Letter To Laodicea (part 75)

Bearing in mind the short discussion of the historical facts of the symposium that has been previously presented, while also keeping in mind that Paul’s letter will be read to the gathered church, and perhaps strategically read in the midst of the meal that will eventually devolve into the symposium (which some in the church were probably imagining to be an example of the messianic banquet), we attempt to hear the Apostle in the same circumstances in which his initial hearers found themselves.  As we saw in our reading of much of the sixth chapter, when read in the light of the meal and the symposium, a great deal of illumination comes our way when we find words such as “Your boasting is not good.  Don’t you know that a little yeast affects the whole batch of dough?” (5:6)  The mention of bread could function as an indicator that Paul wanted this letter read in conjunction with the church’s meal, while the mention of boasting calls attention to the boasting that was a regular component of the symposium. 

Going on, Paul writes, “Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough---you are, in fact, without yeast.  For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (5:7).  This terminology presumes that this church has been well-instructed in the history of Israel, so as to see themselves as a part of that continuing narrative, as apart from an understanding of the exodus the talk of Christ as Passover would fall on ignorant ears.  At a meal, with the messianic feast of the Lord’s Supper and what it communicates about the church and its role as emissaries of the kingdom of God in view, the recipients of the letter go on to hear “So then, let us celebrate the festival (whether the actual Passover or simply the Lord’s Supper in recognition of the messianic feast in which the Passover is consistently called to mind to provide the messianic-banquet-informed communion with its depth of meaning) not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth” (5:8). 

Not only does the talk of yeast and bread indicate that a meal is taking place (much like we surmised that Jesus used ready-at-hand examples in His speeches at meals---perhaps an old wineskin had burst because new wine had been poured into it), and not only does the mention of yeast and bread serve as additional references to the Passover in particular, but it is also the case that such talk calls to mind that which would have been part of the oral traditions concerning Jesus that were then in circulation---specifically, Jesus’ reference to the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod, which would certainly produce thoughts of the two great feasts over which Jesus presided (found in Mark, which may have been the earliest and most widely know thread of Jesus traditions within the orally oriented church community). 

With this foundational context in place, we now go on to let Paul speak for himself at length, as we have properly situated ourselves at a meal (with symposium not far from our thoughts) together with this particular Christian body and read, “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.  In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard or a swindler.  Do not even eat with such a person.  For what do I have to do with judging those outside?  Are you not to judge those inside?  But God will judge those outside.  Remove the evil person from among you” (5:9-13). 

When we attempt to consider how this is to be interpreted first by its recipients, and then by the later church (throughout the centuries) that should make every effort to hear and understand as a first century listener so as to make proper application to practice in an attempt to live out what it would mean to be a Christian in their own situation (place and time), we cannot read this apart from a comprehension of the social forces that were at work and in place in that time.  Just as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be a microcosm of all that was intended for the kingdom of God, so too would a celebratory meal and attendant symposium be a microcosm of the larger society in which such are taking place. 

Additionally, this section demands to be heard as a whole, without division or isolation of independent thoughts, and it also demands, because of the mention of not eating with such people and with the dis-association list given here that is repeated and expanded upon in the sixth chapter, to be heard in the context of a meal.  It also demands to be heard in the context of what the meal says about the body of believers; and for our purposes here, because of his mention of judging, it must be heard with mindfulness of what Paul says about eating and drinking without careful regard for the body and the eating and drinking of judgment that such would entail. 

Yes, we must read this letter as the mounting argument that it is.  We do violence to the text and to Paul’s thesis when we carelessly isolate statements to use them as aphoristic-truth clubs with which to beat people over the head in an effort to reinforce our own previously arrived at conclusions.  While we recognize that Paul deals with a variety of problems, failing to see that there is a substantial progression, based upon an underlying movement with a particular point of reference, is a wanton abuse of the Apostle’s work that might lead us into all sorts of erroneous conclusions while missing the larger point altogether.        

