1 Corinthians 11:27

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord . . .—Better, Wherefore, whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord. The entire weight of MS. evidence is in favour of the conjunction “or,” not “and,” which was probably retained in the English version lest the disjunctive “or” might seem to favour the practice of receiving in one kind only. It is, however, clear that if in these early days there was a considerable interval between the receiving the bread and the wine, it would have been quite possible for a partaker to have received one only unworthily, and the Apostle intimates that in either case he is guilty.

Sin was the cause of that body being broken and that blood shed, and therefore the one who unworthily uses the symbols of them becomes a participator in the very guilt of those who crucified that body and shed that blood.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

11:23-34 The apostle describes the sacred ordinance, of which he had the knowledge by revelation from Christ. As to the visible signs, these are the bread and wine. What is eaten is called bread, though at the same time it is said to be the body of the Lord, plainly showing that the apostle did not mean that the bread was changed into flesh. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bid them all drink of the cup, ch. Mt 26:27, as if he would, by this expression, provide against any believer being deprived of the cup. The things signified by these outward signs, are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice. Our Saviour's actions were, taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving both the one and the other. The actions of the communicants were, to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and to do both in remembrance of Christ. But the outward acts are not the whole, or the principal part, of what is to be done at this holy ordinance. Those who partake of it, are to take him as their Lord and Life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. Here is an account of the ends of this ordinance. It is to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds his dying for us, as well as to remember Christ pleading for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. It is not merely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered; but to celebrate his grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and plead it as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. The Lord's supper is not an ordinance to be observed merely for a time, but to be continued. The apostle lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving it with an unsuitable temper of mind; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while professing to renew and confirm the covenant with God. No doubt such incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to spiritual judgements. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance. The Holy Spirit never caused this scripture to be written to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this use of it. The apostle was addressing Christians, and warning them to beware of the temporal judgements with which God chastised his offending servants. And in the midst of judgement, God remembers mercy: he many times punishes those whom he loves. It is better to bear trouble in this world, than to be miserable for ever. The apostle points our the duty of those who come to the Lord's table. Self-examination is necessary to right attendance at this holy ordinance. If we would thoroughly search ourselves, to condemn and set right what we find wrong, we should stop Divine judgements. The apostle closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which the Corinthians were guilty at the Lord's table. Let all look to it, that they do not come together to God's worship, so as to provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Wherefore - (ὥστε hōste). So that, or it follows from what has been said. If this be the origin and intention of the Lord's Supper, then it follows that whoever partakes of it in an improper manner is guilty of his body and blood. The design of Paul is to correct their improper mode of observing this ordinance; and having showed them the true nature and design of the institution, he now states the consequences of partaking of it in an improper manner.

Shall eat this bread - See 1 Corinthians 11:26. Paul still calls it bread, and shows thus that he was a stranger to the doctrine that the bread was changed into the very body of the Lord Jesus. If the papal doctrine of transubstantiation had been true, Paul could not have called it bread. The Romanists do not believe that it is bread, nor would they call it such; and this shows how needful it is for them to keep the Scriptures from the people, and how impossible to express their dogmas in the language of the Bible. Let Christians adhere to the simple language of the Bible, and there is no danger of their falling into the errors of the papists.

Unworthily - Perhaps there is no expression in the Bible that has given more trouble to weak and feeble Christians than this. It is certain that there is no one that has operated to deter so many from the communion; or that is so often made use of as an excuse for not making a profession of religion. The excuse is, "I am unworthy to partake of this holy ordinance. I shall only expose myself to condemnation. I must therefore wait until I become more worthy, and better prepared to celebrate it." It is important, therefore, that there should he a correct understanding of this passage. Most persons interpret it as if it were "unworthy," and not "unworthily," and seem to suppose that it refers to their personal qualifications, to their "unfitness" to partake of it, rather than to the manner in which it is done. It is to he remembered, therefore. that the word used here is an "adverb," and not an "adjective," and has reference to the manner of observing the ordinance, and not to their personal qualifications or fitness. It is true that in ourselves we are all "unworthy" of an approach to the table of the Lord; "unworthy" to be regarded as his followers; "unworthy" of a title to everlasting life: but it does not follow that we may not partake of this ordinance in a worthy, that is, a proper manner, with a deep sense of our sinfulness, our need of a Saviour, and with some just views of the Lord Jesus as our Redeemer. Whatever may be our consciousness of personal unworthiness and unfitness - and that consciousness cannot be too deep - yet we may have such love to Christ, and such a desire to be saved by him, and such a sense of his worthiness, as to make it proper for us to approach and partake of this ordinance. The term "unworthily" (ἀναξίως anaxiōs) means properly "in an unworthy or improper" manner "in a manner unsuitable to the purposes for which it was designed or instituted;" and may include the following things, namely:

(1) Such an irregular and indecent observance as existed in the church of Corinth, where even gluttony and intemperance prevailed under the professed design of celebrating the Lord's Supper.

