vs 23
So Paul passed onto the Corinthians the method of celebrating the Lord's Supper which God had revealed to him, but it seems they have turned it into a farce.
vs 24-25
Although not directly reflected in any of the gospels, this most closely resembles Luke's report of the last supper. Which is not surprising of course, because Luke was one of those which hung out with Paul. The focus here is obviously on remembrance (ie rather than eating).
vs 26
There is also a sense that, as well as remembering the Lord (it is more than his death - it is who he is, and why he died, and why him dying is so important), we are proclaiming him by taking the emblems. Now my understanding is that they didn't do this out in public, so it wasn't that sort of proclaimation. Communion isn't an evangelistic tool, per se.
I guess that even the act of constant remembrance is a proclaimation in itself, because it is this one enduring symbol, this Christian religious rite, that is what Christians are known for more than anything. If you are celebrating something in a certain way, and regularly, then it is going to be what people know about you.
vs 27
It's been said before, but I'll say it again - this verse is not written to unbelievers, but to believers. It is up to us to judge before we take the emblems what state we are in, not to judge other people (although that comes later, I'm pre-empting it). And it seems to refer far more directly to the Corinthians' inability to wait for others before beginning their feast.
vs 28
Paul wants the Corinthian believers to think about what they are doing when they are enjoying their love feast together. It's not just a matter of fellowship, it is a matter of remembrance. This doesn't mean I agree with the solemn nature of our current communions, but it is fairly clear that Corinth had swung too much the other way.
vs 29
It would be easy to see why this could apply to non-believers, because they do not "recognise the body of the Lord". But that's not who it's for. "Recognise" in this case doesn't mean "to identify a thing as what it is as opposed to another thing". It is more in keeping with the jive meaning, "reco-nize" (with appropriate hand gesture) - that is, to make disctinction, to elevate in estimation of value. So it is those who do not give these symbols of Jesus' body and blood proper value and recognition that are drinking judgement on themselves.
vs 30
This makes it sound like, if you don't drink the cup correctly, you're going to die or get sick or weak. And it sort of makes Christianity sound like a backwater hickville religion ("Yer sickyness comes from you all not takin' communion rahghtly"). But it doesn't have to be read like that. Paul is observing that God passes his judgement through regular occurences in this life. After the first plague in Egypt, people were probably thinking it was a typical disaster. When the 9th one came along, surely they knew there was something more to it. Same here - when one person dies, you write it off as a fact of life. When everyone in church is getting sick, feeling weak, or dying, you assume God's at work (or there is legionnare's disease in the air conditioning - but like many churches today, the 1st century churches of Corinth were not air conditioned).
vs 31
So basically, if we take the initiative and judge our response toward the emblems before we take them, we short-circuit God's temporal judgement on us for doing it badly.
vs 32
When we are judged by God (in the form of temporal badness like sickness and so on) it is a discipline which sets us apart from the rest of the world, who are always out and out condemning his body and sacrifice. They'll get theirs when the final judgement comes - we get ours beforehand so that we aren't part of the non-Christian rabble. Puts another spin on the people of God getting judged first.
vs 33
Easy to do in a church of 20 or so - harder even with 50 people. So setting a time and letting people know when you will start is probably a fair thing to do in our society, because most of us live so spread out these days, that it would be hard for us to even know who's coming from week to week.
vs 34
And so died the love feast, because Paul said that you shouldn't take communion if you're hungry. Of course, it was really a corrective to the Corinthians who were doing it stupidly, but we see it as a "for all time" command, and therefore we don't get to celebrate communion in a fellowshippy wonderful way, we celebrate it in a staid, reverential, religious way.
Paul will tell them more about this later, when he visits. We don't get to hear that stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Once more hearkening back to my dubious memory of the biblical dinner, I just wanted to add my two cents and point out the significance of breaking bread and the role it played in unification in that culture (and still does, apparently).
To restate simply, bread = life, is actually revered, etc, to the point where they won't use a knife to cut it, but will rather use both hands to break it where all other food was only touched with the one (clean) hand.
Also, a loaf of bread, even once broken, retains a sybolic unity; when two people eat from the one loaf, they have identified themselves as utterly unified. The ultimate symbol of peace between warring tribes or peoples is for their leaders to break bread and eat it together. It ensures lasting peace as long as those two leaders live.
This sybolism was no doubt forefront in Paul's understanding of communion. Not only had Christ delcared peace between God and those who took communion, through the broken bread of his body, but those taking communion were declaring themselves one with God and one with each other. Hence the strictness with which Paul insisted that believers make sure there was no reason they couldn't do this with a clear conscience toward each other and God...
fwgsiwbq!
Post a Comment