Letter To Laodicea (part 74)

So not only are we forced to begin considering having “a careful regard for the body” in the mode of the body of believers, we are also forced to deal with the idea that Paul’s delineation of the parameters of the Lord’s Supper, or the communion table, are offered within the context of a grave concern over what is being put on display, or conversely, what is not being put on display by the meal practice of the Corinthian church.  Paul is quite concerned with the fact that love, true love as demonstrated by compassion and mercy, which should be reflected by image-bearers that are supposedly claiming Jesus as their Lord and living by the precepts on offer by Him in both word and deed and which are part and parcel of the celebration of the communion, is being left off the table.  This is in the wake of understanding the communion as a microcosm of the messianic feast by which it is confessed that Jesus is Lord, and in which the in-breaking of God’s compassion and mercy for this world is looked to and celebrated, with this having taken place by and through the Christ-event. 

Now ultimately, Paul is not critical of the fact that there is a celebratory meal taking place.  Paul does not necessarily rail against the institution of the symposium or convivium itself, nor does he express opinions on the nature of eating and drinking, except when he enters into a dissertation on practices of eating that are rooted in the need for the community to operate with a compassionate love and sensitivity.  Clearly, with the symposium in view, he has concerns with some things that take place at this portion of the meal, but he does not appear to have a desire to altar the fact that it takes place.  Rather, his concern seems to lie with the fact that love, and the preferring of one another that will come with the modeled-out love of Jesus, is not being shown forth through the various activities that lie within that view.  It appears that Paul, understanding the example of Jesus at meals, while tying in the messianic banquet (rule of God) aspects of Jesus’ meal activities, sees the tremendous importance of the meal, especially as a force within society.  Therefore, he wants to see this powerful force re-shaped in a way that will cause it to reflect the priorities of the kingdom of God. 

The more damning aspect of the activities of the church is that, with the powerful social forces that are at work, this church seemed to be participating in activities at their meal and related symposium, with the requisite divisions that one would expect in that day, thereby making their celebrations (meal and symposium taken together) indistinguishable from any other such celebration that might be taking place in Corinth.  This, while they referred to it as the Lord’s Supper, calling it their messianic banquet. 

This is highly problematic, especially if the very forces that deface and defile God’s creation, and which dishonor and defame divine image-bearers for the pleasure and amusement of another set of divine image-bearers, are on display.  If the first were making sure that they were still first, while also making sure that the last were still last, and if they were doing so within the event that was supposed to be a tool that would mark them out as being a very different community in which preferring one another was the order of the day and in which the first shall be last and the last shall be first (humbled exalted and exalted humbled---a flattening out of society in which there was neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but in which all were one in Christ), then this was not the Lord’s Supper, and this was most certainly not representative of the kingdom of God. 

Returning then to the issue of re-shaping the accepted and standard meal practice of the day, and considering whether or not this is a legitimate approach to take in our attempt to understand Paul’s concerns, the larger movement of the letter to the Corinthians, and the singular importance of the meal to the early Christian communities (which is a component of comprehending Jesus’ words to the church at Laodicea), we revert now to the fifth chapter of the letter, that we might continue to build the structure of the mounting argument that takes place within the letter and perhaps culminates in the Paul’s communion dissertation of the eleventh chapter.  

Letter To Laodicea (part 73)

The institution in view, which fits within the meal practice of the ancient world and which seems to demand consideration by the context provided by Paul’s words in the sixth chapter of first Corinthians, is what is known as the “symposium” (Greek) or the “convivium” (Latin/Roman).  In ancient Greece, the symposium was a drinking party.  The word “symposium” derives from the Greek word “sympotein,” which means “to drink together.”  The symposium was a key social institution in the Greco-Roman world, and would be especially so in a well-known and popular Greek city such as Corinth.  Among other things, it served as a forum for men to debate philosophy or issues of the day, to devise grand schemes, to boast about achievements (note Paul’s mention of boasting in the fifth chapter), or quite simply, to engage in festivities with friends, family, neighbors, and business associates.  Symposiums were also frequently held to celebrate the introduction of young men into aristocratic society, and for the purpose of celebrating special occasions, athletic victories (which would be key for the home of the Isthmian games), or other contests such as those held for the creation and recitation of poetry.  Most assuredly, an aura of nobility surrounded the symposium. 

