The Lord’s Supper: Is the warning to ‘examine yourself’ abused?
May 13th, 2007 by Nathan White
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. - 1 Cor 11:27-30
Have you ever given serious thought and study to what exactly Paul is referring to here when he commands us to ‘examine’ ourselves to avoid bringing judgment on ourselves? Most likely, if you attend a Reformed, conservative church, the Lord’s Supper tends to be a quiet, reserved, almost funeral-type of atmosphere when the congregation partakes of the bread and wine.
Why is this somber, dead attitude so common? Well, if your pastor takes God’s word seriously, then he certainly warns the congregation about participating in an unworthy manner. But is it the warning itself that makes the mood so somber, or could it be the application or misapplication of the 1 Cor passage above?
No doubt that I have often sat in fear, listening to the pastor warn about bringing down judgment, and debating whether I should partake of the Supper or just pass it along. I was told to ‘check my heart’, and I guess determine in some way whether I was ‘worthy’ to participate. My mind was often flooded with my sins over the past week, and the debate over whether I was ‘truly repentant’ raged within –often mercilessly.
Unfortunately, the above situation is an all-too-common abuse of the passage above. Where are we told to ‘pass it by’ if we deem ourselves unworthy? Where are we told to look at our performance or ‘repentance’ to determine whether we are taking the Supper in an unworthy manner?
I must admit, when reading the context of what Paul is talking about here, I do not find many popular practices (traditions) contained within. In fact, these practices are clearly man’s creation, meant to scare people into trying (and often failing) to keep the law. Personally, I think it is an utter shame that many pastors have failed to adequately explain, exegete, or teach this passage to their congregations before they jump right in and start throwing around warnings. Sadly, this is probably a result of the pastors never seriously studying this issue themselves.
But regarding 1 Cor 11, I do not intend to jump right into it today. However, I will exegete this passage soon and attempt to give a reasonable and contextual interpretation of what Paul is warning us of here. But for the time being, here are a few Michael Horton quotes to get the discussion going:
“…the sacred meal unites the participants into one body. They are no longer individuals in an important sense, nor members of a particular social class.”
“The Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal…it has both vertical and horizontal dimensions.”
“One cannot treat the Lord’s Supper in an individualistic manner, but only as a covenant meal.”
“The problem with the pietistic version of the Lord’s Supper, therefore, is that in its obsession with the individual’s inner piety, it loses much of the import of the feast as a sacred meal that actually binds us to Christ and to each other. Instead of viewing it first as God’s saving action towards us and then our fellowship with each other in Christ, we come to see it as just another opportunity to be threatened with the law.”
“Under the influence of pietism and mysticism, a sense of ‘unworthiness’ is awakened within them, and they become afraid that they may be ‘eating and drinking judgment unto themselves’. As for those who were still bold enough to go to the table of the Lord, their faces suggest that a funeral is under way rather than a celebration.” –Karl Deddens, Where Everything Points to Him, quoted by M. Horton.
“If members are not being disciplined by the church, they are worthy communicants. Paul’s warning simply cannot be read as placing the choice of communing in the hands of individuals, who must then determine whether their faith and repentance are equal to the task. After all, the sacrament is given precisely to strengthen weak faith and repentance, to cheer downcast souls with the good news that Christ is sacrificed and raised to the Father’s right hand even for them.”
Excerpts taken from pages 159-161 of God of Promise, by Mike Horton. (All emphasis mine)
Nathan,
I think I tend to agree with you. Certainly, this is a serious occasion. After all, we are remembering the death of the Savior and yet I am in full agreement that it is also a celebration: a celebration of why we are what we are, a celebration of what Christ has done in saving us, a celebration of our ties to one another as family and to Him as Lord. I take the warning seriously. After all, we are told that many get sick and die from not discerning the Lord’s body. Most of the time, for me at least, there is both weeping and joy.
Nathan,
The guys in black suits and sunglasses will be by your place shortly to pick up your “Reformed” card. It’ll go easier for you if you don’t resist.
Tim,
Certainly the occasion calls for a serious mood, as well as even weeping, etc. However, it also calls for a celebration as well.
But what I’d like to get at is specifically why the somber mood is so common (and congregation are dead). Personally, I believe it is because preachers now days misapply the 1 Cor text and threaten those in attendance with the law, in that personal performance is used to justify whether to participate or not.
Is it simply the innappropriate participation in the Lord’s Supper that brings judgment? I’d like to take a closer look at this passage.
Gordan,
I’m guessing you disagree?
Or, maybe we have different ideas of what ‘reformed’ means?
Nathan,
We are never to pass by the Lord’s Supper if we are qualified to partake of it, for two reasons:
#1 The Lord commands us to partake of the Lord’s Supper, to not do so is sinful disobedience.
#2 The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, therefore it is designed for sinners to take and there-by be strengthened etc.
