Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 11
11:1 Be imitators of me, even as I am of
Christ- This verse is best linked to the preceding chapter 10,
where Paul urges the Corinthians to put the spiritual profit of others
before their own personal conscience on some issues. Paul's relationship
with and perception of the Lord Jesus is held up by the Spirit as our
example. He himself asks us to copy (Gk.
mimic) the way in which he
followed the Lord Jesus (this is what 1 Cor. 11:1 implies in the Greek).
His mind was increasingly
saturated with the Gospels,
and with the surpassing excellency and supremacy of the
Lordship of the risen Jesus.
The idea of consciously modelling, of having some characters as your
heroes, your inspiration towards a closer following of God, was very much
in Paul's thinking. Not only does he do it himself, but he encourages
others to do it. He doesn't use the word 'modelling'; he uses the word
'mimicking', Greek
mimicos, normally translated "follow" in the AV. This Greek
word is used almost exclusively by Paul:
"Ye became
followers of us and of the
Lord.... ye know how ye ought to
follow us...an ensample unto
you to
follow us" (1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7,9; the
implication is that in the gap between 1 and 2 Thessalonians, they stopped
following Paul as they initially did straight after his conversion of
them).
"Be ye
followers of me" (1 Cor. 4:16;
11:1)
"Whose faith
follow (i.e. that of your
ecclesial elders)" (Heb. 13:7)
Be "followers of them who through faith and patience
inherit the promises", e.g. Abraham (Heb. 6:12)
"Ye, brethren, became
followers of the churches...
in Judea" (1 Thess. 2:14).
So Paul encourages them to mimic him, to mimic Abraham, to mimic the
persecuted ecclesias in Judea, to mimic the faithful elders in the
Jerusalem ecclesia (e.g. Peter),
so that they would be better
mimickers of the Father and Son. But the idea of mimicking involves a
child-likeness, an intellectual humility, a truly open mind. Why Paul used
that word rather than a word which simply meant 'to copy' or 'to follow'
was perhaps because he wanted to stress that this kind of conscious
modelling of your life on someone else involved a real need for openness
of mind to the word, resulting in an unfeigned, uncontrived, child-like
mimicking. Paul is really encouraging his readers to get involved in this
'mimicking' of faithful examples, of absorbing their spirit into our own
by careful, sustained meditation. Will we rise up to it? Or are we still
on the level of whizzing through our Bible reading in 10 minutes / day,
giving little thought to what we've read throughout the next 24 hours?
11:2 Now I praise you who remember me in all things- This
reflects the wide range in the church at Corinth. There were those who
were obedient to the commands and teaching Paul gave, and at the other
extreme, there were those who worked as and made use of church
prostitutes. The way the more spiritual remained within such an apostate
community is a challenge to us all, not least to those who insist on
leaving any community which has the slightest apostasy.
And hold fast the traditions, as I delivered them to you-
This suggests there was a specific body of practical teachings which Paul
gave to his converts; and he frames his language in terms of Moses giving
the law to Israel. It was expected that the disciples of rabbis memorized
their teaching, and there's no reason to doubt that the Lord's disciples,
both those who immediately heard Him and those who subsequently became
disciples of their invisible Heavenly rabbi, would likewise have memorized
the gospel records of His words. This would account for the way they are
arranged [Mark especially] as series of 'pericopes', small bite-sized
sections which lend themselves to memorization. This would explain how
Paul can use technical terms for handing on a tradition (paradidomi, 1 Cor. 11:2,23) and receiving it (paralambano,
1 Cor. 15:1,3; Gal. 1:19; Col. 2:6; 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6); and
of faithfully retaining the tradition (katecho,
1 Cor. 11:2; 15:2;
krateo, 2 Thess. 2:15);
matched perhaps by John's insistence in his letters that the converts
retain that teaching which they received "from the beginning".
11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ,
the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God-
The head of “every man is Christ” only in the sense that “every
[believing] man” has this relationship with Him. “Every man” to God is
therefore those in Christ. “All” shall be made alive at the Lord’s return-
i.e. all “that are Christ’s” (1 Cor. 15:22,23). "All things" is a title of
the church in Ephesians and Colossians, and "any man" evidently means 'any
believer' in 1 Cor. 8:10. “All men... every man” means ‘all that believed’
in Acts 2:44,45. So what Paul now writes is specifically about
relationships between believers, and specifically in response to the
Corinthians' question which we do not have access to. "The head of Christ
is God" is a fair nail in the coffin of trinitarianism.
11:4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
dishonours his head- This may well be a criticism of the way
that under the influence of Judaism [which we have noted earlier was a
problem in Corinth], some of the brothers were covering their heads to
pray. The head of the man was Christ (:3), and by acting as if He needed
covering for sin and shame before God, they were dishonouring Him. Paul
repeatedly uses the same word to argue that in Christ, we are not ashamed
[s.w. 'dishonoured'] before God (Rom. 5:5; 9:33; 10:11 etc.). Those who
had fallen under the influence of Judaism and its practices had failed to
perceive this. And thus they were shaming their Lord, Jesus.
11:5- see on 1 Cor. 6:4.
But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled
dishonours her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were
shaven- I suggest there are a series of allusions to the trial
of jealousy in Numbers 5; and the idea of uncovering a woman's head
connects with how the woman suspected of infidelity had to have her head
uncovered (Num. 5:18). A woman's hair was seen as her glory, and a covered
head was associated with shame. It could be argued that the woman was
being treated as innocent until proven guilty, and even invited to openly
display her glory. The uncovering of the woman's head was a form of
shaming (as in 1 Cor. 11:5,6). She had to be shamed whether or not she was
guilty; and this led the man to a lose-lose scenario. If she was innocent,
then he had needlessly shamed him, she would likely not love him in
future, and he had to bear the sin of doing that (:31). If she were
guilty, then he had to support a barren wife for the rest of her life,
seeing the curses about killing or divorcing her were to be blotted out.
There are several such allusions to Numbers 5 in 1 Corinthians 11. The
idea there of drinking unto condemnation or blessing / justification
simply has to be understood in the Numbers 5 context. And it is no
accident that the language of a woman having an uncovered head also
occurs. What's the connection and the bigger picture? I suggest that what
was happening in Corinth was that members who had sinned were being
publically shamed before the congregation by e.g. the sinful sisters being
made to sit in the meeting with uncovered heads. In Middle Eastern
societies today, forcing a woman to uncover her head is a source of shame.
