1 Corinthians 11:27-34

 As we've discussed, there was a problem with Communion in the church at Corinth. It seems the Corinthians were having a feast or dinner before Communion or had even turned Communion itself into a common meal. But this meal, though it may have been common in the sense of being normal and ordinary, was not common in the sense of being social or communal. Instead, it had become a point of division. Some people were overeating while others had to be content with nothing. The Corinthians had somehow managed to make the occasion of Communion an occasion to further economic classism.

In the last section, Paul reminded the Corinthians about what Communion was supposed to be. Here, he follows that history lesson up with a serious warning.

The big idea of this passage is that communion is a serious matter and must be taken seriously. However, we have to be careful with that word 'serious.' That does not necessarily mean that Communion must be celebrated in a sad and somber manner. After all, it was instituted not with mourning but with the giving of thanks. Communion should be a time of joy. But we need to recognize that it is something important, something of weight, something unique and distinct from other things.

The keyword here is in verse 29, the word 'discerning.' The NET Bible says the Greek word can be literally translated: “judging between, recognizing, distinguishing.”

Imagine two cups; both are dinnerware items used to hold liquids for drinking. Functionally and categorically, both cups are the same. But suppose that one is made from glass and the other is made of plastic. And that difference in material means that one of the cups is much cheaper and much less fragile. And this difference means that there is a difference in the way you would treat them. This plastic cup requires no special care or handling. You could drop or throw this around, because it's not going to be hurt—and if it did, you buy them by the pack. While you would treat the glass cup with more care, because it could break easily and would be more expensive to replace.

This is discernment--recognizing the difference between two things and treating them according to their nature. And that is what the Corinthians failed to do regarding Communion; they failed to understand that Communion was something different from any other, ordinary meal and should be treated as such. 

And that failure in discernment led to taking communion unworthily. Note that in verse 27, when Paul warns against taking communion unworthily, unworthily is an adverb, not an adjective. It describes the act, not the actor. The NET Bible translates it “in an unworthy manner.” Strong says it could be translated “irreverently.”

The issue here is not people who are not worthy to take part in communion. Realistically, no one would be worthy of having a part in this. The issue is when people fail to discern and recognize what communion is, and so do not treat it as something special, but instead treat it like any ordinary meal.

We must approach communion with a recognition of its reality. This is not something that comes from man. There are many purely human celebrations and ceremonies. Many of these are wholesome or helpful in their own way. Many may be used by God. But communion is different. It was instituted by Christ; it has a reality that transcends our own.

Paul says that if one partakes unworthily, they are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This seems to mean that, in some sense and to some degree, our attitude to and treatment of communion is equivalent to our attitude to and treatment of Christ. 

And, as such, there are consequences for those who do not treat communion properly. For some, communion ceases to be a means of grace and becomes a means of judgment. Paul says that some are eating and drinking damnation. But that translation is somewhat misleading. In modern Christian parlance, we use damnation to refer to Hell, to the final consequences of sin. But that is not necessarily what the word means (either the English word or its Greek equivalent), and that's clearly not what Paul is talking about here. 

The Greek word can be translated 'condemnation' or 'judgment.' Those who misused Communion would be judged and condemned by God, and that would lead to punishment. But that punishment was not, as we use the word, damnation. Instead, it was something temporal. Paul says that many of the Corinthians were weak and sickly. God had inflicted physical ailments on them as discipline for their irreverence. (A few commentators suggest that this refers to spiritual weakness and sickness, but this seems less likely.) A few of them had even died. Paul uses the term 'sleep'; this is a euphemism for death used by the Bible, but usually for the death of the Christian, since for the Christian, death is only temporary. Many commentators take this to mean that even though these people had been struck down in judgment, they were still saved in the end.

Paul refers to this kind of judgment as chastening. The Greek word here comes from the word for child and refers to the discipline that a father uses to teach and train their child. This is separate from the condemnation that will come on those outside God's people.

There is a progression here. There is a condemnation that will come on the world, and we can escape that by being Christians. God has discipline for His people to help them stand so that they can remain separate and free from the condemnation of the world. But we can also escape the discipline from God if we exercise self-discipline. The more well-behaved a child is, the less the parents have to do to get them to behave. That is Paul's idea here—Christians ought to behave themselves, especially when it comes to Communion. In particular, the Christian should take Communion with self-examination, making sure that their motives and attitude are appropriate and fitting. 

That is the general advice. But he also has two more pieces of far more concrete advice specifically for the Corinthians. 

(1) 'Tarry one for another.' There should be no sense of division or competition within the church but especially during Communion. This is a time when the church must be together as an organic whole.  Remember that this is the point that started this entire section—the fact that there were divisions and schisms within the church. Communion had become a time of separation instead of a time of, you know, communion. This had to stop. And while acknowledging and understanding the sacred aspect of communion was essential, the practical side was that everything around and leading up to communion must be done as a congregation, not as isolated parties within the church.

In verse 29, Paul warned that there would be judgment for those who did not discern the Lord's body. Most people take this as referring to Communion, that (as I said earlier), in some sense and to some degree, communion should be taken as the real presence of Christ. But some understand that in another way. Because the Bible—and 1 Corinthians particularly—also refer to the church as the Body of Christ. And if we bring a partisan or exclusionary attitude to communion, we are not discerning the body--we are not treating and recognizing the reality of the church as the body of Christ.

Jesus makes it clear that our religious approach to God cannot be separated from our social responsibilities. “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24)

Especially, within the church, there must be union if there is to be communion, and we should shun anything which needlessly disrupts that.

(2) Paul's second piece of advice is verse 34: “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home.” There is a range of interpretations for this verse, and it relates to how you interpret some of the other things in this passage. But I take it to mean this: the Lord's Supper is a supper, but it is not primarily intended as a meal. Adam Clarke puts it: “Let him... take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view.” A Christian (if possible) should not approach communion with a physical hunger so great that he is tempted to treat it as mere calories and nothing more.

Apparently, there were other problems cropping up with Communion, but these were the main pieces of advice Paul could give, and he hoped to visit soon to help with smaller, less important matters.

This is another of the sections of 1 Corinthians that are hard for me to relate to. The idea of treating communion as if it were a common meal is a very foreign one to modern Christians. Holiness people, if anything, have a tendency to go the other extreme—of treating communion as so sacred and special that it almost becomes invisible. 

But I think there are two big ideas we can take away from this passage. First is the importance of Communion—Paul treats this as something special and set apart from ordinary religious observances. And second is the importance of the church. The church—the church as an organization or an organism, not merely as a building—is also something that matters to God, and anything that causes division and disunity is a problem. This connects back to the opening of 1 Corinthians, where Paul showed how the Corinthians' attitude was causing division within the church. And this connects forward to the next several chapters, where Paul deals with other matters that were causing disunity within the church.