# 1 Cor 11:27-29



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

To what extent should one examine themselves? I have heard varying views that range from "as long as you are a Christian you are ok" to hearing about churches that go into a three day fast prior to communion followed by a day of praise the day after partaking of communion.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## larryjf (Nov 18, 2008)

There should be no sin that is still unrepented of. There should be no unsettled bad feelings towards the rest of the church body (unforgiving, unapologetic, etc.)


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 18, 2008)

This is difficult to implement precisely.

I have recently read through GI Williamson's, _The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes_ section on Chapter 29 of the Confession, "Of the Lord's Supper."

Dr Williamson says in there (p 304):



> Christ did not administer the sacrament to any but those who had professed the true religion, and who appeared to walk with him.
> 
> In the apostolic church, instruction, baptism, and credible profession were required of those who received this sacrament.
> 
> There are commands in Scripture to put away unbelievers and disorderly believers.



So, my understanding is that the following kinds of people should not partake:

1) nonbelievers
2) believers in major sin
3) believers who are joined to churches that do not hold the Gospel
4) children who are not yet of suitable age to have made a credible profession to the Elders

It is difficult to define "major sin" or "disorderly believers" but I think this would include more than those who under a form of church discipline that requires abstension from it.

It is difficult to implement perhaps, regarding churches that do not hold the Gospel. Christian love here requires charity in this assessment and the benefit of the doubt, I think (see Westminster Catechism Question 144.). But, I would say any church group that officially repudiates the Gospel, at least.

I have heard and think this language gets close to what God speaking through Scripture requires:



> "If you are an unbeliever, we ask you to abstain. Scripture warns us... but, if you are member in good standing in a church where this Gospel is preached, we invite you..."



It is also important to invite weak Christians. We do not want to discourage them from the table because it is a wonderful means of grace to strengthen our faith.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

larryjf said:


> There should be no sin that is still unrepented of. There should be no unsettled bad feelings towards the rest of the church body (unforgiving, unapologetic, etc.)




So should we have a period of time dedicated to confessing one's sin and unsettled feelings ala Luther and his marathon confessions?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

As an add on question. Do you think that the leaders of the church bring condemnation upon themselves for not correctly fencing the Table? I would think yes because the Corinthians are getting laid into for their own sinful actions, but also for allowing the sexual sin of others to go on untreated. Would it be bad exegesis to combine the two and apply it to preparation for Communion?


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 18, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> As an add on question. Do you think that the leaders of the church bring condemnation upon themselves for not correctly fencing the Table? I would think yes because the Corinthians are getting laid into for their own sinful actions, but also for allowing the sexual sin of others to go on untreated. Would it be bad exegesis to combine the two and apply it to preparation for Communion?



There is a lot of theology and good practice on this (and I am not theologically trained).

However, it seems to me, in good faith, the church should try to verbally "fence the table." As long as that is done carefully, with the admonition of Scripture, and there is at least some mechanism for church discipline in place, I think the rest is really in God's hands. In fact, the leaders are to be thanked for doing that.


----------



## he beholds (Nov 18, 2008)

I have not thought too deeply on what this means, I must admit. Our church partakes in the Lord's Supper weekly, so it is encouraged to think on it before sitting in the pew, as we know it will be coming up. We also have a short period of silent prayer before we have communion, where it is again expected that we examine ourselves one last time, I guess. 

I know that what I have thought on it has led me to conclude that the practice that some churches make of having a communion season, with guest pastors and three days worth of services in preparation, and having it only two or three times a year, is probably not what Christ intended. (Please do not be offended if you disagree.) I feel that even if we are to examine ourselves and fast for three days, we will still be "unworthy" to partake in communion when the time comes, except that as believers in Christ, we have been made worthy. 

So I guess I will say that I feel that being a Christian is invitation enough, but if you are in a deep sin that you haven't repented of, you should do so before you take communion, just as to please God and prevent his judgment. I do not like when churches have membership requirements, as most do (mine does). Some churches require you to belong to that specific local church, whereas others say denomination, others extend that out to NAPARC (which would exclude any non-North American, right?), and still others say "member in good standing of an Evangelical church," which is how my church puts it. My husband agrees with this and has explained it to me, but so far, it hasn't sunk in.

I think you can be a Christian and not be a member of a church. Should you be a member? YES! But I don't think being a member = being a Christian, and I do think 
being a Christian does = being "worthy of communion."
I don't think that a Pastor would be held accountable for an unconverted sinner taking communion, and therefore, I don't think he needs to control who eats the bread and drinks the wine. I think we should be taught what the Bible says and the Pastor should say, "If you are a believer," or something, but that's all. (This I am completely unsure of, though, and I welcome correction.)