Paul is saying that paradoxically, such misbehaviour in the Corinth
ecclesia was actually 'shaming' those demanding it; "I speak this to your
shame" (1 Cor. 6:5; 11:22; 15:34). The allusions to Numbers 5 would
therefore be saying: 'You are publicly shaming some sisters by making them
remove their veils / head coverings in your meetings; and by the way in
which you eat the Lord's supper, you are also purposefully shaming some
(:22). Instead,
you should be the ones in shame for your behaviour. By doing
so, even if indeed those sisters have sinned, you are acting like the
husband who uses the Numbers 5 legislation. Instead, whenever you drink
the cup, examine
yourselves and not others, and remember that you are the one
who is being tested by the Lord's cup- either to your condemnation or
justification'. Paul will soon go on to point out that the Corinthians
were wrongfully shaming some within the church at the breaking of bread
meetings (:22 "shame" is the same Greek word translated "dishonour" here
in :4,5).
Shaved female heads were associated with prostitution in first century
Corinth. To shame a woman by making her remove her head covering was
effectively labelling her as a prostitute. Paul is against all such
shaming behaviour; it is a tendency of religions to shame others, and Paul
is deeply critical of it. The irony of course was that according to our
notes on chapters 6 and 7, there were church prostitutes operating within
the Corinthian church. And yet any sister who got on the wrong side of the
leadership was shamed as being a common street whore by demanding she wear
her hair uncovered. It ought to be clear enough that these verses speak to
a very specific situation within Corinth according to the culture of that
time and place; they can not legitimately be used to require women to wear
head coverings at all Christian meetings in the world today.
11:6
For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn; but if it is
a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled-
See on :4. The male eldership were seeking to shame some women, just as
they shamed others by not providing food for them at their memorial feasts
(:22). Paul is saying that to make a woman take her veil off is the same
as making her shave her head. Instead of shaming her, they should allow
her to be veiled as she dearly wished to be in that society.
11:7
For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as
he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man-
When we read that man is the "image and glory of God" (1 Cor.
11:7), it seems to me that Paul is stating something which is only
potentially true, rather than stating a global principle which is true for
all males from birth until death- for he elsewhere says that we must be
transformed
into the image of God (2 Cor. 3:18), speaking of a progressive
renewal in knowledge until we come to the image of our creator (Eph. 4:24;
Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18). This kind of approach is common in Paul- he
speaks of a state of being which we should rise up to, as if we already
have it. He's surely inspiring us to rise up to our potential.
But another approach is suggested by observing that the whole arguments
in 11:7-15 appear very contradictory. Woman was created out of the man, so
she is to have her head covered (:8); but "in the Lord, however, woman is
not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman" (:11). Whether or
not a woman should pray with uncovered head is considered to be something
they should judge (:13). Long hair should be exposed and gloried in as a
woman's covering (:14,15); whereas :10 says she should over her hair to
show she is under her husband's authority. And the more one re-reads this
section, the more apparent contradictions appear. An answer could be to
remember that there are no quotation marks in the original text; and that
Paul is quoting or alluding to the questions and arguments of the
Corinthians. I suggest that he is quoting here from their arguments, which
they had been using to justifying shaming some women by making them pray
with uncovered heads. I suggest that :7-11 are all quotation from the
arguments used by the Corinthians; and then :12 Paul answers all this by
saying that "in the Lord" there is no such distinction. He then concludes
by saying that contrary to what some wanted to imply, there was no
universally agreed practice regarding head coverings in the churches
(:16). Those who insist upon a head covering policy as a global truth are
totally ignoring Paul's statement. The whole question depends upon local
customs and attitudes to women, and whatever they are, in whatever time or
place, the principle of :11,12 must be accepted: "In our life in the Lord,
however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and
it is God who brings everything into existence". On this foundation, we
are to "judge for ourselves" on these matters (:13), remembering that
there is no universal principle to be enforced about them (:16).
11:8
For the man is not of the woman, but woman of the man-
See on :7. I suggest this is part of the Corinthians' argument which
Paul is quoting. It seems they as Gentiles had fallen under the influence
of Judaist arguments.
11:9 For neither was the man
created for the woman, but the woman for the man-
This was very much the language of Judaism- that women were created to
serve men. It could be that Paul is here quoting it and then goes on to
deconstruct it in the section beginning at :11.
11:10- see on Acts 18:18.
For this cause ought the woman to
have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels-
If this continues the quotation from the Corinthians'
argument, then they would be arguing that because of how the Angels
ordained things at the creation, the women should wear head coverings to
show they were under their husband's authority. This was a distinctly
Jewish attitude; and the reference to "Angels" is again Jewish, seeing
Jewish thought was quite obsessed with Angels.
But it could be that at church meetings, indeed the Angel are literally
present, and this command was to help those present be aware of this.
Great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving
through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to
fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and
bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on Gen. 18:10.
11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord,
neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman-
This reference to how things should be in Christ, presumably in
distinction and contrast to the ideas Paul has just quoted in :7-10. Paul
is seeking to balance their Judaist-interpretation of the Genesis record
by arguing that male and female are equal before God and interdependent.
11:12 For as the
woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are
of God-
Paul is here balancing their argument that because woman was
made out of man, therefore she must be subservient and wear a head
covering to symbolize it. He reminds them that in fact man is taken out of
woman at birth. And it is not so that males are superior to females simply
because Eve was made out of Adam's bone. For it is God who is the creative
source of all things, not man; and His creative power is responsible for
not just humans but literally "everything".
11:13 Judge for yourselves. Is it
appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled?- The Corinthians had
asked for Paul's judgment on this matter. Having explained some
principles, Paul now throws the judgment back over to them. But he will
argue in :14,15 that the whole issue of whether a woman should be covered
or not is misplaced because God has given women a natural head-covering,
in their hair. That covering should not be covered by human covering laws,
so :15 implies. And this will lead up to the clear statement in :16 that
this should not be the matter of contention which it was at Corinth, and
there is no inspired standard for all the brotherhood to follow. As Paul
puts it here in :13, we must "judge for yourselves" given the local
culture and customs we find ourselves in.
11:14- see on Jn. 16:2.
Does not nature itself teach you,
that if a man has long hair it is a dishonour to him?-
This was true within the cultural context of Corinth. Nature does not
teach that to all people in all cultures at all times. And "long hair"
only applies to some people. Paul obviously isn't speaking about Africans
whose hair cannot easily be described as "long". So he is obviously
writing in a very limited context- to those at Corinth.
11:15 But if a woman has long
hair, it is a glory to her. For her hair is given her for a covering-
As noted on :14, this too is culturally limited to a specific
time and place. Long hair is no longer seen as beautiful of itself, and
again, "long hair" here surely doesn't refer to African Christians. The
whole argument is limited to Corinth and the culture of that day. But Paul
is making this observation in order to demonstrate that the whole argument
about female head-coverings is misplaced. And that would be typical of
both the Lord and Paul- to answer an argument or question by stating a
mega principle which contextualizes the specific questions.
