Theology Club: The Lord's supper and 1 Corinthians 11

[themuzicman]

If Paul hadn't instructed the Corinthians to engage the ritual of the Lord's Support in 1 Corinthians 11:

1 Cor 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[d] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

... because it was associated with the New Covenant, then why tell them what they were doing wrong, and then tell them how to do it right? Why not just tell them to stop?

And if Paul is instructing Churches to partake of the Lord's Supper, why would we refuse to do so now?

It seems apparent that Paul both instructed them to participate in the Lord's Supper, including drinking from the "cup [of] the New Covenant", and that in chapter 11, he is correcting their practice to be in line with unity in the Church.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It will be easy to misapply 1 Corinthians 11, if we ignore these:


1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

 

[themuzicman]

It will be easy to misapply 1 Corinthians 11, if we ignore these:


1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

This is about eating meat sacrificed to idols, and Paul is stating that one should be more careful to not to offend those whose conscience would be offended at doing such things.

No one in the Church in Paul's day would have a matter of conscience about eating the Lord's supper. (if you think so, some evidence would be nice.)

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:16 is speaking of the practice of women having the head covered in Church, due to the cultural meaning of a woman wearing her hair down and uncovered.

So, thus far, we don't have any application to the Lord's supper at all. Just a couple of proof texts ripped from context.

1 Corinthians 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

And Paul was saying that he could not praise the Corinthians because of their POOR PRACTICE of eating the Lord's supper, and goes on to tell them how to do it correctly.

So, the question remains: Why would Paul correct their practice, if they weren't to practice it at all?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I was referring to who the church of God was.

 

[themuzicman]

I was referring to who the church of God was.

Seems like you've just make my case for me.

1 Corinthians 10:32 seems to refer to Jews generally (Christian or not), Gentiles generally (Christian or not), and those in the Church.

1 Corinthians 11:16 seems to make the case that this custom isn't something just for the churches Paul started by to any Church Paul is aware of, thus extending Paul's idea of Church beyond those he started.

Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11:22, he seems to be saying that the Corinthians' practice regarding the Lord's supper is despising to the whole church, as the rest of the churches aren't so divided and engaging in debauchery as the Corinthians are.

And, again, Paul is correcting their practice of the Lord's supper, rather than telling them to stop doing it. So, the problem still remains.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He does not seem to include himself in the church of God.

 

[themuzicman]

He does not seem to include himself in the church of God.

He's referring to churches started by other disciples, who share this custom.

But either way, Paul's instruction to this church is to execute the Lord's support in a proper manner, not to simply stop doing it at all.

Thus, if you're under Paul's tradition, you should be embracing the New Covenant in drinking from that cup.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He's referring to churches started by other disciples, who share this custom.

But either way, Paul's instruction to this church is to execute the Lord's support in a proper manner, not to simply stop doing it at all.

Thus, if you're under Paul's tradition, you should be embracing the New Covenant in drinking from that cup.

Is it possible that,

1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

is not referring to literal bread and literal drink?

 

[themuzicman]

Is it possible that,

1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

is not referring to literal bread and literal drink?

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for[e] you. Do this in remembrance of me.”[f] 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Since Paul just referring to the literal eating and drinking in reciting what he received from Christ, and there isn't any context to switch away from literal eating and drinking to some allegorical meaning, I'd have to say no.

 

[DAN P]

If Paul hadn't instructed the Corinthians to engage the ritual of the Lord's Support in 1 Corinthians 11:



... because it was associated with the New Covenant, then why tell them what they were doing wrong, and then tell them how to do it right? Why not just tell them to stop?
/QUOTE]


Hi and 1 Cor 11:25 it uses the Greek word DIATHEKE which is a Transliterated word and has many uses !!

Eph 2:12 that the Body of Christ , were NEVER given a COVENANT /DIATHEKE !!

DIATHEKE / COVENANT can be translated by the following English words , WILL , AGREEMENT , COVENANT and ARRANGEMENT and it is a New Arrangement in 1 Cor 11:25 !!

BAPTIZO/ BAPRISM and CHARIS / GRACE are also a Transliterated Greek word as is Israel , Prophet and many more !!

dan p

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He does not seem to include himself in the church of God.

Paul's words concerning the Lord's Supper were addressed to the members of the Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13). And he made it plain that the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup was indeed practiced in the Body of Christ:

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor.11:26).​

 

[themuzicman]

If Paul hadn't instructed the Corinthians to engage the ritual of the Lord's Support in 1 Corinthians 11:



... because it was associated with the New Covenant, then why tell them what they were doing wrong, and then tell them how to do it right? Why not just tell them to stop?
/QUOTE]


Hi and 1 Cor 11:25 it uses the Greek word DIATHEKE which is a Transliterated word and has many uses !!

Eph 2:12 that the Body of Christ , were NEVER given a COVENANT /DIATHEKE !!

