bit of sarcasm....for if they were coming together to eat the Lord's Supper...there would be no factions....and divisions....because the Lord's supper represents unity of the body!!! Look at his further proof.....

vs. 21....."for in your eating each one takes his own supper first." In other words....people were bringing food and not sharing it. Does that sound like the Lord's Supper?? No....it sounds very selfish. He further amplifies...."and one is hungry." One of the purposes of this Agape feast was to feed the poorer members of the congregation. In addition he points out that some were getting drunk at the Agape feast. Doest that sound like the Lord's Supper??

vs. 22.....He points out if you are simly coming together to eat and drink (as opposed to sharing in the Lord's supper).....then you can do that at home. What they are doing is a shame....but it is only representative of the already existent factions and divisions in the church.

Therefore Robin....in light of the context.....eating and drinking in an unworthy manner is to act in the selfish way he describes in the previous verses. Selfishness....and division in the church are not of God....and if any of these things are in our hearts towards our brothers and sisters in Christ....we partake in an unworthy manner.

This verse must be tied to what he says in verse 29...."For he eats and drinks judgment to himself, IF HE DOES NOT JUDGE THE BODY RIGHTLY." (caps mine for emphasis).

The question becomes....what is the "body" that we are to judge?? I believe that question is answered in chapter 12 as he continues to emphaisize the unity of "the body."

Listen to 12:13-14: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into ONE BODY.....for the BODY is not one member, but many."

Robin, the "BODY" that must be judged rightly is "the body of Christ" i.e., His church. If we have a divisive, hateful, judgmental attitude towards our brothers and sisters in Christ, then taking communion is an affront to God, because Jesus shed His blood to bring unity to all men.

Judging "the body" has nothing to do with the physical body of Jesus. The context makes it very clear that the Corinthians were partaking in an unworthy manner because of the devisive attitudes in the church.

If I missed something, let me know.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Robin....

In light of the context....the church body is the only one that fits. Everything else is "conjecture".....and that's at its best. To see it as any other body defies hermeneutics.

I can assure you.....my children never have any concept of being at odds with other members of His church.

Like prejudice.....those things are taught.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Steve Vinson....

Good for you!!

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Well said Faris....well said.

And....I might add.....one of the driving principles of the early restoration fathers.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Oh Sam come on!!! Do you always mix your fruit??

Sense you seem to have forgotten....the topic is "forbidding anyone from taking the Lord's Supper."

That which I agreed with Faris about....is we don't have a right to say who can or who can't. "Let a man examine himself." (And I'm sure that's all Faris meant.) I can determine who I chose to fellowship with....but....I cannot determine who is worthy to partake of the Lord's supper.

We are not talking about me jumping in the church van to go to a stadium full of people led by people who openly fight sound doctrine.....which the PK leaders have consistently done by telling their speakers to not even mention baptism.

I consistently have people in my church who are either not Christian or belong to another faith. Do I like the fact they take communion?? Not really. But then it's not "Danny's Supper".....it's "The Lord's Supper." It's between them and God. And....if somehow partaking softens their heart to be receptive to the gospel....then great.

Otherwise....all they did was drink some juice and eat a cracker.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Robin....

You said..."This seems to indicate a certain level of understanding."

That begs the question. Do you want to be the one to determine who has the level of understanding and who doesn't?? Will we do like the Presbyterian church that A. Campbell left and administer a "test" to determine worthiness and level of understanding??

I believe we push this text, in the setting of the problems at Corinth, too much.....when we try to strech it to some undetermined level of "understanding."

That becomes too difficult to judge....which is why Paul indicates we shouldn't.

Interestingly....this leads to a discussion of .....how much a person must understand the plan of salvation....in order to accept it??

Must a child understand at the level of an adult?? The same is true of communion. Must a child understand at the level of an adult in order to be allowed to partake??

Knowing my 8 year old.....I think he understands far more than many adults.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Robin....

In the 1st century church and for the first 150 years of the church.....the Lord's Supper was a meal.

Do some historical research on the early church and the "Agape Feast."

The problem was not they were not remembering....they were not acting in the proper way towards each other.