The events would typically be held in the men’s quarters of the household; and of course, early church meetings took place in private homes, thus lending opportunities for such engagements.  Relatively quickly, it becomes rather simple to identify a slippery slope, especially when the idea of the messianic feast, which was of tremendous importance in the early church, was introduced into the wider, Greco-Roman culture. 

Those that participated would recline on couches that would be arrayed against three walls of the room, away from the door.  The image thus presented to the imagination should be familiar to us, and we can readily locate the protoklisian and the eschaton in this situation.  Obviously, space limitations would limit the number of couches, therefore limiting the number of participants, even if one were to take standing room into consideration.  The events were limited to men, and only those of a certain status were allowed to recline.  If any young men were present, they would not recline, but would be obliged to sit up or to stand.  Naturally, food and wine would be served, and we do well to remember the potential social stratifications at work in conjunction with this service.  In addition, entertainment would be provided, and depending on the occasion, this entertainment could include games, songs, flute-girls or boys, slaves performing various acts, or even entertainers hired specifically for the occasions. 

As we move forward, we do well to remember our analysis of the wedding feast at Cana, and consider how much of Greek culture, carried forward by Rome, had infiltrated the social life of first century Judea.  Accordingly, we learn that a symposium would be overseen by a “symposiarch,” or if you will, “master of the feast.”  Among his many duties, he would decide how strong the wine for the evening would be, and this would depend on whether serious discussions were going to be taking place, or whether sensual indulgences were all that were on tap for the gathering.  The wine would be drawn from a large jar that was designed to be carried by two men, with the wine then served to the guests from pitchers.  Again, as we continue to learn about this social institution, we keep Paul’s words of the sixth chapter in mind, and find that poetry and music would generally be a central feature of the symposium.  Along with that, though free women of status were not allowed to attend such events, female prostitutes were often hired to accentuate the festivities, thus bringing Paul’s mention of sexual immorality and prostitutes (6:13,15) into play, as we view Paul’s critique of this church in the light of meal practice and the symposium.  Together with the prostitutes, slaves and boys would also be employed for entertainment and used to provide service, thus drawing attention to Paul’s mention of being “bought at a price” (6:20), which is the language of slavery. 

In effect then, the symposium, or convivium, was a male-oriented drinking session that would traditionally be held at the end of a meal.  Greek pottery of ancient times, including the time of Jesus and Paul, frequently includes decorations depicting symposium, showing that the range of activities would include drinking, music, singing, dancing, games, and sexual intercourse.  As we imagine what might very well be the raucous nature of the symposium, and as we hold in mind the vital nature of meal gatherings as demonstrated by Jesus and therefore embraced by the early church, can we not hear Paul writing into the context of this type of event when he delivers words such as “Do not be deceived!  The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9b-10)?  This makes a great deal of sense if Paul is addressing a church that is engaging in this practice, while referring to it as their celebration of the messianic feast, which is the very thing that was suppose to signal the in-breaking of the kingdom of God.   

Letter To Laodicea (part 72)

In the sixth chapter, we get a glimpse of what it is that Paul just might be getting at in the eleventh chapter.  There, in the midst of exhortations that are focused on the way the community of the church should ideally function (6:1-8), reflections on a primary focus of Jesus’ ministry by some always important mentions of the kingdom of God (6:8,10), and then a short digression on food, Paul writes about “the body.”  With a stunning demonstration of linguistic creativity and dexterity, Paul weaves an elaborate web of individualism and community, doing so in the context of proper behavior as part of the church as it lives within the world as representatives of the kingdom of God. 