11:16
But if anyone seems to be contentious, let them know we have no
such custom, neither do the churches of God- As noted on
the previous verses, Paul is saying that contrary to what some contentious
members wanted to imply, there was no universally agreed custom in
the churches about head-coverings. It was a matter of each judging for
themselves within their cultural contexts, but bearing in mind the
principles of :11,12 (see on :13). It is typical of many contentious
individuals to this day that they will argue and assume that their
particular fetish of interpretation must be universally accepted in all
Christian churches.
11:17- see on 1 Cor. 7:17
But in giving you this instruction, I do not praise you- for you
come together not for the better but for the worse- The
"instruction" here concerning how the breaking of bread meeting should be
run was not an answer to questions- but an instruction. Their behaviour
there was so bad that it would be better for them not to do it. For it was
for their "worse" rather than their spiritual betterment.
11:18
For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear
that divisions exist among you- Corinth ecclesia had cases of
gross immorality, even incest; some got drunk at the memorial meeting,
used church prostitutes and some even denied Christ's resurrection. There
can be no question that such belief and practice was not ultimately
tolerated either by Paul or God. Yet notice the first thing which the
Spirit 'takes up' with Corinth. It wasn't any of these more obvious
things. It was the fact there was a spirit of factionism within the
ecclesia- "first of all" this was the issue Paul tackled. Just as he has
in chapter 10 argued that the principle of building each other up is far
more important than whether or not we personally consider idols and pagan
gods to have real existence. This is also the way the epistles
conclude (2 Cor. 13:11); Paul doesn't tell them 'Now don't forget what I
said about adultery and having concord with Belial'. Instead: "Finally,
brethren... be of one mind, live in peace".
And I partly believe it- This may not mean that Paul
was undecided as to whether it is true or not. For in chapter 1 he has
directly accused them of being a divided church. I suggest the sense is
rather: 'I believe / know that this is partly true'. Some in the church
were in line with the spirit of Paul's teaching (:2). But others weren't.
It was this 'part' who were answerable for the divisions.
11:19
For there must also be factions among you, that they that are
approved may be revealed among you- The allusion is to Mt.
18:7: "For it is necessary that the offences occur, but woe to that man
through whom the offence comes!". Causing division within the body is
therefore a sin which may exclude us from the Kingdom. It is so obviously
true to observed experience that factionism within the church causes
'offences' or spiritual stumbling. It is also true that the "approved" are
"revealed" by their correct response to the factionism. How we respond to
church division is one of the litmus tests that reveal our spirituality.
So many stumble... but it will be no excuse to tell the crucified Lord at
the last day that His death and pain for us was rejected by us because of
the cranky people in a church we attended. The cross is still there, and
His outstretched arms towards us must not be spurned because of an
argument here and hypocrisy there. Likewise those who see through those
things and will not be swayed from their focus on the Lord who loved them,
and who will not spurn His Spirit because others do, are thereby declared
"approved" even now. For the essence of judgment day is worked out today.
"Approved" translates a word meaning 'tried'; it is in James 1:12:
"Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he is
tried
he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them
that love Him". The experience of division in the church is the trial
through which we demonstrate our acceptance before the Lord, and even have
a foretaste of the Lord's acceptance at the last day.
Although sects and divisions should not be within the one body of
Christ, in another sense there must be such sectarianism that they which
are approved may be “made manifest” by their response to it- in
anticipation of how we will all be “made manifest” (s.w.) at the judgment
(Lk. 8:17; 1 Cor. 3:13). In this we see the Divine ecology; nothing is
wasted. There must not be divisions; but even when they do occur, they are
used by God in order to manifest the righteous and the principles of true
spirituality. Thus trial can easily arise from within our ecclesial
experience.
11:20
When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat-
Verse 21 goes on to reason that
the Lord's
supper has become
their own supper. Our breaking
of bread is
far far more than
just religious ritual, although on one level it is that. But
we must rise well above this. Israel kept the Passover (cp. the breaking
of bread), and yet to God they never
really kept it. The Corinthians took the cup of the
Lord and that of the idols; they broke bread with both (1 Cor. 10:21). But
they were told they
could not do this. They took
the cup of the Lord; but not in the Lord’s eyes. They turned
His supper into their
own supper. They did it, but
for themselves. And so in spiritual terms, they didn’t do it (1 Cor.
11:20.21). Just as the “Lord’s passover" became by the
time of the NT “the feast of
the Jews".
They turned His Passover into their own. Likewise they turned the house
of God into their
own house (Mt. 23:38); and the
Lord called the law of God through Moses as now “their
law" (Jn. 15:25). And so we must just accept the real
possibility that we can break bread on the surface, but not break bread.
We’ve probably all done this. Don’t let it become the norm. Likewise
Israel had to be asked the rhetorical question: “Have ye offered unto me
sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years?" (Am. 5:25).
Because they
also worshipped Molech, their
keeping of the feasts wasn’t accepted. So I can ask again: Do you
really break bread? Israel kept their Passovers throughout the
wilderness years, one would assume- but they never remembered the day that
God brought them out of Egypt (Ps. 78:42)- although notice how although
Israel didn't remember God, yet He remembered them in His grace (Ps.
106:7, 45).
11:21
For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes
hungry, another gets drunk- "His
own
meal" meant it was no longer
the Lord's
meal- see on :20. The idea of a ritual meal, accompanied by
abuse of alcohol and religious prostitutes, was typical of Corinthian
religiosity. Clearly the Christian church there had turned the communion
service into something similar. And worse still, the whole ceremony became
a place to flaunt wealth. And yet the meal was supposed to represent the
supreme unity enabled by the Lord's death, who on the cross became poor
for our sakes.
11:22
What, have you not houses to eat and to
drink in?- Paul has just been noting that some of them are
drunk at the breaking of bread service because they turned the service
into a feast similar to those of the idol cults. Paul is apparently
telling them to go to their own homes and carry on like this. My response
would have been to criticize them for getting drunk. But Paul's primary
concern is for the church as a whole, and the damage done to other
believers. And so he tells them to do this, if they must, in their own
homes. Another possibility is that 'their houses' refer to the houses of
the idols whose cults they were clearly still associated with. He would
then be telling them to not serve two masters, and seeing they attempted
to take the Lord's cup as well as that of idols (10:21) they were unable
therefore to properly take the Lord's cup at all (11:20). He may therefore
be telling them to go and carouse in the houses of their idols rather than
in the Christian church.