Your interpretation does not take into account the whole of I Corinthians and the problem of division in the church that manifested itself at the Agape feasts....again...indicated by the fact that they were bringing their own food and not sharing it.

Your main problem is.....looking at the passage from a 20th century Christian Church view of the Lord's Supper with our gold trays, elder meditations....6 deacons in coat and ties.....and service in 5.8 minutes.

It does not even come close to the first century mode of the partaking of the Lord's Supper.

In answering your first question.....understanding the purpose of the death of Christ does not necessitate readiness and/or need to act upon it yet. For each child that is a judgment call. My daughter was 9.....my middle son was 7......and my last son is 8.....and just now starting to come to grips with the concept of his personal sinfulness. This, however, does not distract from his love for Jesus and his desire to celebrate the rich symbolism of the Lord's Supper. My guess is....if we were doing it the first century way.....during the course of a meal.....no one would have thought twice about it.

Keep on....almost you have come to the fulness of the kingdom!! :)

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Robin.....

I could give you an answer....but you indicated you don't want to hear what I have to contribute anymore. :)

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Robin....

Friendly piece of advice....smiley faces :) as seen as my last post mean....."just kidding."

I'm really sorry that over the years you have not been introduced to a sound exegesis of this passage that then leaves you thinking this is a new teaching.

It is not. In fact, historically.....it has as been the common interpretation.

To prove the point. I just now on the spur of the moment picked up my commentary by William Barclay (a Presbyterian)on 1 Corinthians. He is an excellent Greek scholar. One of the best I have ever read. I had his commentary....but had never read what he said on this passage.

So I just picked it up to see what he said. Here goes....

"The phrase 'body of Christ' again and again stands for the Church; it does so, as we shall see, in chapter 12. Paul has just been rebuking those who with their divisions and their class distinctions divide the Church; so this may mean that he eats and drinks unworthily who has never realized that the whole Church is the body of Christ but is at variance with his brother. Every man in whose heart there is hatred, bitterness, contempt against his brother man, as he comes to the Table of our Lord, eats and drinks unworthily. So then to eat and drink unworthily is to do so with no sense of the greatness of the thing we do, and to do so while we are at variance with the brother for whom Christ died."

So there you have it. Almost word for word what I had said....and I said it from simply an exegesis of the passage. My guess is....we could pick up just about any commentary.....and have the same result.

You mention questions....but some of the questions I have already asked. I already explained why he told them to eat at home. If the only reason they were coming together was to eat the food they had brought and get drunk.....they could do that at home. The purpose of coming together was the Agape feast and inherent in that was taking care of each other. To fail to take care of each other, due to the factions and divisions in the church at Corinth was to not "discern the Lord's body properly."

What more can I explain?? I'm about explained out.

John's point in his post was that it is a shame that this meaning of the text is not brought out more often.

I believe the reason is because people have preconceived ideas about communion (tainted by RC as Dr. Jon points out)....so they proof text in order to try to defend their position.

Try to be more specific with your questions....possibly asking them one at a time.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Robin....

In answer to your question....let me ask a question.....

In reference to the term "body of the Lord".....in the N.T.....what does that phrase "body of the Lord" or just "body" refer to the vast majority of the times??

I need you to answer this in order to be clear about my answer.

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Robin....

Don't make the mistake I have and read anything into the silence.

Yes....because a number here have the same educational background that I do....they agree with me....therefore, they don't get involved.

Others are just "lurkers".....learning but not discussing.

Others simply do not find it to be an issue enough. (I don't either....but it's fun......I don't really find anything you have said....."Wrong." I just think there is a more exegetically correct way of interpretation.)

And....other folks are just busy.

Lot of good folks here.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Robin....

Alright....now that we have established that the normal use of the term "body" refers to the church.....now I will answer your question.

In his describing the revelation the Lord gave him concerning the establishment of the Lord's Supper in vs. 24-25....of course body is refering to the physical, fleshly, body of Christ.

In vs. 27....body again refers to the fleshly body. What is at question is ......"What is an unworthy manner?" IN LIGHT OF THE CONTEXT.....in which he has just gone to great lengths to explain the shameful behavior of the Corinthians at the AGAPE feast....then one would be correct to assume that the unworthy manner is treating the brethren in the way that Paul describes they had been.

