Leanpub: Publish Early, Publish Often

10. Verse-by-Verse Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10-11

Note: If the reader has skipped the earlier chapters in order to get my take on 1 Corinthians 10-11, I would urge him/her to work through the presuppositional arguments first. Everyone’s exegesis is influenced by his/her presuppositions, and it is essential that we determine whether those presuppositions are biblical or not. This chapter was added to show that the young credo-communion interpretation of these chapters is a very natural reading.

Another important point that I would make before diving into the text of 1 Corinthians 10-11 is that Paul did not intend these chapters to replace the much more comprehensive teaching that God has given from Genesis to Revelation on the sacraments. Indeed, he explicitly said, “And the rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:34), implying that there was much more to say on this subject. In writing these chapters Paul had a narrow focus — to bring correction to the Corinthian church for partaking unworthily. Though there are brief mentions of the blessings that flow to worthy participants, Paul’s focus is not on 1) the worthy participants or 2) the blessings. His focus was to teach the Corinthians why they were receiving judgment rather than blessing when they partook of the Lord’s Supper. He begins by going to the Old Testament Scriptures.

Paul’s first example of unworthy participation (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26)

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. 6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.

This first example of unworthy participation took place early upon Israel’s entrance into the wilderness. There is debate on precisely which meal or meals Paul was referring to, but all commentators agree that this was not the Passover of Exodus 12 — a meal that happened before the Red Sea crossing. The reason this is so significant is that some paedo-communionists and some adult-communionists insist that the Lord’s Table replaces the Passover and the Passover alone. Here we see that whether this was the feast “three days” later (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26) as some affirm, or this is referring to the later ongoing weekly sacraments using the manna and the Rock (see Exodus 16 for start of manna and Exodus 17 for the start of water flowing from the Rock), these non-Passover meals are treated by Paul as being “the same spiritual food” and “the same spiritual drink” that we partake of in the Lord’s Table. Those two phrases are the first of several hints that there is an essential correspondence between all the sacramental meals of the Old Testament and the Lord’s Supper and not simply a correspondence between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. This means that unless we apply God’s instructions for all the Old Testament sacramental meals (as Paul is doing), we will have a very truncated view of the Lord’s Supper. Paul is basing his instruction upon the Old Testament (as he always did – see Acts 17:11; 26:22; 1 Cor. 4:6; etc.).

Because this is a passage that is heavily referenced by both paedo-communionists and adult-communionists, I will need to spend a bit more time dealing with their arguments. To save space, I will refer the reader to chapter 2 for more extensive argumentation of certain points where I can.

I demonstrated in chapter 2 that the adult-communion advocates ignore the fact that every sacramental feast that Paul references in this chapter had Old Testament examples of at least some ages of children partaking. Contrary to their rhetoric related to “our fathers,” the rest of 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 is not friendly to the adult-only-communion position. Nor is it convincing when adult-communionists sometimes relegate the first four verses to a non-sacramental status.³³⁰ How some people believe that common food could be said to be “the same spiritual food” and “the same spiritual drink” that we eat and drink is beyond me. Since they “drank of…Christ” when they partook, it is crystal clear that Paul is not referencing common food but he is indeed referencing sacramental meals.

Chapter 2 of this book has also demonstrated that paedo-communionists have misinterpreted the first five verses on several counts:

First, they ignore the fact that Paul had already shown the Corinthians that νηπίοις children (who can range in age from 1-4)³³¹ should not partake of βρῶμα food (1 Cor. 3:1-2). Since βρῶμα is the word used for “food” in the phrase, “the same spiritual food,” this shows that Paul did not intend us to read νηπίοις children into the phrase “all our fathers…all…all…all” in this passage. Paul would not contradict himself in the same book. βρῶμα food is clearly beyond the reach of νηπίοις children.

Second, in chapter 2 I demonstrated that Paul has already shown (1 Cor. 2:10-3:4) that God intended “spiritual” people to partake of “spiritual food,” and that children under the ages of three are by Paul’s own definition not considered to be “spiritual” (πνευματικός). Those children may be regenerate, but they are not spiritual people able to compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:10-3:4). Again, Paul’s earlier comments do not seem to mesh with the paedo-communionist argument at all.

Third, while paedo-communionists insist that being “baptized into Moses” was an initiatory precondition to partaking of the “same spiritual food” and the “same spiritual drink,”³³² I have shown in chapter 2 that their interpretation is not rooted in the sequence of events from circumcision in Egypt, to Passover in Egypt, to the Red Sea Crossing, to the sacramental meals in the wilderness mentioned in these verses. The Old Testament had numerous “baptisms,”³³³ and it is clear that this one did not initiate Israelites into the sacramental meals; a previous circumcision did. They had partaken of Passover before the meal referenced in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4. This undermines a major pillar in their argument.

Fourth, in chapter 2 I demonstrated that the paedo-communion position misses the whole flow of Paul’s arguments in chapters 10-11. I refer the reader to that chapter for some of the detailed arguments against both paedo-communion and adult-only-communion. In this section I will seek to clarify some things I did not deal with in that chapter.

By tying the Gentile “brethren” of the New Testament church of Corinth tightly to “our fathers” in the wilderness, Paul is showing a fundamental identity of the New Testament church with the Old Testament people of God. There are not two peoples of God (as Dispensationalists insist).³³⁴ Instead the Bible teaches us that there is one people, one bride, one body, one temple, one vineyard, one field, and one olive tree. Any interpretation of these chapters that presupposes that the New Testament church is utterly different from the Old Testament church is suspect.

Nor is Paul a “New-Testament-Only” Christian when it comes to divine revelation. Paul said, “I do not want you to be unaware,” and then repeatedly applies the Old Testament Scriptures related to Old Testament sacramental meals as if those Scriptures and meals were authoritative and applicable to instruct us on worthy participation in the New Testament sacramental meal (see especially verses 1-13). Paul had already informed the Corinthian church that he was not going to introduce anything new that was not already in the Old Testament. He had told them, “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10-11 that is tighter or looser than the Old Testament conditions for worthy participation is suspect since it would not pass the Berean test.³³⁵

These two truths cut two ways. First, they undermine any theory of adult-only-communion that treats the Lord’s Table as a New-Covenant-Only-Meal that is unparalleled in the Old Testament and much stricter on conditions of admission than the Old Testament.³³⁶ In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul repeatedly used Old Testament sacramental meals as paradigms to teach the Corinthians about worthy participation in their own sacramental meals. This argues strongly that those who partook in the Old Testament should continue to partake today. If “children” of various ages can be shown to have partaken of every meal that Paul will reference in chapter 10, then the burden of proof is upon the adult-communionist to prove that children are now excluded. The Old Testament sacramental passages continue to be authoritative and continue to apply to worthy participation today.

This same truth also cuts against the paedo-communionists that interpret “children” to include infants, when there is no evidence of infants, or toddlers, or two year olds partaking of the sacramental meals of the Old Testament (see chapter 3). If their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 cannot be found in the Old Testament, it is suspect. Indeed, this is simply the first of several examples Paul will give to show that being in the church is not sufficient to make one worthy of the Lord’s Table. Throughout 1 Corinthians 10-11, Paul will hammer home this truth over and over again. He will repeatedly point out that anyone who approaches the sacramental meal without faith is automatically partaking in an unworthy manner. As we will see shortly, it is this lack of faith that made God displeased with most of them in verse 5 because “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Heb. 11:6). We already realize in verses 1-4 that being a branch in the Olive Tree does not automatically make you saved or worthy of the Lord’s Table.³³⁷

Of course, both paedo-communionists and adult-communionists will insist that the phrase “our fathers” disproves what we are saying here and proves their point. Paedo-communionists believe that everyone who crossed the Red Sea (including the children) was included in that expression, “our fathers.” They then conclude that the participants of the communion in verses 3-4 are co-extensive with the participants of the baptism in verses 1-2 — and thus infants can partake. Adult communionists define “fathers” as being male adults and claim that since most of the adults were judged (but none of the children), verse 5 defines the “fathers” and the “all…all…all…all” as only including the males twenty years old and above that never made it into Canaan. They then conclude that only male adults partook of the sacrament. But there is nothing in logic that dictates that if all the older generation partook we can deduce that none of the younger generation also partook.

