Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks [without solemn reverence and heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifice of Christ], eats and drinks a judgment on himself if he does not recognize the body [of Christ]. |
Bible Question:
This is an issue i have been struggling with for some time now - raised baptist i was taught that the Lord's supper is a symbolic act - a memorial - shown by the words "this do in rememberence of me". Recently i have been introduced to Lutherans that believe it is much more than that. they believe Christ's spirit is present in the bread and wine and thus taking communion imparts on us the blessings of the holy spirit and the forgiveness of sins. they draw heavily from 1 Cor. 11:29 where Paul warns about taking communion unworthily. NASB 1 Cor 11:29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. AMP For anyone who eats and drinks without discriminating and recognizing with due appreciation that [it is Christ's] body, eats and drinks a sentence (a verdict of judgment) upon himself. my Bible says "if he does not discern the body" and the literal greek is "not judging through the body". is this a reference to Christ's true spiritual presence in communion? or is communion simply a symbolic act we participate in to proclaim "the death of the Lord until He arrives"? ive gone around and around on this one with baptist ministers and lutheran pastors. i wont explain further, but my situation is dire and i need some real spiritual guidence here. any help would be appreciated. thanks. tproffitt_79 |
Bible Answer: There are four principle views on the Lord's Supper: 1. The memorialist view that you mentioned 2. The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation 3. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation 4. The classical Reformed/Calvinist "real presence" view I personally have my problems with the first view because of verses like the one you have mentioned. It seems that in communion, just like in baptism, something more than just a memorial takes place. Paul says that our partaking of the elements is a participation in Christ's body and blood. Sounds more than a mere "picture" to me. I do not hold that the Scriptures warrant a transubstantiational view. The elements are still referred to as bread and cup, not the actual substance of Christ's physical body. In addition, Jesus' human nature is just as finite as our own, so I think that saying that everyone participating in the Eucharist right now is physically partaking of Christ's flesh and blood would be contrary to the New Testament and the church's own Definition of Chalcedon. Likewise, I hold that the Lutheran idea of Christ's body being "in, with, and under" the elements to be somewhat novel. It seems pretty confusing, and we see no evidence at all of such a view prior to Luther. Calvin and some of the other Reformers held that there is a union between the elements and the body and blood of Christ. In other words, the two are linked in a special way (just like the water in baptism is linked to God's sanctifying grace), but one does not become the other. That avoids either extreme (i.e. either a "bare memorial" or a substantial transformation of the bread and wine) and also poses the least amount of biblical difficulty, as far as I can see. That is why I believe that I am partaking of the divine life of Christ through the sacramental union between the sign (bread and wine) and the things that they signify (the body and blood of Christ). --Joe! |