Anyway, this made me curious so I looked up Calvin's view:


> 28. But let a man examine himself An exhortation drawn from the foregoing threatening. “If those that eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly and duly prepared. Let every one, therefore, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness.” But now it is asked, what sort of examination, that ought to be to which Paul exhorts us. Papists make it consist in auricular confession. They order all that are to receive the Supper, to examine their life carefully and anxiously, that they may unburden all their sins in the ear of the priest. Such is their preparation! 703703 “Voyla lear belle preparation;” — “See their admirable preparation!” I maintain, however, that this holy examination of which Paul speaks, is widely different from torture. Those persons, 704704 “Ces miserables;” — “Those miserable creatures.” after having tortured themselves with reflection for a few hours, and making the priest — such as he is — privy to their vileness, 705705 “Et qu’ils on debagoule leur turpitude a monsieur le prestre;” — “And when they have blabbed out their baseness to Mr. Priest” imagine that they have done their duty. It is an examination of another sort that Paul here requires — one of such a kind as may accord with the legitimate use of the sacred Supper.
> 
> You see here a method that is most easily apprehended. If you would wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance. As to these two things, therefore, the trial must be made, if you would come duly prepared. Under repentance I include love; for the man who has learned to renounce himself, that he may give himself up wholly to Christ and his service, will also, without doubt, carefully maintain that unity which Christ has enjoined. At the same time, it is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a perfection that can nowhere be found, would shut out for ever from the Supper every individual of mankind. If, however, thou aspirest after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of thy mind, and, trembled under a view of thy misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest upon it, know that thou art a worthy guest to approach the table — worthy I mean in this respect, that the Lord does not exclude thee, though in another point of view there is something in thee that is not as it ought to be. For faith, when it is but begun, makes those worthy who were unworthy.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 18, 2008)

Mr. Calvin



> If you would wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance.





> At the same time, it is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a perfection that can nowhere be found,



A "disorderly believer" might include someone walking in a major pattern of sin, someone out of fellowship for a long time, someone joined to a church where the Gospel is not held.

In those cases, it is probably best for that person to abstain from the sacrament and reflect on the need for repentance and faith. There is grace for that, even though the person abstains in those cases. The Word is preached and grace comes through the word also (even to unbelievers). God also uses the Lord's Supper to those ends- reclamation of the orderly life of the believer, so Christ may have credible profession through His Church.

Mr Calvin held a high view of the sacraments. I would like to read more of what he says about this.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

I am really enjoying the conversation, but I have another question.

What would you do if someone in your church had a false view of themselves to the point that refuse to take communion out of fear of being sent to Hell? I ask specifically about my grandmother in law. She is a dear old lady, but her RC upbringing followed by charismatic conversion leads her to believe that she can lose her salvation and that she is so sinful that to partake of Communion would bring condemnation up herself and more specifically her condemnation to Hell. This has prevented her from taking the Lord's Supper for decades now.

She has the beginnings of Altzheimers it seems now, so deep theological discussions are out of the question, but I feel that I should do something to encourage her to have a better self image.


----------



## BJClark (Nov 18, 2008)

For me, I look at myself and consider if I have any un-confessed sin, or if I have or know of any broken relationships in my life, do to my sinfulness or theirs, and if possible I try to make those right before I partake.


----------



## A5pointer (Nov 18, 2008)

I see the examining defined by the context of the church coming together and discriminating along class and social lines. The Corinthian church was shunning the have nots and were seperating while celebrating the meal. In this context i see rightly discerning the body as referring to an improper view of the church body. And theologically we run into trouble defining this as a personal examination as to sinfulness as we are all very unworthy to varying degrees and never really close to being worthy.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 18, 2008)

PCA Director of Worship (emphasis added)



> CHAPTER 58
> The Administration of the Lord's Supper
> 
> 58-1. The Communion, or Supper of the Lord, is to be observed
> ...



I find this extraordinarily comforting- perhaps your grandmother in law would as well.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> I see the examining defined by the context of the church coming together and discriminating along class and social lines. The Corinthian church was shunning the have nots and were seperating while celebrating the meal. In this context i see rightly discerning the body as referring to an improper view of the church body. And theologically we run into trouble defining this as a personal examination as to sinfulness as we are all very unworthy to varying degrees and never really close to being worthy.



If this is true, then would this not allow for children of believers to partake? 

If discerning the body is more ecclesiastical in nature vs. personal and children are members of the church body who are holy/sanctified through their parents, would this not mean that these children should partake as well? If we were to fence them off, would this not be discriminating as you put it?


----------



## A5pointer (Nov 18, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> > I see the examining defined by the context of the church coming together and discriminating along class and social lines. The Corinthian church was shunning the have nots and were seperating while celebrating the meal. In this context i see rightly discerning the body as referring to an improper view of the church body. And theologically we run into trouble defining this as a personal examination as to sinfulness as we are all very unworthy to varying degrees and never really close to being worthy.
> ...