Yet another possibility arises from the fact that the church was split
into various house groups (listed in chapter 1); but they 'came together'
at combined breaking of bread meetings.This wasn’t the time to indulge in
a huge party, with all the emphasis upon eating and drinking your own food
and wine, rather than focusing upon that which God had provided in Jesus.
Hence he comments: “Have you not houses to eat and to drink in?” (1 Cor.
11:22). Given almost every reference to ‘house’ in Corinthians is to a
house church or to the spiritual house of God, it would seem Paul’s idea
is: ‘It’s OK to eat and drink and have a collective meal etc. in your
house church meetings. But don’t do that when you all meet together for
the breaking of bread- it’s getting divisive, because of the social
differences between the house groups which are made apparent by the choice
of food and drink’. They were to ‘discern the body of the Lord Jesus’ at
those gatherings- i.e. recognize that all of them gathered there, the
various house churches of Corinth, were in fact the collective body of
Christ (1 Cor. 11:29). If anyone was hungry and therefore in need of
material support, the combined breaking of bread meeting wasn’t the place
to raise the issue- he should “eat at home”, i.e. take food and support
from his local house church (1 Cor. 11:34). That’s surely a more
reasonable reading, for at face value it would seem the hungry brother
lacking food is being heartlessly told ‘Well go home and eat!’.
Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who do not
have? What shall I say to you? - The reference to shaming
connects to the allusions to the trial of jealousy commented on under :5.
To not offend others, to seek to save them, means that we will not despise
them. 1 Cor. 11:22 accuses some brethren of despising others [s.w. Mt.
18:10 about despising the little ones] in the ecclesia by “shaming” them.
If we perceive the value of persons, the meaning of others personhood, we
will not shame them in our words, gestures, body language or actions. No
“shameful speaking” should proceed out of our mouths (Col. 3:8 RV). Of
course, the true believer in Christ cannot be ashamed- for whilst some
stumble on Christ, the rock of offence, the believer in Him will not be
shamed (Rom. 9:33; 10:11- s.w. 1 Cor. 11:22). For his or her sure hope of
the Kingdom “maketh not [to be] ashamed” (Rom. 5:5). Again, if our hope of
the Kingdom is real to us, nobody will make us ashamed, will in reality
make us feel despised, or make us stumble. The reality ahead will transfix
us so that all human unkindness toward us gains no permanent lodgment in
our hearts. We do well to review our way of talking and acting to ensure
we do not shame others.
Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you!-
This connects to how he praised some of them in :2. But this group who
behaved in this way were not being praised.
11:23- see on 1 Cor. 11:2.
For I received of the Lord that which I in turn delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread-
The order of service which the Lord had given Paul required
just a cup of wine and loaf of bread. Their style of feasting was not at
all His intention. Note how Paul associates the themes of betrayal and the
breaking of bread- and John quotes the prophecy that “He who feeds on
bread with me has raised his heel against me" in the context of Judas
breaking bread with Jesus. “Is it I?" must be a dominant part of the
breaking of bread experience. The hint was clearly enough that there was
one present at the original last supper who had betrayed the Lord; and
Paul saw those who were also involved with the idol cults as being
represented by Judas the betrayer.
11:24- see on Jn. 6:51.
And when he had given thanks- Paul saw the breaking
of bread prefigured in Christ's feeding of the 4000 after taking the bread
and blessing it, and then distributing to the disciples and they to the
crowds (Mt. 15:36 = 1 Cor. 11:24). The connection surely show that the
breaking of bread was not based upon any closed table ideology, but was
radically open.
He broke it, and said: This is my body, which is for you. This do
in remembrance of me- Some manuscripts add "which is
broken for you". ‘Broken’ can imply divided and shared out.
The gruesome record of the Levite cutting up his wife’s body and sending
parts of the body throughout all Israel has much to teach us of the power
of the memorial service. It was done so that all who received the parts of
that broken body would “take advice and speak [their] minds" (Jud. 19:30).
It was designed to elicit the declaration of their hearts, and above all
to provoke to concrete action. Splitting up a body and sharing it with all
Israel was clearly a type of the breaking of bread, where in symbol, the
same happens. Consider some background, all of which points forward to the
Lord’s sufferings:
- The person whose body was divided up was from Bethlehem, and of the
tribe of Judah (Jud. 19:1)
- They were ‘slain’ by permission of a priest
- They were dragged to death by a wicked Jewish mob
- They were “brought forth" to the people just as the Lord was to the
crowd (Jud. 19:25)
- “Do what seemeth good unto you" (Jud. 19:24) is very much Pilate
language
- A man sought to dissuade the crowd from their purpose- again, as Pilate.
There should be a like effect upon us as we receive the emblems of the
Lord’s ‘broken body’- the inner thoughts of our hearts are elicited, and
we are provoked to action.
Considering how the bread represents the body of Christ leads us to a
common query: 'Seeing that "a bone of Him shall not be (and was not)
broken”, how can we say that we remember the
broken body of Jesus by
breaking the bread?'. First of all, it must be understood that
'breaking bread' or 'eating bread' is simply an idiom for sharing in a
meal (Is. 58:7; Jer. 16:7; Lam. 4:4; Ez. 17:7; 24:17; Hos. 9:4; Dt. 26:14;
Job 42:11). 'Bread' is used for any food, just as 'salt' is used in the
same way in Arabic. The breaking of a loaf of bread is not necessarily
implicit in the phrase (although it can be). However, we must also be
aware of a fundamental misconception which one feels is held by many; that
the physical blood and body of Christ are
all that we come to remember. This notion is related to that
which feels that there is some mystical power in the physical bread and
wine in themselves. Robert Roberts makes the point in
The Blood of Christ that "it
is not the blood as literal blood that is precious or efficacious". And
the same might be said about the Lord's literal body. His body and blood
were no different to those of any other man.
The fact that we are asked to symbolize His broken body, when it is
stated that His literal body was
not broken, is proof enough
that Christ's body is to be understood as something more than His literal
flesh and blood. Indeed, 1 Cor. 10:16,17 seems to suggest that the "body
of Christ" in which we partake through the bread is a symbol of the whole
body of believers, just as much as His actual body which enabled this
salvation. Likewise the Passover was not intended to commemorate the red
liquid which flowed from the first Passover lambs, but to remember the
salvation which God had achieved for
all Israel on account of that.
Christ bore our sins "in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24)- and it
was more in His mind and mental awareness that this was true, rather than
our sins being in (e.g.) His arms and legs. Other uses of " body" which
require reference to our whole mind and being, rather than our literal
body, include Mt. 5:29,30; 6:22-25; Jn. 2:21; Rom. 7:4; 1 Cor. 6:19; 9:23.