Perhaps you feel comfortable in extrapolating from the verse a need for deep personal introspection concerning all of ones Christian life. I cannot get this from the text. In my mind....it goes beyond Paul's intent.

My hermenutics does not allow me to interpret a passage outside the mainstream of the context of both the chapter and the book.

Thus, in vs. 29....the reference again to considering our relationship with the body of Christ......AND....thus the entire 12th chapter explaining the importance of ALL MEMBERS of the body of Christ and the need for unity......AND.....thus the 13th chapter explaining the need for a biblical view of love in order to achieve this unity. What a flow!!!

Again....back to the reason for my question.....this is the normal useage of the term "body"....and an axiom of hermeneutics is to always allow a word its normal useage.

For your consideration,

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Robin....

There really is no hermeneutical rule that defines "immediate" context....except that "immediate" context must give way to "total" context....i.e., the theme of the book. Otherwise....you have the false hermeneutic known as "apologetic" or "proof texting."

As per the question about "words"....let me get back with you on that.....because there is a rule concerning word useage that shows that sometimes a word can change meaning....even in the same verse.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Hey Robin.....

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Seems that I either had my book and no computer....or my computer and no book. Now I have both.

I counted up a minimum of 24 different rules concerning "The Meaning of Words and Expressions."

Let me simply point out a few that I think apply to the aforementioned text:

1) Words and expressions must be interpreted in such a way as to conform to context....both immediate and remote. It is always important to interpret not just in light of the immediate context, but the overal context as well.

2) The repetition of a word in a passage generally assumes continuity of thought and the use of the word in a unified sense. (Thus my reason for saying "body" here refers to the "body of Christ" i.e., the Church, because that thought is carried on continuously throughout the whole book.)

3) Contextual interpretation preseves the intended meaning and emphasis of words by giving careful attention to the trend of thought. (Again, it appears to me the trend of though is the Corinthians attitudes towards others in the body of Christ.)

4) Chose the broad meaning of a word (we already established that the broad meaning of "the body" is the church) unless it is restricted by context. Words often have a comprehensive meaning in one context and a restricted meaning in another context. The reader will assume the broad meaning unless he had a contextual reason for regarding it as limited.

Alright Robin.....there are my reasons.

Personally Robin, I can find nowhere in Scripture that demands the kind of "reflection" we seem to demand during communion services on Sunday mornings. In fact, I think our communion services are way too somber in light of the fact that the first century Lord's Supper was held during a meal....hardly a somber occassion.

Am I saying it's wrong to consider our life? Our sins? Our failings? Our need to grow in grace? Certainly not!!!

I just don't think this text demands it.

But....unless you have new ground to cover on the subject....I think I'm spent.

Thanks for the dialog.

What do you want to talk about next??

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Robin.....

Thanks again. I personally did not care whether or not you accepted my view, so long as you understood it was not an "off the cuff" point of view.

As per "fish to fry".....actually I have a lot of turkeys and wild boar to mount right now. :)

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Here, we have two pronounced standards for participation in the act of the Lord's Supper:

1) "Examine yourself. It's between you and God. It's not ours to either invite or disbar. The Lord invites; We're going there, and you can walk along if you like."

2) "Children, submit to your parents' rule. Parents, govern your children. If you don't want them partaking, we won't give it to them. If you want them to partake, we won't stop them."

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

I too have been thinking about this lately. My two oldest children are 8 and 6 1/2. they want to take communion... when asked why they say it is to remember Jesus and His body and blood. Yet, I still feel that they are not ready and are only repeating what they know to be true and I am not sure that they would focus as they should. (Unfortunately, I am afraid many church "members" do not either)

I guess that I am asking what age you feel it is appropriate for children to take communion? I know that this is like asking at what age a child should be baptized... each child is different.

BTW if you have not figured it out, I agree with Danny in the fact that I think it is o.k. for children who are not immersed to take communion... the "when" is hard for me.

The second question I would have that is closely related to Danny's is: "Who should we are a church or as a preacher serve communion to?"

For example... I know a couple whos son attends our church. He is immersed... they are not. They are homebound and unable to attend church and refuse to be immersed (they say they were "baptized" (sprinkled) as a baby and see no need to do it again).