I see the examination as personal but specific to the situation of excluding members based on socio/class. This is very different than children. As to children this text doesn't speak to that. I have no opinion regarding the inclusion of children. It is not an issue I have considered. I am sure many here have.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 18, 2008)

I really have not considered the issue myself until just recently, so I plead ignorance which is why I ask the questions.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 18, 2008)

A5pointer said:


> I see the examining defined by the context of the church coming together and discriminating along class and social lines. The Corinthian church was shunning the have nots and were seperating while celebrating the meal. In this context i see rightly discerning the body as referring to an improper view of the church body. And theologically we run into trouble defining this as a personal examination as to sinfulness as we are all very unworthy to varying degrees and never really close to being worthy.



I think Bruce is hitting the nail on the head.

_27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an *unworthy manner*, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. _

The text is not here speaking of personal introspection to determine if we are worthy to partake, but rather to make sure we are observing the Lord's supper in a worthy *manner*. The context is Corinthian abuse in the manner in which the Supper was observed -- not rightly considering the body (the local church). Therefore, he concludes,

_33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. _

So, asking about the personal qualifications for partaking may be a valid question, but 1 Cor. 11:27-29 is not addressing that.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 18, 2008)

> I see the examining defined by the context of the church coming together and discriminating along class and social lines. The Corinthian church was shunning the have nots and were seperating while celebrating the meal. In this context i see rightly discerning the body as referring to an improper view of the church body. And theologically we run into trouble defining this as a personal examination as to sinfulness as we are all very unworthy to varying degrees and never really close to being worthy.



I think all of you are pointing out something very true in your exegesis of this passage; and I agree that you are absolutely right that this is the immediate occasion of Paul bringing this warning to the Corinthians: they were viewing this as a meal in which to fill their own stomachs, and were not perceiving the body, excluding the truly hungry while they got drunk off the wine.

*But*, that doesn't mean we have to limit Paul's warning to only this occasion. The same principle holds true to many other situations. This is not just a meal; it is a partaking of the body of our Lord together as the body. Thus, he who openly profanes the name of Christ by unrepentant sin sins not just against Christ, but against the body as well. Thus, by inference, when we examine ourselves to see whether we discern the body or not to determine if we partake of the supper rightly (i.e., see it as not just a meal at which to satisfy ourselves, and to boast over the weak), we must also in the process of this realize that we partake unworthily if we scorn by our sin that very body of which we are to partake.

You're right in your understanding of the immediate context, and I applaud you in your exegesis; but I think it's also important to see what all else this principle must include.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 18, 2008)

Good thoughts Bruce. This passage has been brutalized in many churches. We worked through this not too long ago. Here are a couple of thoughts.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?17 For we*, though many, are one bread and one body*; for we all partake of that one bread.
*27Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.* 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, *not discerning the Lord’s body.* 30For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

The Corinthians failed to understand the unity of the body of Christ, specifically as expressed in the Lord's Supper. This is clearly an issue in today's churches. And there is a lot of errant teaching on this. The result is that people punish themselves needlessly; many refues the blessing Jesus gave His life for, many strive to atone for their own sins through abstaining. 
We must be free from this modern day lie. The Corinthians judged one another; they were bigotted; they examined others; they were elitist; they failed to understand the unity of Christ.


> This is not to be understood as referring to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the unworthy manner of partaking… The failure to recognize practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.” (Gould – Am. Com on 1 Cor 11:27)


They failed to examine themselves; failed to see their own sin; and so were judged and chastened by the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:30-32
30For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 

We are not to consider our worthiness - we are utterly unworthy - only Christ gives us worth. We are not to abstain because we sin, because we are struggling or because we have left something unsaid. We are to trust in Christ and His fullness. The focus is not on others. The focus is on Christ, what He's done, what He's doing and what He is going to do. We are to consider the "manner" in which we partake, whether it is worthy. Are we united? Are we one body? Or are we like the Corinthians, enjoying steak and caviar and looking down on those who can't afford a morsel; all the while calling this a love feast?
From a research on this a few months ago:


> It is good to reflect on both the solemnity and celebratory aspects of the Lord's Supper. The two are inseparable. Too often we have a "somber" attitude during this wonderful time of remembrance, mostly due to poor teaching. This is often related to our need to "examine ourselves" (1 Cor 11:28). Instead of keeping this in context, however, many perceive a need to punish themselves and fail to feast on Christ, somehow considering their sin beyond His ability to atone for because of their lack of overcoming. It is very unfortunate that this teaching prevails in our churches. One woman praised God and was thankful for being shown the truth after she had refused to take the Lord's Supper for months because she carried so much guilt. Does man really think his worthiness can possibly be related to his personal achievements and "victories?" If you are able, revisit this marvelous passage and keep the abominations of the Corinthians in context as men were exhorted to examine themselves in light of an elitist and segregated plank-eye syndrome that had plagued this local body of believers. Praise God for the freedom we know in Christ, and for this marvelous observance that reminds us of the past, present and future work and blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 18, 2008)

You might appreciate the Free Grace Broadcaster, #164, on Communion/Union with Christ. List found here.


----------