In any case, both groups miss the flow of Paul’s argument in this chapter. In every example, Paul almost entirely ignores the worthy participants and focuses upon those who were judged in order to teach what makes for unworthy participation (the main subject of these two chapters). Paul will be using example after example in 1 Corinthians 10 to convince the Corinthians that when the Old Testament conditions for worthy participation are missing,³³⁸ you are not a worthy participant even if you: 1) have pedigree (“our fathers”), 2) can claim to have seen God’s presence (“under the cloud”), 3) have experienced astounding miracles (“passed through the sea”), 4) were in covenant (“baptized into Moses”), 5) or had previously partaken of the sacramental meals (“ate the same spiritual food… drank the same spiritual drink”). Paul’s focus was not to prove or disprove that mothers and children were worthy or unworthy participants or non-participants. (Any Jew who had read the Old Testament would have known that mothers and at least some of the children did participate in the sacramental meals — see the first half of chapter 2 and all of chapter 3 of my book). Rather, Paul’s focus was to prove that even the founding fathers of Israel eventually proved to be without faith, and thus were unworthy participants. If lack of faith made them unworthy, children who lack faith would also be unworthy.

Adult-communionists are at least correct on one point — the word “fathers” can only refer to the adult males who crossed the Red Sea. This definition of “fathers” can be ascertained by two lines of evidence. First, consider the following possible meanings of “our fathers.”

The immediate biological parents of those in Corinth. While there could theoretically be some sense in which immediate biological parents could be said to be metaphorically or spiritually identified with the wilderness generation, it makes no sense of verse 5, which says that “their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” It is obvious that since none of the Corinthian’s immediate parents had their bodies scattered in the wilderness at the time of Moses, that this definition of the Greek word for “fathers” does not fit.
All the biological ancestors of the previous thousands of years. Did all of the biological ancestors of the Corinthian church cross the Red Sea? Obviously not since they were dominantly a Gentile church.³³⁹ The same phrase, “their bodies were scattered in the wilderness,” rules out this definition as well.
Everyone who crossed the Red Sea and became the biological ancestors of the later Jews (whether male or female, young or old). There are three reasons that Paul could not have had this definition in mind. First, verse 5 says that God was displeased with “most of” the fathers. If those under twenty were included in Paul’s definition of “our fathers,” then this would not have been the case since they outnumbered the adults who died.³⁴⁰ While it is true that most (but not all) of those twenty and above were judged by God,³⁴¹ it is not true that most of those who lived during the forty years of wandering were judged. Second, the “fathers” whose bodies were scattered are characterized as lacking faith (Heb. 4:2-13), whereas the children who grew up and took the conquest proved to be the most faithful generation of Israelites in their entire history. They were definitely pleasing to God. Third, Psalm 78 clearly distinguishes between the children of faith in the wilderness and “their fathers a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that did not set its heart aright, and whose spirit was not faithful to God” (Ps. 78:8). Paul appears to be using the term “fathers” in exactly the same way that Psalm 78:8 does, not in the way of this point’s definition.
A title of respect for the older people of a generation (as in “fathers and brethren”). While this interpretation would also rule out the paedo-communion view, it does not seem to be in view since verse 5 shows no respect for them.
Founders of a nation or other institution. This seems to be the meaning Paul had in mind. Only males twenty and above were able to represent their families by voting,³⁴² and thus only the males twenty and above would have been counted as the covenantal founders (fathers) of Israel. So as mentioned already above, Paul’s point was that even these founding fathers were judged because they partook of communion without faith.

That the non-Passover sacramental meals in the wilderness were a true feeding upon Christ and thus a true sacrament of Christ can be seen from verses 3-4: “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” We have already commented on the fact that the “same” spiritual food shows an essential identity between those meals and our sacrament. There are other important truths that must not be neglected:

First, Paul says that they ate “spiritual food” (10:3) and “spiritual drink.” This clearly distinguishes the sacramental manna from the daily common food that was eaten. In contrast, paedo-communionists will often teach that every meal and snack in the wilderness was a sacramental meal. This would prove too much — it would admit lepers, the uncircumcised, the mixed multitude, and others since their only source of food was manna and their only source of drink was water. As many adult communionists point out, it would involve the animals in the sacrament since the same text that speaks of the “congregation” eating also speaks of the animals eating — “water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank” (Numb. 20:21). While most paedo-communionists would dismiss the idea that cattle partook³⁴³ they have so far not been clear on why all manna and water was not sacramental. On my theory the distinction between sacramental and common food in the wilderness is easy: There are two reasons we know that all manna meals were not sacramental meals and why every drink of water taken throughout the day was not a sacramental drink. First, the law of God specified that only Levites could distribute sacramental food³⁴⁴ in order to show that communion is by God’s initiation and could only be experienced under His authority. Second, the law of God specified that the sacramental meals could only be eaten after a blood sacrifice had been slain on behalf of the participants³⁴⁵ in order to show that apart from Christ’s atonement there could be no shalom. Thus, the manna was only sacramental manna when it was eaten in conjunction with the tabernacle sacrifices distributed by the Levites. The sacrament is not a “family meal” (as is often asserted by paedo-communionists). It is a covenantal pledge that can only be made by those who are capable of making such a pledge.

Second, it is often assumed in the sacramental debates that the Passover was the only public sacrament that Israel partook of in the wilderness. It is clear that there were many times when Israel had a “feast to the Lord.” Three days into the wilderness Israel had been commanded to have a sacramental meal to the Lord (Ex. 3:18; 5:1,3; 8:27 with 7:16; 10:9-10,24-26). There were other times when they “ate and drank” before the Lord (cf. Ex. 20:24; 24:5,11; 32:5-6; etc.). The other examples of sacramental meals in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 make it clear that Passover is not the only antecedent to the Lord’s Table.

Third, let us never forget the fact that it is possible to eat Christ’s flesh and drink Christ’s blood in a non-literal “spiritual” sense (v. 4; see also John 6:61-63). No one would assert that Israelites literally drank Christ’s blood in the wilderness. That would be a denial of a historical incarnation of Christ — something not even Romanists have the temerity to assert! If we eat the “same” spiritual food and spiritual drink that they did, it is obvious that ours is not Christ’s literal flesh and blood either. It was by the mouth of faith that the Old Testament saints appropriated to themselves all that Christ’s future death meant to them, and they were strengthened by the sacrament when they approached it by faith because the pre-incarnate Son of God was present with them. In other words, they ate the Gospel (and the Gospel is His flesh & blood).

It may seem strange to speak of eating flesh and blood (the Gospel), but it is no more strange than eating the scroll of Scripture (Rev. 10:9,10; Ezek, 3:1-3). Those examples of eating were merely symbols of faith’s appropriation of Christ. As Calvin said, “Christ comes to us clothed in His Gospel.”³⁴⁶ This is precisely the message of Revelation 3:20: “If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” To deny the special presence of Christ in any sacrament (whether O.T. or N.T.) is to deny the sacrament. However, we reject the carnal notion that the bread and wine are transformed into real meat and blood, or even that they are accompanied by real meat and blood from Christ’s body. Christ is present with us in a “spiritual” rather than a carnal sense. Because of that spiritual presence we are able to benefit from His bodily sacrifice and appropriate it.

Fourth, we demonstrated in chapter 2 that Paul insists that no one benefits from the Table apart from faith. This is certainly consistent with Christ’s discussions of the sacramental manna in the wilderness (John 6:29,37,40,44-45,47,53-54,63-65). In John 6 Christ assumes that the Israelites should have known they had to eat His flesh (in the spiritual sense described above – see John 6:61-63). We should not read John 6 from a post-cross perspective. Even from a pre-cross perspective the Jews should have known and received by faith what was symbolized.

Because no wine was available while in the desert, the water that flowed from the rock was given by God as a legitimate substitute for wine. We will see under 11:20 that wine was God’s drink of choice at the meal, but there are third world countries where it would be absolutely impossible for the tribes to get wine. In such circumstances, an alternative like water is explicitly authorized by God. It may not be “regular” but it is still “valid.”

Verse 5 says, “But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.” The word “most” implies that there were some of the adult males over the age of twenty (see Numb. 14:26-38) that God was pleased with. These would include at least Moses, Caleb (Numb. 14:38), Joshua (Numb. 14:38), Aaron (Numb. 16:48), Phinehas (Numb. 25:10-16), a large group of faithful Levites that sided with Moses (Ex. 32:26-35), and perhaps others. Though the children were not in view in Paul’s argument, Paul’s exclusion of them from his discussion is in line with the Pentateuch’s portrayal of the younger generation as being people of faith who pleased God and who would later take the land of Canaan under Joshua.