He writes, “The body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.  Now God indeed raise the Lord and He will raise us by His power” (6:13b-14).  Here, though we generally want to make a merely personal application of the words concerning the body and sexual immorality, and though there is, without a doubt, a personal ethical and moral dimension to the statement, we should not dwell on the individual application to the exclusion of the corporate vision, as Paul goes on to speak about the Lord raising “us.”  With that mindset created, it is not at all difficult, though we may not yet understand how or why, to hear a reference to the body of believers in that thirteenth verse. 

Continuing, Paul writes “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (6:15)  Here, some translations of the passage will complete what appears to be implied in the statement, reading “members of Christ’s body,” thus continuing to intertwine the personal with the communal, as this intertwining hangs upon the ever-present thread of the kingdom of God.  Building on the question that begins the fifteenth verse, Paul goes on to ask “Should I take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?  Never!” (6:15b)  In all honesty, this seems like a strange turn, unless, that is, we keep the larger movement of Paul’s letter in mind, while also keeping in mind that this letter from Paul was designed to be read to the gathered community, who may have been able to look around and at themselves in such a way as to cause the full and stinging weight of the Apostle’s words to come crashing down upon them, as Paul may have expected. 

Continuing in this stream of thought, Paul goes on, writing “Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her?  For it is said ‘The two will become one flesh.’” (6:16)  Paul then hammers home the communal aspect of his use of “body,” thus enabling us to read “But the one united with the Lord is one spirit with Him” (6:17).  To this is then added “Flee sexual immorality!” (6:18a)  Having made this statement, Paul goes on to quote what must have been a portion of what has been reported to him about this church, writing “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body” (6:18b).  This seems to have unavoidable communal implications, as if Paul was being informed that practices in which some were engaging, which it could be argued did not rightly bear out the image of God, as was intended for ambassadors of the kingdom of that God that had been established upon the earth, should not have a negative effect on the way that Paul views this church or the way that the church is viewed by the community in which it is present---especially if the practices would not have been considered scandalous to the observing community or if it might have been proposed that it was a means of outreach and inclusion in the mold of Jesus’ inclusion, at His tables, of those outside the boundaries of the covenant people.  To this, Paul replies “but the immoral person sins against his own body” (6:18c).  The use of “immoral” is clearly linked with the previously referenced sexual immorality and the mention of prostitutes, while the use of “body,” if we consider the union and uniting aspects that Paul has already mentioned, should be taken as a reference to the church.  Therefore, Paul’s critique is to be understood as a critique of practices that are allowed within the church that cause the church to fall short of its responsibility to bear the image of God, which it can only do as it imitates Jesus---seeing the Father in Him and in the deeds and practices of His ministry.  Naturally, he is not buying their argument. 

The dissertation closes with Paul writing “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?  For you were bought at a price.  Therefore glorify God with your body” (6:19-20).  With this, there are obviously and unmistakably individual and corporate applications and implications; and clearly, if all is considered within the responsibility of the church and its members to be representatives of a kingdom (a community), one is not to be separated from the other.  

Returning to the thirteenth verse, it is most interesting to note that this is written immediately after “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both” (6:13a), which in turn follows Paul’s rejoinders of “but not everything is beneficial” and “but I will not be controlled by anything” (6:12b,d), which are his apparent responses to the statement that has come to him (again, presumably from this church) that “All things are lawful for me” (6:12a,c).  The juxtaposition of an elaboration on what is lawful, beneficial, controlling, and food, against a statement about sexual immorality and the body, cannot help but cause one to consider yet another common and accepted aspect of ancient meal practice upon which we have yet to elaborate.  This practice may be quite telling for our understanding of the issues at hand in the church at Corinth, and perhaps in some small way, with the church at Laodicea.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 71)

Paul first writes concerning the bread, reporting the words of Jesus, that “This is My body, which is for you” (11:24).  He does this after first mentioning that Jesus had taken bread, given thanks, and broke the bread (11:24).  Then, he goes on to indicate that “every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:26).  Then, continuing on to the twenty-seventh verse, Paul again speaks of bread, with the verse closing out with “the body and blood of the Lord” (11:28b).  This calls attention to and reaffirms the symbolic nature of the bread, as it stands in for the body of Jesus.  Then, in the twenty-ninth verse, Paul writes “the one who eats and drinks,” omitting but implying the bread and the cup, “without careful regard for the body eats and drinks (the bread and the cup again implied though omitted) judgment against himself” (11:29). 

