I.
BACKGROUND
The Apostle
Paul is answering another question from the Church in Corinth. “Now about food sacrificed to idols . . ..”[1] The real problem was that food
was inextricably linked to social, civil, political and family celebrations. Often times this food offered to idols was not
served in an overtly religious setting, but rather a friendly, social
setting. And even if it wasn't a
religious ceremony the event was held where the Christians would be surrounded
by idols and shrines. So, the problem is
more than just meat bought at a market.
It is more than just having a feast in a Temple. “It has to do with eating food conspicuously
sacrificed to an idol, whether at a public feast, in a temple dining room, as a
participant in an actual sacrifice, or in a private home.” [2]
The response of
Paul takes us through 3 chapters: 1
Corinthians 8, 9 and 10. We note that as
even in Chapter 10, he writes: “But if someone
says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the
sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—” (1 Corinthians 10:28, ESV)
It is a
carefully developed argument. It flows like
this:
A. In 1
Corinthians 8:1-6 Paul spanks the Corinthians for thinking that they can ignore
ethical behavior just because of theological or
rational truth.
B. He then
implores them to have concern for the weak and the Church (8:7-13).
C. He then offers
himself as an example of someone making decisions in respect to others as well
as making decisions that would contribute to the salvation of others; and to do
nothing that would needlessly hinder another from coming to faith (9:1–27).
D. He shows them
the serious theological ramifications of their behavior from an exposition of
Scripture (10:1–13).
E. He then refutes
their practice by pointing them to the Lord’s Table and ends by giving them
some practical advice (10:14-11:1).
II.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Paul ends his
argument by pointing the Church toward the nature of the Lord’s Table. In that discussion, the Apostle uses phrases
“participation in the blood of Christ, and participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians
10:16, ESV). The question raised is,
“What does that mean?” Does 1
Corinthians 10:14-22 suggest a quasi-physical
sacramental[3]
theology or simply put, does this passage allude to such doctrines as the Roman
Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation[4] or the
Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation[5]? Does Paul use of these phrases: κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος and κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος to
provide a theological basis for his upcoming discussion of the Lord’s Table
that is based on something more than a simple “remembrance” as followers of
Zwingli[i]
including Baptists tend to embrace; or is there something of an actual or
spiritual union with Christ that occurs during the Lord’s Table?
III.
ENGLISH
TRANSLATIONS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 10:14-22
1 Corinthians 10:14–22 (ESV), 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from
idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves
what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a
participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a
participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread,
we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider
the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the
altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is
anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what
pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be
participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord
and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the
table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we
stronger than he?
1 Corinthians
10:14–22 (NIV) 14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I
speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not
the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood
of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of
Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one
body, for we all share the one loaf. 18 Consider the people of
Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19
Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is
anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons,
not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have
a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we
trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
IV.
EXEGESIS
Dr. Gordon Fee is
correct: "With this paragraph Paul finally brings to
a conclusion the long argument with the Corinthians that began with his
forbidding them to go to the temples to join in the idolatrous feasts
(8:1)."[6] Verse 19 makes this plain: “What do I imply then?
That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” (1 Corinthians 10:19, ESV). "Paul considers attending idol feasts and eating idol food to be idolatry
regardless of how the Corinthians may have rationalized and justified such
behavior with their knowledge."[7] What is important is that Paul
now shifts ". . . beyond that to
demonstrate the absolute incompatibility of eating both sacred meals. The kind
of “fellowship” involved eliminates any such possibility."[8]
Paul does not tolerate idolatry and he addresses this congregation in a
manner that he expects them to know about what he is about to say regarding the
implications of the Lord's Table and what they were questioning him about in
regard to food offered to idols.
One should point out that this is not Paul's exhaustive theology of
Communion. "Paul is not setting forth teaching about
the Lord’s Supper but is using it to make an argument against reclining in idol
shrines and eating food sacrificed to idols. It is misguided to try to
reconstruct a Pauline doctrine of the Lord’s Supper from this brief excerpt,
particularly if it ignores his intention in this section."[9] This is focusing
on "the sacred pagan meals soon to be
addressed (vv19–21)." [10] What is important though is that
"what is said here thus serves as the presupposition
for what he will say later"[11] in 11:17-34, regarding the Lord's Table.
What Paul is arguing is that there is something of such a unique
connection between pagan feasts and the Lord's Table that makes one in conflict
with the other. That connection
is described in the form of two rhetorical questions:
“The cup of
blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The
bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1
Corinthians 10:16, ESV)
Is Paul saying
that when we take Communion we are participating (κοινωνία, pronounced koy·nohn·ee·ah[12][ii]) with our Lord's actual blood and body? Anthony Thiselton[13]
correctly observes that in this passage the Apostle brings to light two aspects
of the Lord's Supper, both being emphasized by the two Greek words: (1) κοινωνία (v16) and (2) μετέχω (v21). With
these two ideas the Apostle is explaining contextually what he means by participation in the blood and the body of
Christ. For example:
a. Κοινωνία with the body and blood of Christ means community rather than
individual edification. (Note verse 17); and
b.