Verse 6 draws Paul’s first direct application: Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. Note again that the wilderness sacramental meals serve as our examples of what happens when we partake while lusting. There is definitely a connection with these Old Testament sacraments and the New Testament sacrament. The Lord’s Supper sums up and replaces all of the Old Testament fellowship meals. Thus 5:6-8 and 10:14-22 applies other Old Testament meals directly to the New Testament meal. All participants (and only those participants) who partook in the Old Testament should partake in the New Testament. All conditions (and only those conditions) required of participants in the Old Testament should be applied to participants in the New Testament.

Paul’s second example of unworthy participation from Exodus 32:1-35

1 Cor. 10:7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

Note that by picking situations where they ate and drank, Paul is being a careful exegete and only applying legitimate sacramental meals to the Lord’s Table. It is obvious that the idolaters of Exodus 32 have a clear correspondence to the idolaters in the Church of Corinth. In order for the sacramental portion of Paul’s quote from Exodus 32 (“The people sat down to eat and drink”) to have a one-to-one application to the Corinthians’ unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper, there must be some essential identity between what was happening in the meal of Exodus 32 and what was happening in Corinth. The essential identity is not with the sacrifices themselves (since Christ is the final sacrifice — see Heb 7:27; 9:26), but with the fellowship meal that followed all peace offerings. In the case of this peace offering and the sacramental meal that followed (Ex. 32:6), partaking while participating in idolatry violates the pledge of loyalty to Yehowah that is involved in every sacramental meal and thus results in judgment rather than blessing.

Exodus 32:35 says, “So the LORD plagued the people because of what they did with the calf which Aaron made.” A plague is a serious sickness. Earlier in Exodus 32 God had also brought death. In the same way, Paul speaks of weakness, sickness, and death resulting from unworthy participation of the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:30). This was a common result of communion meals in the Old Testament (see as another example, 2 Chron. 30:18-20). Paul wants the Corinthians to eat “for the better” rather than “for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:17). That is why he gives these repeated warnings. To deliberately include people in the Lord’s Supper who do not meet the conditions of worthy participation is to have their blood on our hands.

Paul’s third example of unworthy participation is from Numbers 25-26

1 Cor. 10:8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell;

This verse warns the Corinthians about the sacramental judgment that killed 23,000 in Numbers 25-26. This time the sin was sexual immorality that happened after the sacramental meal. By partaking they were pledging covenant faithfulness, but they went out and immediately engaged in fornication. This made their sacramental participation a hypocritical lie. Again this shows that the sickness and death that the Corinthians were receiving from unworthy participation (1 Cor. 11:30-32) was nothing new. It was common in Old Testament times as well.

Paul’s fourth example of unworthy participation from Numbers 21:4-8

1 Cor. 10:9 nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;

How did they “tempt Christ” in the wilderness? In two ways: 1) by a lack of faith in God’s promises (Numb. 21:4-8) and 2) by a lack of appreciation for the manna (calling it “worthless bread” – Numb. 21:5). Paul implies that we will receive a similar judgment if we have a similar tempting of Christ while partaking of the Lord’s Table. This again shows that the Lord’s Table is not a family meal. It is a supernatural meal that guarantees blessings for those who meet the conditions and guarantees judgment on those who do not. On the other hand, we should not follow the lead of adult-communionists by allowing fear of judgment to make us exclude those whom the Old Testament clearly included. That too would be to violate the Regulative Principle of Worship. God has His reasons for admitting young ones to a sacrament of judgment, and one of those reasons is to instill in them fear and respect for God.

Paul’s fifth example of unworthy participation from Numbers 15-16

1 Cor. 10:10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

This fifth example comes from Numbers 15-16. To “complain” is to violate a condition of submission to Christ. Paul alludes to an example of complaining that happened in Numbers 16. Despite the gracious provision of sacramental meals in the previous chapter, and despite God making it clear that Levites alone could distribute the holy food, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, On, and others said, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (Numb. 16:3). The subsequent verses made it clear that they sought to make offerings and sacramental meals in violation of God’s ecclesiastical requirements. It resulted in a massive judgment. Paul again assumes that we can receive a parallel judgment at the Lord’s Table when we have parallel rebellion and complaining. Children who are in rebellion against authority and who engage in habits of complaining should not be admitted.

By using the word “destroyer,” “Paul links the angel who brought the plague of Nu 16:46-50…with the destroying angel of Exodus 12:23.”³⁴⁷ This means that the same judgments that came against Egypt can easily come against those inside the covenant if they act like the world. It also means that we should not treat the Passover as if it has less judgment than the other sacramental meals of the Old Testament. Paul indicates an essential character of judgment that the meal of Numbers 16 had with the Passover. This should instruct our view of the Passover. It is not a family meal. It is a supernatural meal that brings supernatural judgment upon those who falsely pledge allegiance and it is a supernatural meal of blessing to those who truly pledge allegiance. Again, Paul treats all those sacramental meals in a similar way and ties all the Old Testament sacramental meals into the Lord’s Table.

General applications from all Old Testament feasts

1 Cor. 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Paul is explicit that “all these things” apply to us in two ways: they serve as “examples” and they were written “for our admonition.” The “all” includes all Old Testament sacramental meals. This is why Zechariah 14:16-21 could prophesy that Gentiles in the New Covenant would celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. It is perfectly appropriate to speak of the Lord’s Table as a Firstfruits (1 Cor. 10:3-5), a Passover (see Mark 14:12,14,16; Luke 22:8,11,13,15; 1 Cor. 5:7-8), a Pentecost (Acts 2:1,42,46), a Feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14:16-21; John 7:2,37), manna (John 7:27-71; 1 Cor. 10:3-4,9; Rev. 2:17), an Edenic Tree of Life (Rev. 2:7; 22:2), a peace offering meal (1 Cor. 10:7-8), or a meal that is equivalent to the general temple meals (1 Cor. 10:10,18; Rev. 3:12). The specific versions of paedo-communion and adult-only communion that teach that the Passover alone stands as the backdrop to the Lord’s Table are simply not true. This means that if there are at least some sacramental meals that admitted children (as all commentaries agree), then we too must admit children. If those sacramental meals imposed conditions for worthy participation upon children, then we should not admit children too young to keep those conditions.

Unless the New Testament explicitly changes something commanded under the law (such as ending sacrifices), we must imitate the good examples and eschew the bad examples. We should submit to God’s commands relative to those meals. All participants of Old Testament meals continue to be worthy participants today. All conditions connected to Old Testament meals continue to be conditions we must follow today. The Regulative Principle of Worship demands nothing less. The Old Testament blueprints for the sacramental meals “were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” A study of worthy participation must not restrict itself to Exodus 12 (as so many paedo and adult-communion studies have tended to do), but should submit to the complete revelation of God with respect to those meals. This book has sought to do exactly that.

When Paul says, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall,” he makes it clear that being in the covenant is not sufficient to make us worthy participants. God calls all participants to “take heed.”

Paul is also clear that the Old Testament standards for coming to communion were not unreasonably strict or impossible to keep. By God’s grace, we can keep those conditions because, “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” If at least some 3-6 year old children were able to keep the six conditions laid out in 2 Chronicles 31 (see chapters 2-3), then it is imperative that we not put burdens upon children’s backs so onerous that it would be impossible for them to meet those conditions until nearing adulthood. God’s burden was light and His yoke was easy enough for even children to bear.

Admonitions and rules of conduct for the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 10:14-11:34)

In the remainder of Paul’s discussion he outlines some of the Old Testament rules of conduct that must be present when partaking of the Lord’s Table and gives some additional clarifying instructions.

Avoid any hints of idolatry (v. 14)

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Paul’s first rule of conduct is that we must avoid all compromise with idolatry when we come to the table or we will suffer discipline. By calling them “my beloved” he is showing great affection. But by calling them to “flee from idolatry” he is showing great concern. The call to “flee” shows how serious such compromise is.

Approach the table with discernment (v. 15)

I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.

Contrary to what adult-communion advocates say, the word “men” is not in the text. What the New King James renders as “wise men” is φρονίμοις, a word that refers to anyone (young or old) who has some understanding and discernment. We have already demonstrated in chapter 2 that at least some ages of children are able to show the kind of discernment and judgment that this text calls for.

