Eat = Lord's supper?

[tdowns]

1Cr 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Do some commentaries take this to be a verse to support withholding the Lord's Supper? Does anybody take this view?

I thought I saw it once, but can't find in a search.

 

[Solus Christus]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking Trevor, so forgive me if I missed your question.

I wouldn't see why a commentary should connect "eating" with the Lord's Supper. From what I understand the act of eating is a way of having fellowship with people. And in this case these people are guilty (unrepentant) of their actions. So to fellowship with a brother who was unrepentant implies that you condone their actions. It also gives other people a bad witness.

With that being said, since the text seems to imply they are unrepentant (since we're all guilty and if it implied guilty people there would no fellowship whatsoever!), such people should be excluded from partaking in the Lord's Supper as this would invite judgment on them.

That's my Hope it helps.

 

[tdowns]

Yes...

That's what I'm getting, there are many threads on Church Discipline, I'm reading through a few. The topic has come up in my Sunday School class. I thought I had read, that some thought the "not to eat with them", referred to partaking in the Lord's Supper. I may have imagined it. I have seen, that the not eating, is referenced to eating in a Christian Fellowship setting, not necessarily, not having a meal with said person at all.



Thanks.

 

[KMK]

I would say that it AT LEAST means the Lord's Supper. The context of the chapter is about church fellowship. I think it could be applied more broadly to other situations as well. Should you be hanging out socially with people who are fornicators yet remain unrepentant?

 

[KMK]

The point is that we are not to ignore the 'elephant in the room' when dealing with those who remain unrepentant of obvious sin.

 

[LawrenceU]

I would say that it AT LEAST means the Lord's Supper. The context of the chapter is about church fellowship. I think it could be applied more broadly to other situations as well. Should you be hanging out socially with people who are fornicators yet remain unrepentant?

Ken is right on the money. Church discipline is serious business and is not relegated to the things that merely go on in the confines of a church building. That would have made absolutely no sense in the context of the apostolic church. Fellowship encompasses life, not just the Lord's Supper.

 

[OPC'n]

I have to slightly disagree with some and maybe I do it only out of ignorance....but I believe it is only speaking of the Lord's Supper and not other times in life. We are to treat unrepentant said believers as tax collectors. Well, how do we treat the tax collector? We spend time with them showing/reminding them of the Gospel and the call to repentance. That might call us to take a meal with them. If this ever happened to me, I would want someone from my church to come after me and help lead me back!

 

[tdowns]

Thanks for the replies.

This is the debate (which has been had here before) in my sunday school class, someone was of the opinion, we are to shut the door on them, not let them in church, don't associate with them at all, stop being their friend, etc. They used this verse to support that stance.

While I could see this could be an option in an extreme case, I felt, baring one from the Lord's Supper, having a public announcement of sin, was enough, and letting the person come to hear the word, and to associate with them, outside of church, would be tools to bring them to saving faith or repentence.

In one of the debates here, I thought I remembered someone saying, this text, WAS REFERRING TO THE LORD'S SUPPER, NOT JUST ANY MEAL.

After searching, I'm not finding that in a commentary, so was wondering if I imagined it, or if anybody had that take on the verse. I stated in my sunday school class, that some took this verse to mean the Lord's Supper, so, I want to make a correction, if I'm wrong.

I agree, with the, "at least", stated above.

That this is not particularly about the Lord's Supper, but, it def. includes it. I have read, as stated, commentaters who say, the meal is in context of Christian setting, with the goal being, we don't want an unrepentent fornicator associated with being a Christian, but, we can "eat" with them in a non Christian environment, hoping to evangelize, the now considered, "unbelieving brother or sister".

Just to summarize...

 

[KMK]

We spend time with them showing/reminding them of the Gospel and the call to repentance. That might call us to take a meal with them.

The point of this passage as well as Matt 18, is that in matters of church discipline, NOT fellowshipping with those who refuse to repent of obvious sin is a God ordained means of bringing them to repentance. It says to treat them LIKE a publican, but it does not say the ARE a publican. These are not people who openly despise the authority of God, but people who claim they love the authority of God, but their actions show otherwise.

If this ever happened to me, I would want someone from my church to come after me and help lead me back!

Or, you might be led back by the fact that your church refuses to fellowship with you. I know that goes contrary to the wisdom of the world but it is biblical.

BTW, Paul is not talking about differences in scruples in this place like he does in 1 Cor 8. He is talking about obvious sins in which there is no confusion.

1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

These are people who are call themselves Christians and then turn around and drink themselves to drunkenness, or have intimate relationships with people to whom they are not married.

 

[LawrenceU]

Or, you might be led back by the fact that your church refuses to fellowship with you. I know that goes contrary to the wisdom of the world but it is biblical.

I've seen this happen more than once. Much more.

