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.