Contrary to paedo-communion, Paul’s admonitions require that participants be able to approach the table with discernment. Christ defines a φρόνιμος as being “whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them” (Matt. 7:24). Paul here clarifies what he means by saying, “judge for yourselves what I say.” Those who lack discernment and who cannot judge what they are doing when they partake should not be administered the Lord’s Supper. This includes comatose adults as well as infants. Worthy participation involves some degree of overcoming temptation (10:13) and fleeing from idolatry (10:14).

Approach the table expecting to receive blessing (v. 16a)

The cup of blessing…

Though Paul’s focus will be on judgments in these chapters, he also indicates that we can experience “blessing” and we can eat “for the better” (1 Cor. 11:17). Scripture documents many blessings that flow from worthy participation in the meal (see comments on 11:17).

See the table as covenantal pledge of union and communion (v. 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?

All sacramental meals implied a covenantal bond that was being pledged in a mutual blessing. First, there is the blessing of God that is found in the cup. Thiselton shows how the phrase, “The cup of blessing,” comes from the third cup in the Passover feast, and as such is a covenantal pledge that makes one a “stakeholder” or “shareholder…in Christ, in the cross and resurrection, and in the divine reality of the church as God’s people.”³⁴⁸ In his larger commentary he states,

The cup of blessing of covenant participation also finds a parallel with “the metaphor of the betrothal contract” in 2 Cor 11:1–2, both of which combine pledged loyalty with an exclusivist image of judgment.³⁴⁹

If the only pledge involved in this sacrament was the pledge of God to us or the pledge of parent to raise their children in the nurture of the Lord, then infants could conceivably have partaken, but there is a mutual pledge. This is “The cup of blessing which we bless.” To bless God even as He blesses us speaks of a conscious and verbal partaking of the sacrament — not something infants can do. The cup blesses us and we “bless” the cup, and the blessings flow to us only as we by faith bless the cup in our covenant renewal.

Notice that “bread” remains bread when it ushers us into communion with the body of Christ and the “cup” remains a cup when it ushers us into communion with the blood of Christ. Indeed, the very fact that Paul is quoting Christ’s words before Christ was crucified argues against any literal meat and blood being in the communion. No one asserts that the apostles partook of Christ’s body and blood before His body and blood were sacrificed on the cross. If our Lord’s Supper is identical to the apostles Last Supper, then we are back to the words of verses 3-4 where Paul insists that our food is “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” not literal meat and blood (which would otherwise involve us in the crime of cannibalism). Paul is simply using the language of Deuteronomy 32:14, which calls the sacramental drink “the blood of grapes.” Beale and Carson state the significance of these words:

Just as participation in the Passover celebration entailed participation in the benefits of the Passover sacrifice (cf. Ex. 12:27; 34:25; Deut. 16:2,5-6; 2 Chron. 35:1,6,11), participation in the Lord’s Supper entails participation in the benefits of his sacrifice for us.³⁵⁰

Sacramental union with Christ also makes us united with His body, the Church (v. 17)

For there is One Bread; we who are many are one body, for we all partake of that One Bread. (My translation, see also NASB, ESV, HCSBS, NET, CEB for a similar literal translation)

Almost every commentary struggles over the difficulty of translating this verse. To be fair to our paedo-communionist brethren, I will point out that this verse could be translated as the New King James does: “For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” That translation makes the one bread symbolize the one body (i.e., the church). Though they have a difficulty doing so on a literal translation, Tim Gallant seeks to make the bread symbolize the church on even the literal translation. He claims that this verse is of “monumental significance” in favor of paedo-communion.³⁵¹ I would agree with him that this verse is probably their strongest argument from the entire Bible. Consider their logic in the form of two interlinking syllogisms:

Syllogism one Premise one: The one loaf of bread symbolizes the whole Church
Premise two: The whole church (“we all”) partakes of the sacramental bread
Conclusion: Therefore the whole church (the body of Christ) and the Lord’s Table are coextensive.

Syllogism two Premise one: The whole church (the body of Christ) and the Lord’s Table are coextensive (from syllogism one).
Premise two: Infants are in the church/body of Christ
Conclusion: Therefore infants should partake of the bread and exclusion of infants violates the symbolism of the sacrament — the unity of the church.

There are several reasons why this interpretation is unlikely. First, the literal translation of the Greek³⁵² given by most literal translations shows that Paul is not changing the subject by making the bread symbolize something new. He begins with a “For.” The previous verse (v. 16) had already identified the symbolism of the bread as pointing to Jesus. As Charles Hodge words it:

Literally rendered this verse reads: Since it is one bread, we the many are one body; for we are all partakers of one bread. We are not said to be one bread; but we are one body because we partake of one bread. The design of the apostle is to show that every one who comes to the Lord’s supper enters into communion with all other communicants. They form one body in virtue of their joint participation of Christ. This being the case, those who attend the sacrificial feasts of the heathen form one religious body. They are in religious communion with each other, because in communion with the demons on whom their worship terminates.³⁵³

Therefore the immediate context would seem to argue against premise one of syllogism one. If one premise is false, the whole argument from the two syllogisms falls to the ground.

Second, nowhere else in Scripture does the “bread” symbolize the church. In the Synoptic Gospels, the bread symbolized Jesus’ literal body — “Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to His disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ ‘” (Matt. 26:26; see also Mark 14:22; Luke 22:9). In John 6, the bread symbolized Christ’s flesh — “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” In 1 Corinthians 11:27, the elements symbolize the body and blood of the Lord — “Therefore 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” (Majority Text). The word “blood” in the phrase “body and blood” makes it impossible to take “body” there as referring to the church. Thus the broader context of the symbolism of bread makes premise one of syllogism one unlikely.

Having disproved their assumption that the sacramental bread must symbolize the church, the main paedo-communion argument is dismantled. They might respond that our alternative interpretation still does not adequately explain the “for” in the clause, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of that one bread.” Some argue that without partaking of the bread and wine, we are not part of the body — that the two are still correlative even without bread symbolizing the church. This is the view I held when I was a paedo-communionist, but there were five things that made me begin to doubt this interpretation:

First, I couldn’t back it up from the Old Testament. Was it really fair to say that Samuel was not part of the body until three years after he was circumcised (1 Sam. 1:24-28)? Was it really fair to say that the yeled, yonek, and olel children that were deliberately excluded from the holy food in 2 Chronicles 31:15-18 were not part of the church? When Nehemiah 8:2-3 only admitted “all who could hear with understanding,” was he denying the reality that circumcision added children to the church? This interpretation was contradicted so many times in the Old Testament that it felt forced here and made Paul seem to be teaching something new.

Second, even the word “for” that they appeal to shows this. Notice that the word “for” goes before “we all partake of that One Bread.” The argument is not that we partake of that One Bread because we are in the body. The argument is that we are in one body because we partake of the One Bread. This seems to necessitate that Paul is talking about “the One Bread” (Christ) not “the one bread” (sacramental bread). If it was the sacramental bread that people were partaking of, we could ask, “Does the Lord’s Supper result in us being one body?” No. It might symbolize that, but it does not produce that. If this is “that One Bread” then it makes sense. Union with Christ automatically ushers us into the one body whether others acknowledge it or not or whether we come to the table or not. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Samuel was in the one body long before he partook of the sacramental meal. I believe that even paedo-communionists would be forced to admit that one must be in the body before he can partake of the Lord’s Table, but this verse is stating the opposite. It is stating that we are one body because we all partake of that One Bread. So this is yet another argument in favor of “that One Bread” being Jesus in this verse.

Third, this interpretation seems to not be sensitive to the visible/invisible distinction of both Israel and the church. All through 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul wants people to examine themselves to make sure they have a vital union with Christ. As he words it in 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you are disqualified.” Likewise in 1 Corinthians 11:28 each participant is supposed to “examine himself” before he eats.

Fourth, their interpretation assumes that Paul has switched back to the symbol (“the bread”) rather than what was symbolized (“the Bread”). While it is certainly possible, it seems more likely that Paul is doing the same thing here that he did in verses 3-4. There he switched from the symbol (vv. 3-4a) to the thing symbolized, Christ — “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (v. 4). Here he starts with the symbol — “the cup of blessing…the bread which we break” (v. 16) and moves to the thing symbolized, Christ — “is it not the communion of the blood of Christ… is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For there is One Bread; we who are many are one body, for we all partake of that One Bread” (vv. 16-17).