Any way, they would like me take them communion sometime... should I?

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

I agree with Danny that we collectively have allowed Roman Catholic taints into our Communion Practices (I actually prefer the term "Lord's Supper," but that is a minor point. Its to demonstrate to myself that this is NOT like the Catholic communion.).

A similar question is "Who can execute a communion service"? Is it only someone who is "ordained," or can it be any believer? Common practice is that only "ordained ministers" conduct communion services. But the actual biblical practice is that any believer could perform the rite, anywhere, anytime, anyday. The purpose is to remember Christ, and His death for us. We are commanded to do this not just on special times, but every time we break bread and drink. That's my twist on this.

Please note that I will admit to my anti-Roman Catholic bias, because I am an ex-Roman Catholic.

-- Anonymous, June 09, 2000

Danny,

Rather than a book, chapter and verse answer, which I don't know that there is any, my conclusions (which can be argued with, I understand) come from the following questions I have asked myself. What do the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine represent? What meaning does the unleaved bread and the fruit of the vine have for the nonchristian? How is it that an unimmersed believer can think that they can participate in something (communion) which finds, in part, its meaning in something (immersion)that they have not yet participated in or submitted to?

I am not going to go back thru the age old discussion of "do you have to be baptized to be a christian?". Suffice it to say, that I believe that the blood of Christ is applied to a person when their faith, repentance and confession of Jesus as the Son of God, come together when a person is immersed into Christ, according to Scripture. That being the case (in my understanding), it is only after the blood of Christ is applied to one's life that the unleavened bread (the sacrificed body of Christ) and the fruit of the vine (the blood of Christ) have meaning and significance.

To the one that is outside of Christ, there is no effect upon or within them. The meaning is somewhat (if not completely) lost upon the soul of that individual. Now, let me say, that in their mind, the person may understand the facts of the meaning, but upon their dead spirit, what effective work will be done? Of course, you may reply, they might be drawn to the Lord (or whatever phrase you choose) by participating. Well, they may just be more drawn, thru a reasoning that the meaning in communion is for the immersed believer more than to the unimmersed (whether a believer or not).

Any way,,, It is merely my opinion and reasoning. And, It is worth merely that. Keep on studing. I will conclude with this realization as well, I do not forbid anyone from partaking of the bread or the juice. How can I? It is the LORD's table, and He can accept or reject who He wishes. I would, however, attempt to reason with all in the manner before stated.

Your striving fellow servant

-- Anonymous, June 10, 2000

I am reminded of the ex-Mormon Ed Decker, the founder of Saints Alive ministries. He was a "true-believer" Mormon for many years, but then began to have doubts. It was when he decided to visit a Christian church that was having a communion service that he finally saw the truth of Christianity. You see, Mormons partake of bread and water in their "Sacrament" services (I guess you could say they have a "watered-down" form of christianity). Being a Mormon and thinking himself a "superior" Christian, Ed felt nothing about partaking of the Lord's supper at the church he was visiting. But here, in the fruit of the vine, Ed was for the first time physically face to face and in contact with the BLOOD. That was such a shock to him that in his heart he left Mormonism right then and there.

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2000

What is your opinion on women serving the Lord's Supper?

Many people are dead against this... yet we must remember that they have no authority over men in doing so and they can even sit in the pew next to their husbands and pass the tray... what is the difference?

-- Anonymous, June 11, 2000

Danny & Marc --

One example re: children and communion. While as parents we don't have our children partake of communion on a regular basis, we do at certain times. This past weekend I had the joy of spending time with Daniel (7) and T.J. (4) at a Father & Son Retreat at our camp. Sunday, The children partook of the communion with me. I enjoyed that. Daniel knows what it represents, and while TJ does not yet, I felt there was nothing wrong with it.

Side bar: Whoever was supposed to bring the communion items forgot. They ended up using small pieces of white sandwich bread, and grape flavored drink. :)

Marc -- think of it this way. The only thing the folks "serving" communion are doing is facilitating the movement of the trays from row to row, person to person. Therefore, women "serve" communion every Sunday when they faciltate the movement of the tray from the person on their right, to themselves, to the person on their left.