Luke's record of the Last Supper shows how the Lord spoke of His body and
blood as parallel with His whole sacrifice: "This is my body... this do in
remembrance of
me (His whole way of life- not
just His physical body). This cup is the new testament in my blood, which
is shed for you" (Lk. 22:19,20). Col. 1:20 likewise parallels
“the blood of the cross" with “him" (the man Jesus). Rom. 7:4 puts “the
body of Christ" for the death of that body; He was, in His very person,
His death. The cross was a living out of a spirit of self-giving which
was Him. The cup of wine represents the promises ("testament")
of salvation which have been confirmed by Christ's blood. Note how Jesus
quietly spoke of "my body which
is (being) given for you... my
blood which
is shed for you". The pouring
out of His life/blood was something ongoing, which was occurring even as
He spoke those words. The cross was a summation of a lifetime of
outpouring and breaking of His innermost being, or "body". It is this that
we remember at the breaking of bread. The Passover was comprised of the
lamb plus bread. The breaking of bread, the Passover for Christians, is
wine and bread. The lamb was thus replaced in the thought of Jesus by His
blood / wine. He perceived that His blood was Him, in that sense.
It is also worth reflecting how the Hebrew writer saw the torn veil as a
symbol of the Lord’s flesh. It is just possible that the physical tearing
of the Lord’s flesh at His death through the nails represented the tearing
of His flesh nature, symbolized in the physical tearing of the veil. But
the tearing of the veil was something essential and far reaching- not a
surface rip. The Lord’s death is surely to be understood as a tearing
apart of the flesh nature and tendencies which He bore; and it is this we
remember in breaking the bread which represents His flesh. Note that to
break the bread in a place was an idiom for breaking the life there (Ez.
4:16; 5:16; 14:13; Lev. 26:26). This was what the Lord asks us to
remember- not the physical breaking of His body, but the breaking of His
life for us and sharing it with us (Is. 58:7).
11:25
In the same manner also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup
is the new covenant in my blood- The breaking of bread brings
us before the cross, which is in a sense our judgment seat. There can only
be two exits from the Lord’s throne, to the right or to the left, and
likewise we are faced with such a choice in our response to the bread and
wine. The cup of wine is a double symbol- either of blessing (1 Cor.
10:16; 11:25), or of condemnation (Ps. 60:3; 75:8; Is. 51:17; Jer. 25:15;
Rev. 14:10; 16:19). The very structure of the Hebrew language reflects
this. Thus the Hebrew
baruch means both ‘blessed’ and ‘cursed’;
kedoshim
means both ‘Sodomites’ and ‘saints’. Why this use of a double symbol?
Surely the Lord designed this sacrament in order to highlight the two ways
which are placed before us by taking that cup: it is either to our
blessing, or to our condemnation. Each breaking of bread is a further
stage along one of those two roads. Indeed, the Lord’s supper is a place
to which the rejected are invited (Zeph. 1:7,8; Rev. 19:7), or the
redeemed (Rev. 3:20). Like the cup of wine, being invited to the Lord’s
supper is a double symbol. And there is no escape by simply not breaking
bread. The peace offering was one of the many antecedents of the memorial
meeting. Once the offerer had dedicated himself to making it, he was
condemned if he didn't then do it, and yet also condemned if he ate it
unclean (Lev. 7:18,20). So a man
had
to either cleanse himself, or be condemned. There was no get out, no
third road. The man who ate the holy things in a state of uncleanness had
to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his sins (Lev.
22:3,16 AV mg.). This is surely the source for our possibility of
“eating... condemnation" to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of
bread in an unworthy manner. And so it is with us as we face the emblems.
We must do it, or we deny our covenant relationship. And yet if we do it
in our uncleanness, we also deny that relationship.
This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me-
This seems carefully worded so as to free us from any idea that we
must break bread at a certain commanded frequency. Or perhaps the import
was more practical- in that the cup was being used as means for getting
drunk. The idea would be: 'Every time you lift that cup to your mouth and
drink, it is to be in remembrance of the Lord- and not in the name of
something else, and just as a path towards intoxication'.
11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the Lord's death- 1 Cor. 11:26 AVmg. makes the act of
breaking bread a command, an imperative to action: “As often as ye eat
this bread, and drink this cup, shew ye the Lord’s death, till he come".
If we are going to eat the emblems, it is axiomatic that we will commit
ourselves to shewing forth His death to the world, like Paul placarding
forth Christ crucified in our lives (Gal. 3:1 Gk.). The Passover likewise
had been a ‘shewing’ to one’s family “that which the Lord did unto me"
(Ex. 13:8), the redemption we have experienced. The description of the
memorial service as being a 'proclamation' of the Lord's death (1 Cor.
11:26 RV) is an allusion to the second of the four cups taken at the
Jewish Passover: "the cup of proclamation". This was drunk after the
reading of Psalms 113 and 114, which proclaimed Yahweh's deliverance of
Israel from Egypt. Therefore our breaking bread is our proclamation that
we really believe that we have been saved out of this world, and are on
the wilderness path to the Kingdom. God forbid, really, that our breaking
bread should come down to mere ritual and habit. It is a very personal
proclamation of our own salvation- as well as that of the whole body of
believers.
Until he comes- This is surely an allusion, but not a
quotation, to the Lord's comment that He would not take the cup again
until He returns (Mk. 14:25). The most evident link between
the breaking of bread and the judgment / second coming is in the fact we
are to do it “until he come". The Jews expected Messiah to come at
Passover, and the Lord seems to have plugged into that fact. ‘Until he
come’ was an allusion by Paul to the contemporary Passover prayer for the
coming of Messiah at the Passover meal: “May the Lord come and this world
pass away. Amen. Hosanna to the house of David. If any man is holy, let
him come; if any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen". Joachim
Jeremias translates the phrase: “’Until (matters have developed to the
point at which) he comes’, ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he comes’".
He points out a similar construction in other passages relevant to the
second coming (Lk. 21:24; 1 Cor. 15:25; Rom. 11:25). Thus each memorial
meeting brings us a step closer towards the final coming of Jesus. It
would therefore be so appropriate if the Lord did return during a breaking
of bread. One day, the foretaste of judgment which we experience then will
be, in reality, our final judgment. As we break bread, each time we are
‘reminding’ the Father as well as ourselves of His Son’s work and the need
to climax it in sending Him back.