Μετέχω and κοινωνία in the body of Christ means exclusivity and
necessity of being true to God alone.
(Note verse 22).
Contextually (Chap 8) community edification translates to concern for
brothers and sisters to whom Christ died (8:11); and exclusivity is applied in
a way that shows that loyalty to the one God versus idols and other human
constructs, that provoke God's jealousy, is established. So Paul's definition of sharing in the body and the blood of the Lord places at center
stage in the Lord's Table:
i)
The
commonality (with concern for others); and
ii)
The
exclusivity (in the framework of covenant loyalty) of a cross/Christ-centered
lifestyle.
So it is clear
linguistically and grammatically that Paul’s intent is to show that the
Communion celebrant is, by his or her participation, also affirming the bond
between themselves and other believers; and his or her loyalty to the Host.
The KJV translation uses a
different preposition: “Is it not the communion OF the blood of Christ . . . is it not the communion of the body OF Christ?” (1 Corinthians
10:16–17, AV) [Emphasis mine]. One might
think that the translators are purposely detracting the reader from a
misunderstanding that would lead them to a false sacramental notion.
To read into 1 Corinthians 10:16 any quasi-physical sacramental[15]
theology (or such doctrines as the Roman Catholic doctrine of
transubstantiation[16] or the
Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation[17]) is
just bad exegesis and is actually the error of eisegesis? The context determines what
Paul means.
V.
CONCLUSION
This appears to
be strange language to us. Paul is
clearly saying that when a believer celebrates the Lord’s Table, he or she is
participating “in the blood and the body” of the Lord. It is impossible from this passage alone to
conclude that Paul was speaking of some kind of actual or even real spiritual
realization of Christ connected to the blood and the bread. The context gives the definition that Paul wants us to know. That is, fellowship in the blood and body of the Lord implies concern for the community of faith and loyalty to the Host, God Himself.
[1] The
New International Version. (2011). (1 Co 8:1). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[2] Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians (p. 355). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
[3] The English word "sacrament" is
derived indirectly from the Ecclesiastical Latin sacrāmentum,
from Latin sacrō ("hallow, consecrate"), from sacer ("sacred,
holy"). Something that is
"sacramental" then confers holiness to the participant.
[4] Transubstantiation is the teaching that
during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the
elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body
and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain
their appearance of bread and wine.
[5] Consubstantiation is the view that the
bread and wine of Communion / the Lord's Supper are spiritually the flesh and
blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine.
[6]
Fee, G. D. (2014). The First Epistle to
the Corinthians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B.
Green, Eds.) (Revised Edition., p. 511). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[7]
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians
(p. 475). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
[8]
Fee, G. D. (2014). The First Epistle to
the Corinthians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B.
Green, Eds.) (Revised Edition., p. 512). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[9]
Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians
(p. 476). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
[10]
Fee, G. D. (2014). The First Epistle to
the Corinthians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B.
Green, Eds.) (Revised Edition., p. 514). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[11] Fee, G. D. (2014). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F.
Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B. Green, Eds.) (Revised Edition., p. 514). Grand
Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[12] Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
[13] Thiselton, Anthony C., The First Epistle to the
Corinthians: A commentary on the Greek
text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 2000, Page 750-751
[14] The
New International Version. (2011). (1 Co 10:16). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan.
[15] The English word "sacrament" is
derived indirectly from the Ecclesiastical Latin sacrāmentum,
from Latin sacrō ("hallow, consecrate"), from sacer ("sacred,
holy"). Something that is
"sacramental" then confers holiness to the participant.
[16] Transubstantiation is the teaching that
during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the
elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body
and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain
their appearance of bread and wine.
[17] Consubstantiation is the view that the
bread and wine of Communion / the Lord's Supper are spiritually the flesh and
blood of Jesus, yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine.
[i] The position associated with Zwingli is
sometimes referred to as the memorialist position, or the "real
absence" view. That might be somewhat misleading: everyone agrees that the
Supper is to be a memorial of Christ's death and resurrection. The question is
whether it is more than that. While most modern evangelicals suggest, at least
in practice, that it is not - Zwingli does seem to have some place for the
notion of a spiritual feeding of Christ. Ultimately though, both he and
Oecolampadius rejected Luther's position at Marburg because they saw it as a
threat to the validity of Christ's resurrection and ascension - if Christ was
physically resurrected in body, that body cannot be in two places at once (ie.
at the right hand of the Father and in the bread/wine). To argue that it could,
as Luther did, seemed to challenge the physical nature of Christ's
resurrection.
[ii] 1
fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation,
intercourse. 1a the share which one has in anything, participation. 1b intercourse,
fellowship, intimacy. 1b1 the right
hand as a sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office).
1c a gift jointly contributed, a collection, a contribution, as exhibiting an
embodiment and proof of fellowship.
No comments:
Post a Comment