Serving communion is one of the most basic "serving" ministries anyone can participate in ... why not "allow" everyone to participate. How about having families take turns serving the emblems together? We did that in Cocoa at our "non-traditional" service. Worked out great, and a lot of ladies who wanted to participate were glad to do so. No "leadership" here, nothing that "usurps authority" or any of that ... just a great opportunity to serve their brothers and sisters in the Lord!

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Why even the formality of "appointing" servers?

In a previous church I was at, we had one man get up, explain to visitors and remind newbies what was about to happen, directed the plates to be passed, then lead the thoughts, praying over each element of the Lord's Supper. The communion plates were on small tables strategically placed along the side walls. Those near the plates were to get up and take one, passing it down the row, and at the end of row, pass it forward one row or back one. No one was ever appointed for the duty of passing the plates, it was just done.

And, Danny, I was often the one up front, where I typically wore jeans and sneakers. In the summer, that was dressed up: like most my age and younger (and some older), I wore knee-long shorts most the rest of the time.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "Let me save you some time.....don't bother with the 1 Cor. 11 passage......we all know that Paul is referring to the Christians in Corinth who were abusing the Lord's suppers." and "When I ask for the Scriptural basis for such....if I get anything....I get a misunderstood application of 1 Cor. 11....which I translate into.....no Scriptural basis at all."

Can you help me out by sharing the correctly understood application of 1 Cor. 11?? Do verses 27 and 28 apply to us as Christians today? What exactly is/was the 'unworthy manner' in verse 27? What is/was each partaker to 'examine himself' about in verse 28?

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Darrell,

Like the idea of families serving communion. We're in an area where most of the kids are too young, but I'll keep that in mind. We did start having women help serve communion. No real problems, although my wife did have a man get up from his seat and walk over to the other side of the row, where a man was serving. He and his wife then left the service. They are former members who would come back once-in-awhile to "check things out." They haven't been back since. Funny, I didn't lose much sleep over that . . .

One other thing, we used to have a note in our bulletin stating that communion was for immersed believers. We had someone come on Easter who had not been immersed. She wanted to take communion, but did not because of our note. She never came back, so we never got the opportunity to "show her the way more fully." We got rid of that note after that.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Danny,

Many thanks for your answer! I'm not sure I understand the body in this case to be that of the church, but....

1) the verses do apply today, and 2)those who partake are to be examining themselves concerning their attitude toward the body, right? In other words, they are to be searching themselves for sin??

If a child can do that... then they must be able to discern whether or not they have sinned? If they can discern sin in their lives and understand that the symbolic emblems represent Christ's sacrifice (body & blood), then shouldn't they too be at the point of understanding the need for the blood of Christ themselves? I guess, in my mind, the understanding necessary to be involved in both baptism and communion are so related that they should be 'linked'. Thoughts?

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2000

Danny, I have always also understood the body to be our fellow believers. It seems to be plain to me in the passage. Yet I cannot recall ever hearing another say the same until you! (In 25 years!) Why do we not hear this from the pulpit, during the "meditations"? If partaking in a worthy manner is so important (and it is!), shouldn't we be making it very clear exactly what a worthy and an unworthy manner is?

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Can't answer that one John.

Sound exegesis makes it very clear in the passage. Why people "muddy it up" is beyond me.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

John,

In the mid-80s, I "saw" it preached: our preacher Bruce made the elders wonder if one of them was going to have to ad-lib a sermon when he decided that before he partook communion that morning he needed to settle a riff with a brother at another congregation -- one across town (ok, Tallahassee isn't New York or Chicago, still ...). Lucky for all of us, Bruce caught the brother in the parking lot of the other church before he went in for Sunday School and they worked things out.

And Bruce did make it back just in time for the Lord's Supper, which we did before the sermon.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Danny

A long time ago in Viet Nam,out in the boonies, I began to see the Lords Supper in a new light. Each Sunday I met with white, black, indian, and spanish men to sing, pray, hear the Word and share togeather in The Lords Supper. A wafer was placed on our tongue by a denominational preacher wearing fatigues and a robe. We drank from a common cup. "Grape juice and unleavened bread". That part I'm particular about. I am sure I was meeting with baptist, methodist, etc. although it didn't really cross my mind at the time. I did it then and I would do the same again. It was not my place to judge others and determine if they should partake or for that matter, who should pass the elements. No doubt others here have similar experiences. This gave me a better understanding of what Communion with Christ really is. It is between me and him.

