LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 362

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

362 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

serving as the logical ground for the conclusion that begins at
11:30. To jump directly from [1:29 to 11:31, therefore, runs the
risk of ignoring the structure of Paul’s argument. Nevertheless,
there is a striking parallelism of sentence structure that may be di-
agramed as follows:

11:29—The one who eats and drinks eats and drinks a judg-

ment against himself. . . if he does not “discern the
body” (uy Stakpivey to o@pa).

11:31—If we were “discerning ourselves” (et d€ EautOvSG

dteKpivopev), we would not be being judged.
The parallelism is apparent. “Not discerning the body” in verse 29
is parallel to the conditional* elausc, “If we** were discerning our-
sclves [but we have not been doing so]... .” A right perception of
the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist will nec-
essarily entail a right perception of one’s relationship to fellow
communicants.

In the third place and most broadly. Paul’s entire theology of
the Eucharist’s corporate character and purpose supports an allu-
sion to the church in the words “discerning the body” in 11:29. As
we have already observed, the two “dimensions” in the Lord’s Sup-
per cannot be separated. Indecd, after issuing the warning and ex-
hortation of 11:27—29 and offering his apostolic explanation for
why God's judgment (but not condemnation!) has come upon
some of the Corinthian Christians, the apostle concludes, “There-
fore, my brothers, when you are coming together to eat, welcome
one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, in order that
you may not come together for judgment” (1 1:33-34a).

So then. what does it mean to “discern the body” and thus to
commune “worthily”? From the particulars of | Cor. 11:17-34 the
following points can be stated with confidence.

First, “discerning the body” requires faith that Christ’s true
body and blood are received in, with, and under the eucharistic
bread and wine. This is a sine gua non for all discussion of Paul’s
theology and understanding of the Lord’s Supper. We do not actu-
ally know if some of the Corinthians were denying this teaching
outright. But if they did not deny it de jure, they were denying it de
facto by their schisms and factions (11:18-19), for their behavior
contradicted the promised benefit of the Lord’s Supper and brought
divine judgment upon some of their number.

Second, “discerning the body” implies faith in and desire for
the effects of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s own words of institu-
tion (Matt. 26:28) indicate that the primary benefit of the Eucharist
is the forgiveness of sins. Yet in the Corinthian situation Paul fo-
cuses so strongly on the corporate character and benefits of the
Supper that the forgiveness of sins receives scarcely any attention.
The Eucharist is God’s means for preserving the unity of the
church, maintaining the many Christians as one body since they all
eat of the one loaf (1 Cor. 10:17). To create divisions is to contra-
dict the character and purpose of the Sacrament, and to fail to dis-
cern the body.

Third. the context indicates that “discerning the body” must in-
volve a repentant willingness to remove sinful divisions between
Christians that fracture the visible unity of the congregation and
contradict the Gospel-corporate character of the Lord’s Supper. All
who commune must examine themselves and through repentance
and faith they must find the divinely-created willingness to remove
divisions and to preserve unity with fellow communicants. In the
context of | Cor.11:17—34, the overt divisions seem to have been
primarily of a personal and/or sociological character, although
schisms of a more doctrinal nature cannot be absolutely excluded.**
While there is little in the context that corresponds to the phenom-
enon of “doctrinal disagreements” between Christian denomina-
tions, that should not surprise us. As noted earlier, the apostle deals
with intra-congregational divisions. Yet as we shall see below in
“Pastors as Stewards of the Mysteries,” Paul does deal with doc-

2001 Convention Workbook

trinal disunity among the Corinthians. He calls them back under
his own apostolic authority and teaching.

Summary Observations of “The Congregation’s Sacrament of Unity”

1. Christians can commune “unworthily” (ava&iac). This may
be difficult to understand, perhaps, when we recall the gracious
character and purposes of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, Paul’s
testimony is clear. The apostle, to be sure. carefully distinguishes
between the judgment (kpipa) and training (matdeveo@ar) that
God administers on the one hand, and being “condemned along
with the world” (kataxpi6yvat obv TO Kop) on the other hand.
Yet no child of God should commune in such a way that this di-
vine training and judgment become necessary.

2. The key to communing in a worthy manner Is the ability and
willingness to “discern the body.” This ability and willingness 1s
God’s gift. It consists of repentance and faith, and these move in
two directions at the same time. Repentance applies to sin commilt-
ted against God in general, the vertical dimension. But owing to
the corporate character of the Sacrament, such repentance also ap-
plies specifically and especially to one’s relationship to fellow
communieants, the horizontal dimension. Onc who communes
“worthily” acknowledges the importance of preserving a unity with
fellow communicants and is willing to do what is needed to remove
any fracture or division in that unity.

The faith of one who communes worthily includes faith in
Christ in a general way as well as faith in the real presence of
Christ’s body and blood. Moreover, faith in the Sacrament’s bene-
fits is also required, and especially its purpose to maintain the cor-
porate identity and unity of the church as the body of Christ. Thus,
faith in the Sacrament’s benefits also moves in two directions: to-
ward the blessing of renewed relationship with God in Christ as
well as toward the blessing of preserved and restored unity with
fellow communicants.

3. The Lord’s Supper, Paul declares, is a joint proclamation of
the Lord’s death, that is, of the nature and benetits of the Lord’s
death. This is a point of some importance to Paul. Paul twice re-
peats Christ’s words that His body and blood are “for my remem-
brance” (11:24, 25) as often as the bread will be eaten and the cup
will be drunk. Just so, as often as the Corinthians eat and drink the
Supper they are proclaiming—perhaps especially to each other“\—
the nature and benefits of the Lord’s death until He comes. Yet, the
disunity in their assemblies was giving the lie to the proclamation
of the Lord’s death, even as such factionalism stood in contradic-
tion to the Lord’s Supper and the gifts that it offers.

4. The next point should be familiar. Since the body and blood
of Christ are for the oneness and unity of the body, those who com-
mune must not perpetrate or ignore sinful disunity in their midst.
Paul’s treatment of “divisions” at the Lord’s Supper (oxiopuata,
11:19) probably has specifie reference to the social class distinctions
that are defiling the Corinthians’ communal meals and the accom-
panying eucharistic celebration. The apostle is not indifferent to di-
visions of a doctrinal nature, however, as the next section of this
study will describe. In | Corinthians the apostle is dealing, as it were,
with members of his own congregation. He therefore addresses the
immediate abuses regarding the Lord's Supper in chapter eleven,
while pastorally, patiently, and firmly dealing with other doctrinal
and moral aberrations throughout the remainder of the letter.

Nevertheless, this must be said: disunity contradicts the very
character of the Lord’s Supper itself. This point has immense im-
plications for pastoral and congregational practice in our churches
today. Lutherans, it is true, have given some traditional emphasis to
the necessity of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation among those
who participate together at the congregation’s eucharistic assem-
bly. But more emphasis and teaching would reflect the apostle’s
chief and explicit concern in dealing with the fractured Corinthian
situation. Modern situations of congregational conflict and in-fight-