Changing gears a bit, the insistence that follows, in which Paul reasons “that is why man of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (11:30), along with “if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:31), “but when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world” (11:32), the address to “my brothers and sisters” (11:33a), and the final addition of “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (11:33b), seems to indicate a change of focus.  Paul is, quite clearly, speaking to the group again. 

Taking that into consideration, a re-reading of the twenty-ninth verse, in which Paul makes two implicit references to the bread and the cup, while also mentioning “the body,” should arouse our curiosity.  To which body is Paul referring?  Is he here using “body” in the same way that he used in the twenty-fourth and twenty-eighth verses?  If so, why the multiple implied references to the bread and the cup in verse twenty-nine, with a sudden shift to the body, if “body” here is to be taken as yet another reference to the bread?  The Greek word that is in usage has a minor variation, sharing the same root, so it is incumbent upon the hearer to tease out the subtle shift that has taken place in this verse.  Paul’s use of “body” here has been shifted away from a reference to the bread of the communion table, and has been re-directed and used in reference to the body of believers---the church to which Paul writes.  This causes the usage to fit well with the words that began to be directed to the group, as Paul confers attention upon the congregational body. 

At first glance, this seems like a strange conclusion, but when we reconsider the larger context (the whole of the letter) into which the treatment of the subject fits, and when we listen to the letter in a single sitting, with problems within the church as a whole in mind, then the seemingly strange conclusion becomes not so strange at all.  Paul is a thoroughly trained and gifted rhetorician, highly skilled in argumentation, and quite capable of building a case for his teachings through a sustained narrative in which pieces function as essential building blocks.  His letter to the Romans is probably the finest example of this studiously acquired skill.  Just as Israel identified itself according to its own historical narrative, and just as Jesus saw and fit Himself within that narrative of God’s redemptive plan for the restoration of His good creation, Paul goes to great lengths to provide the recipients of his letters with a narrative structure that will aid in their coming to terms with that which he is attempting to communicate. 

With that said, it is valuable to remember that Paul’s letters, though thoroughly dissected and broken into smaller pieces, with theological, ecclesiastical, soteriological, and Christological premises drawn from fragments that are really not meant to be fragments at all, are intended to be viewed as a whole.  Things written and dealt with early in the letters will tend to have a bearing on what comes later, and ideas and issues presented later in the letters will generally spring from a foundation laid earlier in the letter.  We must take all necessary precautions to avoid isolating passages and interpreting passages in isolation, without taking great pains to provide a contextual construct before doing so, especially if so doing fails to take into account the necessary historical considerations (social, political, economic, linguistic, religious, etc…).  So in considering what appears to be a rather novel idea of considering “the body” of verse twenty-nine of chapter eleven as a reference to the church, rather than to the bread, we must proceed to recognize what Paul has done earlier in the letter.      

Letter To Laodicea (part 70)

Let us continue to bear in mind that the communion table was approached within a culture with a ready understanding of the social significance of meals and meal practice, and by a church that looked upon the Passover celebration, now transformed by Jesus, by the light of the messianic banquet and all that such implied.  In many ways, though we do not wish to paint with too broad of a brush, we can see that the communion table---that simple ceremony that Jesus delivered “after supper”---had effectively become symbolic of the messianic banquet, and therefore symbolic of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven.  It did this while carrying a great degree of weight in the areas of theology, and practice.  Theology because the communion table, in carrying the heavy weight of so much meaning, tells its participants a great deal about the God that Jesus intended to reveal and to be revealed through His church that was intended to reveal God’s kingdom.  Practice because, looking back to the example of Jesus, the participants at the communion table are able to learn a very basic premise of what it would look like when they were living and acting like those who truly believed that Jesus had been enthroned, and that God had begun to rule this world through Him. 