In the local church when I see someone that has not followed the plan of salvation sharing in the Lords Supper I see a person that most likely desires to be faithful. Enter teacher.

No doubt there are many "Judas" that share in the Lord's supper then betray him. But I still find no place in the scriptures giving me authotity to forbid communion to others.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

In the local church when I see someone that has not followed the plan of salvation sharing in the Lords Supper I see a person that most likely desires to be faithful. Enter teacher.

No doubt there are many "Judas" that share in the Lord's supper then betray him. But I still find no place in the scriptures giving me authotity to forbid communion to others.

-- Faris A Sweet (fsweet8@yahoo.com), June 13, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Well said Faris....well said. And....I might add.....one of the driving principles of the early restoration fathers.

-- Danny Gabbard, Sr. (PYBuck12pt@cs.com), June 13, 2000.

I'm sorry to open this can or worms, Danny, but I've got to ask this . . .

How does this fit with your strongly stated position against having anything to do with Promise Keepers?

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

I mean, you have no problems sharing the Lord's Supper with them, but you can't be found singing praises with them, or joining them as certain spiritual truths are preached among them?

I truly don't understand this one, Danny.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Danny,

I want to state the concept I was getting at again, as your response didn't really seem to address it.

Everyone who partakes should examine themselves. About what? According to you and others(and I'm not saying it is wrong... just that I don't have as clear a grasp on it as you do)... about having any problems with someone in the church body. To put it another way, we are to see if we are "at odds with other members of His church", right? How can someone who has no "concept of being at odds with other members of His church" examine themselves concerning that very thing? In other words, how can one examine themselves about something which they have no concept of?

I would think that Paul's "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup." indicates that the partaker should be able to examine themselves. This seems to indicate a certain level of understanding. (And, if the examination is to be about division in the church body... then an understanding of sin and forgiveness is required.)

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Danny,

Can we not agree that the "certain level of understanding" is at least understanding enough to examine themselves concerning sin in their heart against a brother (and about seeking forgiveness for it)? Isn't that what Paul indicates in verse 28? Now, if someone understands sin & forgiveness and understands about the body & blood of Christ.... wouldn't they understand enough to be baptized and have their recognized sin washed away by the blood?

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Concerning 'the body'....

Is 'body' as referred to in verse 24 ("This is my body..." -- referring to the bread) and verse 27 ("...sinning against the body... of the Lord.") the same 'body' as referred to in verse 29? I would say Yes... all represent Christ's body as sacrificed for us. Below are the NIV and KJV of verse 29.... they both use words other than the "judge" used in the NASB ("recognize" and "discern"). Which is best?

Verse 29 (NIV) "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. "

Verse 29 (KJV) "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. "

Just from reading the passage, it looks to me like Paul is saying that they need to come together and "eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord" and recognize that it is a memorial feast "in remembrance of" Christ. In other words, they need to realize what they are doing.... they obviously were not doing that. They were coming together and eating and drinking but... not remembering. Verse 20 seems to support this.... they were coming together, but it wasn't the Lord's Supper they were eating... they were treating it like a meal. Verses 33 and 34 also seem to support this.... Rather than concluding with an admonishment about division in the church, Paul concludes the whole discussion by going back to the issue of eating the meal at home so as to avoid the judgement of not recognizing the Lord in the Lord's Supper when they came together.

Ok, teach me the err of my ways..... :-)

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2000

Danny,

I do have some understanding of 1 Corinthians, Agape feasts, and of the difference between our observance and the early church's.... and still, to me, this particular passage dealing with the Lord's Supper is not clearly a reference to division within the church body. In fact, my interpretation being that it is over the fact that they were gathering without remembering Christ (which was why Christ instituted it in the first place) seems to make more sense....

Above you said, "Sound exegesis makes it very clear in the passage. Why people "muddy it up" is beyond me." Please understand that I am not trying to "muddy it up".... I am trying to fully convince myself that what you say is correct... I just haven't yet. Come on others... I would love to hear other insight into this.