11:27
Therefore whoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner- The "unworthy manner" in the
context clearly refers to things such as using church prostitutes at the
breaking of bread, getting drunk on the wine there as if the whole service
was an idol ritual, and in fact not really keeping the Lord's supper
because they were also drinking the cup of idols (10:21) and had turned
the Lord's supper into their own supper (:20). We come to the Lord's table
as sinners; our pangs of conscience are in fact the sign we are there in
the right and 'worthy' manner. The Greek for "unworthy" means
'irreverent'; and this is exactly the context. It is drunkenness with the
wine, using it as part of an orgy, which is the irreverence in view.
Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord-
Noting the earlier allusion to Judas (see on :23), we can rightly assume
that again it is Judas whom Paul has in mind. The unworthy are not weak
sinners, which is us all, but those who wilfully are betraying the Lord.
11:28
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread
and drink of the cup- We are to eat in a spirit of self
examination ["so..."], not of light hearted partying as was happening at
Corinth. See on :29
discern.
There seems an allusion in this section to Joseph's cup of divination.
The Hebrew for “divines" means literally ‘to make trial’; their taking of
the cup was their trial / judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or
condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word used by the LXX for
“divines" in Gen. 44:5 occurs in the NT account of the breaking of bread
service: ‘everyone should
examine himself, and then eat the bread and drink
from the cup’ (1 Cor. 11:28). The Lord examines us, as we examine
ourselves. There is a mutuality here- the spirit of man is truly the
candle of the Lord (Prov. 20:27). He searches us through our own
self-examination. He knows all things, but there may still be methods that
He uses to gather than information. Our hearts are revealed to God through
our own self-examination. And is it mere co-incidence that the Hebrew
words for “divination" and “snake" are virtually identical [nahash]? The snake lifted up
on the pole [cp. the crucified Jesus] is the means of trial / divination.
Through the cross, the thoughts of many hearts are revealed (Lk. 2:35),
just as they will be at the last day. Thus the breaking of bread ceremony
is a means towards the sort of realistic self-examination which we find so
hard to achieve in normal life.
The whole story of Joseph is one of the clearest types of Jesus in the Old
Testament. The way His brethren come before His throne and are graciously
accepted is one of the most gripping foretastes we have of the final
judgment. The rather strange way Joseph behaves towards them was surely to
elicit within them a true repentance. He sought to bring them to
self-knowledge through His cup. Joseph stresses to the brethren that it is
through his cup that he “divines" to find out their sin. He also
emphasizes that by stealing the cup they had “done evil" (Gen. 44:4,5).
And yet they didn’t actually steal the cup. The “evil" which they had done
was to sell him into Egypt (Gen. 50:20). They had “stolen" him (Gen.
40:15) in the same way they had “stolen" the cup. This is why he says that
“ye" (you plural, not singular, as it would have been if he was referring
merely to Benjamin’s supposed theft) had stolen it (Gen. 44:15). And the
brethren in their consciences understood what Joseph was getting at- for
instead of insisting that they hadn’t stolen the cup, they admit: “What
shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear
ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants" (Gen. 44:16).
Clearly their minds were on their treatment of Joseph, the sin which they
had thought would not be found out. And this was why they were
all willing to bear the
punishment of becoming bondmen, rather than reasoning that since Benjamin
had apparently committed the crime, well he alone must be punished. The
cup was “found" and they realized that God had “found out" their joint
iniquity (Gen. 44:10,12,16). The cup was perceived by them as their
“iniquity" with Joseph. They had used the very same Hebrew words years
before, in telling Jacob of Joseph’s garment: “This have we found…" (Gen.
37:32).
The cup made them realize their guilt and made them acceptive of the
judgment they deserved. And it made them quit their attempts at parading
their own righteousness, no matter how valid it was in the immediate
context (Gen. 44:8). The cup made them realize their real status, and not
just use empty words. Behold the contradiction in Gen. 44:9: “With
whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will
be my Lord’s bondmen / servants". The Hebrew words translated “servants"
and “bondmen" are the same. Their mere formal recognition that they were
Joseph’s servants was to be translated into reality. Thus they say that
Joseph had “found out the iniquity of thy servants; behold, we
are
my Lord’s servants". Describing themselves as His servants had been a
mere formalism; now they wanted it in a meaningful reality. And the Lord’s
cup can do the same to us. The way they were “searched" (Gen. 44:12) from
the oldest to the youngest was surely the background for how the guilty
men pined away in guilt from the Lord, from the eldest to the youngest.
The whole experience would have elicited self-knowledge within them. The
same word is found in Zech. 1:12, describing how God Himself would search
out the sin of Jerusalem.
Joseph was trying to tell them: ‘What you did to the cup, you did to me.
That cup is a symbol of me’. And inevitably the mind flies to how the Lord
solemnly took the cup and said that this was Him. Our attitude to those
emblems is our attitude to Him. We have perhaps over-reacted against the
Roman Catholic view that the wine turns into the very blood of Jesus. It
doesn’t, of course, but all the same the Lord did say that the wine
is
His blood, the bread
is His body. Those emblems are
effectively Him to us. They are symbols, but not mere symbols. If we take
them with indifference, with minds focused on externalities, then this is
our essential attitude to Him personally. This is why the memorial meeting
ought to have an appropriate intensity about it- for it is a personal
meeting with Jesus. “Here O my Lord, I see thee face to face". If it is
indeed this, then the cup will be the means of eliciting within us our own
realization of sin and subsequently, of our salvation in Jesus.
Joseph’s brothers’ words are exactly those of Daniel in Dan. 10:15-17,
where in another death and resurrection experience, he feels just the same
as he lays prostrate before the Angel. Our attitude to the Lord in the
last day will be our attitude to Him at the breaking of bread- just as our
“boldness" in prayer now will be our “boldness" in the day of judgment. In
the same way as the brothers had to be reassured by Joseph of his loving
acceptance, so the Lord will have to ‘make us’ sit down with Him, and
encourage us to enter into His joy. There will be some sort of disbelief
at the extent of His grace in all those who are truly acceptable with Him
(“When saw we thee…?"). The brothers grieved and were angry with
themselves in the judgment presence of Joseph (Gen. 45:5)- they went
through the very feelings of the rejected (cp. “weeping and gnashing of
teeth" in self-hatred). And yet they were graciously accepted, until like
Daniel they can eventually freely talk with their saviour Lord (Gen.
45:15). And so the sheep will feel rejected at the judgment, they will
condemn themselves- in order to be saved ultimately. The same words occur
in Neh. 8:10,11, when a repentant Israel standing before the judgment
bema (LXX) are given the same assurance.