Much like the covenant markers of Judaism (primarily circumcision, dietary prescriptions, and the keeping of the Sabbaths) had become the indicators of those that intended to participate in the kingdom of God, so too did participation in the communion, with an ear and an eye towards the inclusive, socially flattening and barrier eliminating model that had been presented by Jesus and which was being shared orally at the point that this letter to the Corinthians was written (as evidenced by the fact that Paul feels compelled to confirm the tradition that had been presented to him), indicate one’s intention to participate in the kingdom of God on earth, doing so through calling Jesus Lord in both word and deed.  This would include living out the implications of the model that was to be found in what would have been the well-known practices of table fellowship of the one that was being looked to as King, and acknowledging the ministerial and missional prominence of the readily communicated stories (as evidenced by the fact that they take up a sizable amount of the Gospel accounts) that served to demonstrate the way that Jesus approached and spoke about the meal table, along with His handling of questions and concerns about the same.  This would also have to be borne in mind alongside the oft-repeated fact that His positioning Himself as Messiah, whether implicitly or explicitly, meant that the meal tables of Jesus, and therefore the table that the early church looked upon as the one table of singular importance, had undeniable messianic banquet sensibilities, and would have to be considered within that considerably important context. 

For these reasons, it seems to be incumbent upon us to move past a pre-occupation with individualistic concerns, and about whether we are able to approach the communion table in a particular condition of heart or soul that becomes determinative of the way that God is going to view us as we take the elements and participate in the Lord’s Supper.  Though Paul does write that “A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28), the thrust of the letter, when considered within our diligently teased out knowledge about the context of meal practice and what it communicated about the church and the kingdom of heaven, forces us to consider the “person” in the context of the community in our attempt to fully and rightly discern what it is that is taking place and what has the Apostle so exercised at this congregation. 

This is hardly an nonsensical deduction, as Paul began this section of the letter with a general address to the whole of the church that he intends to hear his words at the same time and place.  He wrote “I do not praise you” (11:17), which is clearly directed to the group.  When he writes “you come together not for the better but for the worse” (11:17), and then reinforces this with “when you come together as a church” (11:18), this is clearly group-speak.  The addition of “I hear there are divisions among you” (11:18) reveals Paul’s desire for unity as a group, while also serving as a lament that there are divisions.  Such a lament would militate against any type of practice that served to elevate the individual aspect when concerning oneself with the meal which identified one as a loyalist to Jesus and as a willing participant in the kingdom program of God for the world that was being enacted through the church.  This is not to say that God does not work through individuals, but such a thought does remind us that no man is an island unto himself.  So we do not devalue the importance of individual pursuit within the kingdom, but maintaining consideration of our context, which is that of a meal that is communal through and through, individualistic concerns, especially as Paul addresses this church, fall by the wayside.  This will allow us to get at the root of the problem.   

It has become clear that an approach to that which serves to identify the church of Christ, that being the communion table, that puts a premium on the individual heart or soul condition of the one that comes to the table, is almost counter-intuitive to what Paul believes is necessary and appropriate.  Indeed, if the example provided by Jesus is considered again, as the meals of the Jesus tradition have come to devolve upon the communion table, one could, if hung up on individualism and anachronistic determinations of worthiness and examination, say that Jesus Himself was prompting violations that would bring judgments of weakness, sickness, and death, as He was consistently coming to the table with, and welcoming to the table those identified as tax collectors and sinners, who were therefore most certainly individuals of the unworthy variety.  This is quite the conundrum, and we are only forced to it if we continue to miss the main concern of the Apostle as he addressed what he learned was happening in this church.        