Specific questions from above: 1) Is the 'body' in verses 24, 27, and 29 different in 29? Why? 2) Why did Paul conclude as he did in verses 33 and 34...? (Eating at home to avoid the problem.) 3) What is the best word in verse 29: "judge", "discern", or "recognize"? Why?

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Danny,

Wow!! You really do have a tendency to "read into" things. I came home from Bible Study just now fully anticipating (ie., looking forward to) your response (and, hopefully, others). Just because I indicated that I would like to hear from others did not imply that I was in any way through listening to (and trying to learn from) you!!!

So far, you have not really helped convince me that you are correct... but instead have pointed out where you think my "main problem" is without knowing anything about my background. I have listed specific questions... please take time to address them. I am hoping to learn more about this question which you say has such an easy answer... but I know there are MANY brothers in our churches that have not been taught what you are saying (NOTICE: I am not necessarily saying what you are saying is incorrect... just that it is not widely taught 'in the ranks'.... as John W. has alluded to above). I am seeking the truth.

My asking for other insight was exactly that... trying to see what some others thought. If they all write in and say, "Amen, Danny!"... that is fine (I hope they also add something from which I can learn).

A friendly piece of advice based on various 'conversations' I have seen you involved in: Slow down a bit and really read and comprehend what people are saying (asking) before jumping in with your response.

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Danny,

Thanks for your answer. I saw the smiley face in your previous reply... but I also saw that you didn't answer and that you implied you wouldn't. (Actions speak louder than words... or in this case 'smilely faces'!) :-)

You said, "What more can I explain?? I'm about explained out.".... Sorry if I seem to be a slow learner. I like to think of it as being careful... kind of like a Berean.

I have actually been introduced to this teaching previously and therefore, didn't mean to indicate that I thought it was new. I have also seen taught what I am proposing. In other words, I don't really believe that it is only me that is looking at this passage differently than you.

You have said, "John's point in his post was that it is a shame that this meaning of the text is not brought out more often.

I believe the reason is because people have preconceived ideas about communion (tainted by RC as Dr. Jon points out)....so they proof text in order to try to defend their position. "

What preconceived idea of communion do you see me trying to support? Only that the Lord's Supper is a time to remember HIM... His physical body sacrificed and His blood shed for us. That is why it was instituted. As far as why it is not taught more often as you see it... perhaps because it is not as clear to all....

Notice the word "may" in this part of the commentary you quote, "...so this may mean that he eats and drinks unworthily who has never realized that the whole Church is the body of Christ but is at variance with his brother. " (emphasis mine) To me that indicates that this "excellent Greek scholar"... wasn't sure.

You have indicated that I should ask one question at a time.... let's start with: 1) Is the 'body' in verses 24, 27, and 29 different in 29? Why?

One more... how should I interpret the silence of others on this question? Do they all agree with you and find this discussion mundane? Or something else....

-- Anonymous, June 14, 2000

Couldn't the unworthy manner in 1 Cor.11:27 mean anything that was unworthy? I agree with Danny that the Corinthians problem was selfishness, but does that mean that was the only problem?

For illustrative purposes... suppose I knew a man who committed adultery against his wife and I said that he was an unworthy husband. Obviously I would mean because he committed adultery, but I could also mean he was unworthy because he beat her or did not think of her as he should.

Couldn't the Corinthians be partaking in an unworthy manner because they were selfish and possibly had other problems?

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Danny,

A majority of time (at least in verses not dealing with the Lord's Supper), I believe, "body" and "body of the Lord" refers to the church people. Is that what you believe "body" refers to in 24, 27, and 29? ......or, in your view, just in 29? Pretty much the 4th time I have asked this... hope you don't "answer" with yet another question! :-)

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

One more approach to this (and I hope this doesn't detract from my question above... as I would really like an answer to it):

In the other 'communion' thread, Lee wrote: "Even the taking of the Lords Supper requires that we examine ourselves and take in a worthy manner. This examination, if done properly, would cause us to consider if we have loved God by keeping His commandments. So that one who neglects all that he considers less important commands of God than the taking of the Lords Supper is never going to be able to pass the examination of Himself prior to communing with the Lord. He will only stand in grave danger of drinking damnation to his own soul. "

Now, if the 'body' in verse 29 is the church, then the verse seems to indicate that we are to examine ourselves only about our relationship with our Christian brothers, right? BUT, is that the case? Aren't we to, as Lee says, "consider if we have loved God by keeping His commandments. "? Keeping His commandments implies much more than just our relationship with our brothers, doesn't it? So...... doesn't it make more sense that we are to see/recognize/discern/remember in the 'body'.... CHRIST, His sacrifice, and our relationship with Him? In other words, that we are to examine our whole relationship with Him... not just our relationships within the church.