My final reason for beginning to think that I was reading more into the text than was there is that it is not absolutely necessary to include infants in the “we all.” For one thing, that would violate Paul’s rule of not going beyond what is written in the Old Testament (1 Cor. 4:6). Nowhere in the Old Testament is there mention of infants partaking. In any case, Paul had already given the antecedent to the “we all.” There is no indication of infants in the preceding context. The “we all” refers to all of the communicants being discussed earlier. These are described as “the many” earlier in the sentence (οἱ πολλοί — v. 17a) and a “we” that constituted very active participants in the previous verses — “we bless” (v. 16) “we break” (v. 16), a “we” who are people that are “wise” and who can “judge” (v. 15), and the “beloved” who were exhorted to “flee” from idolatry (v. 14). It is quite natural to take the “we all” as all of us who have been under discussion in the previous verses. Paul uses “all” in this restricted sense over and over in 1 and 2 Corinthians.³⁵⁴ Indeed, since the odd placement of the ἐκ in 1 Corinthians 10:17 makes it not able to modify the word “partake” (μετέχω) without violating the normal rules of grammar,³⁵⁵ it almost necessitates that the ἐκ modify something else in the verse — either “out of (ἐκ) the body” or “out of (ἐκ) the all.” Either way, he seems to be referring to “all out of some group.” So the last phrase could be rendered “For all out of [the body] who are partaking of the bread.” Almost nobody agrees on the meaning of that ἐκ, so I would definitely not want to press this point.

In conclusion, however you interpret “body” and “we all,” there are two additional thoughts that need to be considered. A fundamental rule of interpretation is that we ought not to use the unclear texts of Scripture to overturn the clear ones. Almost everyone agrees that this verse is difficult to translate. Morris says, “This is a difficult verse to interpret in detail.”³⁵⁶ Robertson and Plummer speak of “these ambiguous words” that are “not easy to decide how they should be translated.”³⁵⁷ Other commentaries have opted to not be dogmatic, and I certainly will not be dogmatic on this verse either, but I would urge my brothers on the other side of the fence to at least consider not making an unclear verse to be of “monumental significance” to their position as Gallant does.

Of course, all of this was designed to emphasize Paul’s point to “flee from idolatry” (v. 14) and to avoid compromise with idolatry (vv. 19-33). Fee states:

Their singular existence as the people of God, bound together to their Lord through the benefits of the cross and experienced regularly at his Table, makes all other such meals idolatry. Paul’s point, therefore, is not the unity of the body that this meal represents (although it probably anticipates that concern as well), but the solidarity of the redeemed community as one body in Christ that forbids all other such unions.³⁵⁸

Sacramental union with apostate Judaism involves us in a false koinonia with Judaism (v. 18)

Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

No sacramental meal could be participated in without identifying with the sacrifice that preceded it. Those Old Testament sacrifices were both a statement of faith and a covenantal commitment. They were intended to look forward to the coming Messiah and trust in Him alone for their salvation, and they were an unconditional surrender to God. Now that the Messiah anticipated by those sacrifices had come, to participate in the temple sacrifices in New Testament times would have been tantamount to denying that the Messiah had come, rejecting Christianity, and identifying with Judaism. This is a powerful argument against the Corinthian desires to eat meat offered to idols — just as eating in the temple would be to reject Christianity and to identify with Judaism, eating in a pagan temple would be to reject Christianity and identify with paganism.

Participation in pagan sacramental meals involves the Corinthians in communion with demons (10:19-22)

19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

The Greek word for “communion” (κοινωνία) implies sharing in something together and the word for “partake” (μετέχω) also points to a sharing in common with someone. Notice the things shared so far: 1) “communion (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ” (v. 16), 2) “communion (κοινωνία) of the body of Christ” (v. 17), 3) “we all partake (μετέχομεν) of that one bread” (v. 18), “partakers (κοινωνοὶ) of the altar”, “fellowship (κοινωνοὺς) with demons” (v. 20). This koinonia is more than a symbol. There is an active spiritual “happening” with either God or demons.

Hodge comments: “A man cannot eat of the table of demons without being brought under their power and influence; nor can we eat of the table of the Lord, without being brought into contact with him, either to our salvation or condemnation.”³⁵⁹ Just as participating in a pagan sacramental meal actually brought a person into koinonia with demons, participating in the Lord’s Table actually brings us into koinonia with Christ’s sacrifice. We know how the koinonia with the pagan sacrament works — it works by the supernatural power of demons. But what about the Christian koinonia? It is the Holy Spirit who quickens the partaker of the Lord’s Supper with Christ and enables him or her to appropriate all that Christ’s sacrificed body and blood purchased.

This gives the Lord’s Table a purpose similar to the Old Testament fellowship meals. In both cases, the sacrifice had to be finished and atonement made before the fellowship meal could enable the partakers to receive by faith what the sacrifice foreshadowed. This means that the “cup” and “bread” remains cup and bread and does not become Christ’s sacrificial blood and body. It is still cup and bread when we commune by faith in Christ’s sacrifice and what it purchased.

To participate in this covenant pledge with demons is to deny our pledge to the true God. Such breaking of pledges is punished by a jealous God. “Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?” Obviously we are not stronger than God, and will not get away with this compromise.

A call to pursue what is helpful and edifies (v. 23)

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

This verses draws three distinctions to help guide our worship practices (the subject of chapters 10-14): 1) is it lawful, 2) is it helpful, 3) and does it edify? Paul was applying this principle to the meat that had previously been sacrificed to demons and had pagan sacramental powers connected to it. All things (not all actions, but all things) have a lawful use (including meat sold in a pagan market place), but 1) even if it was lawful to do something, we need to additionally ask 2) if it is helpful and 3) if it edifies or builds up.

This too can be applied to the debate on worthy participation in the the Lord’s Table. We must look to the law to determine if something is lawful. Next we must look to the law to see when, how, and by whom participation in the sacrament is helpful. And third, we must let the Scripture define what builds up.

Is it lawful for infants to participate in the Lord’s Table? No. We cannot assume their participation based on the words “household” or “children.” The view being argued in this book has households and children participate, but not infants or toddlers who fail to meet the law’s requirements. The Regulative Principle of Worship demands that the law explicitly authorize our participation.

Second, we must let the Bible determine what is helpful to our infants. It might be thought to be helpful to include them and we might feel bad when they cry about not being admitted. But if God is using the exclusion of children who do not meet His qualifications, we must say that it is helpful. And I believe Paul’s approach of demanding conditions is not only lawful but helpful in driving our children to the Gospel of Christ.

Third, we must let the Bible determine what edifies. The Lord’s Table is not simply a common meal. Paul will insist in this worship section (chapters 10-14) that there can be no profit or edification without understanding (1 Cor. 14:3-5,12,17). And when he insists “let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26), the Lord’s Table is one of those “all things” in chapters 10-14. It might be objected that the same argument applies to infant baptism, and without the infant’s knowledge it does not edify him or her. But that baptism does indeed edify the parents. But more to the point, Christ’s exposition of the manna sacrament in John 6 shows that no one benefited from eating manna without faith (see for example John 6:29,37,40,44-45,47,53-54,63-65). Revelation 3:20 also calls for a knowledge that will edify when it says, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” He requires an ability to hear His voice speaking in the Scriptures (“if anyone hears My voice”), and an active faith that reaches out “and opens the door.” Neither condition is possible for infants. Those two conditions speak of spiritual discernment (something infants lack — see Jonah 4:11; Deut. 1:39; Isa. 7:15-16) and an active faith (as opposed to seed faith).

The Lord’s Table calls us to lay down our rights and our self-seeking (v. 24)

24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

Notice that Paul said, “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being” (10:24). The “no one” and “each one” is as extensive as participation in the meal (the subject of chapters 10-11). To put off egocentrism and to be able to look from another person’s perspective and for another’s welfare requires some degree of maturity. It involves putting off self-centered “lust” (10:6), not simply eating because one is hungry or because one wants the food (11:21-22), and “not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many” (10:32-33). Though infants can have some degree of empathy, the level of looking to the interests of others described by Paul requires further development than an infant possesses.