I agree that the passage is often misunderstood, I’m not sure if this is so primarily because of scare tactics on the part of pastors and administrators, or whether it is due to misunderstanding on the part of the communicants. Most likely both.
However the teaching of the New Testament teaching concerning man, even redeemed man and the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper make it clear that even though yet corrupted by the sin the believer can and should commune with Christ and his brethren in the Covenant meal of the Lord’s Supper.
The syntax of the passage quoted makes this clear…
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
We learn three things:
1) A person must examine himself if he is to be sure he is not eating and drinking unworthily and to ensure he is not guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This is not however an examination of whether we are worthy enough, we are not and we never will be, rather it is an examination of our love for Christ, and our loyalty to Christ, it is has equivalency to checking whether we are coming soberly, thoughtfully and seriously to the ordinance and to ensure that we are coming flippantly as if it was a snack bar (this is what it means to discern the Lord’s body). The examination for sin and iniquity should be done, but I believe it is much better done in the days and hours before coming to the worship service at which the ordinance will be administered. Why wait? To hold onto the sin a little longer?
2) The motive of this examination is not to make the guilt-ridden believer pass by the emblems (i.e. to disobey Christ), but rather to cause the believer to see again his union with Christ and dependence upon Christ for redemption, and every spiritual blessing, and to renew his allegiance and loyalty again to Christ. ….”and so [having examined yourself] eat of the bread and drink of the cup”….the self-examination is not so much a fence but a gate in a fence.
3) The main duty of the communicant during the administration is to “discern the Lord’s body”.
In passing, I think much of what is said just before the emblems are distributed is said just because something needs to be said. In our church our current practice is a monthly celebration of the Lord’s Supper because this allows us to give the whole service over to meditating upon the Person and Work of Christ. This means that when we come to the actual administration of the ordinance very little needs to be said at all. On the other hand if as is very common the ordinance is tagged on at the end of a normal service a pastor may feel it essential to say something in preparation for the ordinance (rightly so) however in such this small period of time perhaps that which is said is sometimes not the wisest. This is not an argument against weekly celebration at all but merely of the traps a weekly celebration presents, no doubt there are other traps other periods of celebration present.
The Westminster Larger Catechism is very helpful here, questions 171-175 are an excellent summary of what the Lord requires of us…before, during and after the administration of the ordinance, and I interpret the before as being the days before, the during as being on the evening and during the actual administration, and the after obviously explains itself.
Particularly relevant to this discussion is Question 172, I give it to you complete;
Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?
A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it; and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened.
JP
http://semperreformata.wordrpress.com
IMHO, you are right-on here, Jason. Paul is not saying we should examine ourselves to see if we are “worthy.” No one is worthy in this sense. Introspection will always find sin and unworthyness. Paul explicitly says unworthy “manner.” The context clearly explains it. They were not discerning the body (church) and not discerning the “supper” as a covenant meal. They were treating it as first-come-first-served to fill thier bellies. The exhortation is to examine ther manner in which you observer the Supper, not examine your own personal worthiness.
Ooops. I meant Nathan, not Jason. Feel free to edit and correct.
Nathan, no we don’t disagree. My comment was purely a joke, anticipating the reaction of one who was maybe more entrenched in Reformed tradition, than in the mandate to be “always reforming.”
Nathan,
If you have anyone on here promoting that the Lord’s Supper or Baptism is a Means of Grace and they are a Calvinistic Baptist then someone needs to talk with them. As a Pastor of a Baptist 1689 church confession church I can’t agree with my Presbyterian brothers. First, as you already know that I do not embrace the Presbyterians as having a True ” Visible” church because of Acts 2. Infant Baptism is not Baptism therefore they can’t be added to any ” Visible” church. The issue is not that they are not in good gospel order( Which they are not) but they are not a ” Visible Church” !
Our church only serves the supper to our members in good standing but some Calvinistic Baptist churches are serving it to Presbyterians I have recently found out. One of them I could not believe ! Calvinistic Baptists are not Reformed with a capital R. We have alot of similarities but we differ on Means of Grace, Baptism, Visible church, and other issues as well. Again, as I have said before that I live RC, Lig, and other Presbyterian brothers but they walk disorderly with Baptism and other things that cause me to seperate( 2 Thess 3:6). Read William Kiffin on: A Sober Discourse Of Right To Church Communion London 1681( This can be purchased by calling The Baptist Standard Bearer at 479 963-3831. It’s not just about the five points ! Calvinistic Baptists need to read the Old Baptist like Gill, Brine,Kiffin , Booth and etc…. . BTW, I do love my Presbyterian brothers but they are walking disorderly!
Scott,
I think I know what you are trying to say, but I think you are actually mixing two or three things up a bit.