 

[OPC'n]

The point of this passage as well as Matt 18, is that in matters of church discipline, NOT fellowshipping with those who refuse to repent of obvious sin is a God ordained means of bringing them to repentance. It says to treat them LIKE a publican, but it does not say the ARE a publican. These are not people who openly despise the authority of God, but people who claim they love the authority of God, but their actions show otherwise.

Matt 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

It doesn't matter if they are an actual tax collector or a Gentile the point is is that they are acting as such and we are to treat them as such. We don't allow these people to partake of the Lord's Supper and we don't allow the true tax collector/Gentile to just stay in church year after year and continue in their sins and neither should we let the unrepentant believer. They should both be made to leave...that's not was I was against. My statement was about going to them outside of the church walls and trying to bring them back to God. This is what you do with the true unbeliever...it's evangelism. So eating a meal with them in order to remind the unrepentant believer of the Gospel and to call them to repentance is our job. Paul never said not to ever have any communication with them again. He said "let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" well Paul went to these types of people and shared the Gospel to the all the time. Christ said that it was the sick who needed a physician not the well....so these unrepentant believers need Christ to bring them back and He uses His people to reach out to them.

, you might be led back by the fact that your church refuses to fellowship with you. I know that goes contrary to the wisdom of the world but it is biblical.

No, it isn't biblical. Throwing them out of the church is biblical...not having anything to do with them...not reminding them of their sins and calling them to repentance is not biblical! If after sometime they just won't listen then leave them to their own devices.

, Paul is not talking about differences in scruples in this place like he does in 1 Cor 8. He is talking about obvious sins in which there is no confusion.

Sin is sin. If your brother sins against you, that shows an unloving attitude. 1 John and James is very hard on those who do not love one another so hard that he says if you don't love your brother you can't love God who you haven't seen.

quote]1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

These are people who are call themselves Christians and then turn around and drink themselves to drunkenness, or have intimate relationships with people to whom they are not married.

Right! These are the people who need to be shown their sins and be called to repentance just like you would do with a tax collector or Gentile. Remember a tax collector was a Jew so he was apart of God's natural people and a Gentile wasn't apart of God's natural people....both were to be treated the same....both were to be shown the Gospel. This can be seen as a tax collect being a brother/sister in the church and a Gentile as one who has never been in the church.

 

[KMK]

Your assumption is that there is no fundamental difference between an unrepentant fornicator who considers himself a Christian and an unrepentant fornicator who doesn't and they should be treated the same. I disagree. One slanders himself, the other slanders the church.

That being said, no one said anything about 'not having anything to do with them'. The point that I am trying to make is that you shouldn't fellowship with them the same way your fellowship with your Christian brothers and sisters.

Follow your conscience in this regard, but, make sure you have solid exegetical reasons for your interpretation that the words 'to eat' must refer only to the Lord's Supper and nothing else.

Also, be careful about labeling those who refuse to fellowship with unrepentant church slanderers as 'unloving'.

---------------

As an aside, I was thinking about this issue today and it occurred to me that most of the time in a church where both grace and wrath are preached, and where holy living is emphasized, these types of unrepentant church slanderers usually separate themselves. Which makes you wonder even more about this church in Corinth. What was being preached and emphasized that these people actually wanted to stick around????

 

[tdowns]

And still I wonder...

Should I correct my statement, that some commentators believe this passage refers to the Lord's Supper, or is this at least a possible interpretation of the passage?

 

[OPC'n]

Should I correct my statement, that some commentators believe this passage refers to the Lord's Supper, or is this at least a possible interpretation of the passage?

No, I don't think you should correct it. I think those commentators are correct. You should never withdraw yourself from those who have been excommunicated. I believe it is 3 John who tells us to bring others out of their sin without staining ourselves. So you shouldn't eat the Lord's Supper with them because of their unrepentant state, but you should eat a meal with them etc in order to bring them back.

Your assumption is that there is no fundamental difference between an unrepentant fornicator who considers himself a Christian and an unrepentant fornicator who doesn't and they should be treated the same. I disagree. One slanders himself, the other slanders the church.

They both slander God which is the most important thing.

That being said, no one said anything about 'not having anything to do with them'. The point that I am trying to make is that you shouldn't fellowship with them the same way your fellowship with your Christian brothers and sisters.

I would say that it AT LEAST means the Lord's Supper. The context of the chapter is about church fellowship. I think it could be applied more broadly to other situations as well. Should you be hanging out socially with people who are fornicators yet remain unrepentant?

And someone said that you shouldn't eat with them. And I didn't say that we should fellowship with them as we would a fellow believer. When I fellowship with a fellow believer I'm not calling them to repentance and showing them their sins. I said this is what we should do to the one who has been thrown out of the church.

Also, be careful about labeling those who refuse to fellowship with unrepentant church slanderers as 'unloving'.

I wasn't referring to the church being unloving. I was referring to the brother who sins against his brother and won't repent and that was unloving. I had said sin is sin. You had deemed other sins as worse and I was trying to show you that not loving your brother is as not loving God which is breaking the greatest commandment.