Distinguishing between demonic food and common food in the market place (vv. 25-30)

1 Cor. 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

Paul’s argument seems to be that even demonic sacramental food loses its sacramental quality when it is eaten as common food. He will argue the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. What they were eating had become common food and had no sacramental benefit. Christ was not even present inside the church of Laodicea when they partook of the sacrament (Rev. 3:20). Without Christ’s presence such food was no different than common food. Well, the same is true of demonic food. If it is separated from the 1) context of the temple (“meat market”), 2) and if you do not know that it was sacrificed to demons (“asking no questions”), 3) and if there is no presence of the demonic by way of attachment (“to demons…fellowship with demons” v. 20), then it becomes common food with no sacramental implications. I won’t comment in depth on these verses, but there are some implications that can be drawn by logical inference:

First, if lack of knowledge excuses anyone who eats meat offered to idols from a demonic-sacramental dimension, then we can extrapolate that a similar lack of knowledge on the part of comatose adults or immature infants will also deprive the Lord’s Table of sacramental benefit to them.

Second, if the non-sacramental context (“any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner”) makes the food offered to idols non-sacramental in effect, the non-sacramental context of a family claiming to have the Lord’s Supper in their home also deprives such a meal of any sacramental effect (whether positive or negative). In 1 Corinthians 11:20-22 Paul clearly distinguishes common food from sacramental food, and makes context part of that equation — “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?”

The glory of God must be central (v. 31)

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

This is fairly self-explanatory. One of the central themes in the book of 1 Corinthians is the glory of God versus the glory of man, and why all glory must be hidden except for the glory of God in the worship service. Unless participants can consciously seek to glorify God, they should not “eat or drink” the sacrament.

Our testimony must be clean at the Lord’s Table (v. 32)

32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God…

A clean testimony is essential when coming to the Lord’s Table.

There must be no self-seeking at the Lord’s Table (v. 33)

33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

It takes time and grace to outgrow the self-focus that tends to be part of all immaturity (see comments on verse 24). Isaiah 40:11 distinguishes between levels of maturity: “He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those who are with young.” This speaks of the mature in the first phrase, the new born lambs in the second phrase, and infants in the womb in the last phrase. All are part of God’s flock, but God does not force-feed grass to lambs. He nurtures them in other ways, as has already been discussed in earlier chapters.

We must dress and groom appropriately at the Lord’s Table (11:1-16)

1 Cor. 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Though some commentaries believe that 11:1-16 is out of place, the Scottish Reformers were absolutely correct in their belief that all of chapters 10-11 continue to be binding and all deal with conduct at the Lord’s Table. They applied these dress and grooming codes only to the times when they had the Lord’s Table. I comment on these verses extensively in a book elsewhere.³⁶⁰ Here I will only make a few comments related to the debate at hand.

While we have already commented on the fact that paedo-communionists are incorrect in seeing the Lord’s Supper as a family meal, this section shows that adult-communionists are also wrong in being so individualistic that they miss the fact that households continue to be households even when partaking of the Lord’s Table. Paul gives instruction on family “authority” (11:10) and headship (11:3) and wants to make sure that there is no rebellion to family authority when partaking of the Lord’s Table. Though elders alone admit to the table and bar from the table³⁶¹, and though these elders have the authority to admit certain members of a family and to bar other members,³⁶² it is still true that God’s normal pattern was to call whole households to himself and for most (if not all) in that household to eventually partake of communion by faith.³⁶³ Thus it is not at all surprising that Paul has an extended discussion of the family’s authority not being evaporated by the church. The church is a republic of families, not a democracy of individuals.³⁶⁴ Thus it is no surprise to find Levites giving the sacramental food to Elkanah and Elkanah distributing food (administratively) to his family (1 Sam. 1). Because it is an administrative distribution, Elkanah does not usurp the authority of the Levites over the sacrament. Because households partake, the Levites still recognized the integrity of Elkanah as the head of the home, and used him to distribute the elements (administratively). If Elkanah had not been present, one of the other family members could just as easily have distributed the elements (administratively), or the Levites could have distributed to each person.

The issue of “glory” and boasting unifies all the diverse strands in the book of 1 Corinthians. It is a book that contrasts the glory of man and the glory of God. In this passage, Paul applies the concept of glory to worship and specifically to what is appropriate in the Lord’s Supper (the unifying theme of chapters 10-11). Paul’s contention is that all glory must be “covered” over by some sort of “covering” at the covenant renewal ceremony of the Lord’s Table except for the glory of God. Since “the woman is the glory of man” (v. 7), the woman should be covered with long hair. Since the woman’s “long hair…is a glory to her” (v. 15), her hair should also be covered. Since “a man…is the image and glory of God” (v. 7), males should not be covered, which Paul defines as having either long hair or having a fabric covering.

Though all of this seems strange to modern Americans, Paul was not inventing something new when he gave this teaching. He was not violating his dictum “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). All of this teaching is deeply rooted in the Old Testament provisions related to the sacramental meals. Priests had special clothing (including head coverings) that were to be worn in the holy place (Ex. 28:40; 29:9; 39:28; Ezek. 44:18). However, the priest was not allowed to take his temple garments out of the holy place of the temple (Lev. 16:24 NIV). Any time he stood before the people he removed his head coverings.³⁶⁵

Why was this mandated? The answer ties in perfectly with Paul’s discussion of glory in 1 Corinthians 11. The Old Testament taught that when partaking of the sacramental meals only God’s glory should be visible. Within the Holy Place was God’s Shekinah glory and the symbol of that glory was called “the ark of the covenant,” “the glory of Israel,” and the throne of His glory.” Since the priest was representing Israel to God when he went into the Holy Place (even wearing the names of the tribes of Israel on his breastplate), he was considered to be the glory of Israel and had to have his head covered. All glory but the glory of God was to be covered when people were involved with either the sacrifices or the fellowship meals that came after the sacrifices. Thus, when the priest left the Holy of Holies and ministered the sacrament that came after the sacrificial ceremonies, he now represented God to the people and since he was functioning in that sacramental service as the glory of God he was required to take off his head covering. Why? Because God’s glory could not be covered. In the sacramental service, only the glory of God could be visible.

Thus in the Old Testament sacramental meals, the priest and the males worshiped and partook of the sacrament without headcoverings while the women wore headcoverings. The priest and the men were not allowed to wear long hair at those same events (see Ezek. 44:20), whereas the women did have long hair. The one exception was the Nazarite, but because of his special vows, he was not allowed to partake of the sacrament until his Nazarite vow was completed.³⁶⁶ So even the Nazarite fits the discussion of Paul perfectly. Thus Paul is not inventing a new concept when he mandates “proper” attire and certain length of hair when coming to the Lord’s Table. This was a formal covenant renewal ceremony of a very serious nature and required honoring God with our dress codes. There is no difference between the Old Testament sacramental provisions on this issue and the New Testament sacramental provisions.

The phrase, “because of the angels” (v. 10) is also directly related to the kinds of judgments and blessings that flow from the Lord’s Table. God used angels to inflict judgments on unworthy participants in many of the Old Testament sacramental meals. The “destroyer” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:10 was the angel sent from the Lord at the time of the first Passover (Ex. 12:23) and probably was involved in several of the sacramental judgments that Paul references in chapter 10. Angels are in our worship services and God can use an “angel” to “prosper your way” (Gen. 24:4; Cf. Gen. 28:12; 32:1; 48:16; Ex. 23:20,23; etc.) or to bring God’s “anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble, by sending angels of destruction” (Ps. 78:49; cf. 2 Sam. 24:16). The Lord’s Table is a supernatural meal that ushers us into the heavenlies and all of their realities, including tangible judgments and tangible blessings (for examples of these judgments and blessings, see my comments under the next verse).

The Lord’s Supper results in either blessing or judgment (v. 17)

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.

Note that communion can have two effects upon people: It can make them “better” or it can make them “worse.” Either blessing or judgment always result.

Note: just because Paul emphasized the judgments for Corinth in these chapters doesn’t mean that we should. As Calvin and many other writers have pointed out, the sacraments are primarily the Good News in visible form. Their primary intention is not judgment but blessing. They were intended “for the better.” Certainly the good news of the Gospel becomes bad news to those who reject it, but that should never make us stop calling it “Good News,” nor should that take away our joy. Let those under judgment mourn, but for our part let us rejoice every time we partake.³⁶⁷

Here are a sampling of the blessings that came upon people who ate “for the better”:

Divine protection (Ex. 34:22-26, esp. v. 24; Ps. 51:16-19, esp. v. 18).
Spiritual satisfaction (Ps. 22:26).
Dwelling in peace (Jer. 7:3-7 in context, esp. vs. 21-23 contrasted with vs. 18-20).
“That it may be well for you” (Jer. 7:23).
“That you may learn to fear the LORD” (Deut. 14:23).
“That the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand that you do” (Deut. 14:29).
God’s pleasure (Ps. 51:19).