11:29 For he that eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to
himself, if he does not discern the body of the Lord- The
invitation to
discern the Lord’s body at the
memorial meeting uses the same word occurs in v.28: “let a man
examine himself". It’s too bad that the translations mask this
connection. We are to examine / discern the Lord’s body, and to do the
same to ourselves. The two are inextricably related. Meditation upon and
analysis of
His body will lead to
self examination and
discernment. In this lies the answer to the frequent question: ‘What
should we examine at the breaking of bread? Our own sins, or the facts of
the crucifixion / resurrection?’. If we think about the latter, we will
inevitably be led to think of the former. In the Corinthian context, the
body of Christ is to be understood as the ecclesia. 1 Cor. 12 is full of
this figure. The need to discern the Lord’s body at the breaking of bread
means that we must go beyond reflection upon His physical body. We must
recognise / discern His ecclesia too. The immediate context of 1 Cor. 11
is of unbrotherly behaviour at the memorial meeting. If we fail to
recognise / appreciate / discern the Lord’s physical body, we will fail to
recognise His brethren. And if we do this, we have made ourselves guilty
of His body and blood, we have crucified Him again. This is why I plead
with those who use the breaking of bread as a weapon for division within
the Lord’s body to think again. The body which we must discern at the
breaking of bread evidently has some reference to the ecclesia. We thereby
place ourselves in a dangerous position by refusing to share the emblems
with others in the body, and disfellowshipping those who do so.
Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor. 10-12 seems to be specifically in the
context of the memorial meeting. The issue he addresses is that of
disunity at the Lord's table- different groups were excluding others. It
is in this context that he urges believers to "discern the Lord's body" (1
Cor. 11:29)- and the Lord's body he has previously defined as referring to
the believers within that one body. For in 1 Cor. 10:17 he stresses that
all who have been baptized into the body of God's people "being many are
one loaf, and one body". There's only ultimately one loaf, as there's only
one Christ. All within that one body are partaking of the same loaf
whenever they "break bread", and therefore division between them is not
possible in God's sight. "The bread which we break, is it not the
koinonia,
the sharing in fellowship, of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). By
breaking bread we show our unity not only with Him personally, but with
all others who are in His one body. To refuse to break bread with other
believers- which is what was happening in Corinth- is therefore stating
that effectively they are outside of the one body. And yet if in fact they
are within the body of Christ, then it's actually those who
are refusing them the emblems who are thereby declaring
themselves
not to be part of Christ.
Our attitude to the cross
and all that is meant by it is
the summation of our spirituality. I normally dislike using alternative
textual readings to make a point, but there is an alternative reading of 1
Cor. 11:29 which makes this point so clearly: “He who eats and drinks
[‘unworthily’ isn’t in many manuscripts], eats and drinks discernment
[judgment] to Himself. Not discerning the Lord’s body is the reason many
of you are weak and sickly". The Corinthians were not discerning the
difference between the Lord’s body and a piece of bread, for they were
eating the bread as part of a self-indulgent social meal, rather than
discerning Him.
The command to
examine ourselves uses the
same word as in 3:13 concerning the way our works will be
tried with fire by the judgment process of the last day. If
members of an ecclesia break bread unworthily, they “come together unto
condemnation" (11:34). Yet we must judge ourselves at these meetings, to
the extent of truly realising we deserve condemnation (1 Cor. 11:31). We
must examine ourselves and conclude that at the end of the day we are
“unprofitable servants" (Lk. 18:10), i.e. worthy of condemnation (the same
phrase is used about the rejected, Mt. 25:30). This is after the pattern
of the brethren at the first breaking of bread asking “Is it I?" in
response to the Lord’s statement that one of them would betray Him (Mt.
26:22). They didn’t immediately assume they wouldn’t do. And so we have a
telling paradox: those who condemn themselves at the memorial meeting will
not be condemned. Those who are sure they won’t be condemned, taking the
emblems with self-assurance, come together unto condemnation. Job knew
this when he said that if he justifies himself, he will be condemned out
of his own mouth (Job 9:20- he understood the idea of self-condemnation
and judgment now). Isaiah also foresaw this, when he besought men (in the
present tense): “Enter
into the rock,
and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his
majesty", and then goes on to say that in the day of God’s final judgment,
“[the rejected] shall go
into the holes of
the rock... for
fear of the Lord and for the glory of His
majesty when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth" (Is.
2:10,11,19-21). We must find a true, self-condemning humility now, unless
it will be forced upon us at the judgment.
Judging / examining ourselves is made parallel with discerning the Lord's
body: as if discerning His body on the cross inevitably results in
self-examination, and vice versa (1 Cor. 11:28,29). We must
discern
the Lord's body, and thereby
examine ourselves (these are
the same words in the Greek text). Yet the Lord’s body in the Corinthian
context is the ecclesia, the body of Jesus. To discern ourelves is to
discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29,30 RV). By discerning our brethren
for who they are, treating them as brethren, perceiving our own part in
the body of Jesus, our salvation is guaranteed. For this is love, in its
most fundamental essence.
If we examine / judge / condemn ourselves now in our self-examination, God
will not have to do this to us at the day of judgment. If we cast away our
own bodies now, the Lord will not need to cast us away in rejection (Mt.
5:30). There is a powerful logic here. If we pronounce ourselves
uncondemned, we condemn ourselves (Tit. 3:11); if we condemn ourselves
now, we will be uncondemned ultimately. This is why the Greek word
translated "examine" (1 Cor. 11:29) is also that translated "approve" in
11:19 (and also 1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 13:7; 2 Tim. 2:15). By condemning
ourselves we in a sense approve ourselves. Our self-examination should
result in us realising our unworthiness, seeing ourselves from God's
viewpoint. There is therefore a parallel made between our own judgment of
ourselves at the memorial meeting, and the final judgment- where we will
be condemned, yet saved by grace (James 2:12; 3:1). If we don't attain
this level of self-knowledge now, we will be taught it by being condemned
at the judgment. This makes the logic of serious, real self-examination so
vital; either we do it in earnest, and realise our own condemnation, or if
we
don't
do it, we'll be condemned at the judgment. Yet as with so much in our
spiritual experience, what is so evidently logical is so hard to translate
into reality. The process of judgment will essentially be for our benefit,
not the Lord's.
Then the foolish virgins realise that they didn't have enough
oil / spirituality; whilst the wise already knew this (Mt. 25:13). As a
foretaste of the day of judgment, we must "examine" ourselves, especially
at the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:28). The same word is used in 1 Cor.
3:13 concerning how the process of the judgment seat will be like a fire
which
tries us.