Letter To Laodicea (part 69)

Looking at Paul’s discourse concerning the communion in this way, in the larger context of what precedes it in the eleventh chapter and in consideration of the general tone of the letter, while also holding on to the reality of a general and public reading to the group, rather than an individual and private reading, prompts us towards a better way of coming to terms with what follows.  The twenty-seventh verse reads “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27).  When isolated from what prompted Paul to write about that which he had received from the Lord, this verse prompts all types of interesting thoughts concerning what it means to take in an unworthy manner.  When one goes on to hear “A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28), an even larger range of potential interpretations come into view. 

In fact, it is proof-texting that almost immediately comes into view, and accordingly, a statement from what is presented as Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, that of “Put yourselves to the test to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” (13:5a) is brought into service, so as to aid the unsure reader of the first letter in their comprehension.  That won’t do at all, of course, as ideas communicated in the second letter would have zero bearing on the way the hearers of the first letter are to understand Paul’s directions.  Nevertheless, herein lies much controversy, as rightly introspective Christians grapple with what it means to examine take the bread or cup in an unworthy manner, or what it means to examine oneself, in light of the fact that Paul continues on to write “For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (11:29-30). 

Naturally, judgment, weakness, sickness, and death are to be avoided.  Unfortunately, large numbers of Christians, down through the centuries, have not only looked at the words of these verses and attempted to understand them in isolation from the larger picture into which they are painted, they have also looked at them from within the overarching idea that the goal of the Christian life is simply to achieve heaven and avoid hell.  Therefore, words such as “guilty” and “judgment” are associated with the proverbial and everlasting fires of hell.  In addition, individualistic concerns and notions of personal salvation, and the corollaries of heaven and hell (as salvation and judgment) have further colored the interpretation in a way that would not have been in the minds of Paul’s original hearers, especially if they had already been well-instructed by him in the fundamentals of all that was implied by the kingdom of heaven, and by concepts such as justification (the means by which one enters into the kingdom of heaven). 

If personal concerns are at the fore, then attempts taken to determine what it would mean to take the elements in an unworthy manner, along with an examination of self, juxtaposed with the irrelevant notion of examining oneself to see if one is in the faith, generally devolves into an idea that sins must be confessed before taking communion, so that the participant will then be worthy to receive the body and blood.  Conversely, some would declare that this type of self-examination is precisely not what is to take place, as it puts the focus on one’s own self, rather than on Jesus, and that Paul is indicating that the focus must be on Jesus, with the bread and the cup acting as useful symbols that allow such a focus to be maintained.  Therefore, in a strange twist, it is declared that confession of personal sins in order to become worthy is that which makes one unworthy, as doing so is nothing more than attempting to work towards one’s salvation, and is therefore a denial of grace, which is ultimately a denial of Jesus. 

Beyond that, semantics and grammar are brought into play, and it is declared that proper understanding is had when one sees that “unworthy” is not the word that is used, but rather “unworthily,” which then makes all the difference in the world.  Now, this is not the place to delve into whether or not the proper word is the adjective, unworthy, or the adverb, unworthily, and then basing an entire communion methodology upon what is implied by the differences between the two.  Getting focused on such a thing would seem to miss the point either way, as determining if one is supposed to be focusing on self and sins as opposed to Jesus and His sacrifice, may be an unwarranted flight into a disconnected and individualized spiritualization in the realm of personal concern and the final destination of one’s eternal soul.  This would be another instance of losing focus on the larger movement and forgetting the environment into which Paul writes and the concerns that he is raising and addressing within this entire section that runs as one unit from at least the seventeenth verse through the thirty-fourth verse, while also failing to consider the very real and known situation that would be readily identified by Paul’s intended hearers.  Quite frankly, though the thoughts and actions of individual persons are in view here, it seems clear, based on the way that Paul has introduced the specific topic of communion, as well as what follows (verses twenty-seven through thirty-four), that it is the actions of this church as a group---as a body---that is the concern, and the demand that is placed upon us is to see, hear, and understand the situation in this way.  The same will hold true for any conclusions to be drawn from the letter to Laodicea.