Here are a sampling of the judgments that came when people ate “for the worse”:

The judgments Paul has already outlined (1 Cor. 10:1-10).
Sickness (2 Chron. 30:20; 1 Cor. 11:30).
Unanswered prayers (Isa. 1:15).
Death (Isa. 1:10-20; Lev. 10:1-3,19; 1 Kings 13:21-24).
Everything going wrong in life (Amos 5:18-27).
Punishment in general (Zeph. 1:7-9).
Many other judgments (Jer. 7:1-29; Zech. 7:5-7; Mal. 1:6-14; 2:13-14; etc.).

The Lord’s Table is incompatible with disunity in the body (11:18-19)

18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

To have “divisions” in the body is a serious thing because it contradicts what we are pledging to promote in the Lord’s Supper. In Corinth some were eating and others were not (cf. v. 21). When members of the church are demeaned, God is grieved. This is why no believer who is growing in holiness (whether young or old) should be excluded from the Lord’s Supper. It makes for factions in the body.

Of course, paedo-communionists will object that this is exactly what we are doing when we do not admit infants who are not yet able to meet the conditions of worthy participation, but there are two reasons why this is not so. First, when we come to the Lord’s Table, we are pledging to uphold the unity of the body, and that unity extends to many things beyond the Lord’s Table. Second, there is a difference between humans excluding persons and God excluding persons. The only authority elders have is the authority of the Bible. Elders must never bar from the table anyone whom God wants admitted, and they must never admit anyone to the table whom God has not authorized to come. In this book we have demonstrated that God Himself gave the conditions we have outlined in this book, and we have also demonstrated that God applied those conditions to all age groups of children who are said to have partaken — without exception. To use an analogy, at marriage we say, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Making up our own rules for divorce and remarriage would be a violation of this statement, but allowing a divorce that God Himself allows is not. God (by His Scriptures) has put asunder a situation like 1 Corinthians 7:15, not man. In the same way, God alone has excluded from the meal those who cannot meet certain conditions. We can minister to the unity of the whole body, and must so minister when we partake.

That divisions are unavoidable can be seen by the next verse: “For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” Paul is not saying the exact opposite here to what he said in verse 18. In what sense “must” these factions come? Charles Hodge compares this passage with Matthew 18:6-7 which also speaks of divisions and offenses which must come. There the division had to do with rejecting children as lesser in the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:1-5) and despising children so that they strayed from the fold (Matt. 18:10-14). In that context Christ said:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

Hodge comments:

Evil as well as good is included in the divine purpose. It is purposed not of evil, but for the sake of the good which infinite wisdom evolves from it.³⁶⁸

Calvin comments: “But observe what Paul says — there must be, for he intimates by this expression, that this state of matters does not happen by chance, but by the sure providence of God, because he has it in view to try his people, as gold in the furnace.”³⁶⁹

God allows divisions to occur in the church over history to bring to light doctrinal clarity, and promote moral purity and He achieves this by raising up men who will stand for the hour of the day. Examples of “approved” men are many: Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, and others could be given. We should not run from controversy but seek to deal with it head on. Teaching on such controversies is for the purpose of bringing about the eventual unity of the body.

Paul calls for weekly communion (11:17-18,20,33-34)

Throughout this chapter communion is connected with “when you come together in one place.” This is the implication that many have drawn from the book of Acts as well. This was in keeping with the weekly meals at the Old Testament Sabbath gatherings in the temple. This was certainly the practice of the early church, and this was the practice that Calvin wanted the church to return to. One of the chief advantages of weekly communion is that it keeps a church from becoming legalistic — the Gospel of Jesus Christ is kept before our eyes no matter what is preached on. The Gospel should be central.

Biblical sacraments normally had wine (11:20)

Paul said that “another is drunk” at the meal. It would be pretty difficult to get drunk on grape juice. Why would wine have been used at all when verses 3-4 explicitly authorized water in the wilderness? The answer is the distinction the church has historically made between “regular” and “irregular but valid.” Wine was called for in the law of God because it more accurately symbolized blood, but when wine (the regular) was not available, water (the irregular but valid) was allowed. This does not mean that the regular should be ignored. The pre-incarnate Son of God served “bread and wine” to Abraham (Gen 14:18; see Heb. 7), commanded its use in the Passover and other communion meals (Deut. 14:26; 12:17-18; etc.), and thus must have served it to His disciples in the Last Supper (Matt. 26:19). Though drunkenness was condemned at the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11:21), the Holy Spirit calls us to “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed” (Prov. 9:5).

Of course, some have used this as an argument that children should not partake of the the Lord’s Table because they should not partake of wine. However, the law of God was quite explicit that children did indeed partake of the wine at these sacramental meals. Consider the following examples: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstlings of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the heave offering of your hand. But you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses, you and your son and your daughter” (v. 17-18). The italicized phrases show that the sons and daughters were commanded to drink the wine. Deuteronomy 14:22-29 also speaks of “your new wine… wine or strong drink…and you shall rejoice, you and your household…and the fatherless…and widow.” Deuteronomy 16:13-17 says in part, “have gathered from your threshing floor and from your winepress: and you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter…fatherless.” (See also Deut. 18:1-8; 26:1-15; 1 Sam. 1; 2 Chron. 31; Neh. 8, each of which has “wine” being distributed to the children.)

Paul once again distinguishes between common food and sacramental food

20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

Notice that it is possible to outwardly partake of the Lord’s Table when in reality (if we come unworthily) “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” Matthew Henry comments: “their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution…It was coming to the Lord’s table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away.”³⁷⁰ Again this shows the spiritual nature of this feast. It is not a mere memorial. You can memorialize with sin in your midst, but it is impossible to receive spiritual strength when you wrongly partake. There is no sacrament when there is sinful rebellion (cf. Rev. 3:20). Zechariah 7:5-7 details the problem in his day. God said, “do you not eat and drink for yourselves?” When God is not present they are eating and drinking for themselves alone. There was no spiritual relationship going on. This means that those children who merely view communion as a snack are not ready to partake.

In saying, “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing?” Paul is making a distinction between sacramental food and common food once again. Apparently the church of Laodicea was receiving no more benefit from their sacrament than they would have if they ate the same food at home (Rev. 3:20).

The Lord’s Table is a sign and seal of Christ; but the sign should not be confused with what is symbolized (11:23-25)

1 Cor. 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Notice that the timing of these sacramental words was “on the same night in which He was betrayed.” This by itself shows that “this is My body” is not to be taken literally, or His body would have been sacrificed before it was sacrificed, an impossibility. The “bread” was still bread when He said “This is my body.” When I point to a picture of my wife and say “This is my wife,” all understand that the picture doesn’t turn into my wife. It is a representation. In much the same way Christ is the Passover. That was true both before and after the Incarnation. For Moses to say that the Passover meal of his day turned into the body and blood of Christ would be to deny the doctrine of a future incarnation. Yet the “is” language would still have been appropriate. This is very important when we deal with the question of “discernment of the body of Christ.” There needs to be an understanding of the fact that the elements represent the body and blood of Christ in both the Old and the New Testaments. The phrase, “the blood of the covenant” occurs in both the Old Testament (Ex. 24:8) as well as the New Testament (Heb. 10:29). In both testaments there are symbols or representations of Christ’s blood. Wine was used (because of its color) in both testaments for that purpose.

An essential aspect of the Lord’s Supper is an ability to remember what He has done (11:25)

…This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.

Notice that the Lord’s Supper includes the aspect of remembrance. There needs to be the ability to both discern the significance of the feast and to remember certain factual details about His death. This was no different than the requirement given of Passover to “remember” (Ex. 13:3; Deut. 16:3,12), and is one of many indicators that infants did not participate.

An essential aspect of the Lord’s Supper is the ability to proclaim the Lord’s death (11:26)

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

This verse speaks of another aspect of the Lord’s Supper: witness or proclamation. Hebrews makes clear that every Old Testament meal also proclaimed the Lord’s death. It was a visual representation of the Gospel. Whereas the Old Covenant “foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances [were] imposed until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10, i.e. reforming of old covenant ceremonies in new covenant forms), the new covenant forms will continue until the Second Coming. God doesn’t want the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to ever stop until we get to eternity.