DIATHEKE / COVENANT can be translated by the following English words , WILL , AGREEMENT , COVENANT and ARRANGEMENT and it is a New Arrangement in 1 Cor 11:25 !!

BAPTIZO/ BAPRISM and CHARIS / GRACE are also a Transliterated Greek word as is Israel , Prophet and many more !!

dan p

Dan, Dan, Dan..

Are you saying that Paul received another "Lord's Supper" that happens to use the phrase "New Covenant" that is different from the Lord's Supper everyone's been celebrating since the inception of the Church?

C'mon. This is the same Lord's Supper with the same elements that Jesus served the apostles when He established the New Covenant.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I was referring to who the church of God was.

Let us look at this verse where it is evident that 1 Corinthians was addressed to the "church of God"as well as others who called on the name of the Lord:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's"(1 Cor.1:2).​

And here is what Paul tells those belonging to the church of God:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

So will you admit that the words found in 1 Corinthians were addressed to those in the Body of Christ?

 

[DAN P]

Dan, Dan, Dan..

Are you saying that Paul received another "Lord's Supper" that happens to use the phrase "New Covenant" that is different from the Lord's Supper everyone's been celebrating since the inception of the Church?

C'mon. This is the same Lord's Supper with the same elements that Jesus served the apostles when He established the New Covenant.

Hi and in Matt 26:26 !!

#1 , It concerns the New COVENANT /DIATHEKE in verse 28 !!

#2 , The New Covenant is given to Israel in Heb 8:8 with the House of Israel and the House of Judah !!

#3 , In verse 29 He will drink ONLY with the apostles , when I drink it a NEW with you in My Fathers Kingdom !!


1 Cor 11:25 speaks to all the body of Christ and it drunk as a Remembrance .

#2 , It can be drank , Unworthilt v 27

#4 . And Unworthily manner can cause Death , v 30 !!

#5 In verse 31 we are to JUDGE OURSELVES !!

Do you see a DIFFERENCE ??

dan p

 

[themuzicman]

Hi and in Matt 26:26 !!

#1 , It concerns the New COVENANT /DIATHEKE in verse 28 !!

#2 , The New Covenant is given to Israel in Heb 8:8 with the House of Israel and the House of Judah !!

#3 , In verse 29 He will drink ONLY with the apostles , when I drink it a NEW with you in My Fathers Kingdom !!


1 Cor 11:25 speaks to all the body of Christ and it druck as a Remeberance .

#2 , It can be drank , Unworthilt v 27

#4 . And Unworthily manner can cause Death , v 30 !!

#5 In verse 31 we are to JUDGE OURSELVES !!

Do you see a DIFFERENCE ??

dan p

Again, are you saying that there are two New Covenants established in Christ's blood? Because both the Last Supper and the Lord's supper refer to the cup of the New Covenant.


And, no, I don't find anything incompatible about the two instances. Jesus can still drink with the apostles at the end, and it can still be done in the meantime by us to remember.

And if you read Romans 9, Paul, after discussing how the Word of God hadn't failed with respect to the Jews, clearly includes the Gentiles in the "pot prepared for glory", which is the New Covenant.

So, unless you can demonstrate that Jesus established TWO New Covenants in His blood, which results in two identical "Suppers" that have the same name, your attempt to throw scripture on the wall to hope something sticks has failed.

 

[Danoh]

To be sure, there are far more points in favor of the Lord's supper assertion as being for the Body also, than against. Israel's New Covenant not being one of them.

Almost as many points in favor, as there are in favor of ignoring the blowhard, Jerry Shugart.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Can't wait til Jerry is either banned forever, gets a life, or drops dead.

You are out of control and obviously in need of professional help.

I will no longer respond to anything new which you say because my remarks just make your condition worse.

I pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you will seek help.

 

[DAN P]

Again, are you saying that there are two New Covenants established in Christ's blood? Because both the Last Supper and the Lord's supper refer to the cup of the New Covenant.

Hi and there is ONLY one New Covenant and Heb 8:8 says it is GIVEN to the House of Israel and the House of Judah !!

Did you have your HEBREW glasses on and Eph 2:12 says that no COVENANTS were given to Gentiles !!:darwinsm::darwinsm:

Read Ezek 36 :24-38 and find out what is IN the New Covenant , since it seem you have no idea !!:bang::bang:

dan p

 

[Danoh]

A MAD view in favor of the Lord's Supper much like my own:

http://graceambassadors.com/tradition/how-we-eat-the-lords-supper

 

[themuzicman]

To be sure, there are far more points in favor of the Lord's supper assertion as being for the Body also, than against. Israel's New Covenant not being one of them.

Almost as many points in favor, as there are in favor of ignoring the blowhard, Jerry Shugart.

The Lord's Supper includes the "cup of the New Covenant". You don't drink out of that cup unless you're a part of that Covenant.