First of all in your first sentence you say that if a Calvinistic Baptist is promoting the two ordinances as means of grace someone needs to talk to them. That is a separate issue from the rest of your comment. However it is the one I want to take up. Let me quote from a very common form of words found in the constitutions of many RB churches,
“There are two ordinances of special significance which our Lord has commanded us to observe, namely Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. (These are sometimes referred to as “sacraments”.) Neither of them has saving merit, nor is any grace imparted to the recipient through the waters of Baptism, or the bread and the cup of the Supper. These ordinances are not means of “special grace”, but they are “special means of grace” and powerful aids to the faith of the believers who participate in them.”
This may disappoint you, but it is a very common view and one I share. Furthermore this is not actually saying anything that controversial. God has given us many, many means of grace, the Scriptures read is a means of grace, prayer is a means of grace, the Lord’s Day is a means of grace….and so I could go on. Under this widely agreed definition of a means of grace i.e. something God has given to maintain, strengthen and invigorate our faith in him, how on earth could the two special ordinances of Christ not be means of grace? I’m assuming that in your thinking a means of grace is something that renders someone saved, but this is not strictly the case.
Also since you mention William Kiffin, let me quote from and equally eminent Baptist, none other that Benjamin Keach from his catechism,
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
(Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
Q. 96. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.
(Ps. 119:11,18; 1 Thess. 1:6; 1 Peter 2:1,2; Rom. 1:16; Ps. 19:7)
Q. 97. How is the Word to be read and heard that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation and prayer, receive it in faith and love, lay it up in our hearts and practice it in our lives.
(Prov. 8:34; 1 Peter 2:1,2; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 2:1,3; Heb. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:10; Ps. 119:11; James 1:21,25)
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.
(1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
As you can see brother Keach is extremely clear. Equally so was C.H. Spurgeon, who’s catechism is very similar to Keach’s. So am I just at the end of a line of Baptist that need a good talking to!
Now you can perhaps argue that we are all wrong, but at least you must see that for the RB to use the terminology “means of grace” does not render him some weirdo half-presbyterian, but rather he is following in the footsteps of many previous Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists.
JP
JP,
First let me say that I’m sorry for not making my statement clear. First, my church uses the old Baptist Catechism for our children and adults. We teach the kids on Wed nights in a ministry we call TAG(Truth and Grace) Catechism club. I read this catechism each Lord’s Day to our church and they respond with answer. We have fifty members now and they love it. Also, I don’t agree with what you wrote at all !
Let me explain my day yesterday and what I left out with my statement to Nathan which will clear this matter up if you are a Calvinistic Baptist( Reformed Baptist). I offended a PCA brother the other day by not using their baptistry for our Baptisms. They use to be a Reformed Baptist Church and are now Presbyterian. Since we are a new church start we have used their baptistry for our baptisms. We just had a PCA couple to repent of their former beliefs of Baptism and other doctrines and we baptized them into our local church. So I contacted another Baptist church that let us use their baptistry instead of me making a major scene at the Presbyterian church with the former PCA couple. When that Pastor heard that I did this he became very upset that I did not call him to use his baptistry and felt like I was shunning him. Long story short: He and I are friends but we had a major blowup yesterday morning because he actually said that Baptism and the Communion were means (to) grace. They are not ! First, the person that is being baptized is supposed to be converted first(Acts 2) then they are to be baptized(Immersion) (Acts 2) and then they are added to the church and because of this they have the joy of taking the Lord’s Supper now(Acts 2). The scripture is clear on order in the Acts 2 passage and other places.
I fully believe that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are designed to motivate us in our sanctification.As you and I know that these are both for believers only and the Presbyterians baptize unconverted children and even serve the Supper to them as well. They are putting unconverted people into membership and allowing them the privlages of membership such as the Lord’s Supper. Majority of Historic Calvinistic Baptist do not recognize the Presbyterians as a Visible church. So when this PCA pastor told me clearly that these are ordinances that are means (to) grace then that is heresy ! It’s only by God’s electing grace and making the gospel effectual that brings about salvation in one His elect ones and not because they belong to believing parents. I was greatly frustrated yesterday when I saw Nathans post and I blew off some steam. Sorry for the confuson ! I have also become aware of some Calvinistic Baptist who are serving the Lord’s Supper to unbaptized people. One Founders church that blew my mind ! Love you brother and hope this clears this up !
JP,
First paragraph should say that I don’t disagree with you rather than I do . Sorry I was in a hurry to get to an appt.
Scott
Sometimes it’s good to blow steam! Now all I don’t understand is PCA churches having a baptistry! Anyway this makes things clearer. I’m still not sure what the PCA pastor means by “means (to) grace” or what I think of that. I think it could be interpreted many different ways, I have never heard it before. The question in my mind is this. Is the term “means (to) grace” much different from what Keach says when he says the ordinances are made effectual unto salvation, I don’t know you would need to ask the pastor exactly what he means…..if he means the ordinances in themselves are salvific then that is error, the key thing that separates truth from heresy in this issue is what Keach deals with in Q98.
“Baptism and the Lord’s Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.”
And so the means of grace are only means of grace to those who believe.
JP