Unworthy participation makes a participant guilty of the body and blood of Christ (11:27)

27 Therefore 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.

This is a chilling warning of judgment to any and all who fail to honor the table of the Lord as He wants it honored. Paedo-communionists insist that this is only addressing older communicants who are able to to meet the conditions. But the English word, “whoever,” is made up of two Greek words, ὃς ἂν, which indicate each and every one who partakes. To arbitrarily exclude children from this warning is not warranted. The conditions apply to 100% of the participants in such a way that whoever “eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27).

This instruction of Paul is simply an application of Leviticus 10:3, which says, “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; and before all the people I must be glorified.” This principle was given after Nadab and Abihu introduced fire from a different source than what God had said and God judged them with fire. Boice comments.

It is such a little thing, we think, and yet causes such a great punishment. But this reminds us that with God nothing is little. What seems to us like small acts of disobedience are not a light thing to our holy God.³⁷¹

We cannot add to worship what God has not commanded and we cannot take from worship what God has forbidden. To add infants to communion when God has not commanded it is to offer up strange fire and to take away conditions for partaking for that segment is to do the same. Indeed, Leviticus 10:1-3 has introduced a reverent fear into many authors who write on the Regulative Principle of Worship. Kellogg comments,

For the essence of their sin was this, that it was will-worship; worship in which they consulted not the revealed will of God regarding the way in which He would be served, but their own fancies and inclinations…

In all ages, men have been prone to commit this sin, and in ours as much as any… we are certainly all taught… that wherever we are not clear that we have a Divine warrant for what we do in the worship of God, we need to be exceeding careful, and to act with holy fear, lest possibly, like Nadab and Abihu, we be chargeable with offering “strange fire,” which the Lord has not commanded. And when one goes into many a church and chapel, and sees the multitude of remarkable devices by which, as is imagined, the worship and adoration of God is furthered, it must be confessed that it certainly seems as if the generation of Nadab and Abihu was not yet extinct; even although a patient God, in the mystery of His long-suffering, flashes not instantly forth His vengeance.³⁷²

Worthy participation requires self-examination (11:28)

28 But let a person examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Thiselton captures the meaning of this verse rather well. He says:

The adversative use of δέ introduces the theme of self-examination as a contrast (on the contrary) to the eating and drinking which is not fitting in the previous verse. Paul uses the verb δοκιμάζω to convey more than simple introspective examination alone. The cognate adjective δόκιμοι occurred in 11:19 to mean (in our translation of v. 19 above) those who are tried and true, i.e., those who have proved themselves to be genuine after examination. This entirely articulates the theme that links the negative of v. 27 with the positive of v. 28: a person (ἄνθρωπος) should examine his or her own genuineness, i.e., test how genuine their motives and understanding are.

Only in this way renders the simple οὕτως translated ambiguously as and so let a man … in AV/KJV, exchanged for the temporal construction before eating in REB (also before we eat in NIV) and a combination of temporal and perhaps also logical, and only then eat, in NJB and NRSV. Clearly the traditional so for οὕτως is acknowledged to be ambivalent. οὕτως as the adverbial form which corresponds to οὗτος, this, means “thusly” or in this way most characteristically with reference to what precedes it, often summarizing the thought just expressed (although it may also refer to what follows). Here Paul clearly means that participants are only to eat from the loaf (ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου) and drink from the cup (ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου) in the way indicated, i.e., by examining themselves to confirm that their understanding, attitude, and conduct are genuine in sharing (cf. ἐκ) in all that the body and blood of Christ proclaims, both in redemptive and in social terms.³⁷³

If his interpretation of “only in this way” is correct, then it clearly rules out infants. Nor is this a new command. As we have demonstrated over and over in this book, self-examination was always required in every sacramental meal in the Old Testament. 2 Chronicles 30:18-20 called for cleansing and preparing of the heart to seek the LORD. Psalm 22:26 says, “The poor shall eat and be satisfied.” One must be poor in heart. Psalm 26:2-7 is a prayer that God would examine his heart so that he could approach the altar cleansed. That God always expected self-examination for sacramental meals is clear in such passages as Isaiah 1:10-20, Amos 5:18-27, Jeremiah 7:1-29, Micah 6:6-8, Zechariah 7:5-7, Malachi 1:6-14, and Malachi 2:13-17. Without self-examination there was judgment, as can be seen by the diseases inflicted upon participants in 2 Chronicles 30:18-20. The “for” at the beginning of 1 Cor. 11:29 shows why we should be serious about self-examination.

Worthy participation requires rightly discerning the Lord’s body

29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Paedo-communionists will often emphasize a minority Greek reading (2% of manuscripts) of 1 Corinthians 11:29 that omits “Lord’s” from the phrase “not discerning the Lord’s body.” They state that it is the body (i.e., the church) that people were not discerning (by sinning against one another), not the Lord’s body. The immediate context of being “guilty of the body and the blood” of 11:27 argues that he really was thinking about how we treat Christ’s own body and blood.

Either way (whether this is lack of love towards fellow believers or lack of appreciation for what is sacramentally signed and sealed), such lack of discernment leads to judgment (a central theme of these chapters). Infants are not able to show either kind of discernment.

Self-judgment leads to blessing while lack of self-judgment leads to God’s chastening (1 Cor. 11:30-32)

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

Those who see the sacrament as a mere memorial of Christ’s death cannot make sense of this passage. There is a spiritual work of grace or judgment that always happens in the sacrament. Notice that Paul says “many” are weak and sick. We tend to ignore the spiritual causes of the illnesses and weaknesses that we have, chalking them up to natural causes, but if these continue in your lives you might want to call for the elders to anoint you with oil and pray for forgiveness and healing (James 5:14-16) much as Hezekiah did when people were sick through sinful partaking of the Passover (2 Chron. 30:18-20). See comments under 11:17 for detailing of some of the judgments in the Old Testament that are explicitly connected to the sacraments.

When Paul adds, “For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged,” he shows that judgment is not inevitable. All of us are sinners, but we need to agree with God in judging our wrong ways as wrong and turning from them. Even the moment before you partake of the Lord’s Table, if you resolve in your heart to get right you will be accepted. Once judgment comes, it is possible that God only heals through the elders. Many passages that have already been cited could show this, but Psalm 32 and 51 are David’s experience of disease and problems after his sin with Bathsheba. His healing came after his session with Nathan. The healing of the people in 2 Chronicles 30 only happened after Hezekiah prayed for them (vv. 18-22).

The chastening of the Lord mentioned in verse 32 shows that this is not the judgment of a God who hates us, but the judgment of a God who loves us and wants our best. All of the Old Testament judgments manifested the rich, deep love of God to Israel (Deut. 8:5; Job. 5:17-18; 33:18-30; 34:31-32; Ps. 94:12-13; 118:18; Prov. 3:11-12). To avoid the Lord’s Supper for fear of judgment is to avoid God for fear of judgment. That is not a healthy view of God. When He commands all His people to partake of the sacramental meals, He does so because He loves them. When He disciplines those who wander while partaking, He does so because He loves them.

The Lord’s Supper calls us to consideration (v. 33)

33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

Waiting for one another is simply another conscious way of showing consideration for others in the church. When our relationships are good, our participation in the Lord’s Table will be better. All participants (young and old) should be capable of such consideration.

The Lord’s Supper should not be seen as a snack (v. 34a)

34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment…

Infants tend to view food stuffed into their mouth as a snack (and perhaps a horrible snack at that). It must be emphasized that this is not a family meal — it is a supernatural meal by which every participant actively pledges their allegiance to the Lord. Those who eat only with a consciousness that they don’t want to miss out on a snack are not eating worthily.

Paul’s exposition of the Lord’s Supper is not all that the Scripture says about the subject (v. 34b)

…And the rest I will set in order when I come.

Finally there is a reminder that 1 Corinthians 10-11 is not all that there is to say about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The “rest” of the theology on communion is found in Genesis to Revelation, not in one passage. My book does not claim to have exhausted this topic, but it certainly seeks to point us in the direction of a more full-orbed view of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Addendum: 1 Corinthians 5:7-8

In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 Paul says:

7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

This little paragraph implies that participation in the Passover required the following four things:

Repentance (“purge out the old leaven…not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness”)
Justification (“since you truly are unleavened”)
Discernment (“unleavened bread of sincerity”)
Knowledge (“Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast…with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”).

I would urge the reader to study the earlier chapters to get a fuller picture of what the debate on the Lord’s Table is all about. In the meantime it is my hope that a study of the materials will have given you more of a sense of awe over this supernatural meal.