Further re-reading in this thread and the other 'communion' one (while in the middle of writing this) makes me realize that this is sort of what Marc was saying also. You answered him in part, "Hermeneutics does not allow me to give Paul more than one meaning to what he said. However, I'm free to apply the interpretation and the undelying principle any way I desire. " If you interpret verse 29 to read as follows, "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing His church eats and drinks judgment on himself." (paraphrase), how do you then make application that we are to examine for other things (ie., not obeying God's commands, etc.)? On the other hand, if verse 29 is interpreted to read, "For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing Christ as Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. " (paraphrase), then the whole gamut of introspection is required.

Whew!

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

I Corinthians 11:26-31: AMPLIFIED

24: And when he had given thanks, he broke [it], and said, Take, eat. This is My Body which is broken for you. Do this to call me [affectionately] to remembrance.

25: Similarly when supper was ended, He took the cup also, saying, This is the cup of the new covenant, [ratified and established] in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink [it], to call Me [affectionately] to remembrance.

26: For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are representing and signifying and proclaiming the fact of the Lord's death until He comes again.

27: So then whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that is unworthy [of Him] will be guilty of (profaning and sinning against) the body and the blood of the Lord.

28: let a man [thoroughly] examine himself, and [only] when he hasdone so should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29: For anyone who eats and drinks without discriminating and recognizing with due appreciation that [it is Christ's] body, eats and drinks a sentence - - a verdict of judgment - - upon himself.

30: That [careless and unworthy participation] is the reason many of you are weak and sickly, and quite enough of you are fallen into the sleep of death.

31: For if we searchingly examined ourselves - - detecting our shortcomings and recognizing our own condition - - we should not be judged and penalty decreed [by the divine judgment].

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Danny,

Thanks for your reply!

Concerning hermenutics you say, "My hermenutics does not allow me to interpret a passage outside the mainstream of the context of both the chapter and the book." and "Again....back to the reason for my question.....this is the normal useage of the term "body"....and an axiom of hermeneutics is to always allow a word its normal useage. "

There must be another "axiom of hermenutics" that you haven't stated, right? The very fact that you use a different interpretation of 'body' in verses 24 and 27 indicates that you don't "ALWAYS allow a word its normal useage" (emphasis mine). Secondly, what does hermenutics say about the interpretation of a word based on IMMEDIATE context? Isn't that how you were able to give 'body' in 24 and 27 its meaning? To me it seems you must go 'outside' of the immediate context in order to give verse 29 a totally different meaning than what you twice give the very same word just a couple of verses previously.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Danny,

Thanks much for your time and effort spent on this discussion. I do indeed believe that I understand your perspective on this passage....

I see you are off to 'fry bigger fish'.... :-)

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Danny,

I never thought that your point of view would be "off the cuff"... in fact, that is why I pursued the discussion with you... because I knew that I would be able to understand your understanding when we were done. Whether or not we totally agree on this "small thing" is not really of consequence... what is, is that we both are looking for what the scripture truly means.

Why am I still unconvinced that the 'body' in verse 29 is the church? Because I believe that when Christ instituted the Lord's Supper he would have done so 'fully'... in other words, he would have indicated everything needed to 'get it right'... he wouldn't have left something out. What did he say? "Do this in remembrance of me." No way can it be determined from those words that we should examine ourselves concerning our relationship with our brothers... BUT, it can be determined from those words that we should 'discern' Christ (his body and blood) in what we are doing.

Not really "new ground", but I wanted you to understand one of the things that keeps me unconvinced so far.... I am further studying and discussing with a couple of others... I'll let you know if I have any great insight either way! :-)

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000