With Such A One No Not To Eat

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV

This has been a verse that I have misunderstood all my life. I have always understood this to mean the common meal. In other words, if a brother was a fornicator, I understood it to mean that I could not eat a common meal (breakfast, dinner or supper) with that person.

However I have come to realize there is a much bigger issue at stake in this text. It is not speaking of the common meal; it is speaking of the covenant (Lord's supper) meal. It is not speaking of the common table; it is speaking of the communion table.

The first reason this must be true is the context is dealing with public church discipline when the church gathers together (1 Corinthians 5:3-5; Matthew 18:18-20).

The second reason is the context of "eat." What is eating in the context of 1 Corinthians 5? Is it the common meal or the covenant meal. I believe the context will prove that it is the covenantal and sacramental meal of the Lord's Table.

If we can settle what the feast of verse 8 is, we can settle what the eat of verse 11 is. On is forced to accept that eat in verse 11 refers to the feast in verse 8. I believe that feast is the Lord's Supper.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 KJV

The feast that we are to keep is the one that memorializes the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. What feast does this? The Lord's Supper and the Lord's table is the only event and place that can possibly do this. In my opinion, since the feast seems to be the Lord's Supper, the command "with such a one not to eat" refers to the same.

There are a number of problems that we encounter if this refers to a common meal. If you want to discuss these then comment and I will be glad to.

Drunken: What Does It Mean in 1 Corinthians 11:21

1 Corinthians 11:21 KJV

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Let me make it clear that I am not attempting to argue for unfermented juice for communion by this post. Whatever "drunken" implies in this text it would not be conclusive proof for what is in the communion cup. It is obvious that there was an abuse of what God had intended (1 Corinthians 11:20). One should not attempt to prove his position from such a text.

Fermented wine MAY be what is taught by scripture for communion, but this would not be a text to prove it. Let me also say that even if "drunken" does not imply "intoxication" in this text, this does not prove that unfermented juice should be used in communion. What is in the cup is not what this text has in mind.

The reason that I am addressing this text is because it is often used by fermented juice advocates as a proof text for fermented juice in communion. I think that it is clear that the use of "drunken" in this context is referring to "full," and not to "intoxication." Let me first point out that "drunkenness" in scripture can be a result of eating.

Ecclesiastes 10:17 KJV

17 Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!

If "drunken" or "drunkenness" exclusively implies intoxication then one must ask, "How can intoxication result from EATING?" The only way that I can see this text making sense is that drunkenness must imply fullness, and not intoxication. Contextually that same principle applies to 1 Corinthians 11:21. Paul sets "drunken" in contrast to "hungry."

"One would be hungry, and another drunken. This last clause means that he had eaten and was satisfied." -The Peoples New Testament

This reflects the spirit of the context; one has plenty and the other has none. I don't think that point is: one does not have anything to eat, and the other is intoxicated. That would be comparing apples and oranges. To me the clear contrast is between emptiness and fullness.

As always, please feel free to comment.

Is Transubstantiation Cannibalism? Part 2 Answering Jason Evert

"It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible."1

This is a quote from Jason Evert, a young Catholic apologist who is a degreed theologian and spokesperson for Catholic interests. I want to respond to his explanation of why transubstantiation is not cannibalism. The doctrine of Transubstantiation teaches that the substance of the Eucharistic bread and wine are changed into the literal substance of the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. The doctrine of Transubstantiation denies any symbolic or metaphorical interpretation of, "eat my flesh and drink my blood."

Jason argues that the reason why eating the literal flesh and drinking the literal blood of Christ is not cannibalism, is because Christ is not present so that one may eat Jesus by "sinking his teeth into his arm." So, it is only cannibalism if you eat it off the bone while he is present? So, are we to assume that if tribal cannibals would start filleting their victims that they would no longer be cannibals because the are not eating it off the bone? What if they were to store the human meat for 200 years and their children's children were to eat it, would they not be cannibals? You see a person does not have to be physically present or alive for eating their flesh to be cannibalism.

It does not matter how you slice it (pun intended), or by what means it was provided, if one eats literal human flesh it is cannibalism!

Is Transubstantiation Cannibalism?

I became interested in how Catholics would respond to the charge of cannibalism while listening to the Donahue-Martignoni Debate on transubstantiation. In searching the web I came across the following explanation.

"Cannibalism is eating of the dead flesh of a human person. Christ is not dead, His flesh is not dead, and He is not a human person (He is a Divine Person). Further, when a cannibal eats human flesh that flesh is gone forever. Over the centuries Catholics and Orthodox have eaten millions and millions of pounds of the Eucharist, and yet Christ surely didn't weigh more than 150 pounds or so. How is this possible if the Eucharist is cannibalism?

The very charge of cannibalism, the eating of the dead flesh of a human person, denies the Incarnation, the Divinity of Christ and the Resurrection. Since we Catholics don't deny any of these things, we understand that the charge of cannibalism is nonsense."1

This answer postulates that cannibalism is "eating of the dead flesh of a human person." So, eating the flesh of Christ is not cannibalism because Christ is not dead. This is absurd as the definition of cannibalism does not require that the person be dead before it is considered cannibalism. Cannibalism is simply, "the eating of human flesh by another human being."2

I would like to see the definition that demands that cannibalism is ONLY the eating of the dead flesh of a human. That is absurd! In fact, cannibalism is also defined as, "the act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock."3 This the equivalent of human cannibalism; the same act performed by two different species. Therefore cannibalism is not limited to dead flesh.

This argument that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is not the eating of dead flesh of Christ is absurd. Jesus describes the blood and bread like this: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28 KJV)." "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me (1Corinthians 11:24). So, the blood that is drank is the shed blood and the bread that is eaten is the broken body of Christ. In drinking the shed blood and eating the broken body we show the Lord's death (1 Corinthians 11:26). So, if it is the LITERAL blood and body of the Lord, it is the LITERAL DEAD body and blood of the Lord. So, it would be, even by his definition, cannibalism.

Maybe this is an elementary and ignorant point, but if it is LITERALLY the body and blood of Christ, then have the Eucharistic bread and wine analyzed for traces of human DNA. What LITERAL proof do Catholics have that the bread and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Christ? It would not be hard to prove, if the body and blood were literal. The bottom line is, there is no proof. All they have is their misunderstanding of scripture.

I welcome and solicit response from my Catholic friends. Please help us understand how this is not cannibalism.