11:30
For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few
sleep- It was due to an incorrect attitude to the memorial
meeting that many at Corinth were struck down "weak and sickly... and many
sleep" (1 Cor. 11:30), presumably referring to the power the apostles had
to smite apostate believers with physical discomfort and death. Such was
the importance accorded to that meeting by them. This is
not the only reference to physical sickness or death being used in the
first century as a punishment for apostasy (Acts 5:5; James 5:15; Rev.
2:22,23).
11:31
If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged-
If we perceive ourselves as worthy of condemnation, we will be saved. If
we would judge [i.e. condemn] ourselves, we will not be judged /
condemned. This is written in the context of the breaking of bread. When
we examine ourselves then, and at other times, do we get to the point
where we truly
feel through and through our condemnation? If this is how we
perceive our natural selves, then surely we will be saved- if we
also
believe with joy that God’s righteousness is counted to us. See on Lk.
17:10.
Our self-examination must be so intense that we appreciate that we ought
to be condemned; if we achieve that level of self-knowledge now, we will
not be condemned at the judgment. In the context of the self-examination
command in 1 Cor. 11, Paul is speaking of the need to completely focus our
attention on the sacrifice of Christ. Yet this command must have its basis
in the directive for Israel to search their house for leaven before eating
the Passover (Ex. 12:19). "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old
leaven... of malice and wickedness" (1 Cor. 5:8). The disciples’ question
at the first breaking of bread, “Lord, is it I?" is another prototype of
the command to examine ourselves at the feast (Mt. 26:22). Combining
Paul's command to examine ourselves that we are really focusing upon our
Lord's sacrifice, and the Exodus allusion which implies that we should
examine our own lives for wickedness, we conclude that if we properly
reflect upon Christ and His victory for us, then we will inevitably be
aware of our own specific failures which Christ really has vanquished. But
this will come as a by-product of truly grasping the fullness of the
Lord's victory. The Passover was to be a public proclamation to the
surrounding world of what God had done for Israel. Likewise our feast
'shows forth' (Greek: 'publicly declares') the Lord's death. Our memorial
meeting should therefore include a degree of openly declaring to others
what spiritual deliverances the Lord has wrought for us. This is surely
the sort of talk that should fill up the half hour between ending the
service and leaving the hall.
11:32- see on Lk. 13:28.
But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may
not be condemned with the world- Apostate Israel are spoken of
as the pagan world; and therefore at the day of judgment the rejected of
the new Israel will be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:32);
assigned their portion "with the unbelievers" (Lk. 12:46). If we are not
separate from this world now, we will not be separated from them when the
judgments fall. If we don't come out from Babylon, we will share her
judgments (Rev. 18:4).
“The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward
parts" (Prov. 20:27); our self-examination is what reveals us to the Lord.
What we think about at the memorial meeting, as we are faced with the
memory of the crucified Saviour, is therefore an epitome of what we really
are. If all we are thinking of is the taste of the wine, the cover over
the bread, the music, what we didn’t agree with in the sermon, all the
external things of our Christianity; or if we are sitting there taking
bread and wine as a conscience salver, doing our little religious ritual
to make us feel psychologically safe- then we simply don’t know Him. We
are surface level believers only. And this is the message we give Him. Our
spirit / attitude is the candle of the Lord, with which He searches us.
Our thoughts when confronted by the cross reveal us to Him who died on it.
Likewise Joseph (one of the most detailed types of the Lord) knew /
discerned his brethren by his cup (Gen. 44:5). 1 Cor. 11:31,32 further
suggests that our self-judgment at the breaking of bread is in fact the
lord’s judgment of us: “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be
judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord". We expect
Paul to say: ‘But when we judged ourselves, we are chastened...’. But he
doesn’t; our judgment is what reveals us to the Lord, and is therefore the
basis of His judgment of us. Even if we flunk conscious self-examination
from an underlying disbelief that we will attain the Kingdom, then this of
itself reveals our hearts to Him.
Because of this connection between the breaking of bread and judgment,
it would seem that the first century church experienced the physical
chastising of the Lord in terms of being struck with sickness and even
death
at the memorial meeting (1 Cor. 11:29,30). Thus at ecclesial
meetings- particularly the breaking of bread- the early church confessed
their sins and prayed for healing from the afflictions some were smitten
with as a result of their sins (James 5:14-16). It's easy to forget that
the prophecy of the crucifixion in Is. 53 is in fact a confession of
repentance by God's people- as His sufferings are spoken about, so they
lead to the confession that "He was bruised for
our iniquities... with his
stripes we are healed" (Is. 53:3,5). Reflection on the servant's
sufferings elicited repentance. See on Lk. 2:35.
11:33
Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat-
The eating and drinking at the memorial meeting is a judging of
ourselves. It’s a preview of the judgment. All of 1 Cor. 11 seems to be
concerning behaviour at the memorial meeting. Time and again the brethren
are described as “coming together" to that meeting (:17,18,20,33,34).
Believers ‘coming together’ is the language of coming together to
judgment. Where two or three are
gathered , the Lord is in the midst of them (Mt. 18:20) uses
the same word as in Mt. 25:32 concerning our gathering together unto
judgment. We should not forsake the “assembling of [ourselves] together"
(Heb. 10:25)- the same word as in 2 Thess. 2:1 regarding our “gathering
together unto Him". The church being assembled (Acts 11:26), two or three
being gathered (Mt. 18:20)- this is all a foretaste of the final gathering
to judgment (Mt. 25:32 s.w.).
Wait for one another- Again, despite all the serious
abuses present at the Corinthian communion services, Paul's paramount
concern is for love to be shown to each other. Waiting for each other may
mean literally waiting for all to be present before beginning the service,
rather than selfishly focusing upon themselves. But "wait for" can also
mean to 'look out for', to wait for another's good- as in James 5:7; 1
Pet. 3:20.
11:34
If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home- See on :22.
The assumption is that the person has food at home to eat; so I would
doubt whether this is a reference to any attending the meetings just in
order to be fed. In any case, the hungry remained hungry, because the more
prosperous didn't share their food with them (:21). So I suggest Paul is
targetting the Corinthian's justification of their feasting by saying that
they were eating because they were hungry. His comment is that if you're
hungry, then eat at home- not at church. Continually we find the
interpretation of Corinthians to depend upon understanding or guessing the
content of the questions which Paul was responding to.
That your coming together be not to condemnation. About the other
things I will give instruction when I come- If we break bread
unworthily, they “come together unto condemnation” (11:34). Yet we must
judge ourselves at these meetings, to the extent of truly realising we
deserve condemnation (1 Cor. 11:31). If we feel we are worthy, then, we
are unworthy. If we feel unworthy, then, we are worthy.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