(2) an observance of the ordinance where there should be no distinction between it and common meals (Note on 1 Corinthians 11:29); where they did not regard it as designed to show forth the death of the Lord Jesus. It is evident that where such views prevailed, there could be no proper qualification for this observance; and it is equally clear that such ignorance can hardly be supposed to prevail now in those lands which are illuminated by Christian truth.

(3) when it is done for the sake of mockery, and when the purpose is to deride religion, and to show a marked contempt for the ordinances of the gospel. It is a remarkable fact that many infidels have been so full of malignity and bitterness against the Christian religion as to observe a mock celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no profounder depth of depravity than this; there is nothing that can more conclusively or painfully show the hostility of man to the gospel of God. It is a remarkable fact, also, that not a few such persons have died a most miserable death. Under the horrors of an accusing conscience, and the anticipated destiny of final damnation, they have left the world as frightful monuments of the justice of God. It is also a fact that not a few infidels who have been engaged in such unholy celebrations have been converted to that very gospel which they were thus turning into ridicule and scorn. Their consciences have been alarmed; they have shuddered at the remembrance of the crime; they have been overwhelmed with the consciousness of guilt, and have found no peace until they have found it in that blood whose shedding they were thus profanely celebrating.

Shall be guilty - (ἔνοχοι enochoi). This word properly means obnoxious to punishment for personal crime. It always includes the idea of ill-desert, and of exposure to punishment on account of crime or ill-desert; Matthew 5:22; compare Exodus 22:3; Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Numbers 35:27; Leviticus 20:9; see also Deuteronomy 19:10; Matthew 26:66. "Of the body and blood of the Lord." Commentators have not been agreed in regard to the meaning of this expression. Doddridge renders it, "Shall be counted guilty of profaning and affronting in some measure that which is intended to represent the body and blood of the Lord." Grotius renders it, "He does the same thing as if he should slay Christ." Bretschneider (Lexicon) renders it, "Injuring by crime the body of the Lord." Locke renders it, "Shall be guilty of a misuse of the body and blood of the Lord;" and supposes it means that they should be liable to the punishment due to one who made a wrong use of the sacramental body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Rosenmuller renders it, "He shall be punished for such a deed as if he had affected Christ himself with ignominy."

Bloomfield renders it, "He shall be guilty respecting the body, that is, guilty of profaning the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently shall be amenable to the punishment due to such an abuse of the highest means of grace." But it seems to me that this does not convey the fulness of the meaning of the passage. The obvious and literal sense is evidently that they should by such conduct be involved in the sin of putting the Lord Jesus to death. The phrase "the body and blood of the Lord," in this connection, obviously, I think, refers to his death, to the fact that his body was broken, and his blood shed, of which the bread and wine were symbols; and to be guilty of that, means to be guilty of putting him to death; that is, to be involved in the crime, or to do a thing which should involve the same criminality as that. To see this, we are to remember:

(1) That the bread and wine were symbols or emblems of that event, and designed to set it forth.

(2) to treat with irreverence and profaneness the bread which was an emblem of his broken body, was to treat with irreverence and profaneness the body itself; and in like manner the wine, the symbol of his blood.

(3) those, therefore who treated the symbols of his body and blood with profaneness and contempt were "united in spirit" with those who put him to death. They evinced the same feelings toward the Lord Jesus that his murderers did. They treated him with scorn, profaneness, and derision; and showed that with the same spirit they would have joined in the act of murdering the Son of God. They would evince their hostility to the Saviour himself as far as they could do, by showing contempt for the memorials of his body and blood. The apostle does by no means, however, as I understand him, mean to say that any of the Corinthians had been thus guilty of his body and blood. He does not charge on them this murderous intention. But he states what is the fair and obvious construction which is to be put on a wanton disrespect for the Lord's supper. And the design is to guard them, and all others, against this sin. There can be no doubt that those who celebrate his death in mockery and derision are held guilty of his body and blood. They show that they have the spirit of his murderers; they evince it in the most awful way possible; and they who would thus join in a profane celebration of the Lord's Supper would have joined in the cry, "Crucify him, crucify him," For it is a most fearful and solemn act to trifle with sacred things; and especially to hold up to derision and scorn, the bitter sorrows by which the Son of God accomplished the redemption of the world.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

27. eat and drink—So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, "or." Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood." Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," Heb 6:6). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ's Gospel, we may worthily communicate.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Divines agree, that the unworthiness here spoken of, respecteth not the person of the receiver so much as the manner of the receiving; in which sense, a person that is worthy may receive this ordinance

unworthily: it is variously expounded, without due religion and reverence, without faith and love, without proposing a right end in the action, under the guilt of any known sin not repented of, &c.

Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; shall incur the guilt of the profanation of this sacred institution; for an abuse offered to a sign, reacheth to that of which it is a sign; as the abuse of a king’s seal, or picture, is justly accounted an abuse of the king himself, whose seal and picture it is. Some carry it higher; he shall be punished, as if he had crucified Christ, the profanation of Christ’s ordinance reflecting upon Christ himself.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Wherefore,.... Since this is the plain institution of the Lord's supper, the form and manner of administering of it; and since the bread and wine in it are representations of the body and blood of Christ, and the design of the whole is to remember Christ, and show forth his death; it follows, that

whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The bread and cup are called the bread and cup of the Lord; because ate and drank in remembrance of him, being symbols of his body and of his blood, though not they themselves; these may be eaten and drank "unworthily", when they are eaten and drank by unworthy persons, in an unworthy manner, and to unworthy ends and purposes. The Lord's supper may be taken unworthily, when it is partook of by unworthy persons. This sense is confirmed by the Syriac version, which renders it , "and is not fit for it", or is unworthy of it, and so the Ethiopic version; now such are all unregenerate persons, for they have no spiritual life in them, and therefore cannot eat and drink in a spiritual sense; they have no spiritual light, and therefore cannot discern the Lord's body; they have no spiritual taste and relish, no spiritual hungerings and thirstings, nor any spiritual appetite, and can receive no spiritual nourishment, or have any spiritual communion with Christ: and so are all such persons, who, though they may profess to be penitent ones, and believers in Christ, and to have knowledge of him, and love to him; and yet they have not true repentance, neither do they bring forth fruits meet for it, and so as they are improper subjects of baptism, they are unworthy of the Lord's table; nor have they faith in Christ, at least only an historical one, and so cannot by faith eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of God, nor perform the ordinance in a way well pleasing to God; nor have they any spiritual knowledge of Christ, only what is speculative and notional, and so cannot discern the Lord's body; nor any real love to him, and therefore very improper persons to feed on a feast of love; nor can they affectionately remember Christ, or do what they do from a principle of love to him, and therefore must be unworthy receivers: as likewise are all such professors, whose lives and conversations are not as become the Gospel of Christ; such crucify Christ afresh, and put him to open shame, and are therefore unfit to show forth his crucifixion and death; they bring a reproach on the Gospel and ordinances of Christ, and cause his name, and ways, and truths to be blasphemed, and grieve the members of the churches of Christ, and therefore ought not to be admitted to the table of the Lord: indeed, no man is in himself worthy of such an ordinance, none but those whom Christ has made so by the implantation of his grace, and the imputation of his righteousness; and whom he, though unworthy in themselves, invites and encourages to come to this ordinance, and to eat and drink abundantly. Moreover, this ordinance may be attended upon in an unworthy manner; as when it is partook of ignorantly, persons not knowing the nature, use, and design of it; or irreverently, as it was by many of the Corinthians, and it is to be feared by many others, who have not that reverence of the majesty of Christ, in whose presence they are, and who is both the author and subject of the ordinance; or without faith, and the exercise of it on Christ, the bread of life, and water of life; or unthankfully, when there is no grateful sense of the love of God in the gift of his Son, nor of the love of Christ, in giving himself an offering and sacrifice for sin; or when this feast is kept with the leaven of malice and wickedness, and with want of brotherly love, bearing an ill will to, or hatred of, any of the members of the church, To all which may be added, that this bread and cup are ate and drank unworthily, when they are partook of to unworthy ends and purposes; as to qualify for any secular employment, and to gain any worldly advantage; or to be seen of men, and to be thought to be devotional and religious persons; or to commemorate anything besides Christ; as the "judaizing" Corinthians did the "paschal" lamb; or to procure eternal life and happiness thereby, fancying that the participation of this ordinance gives a meetness for, and a right to glory: now such unworthy eaters and drinkers are "guilty of the body and blood" of the Lord; not in such sense as Judas, Pontius Pilate, and the people of the Jews were, who were concerned in the crucifixion of his body, and shedding of his blood, the guilt of which lies upon them, and they must answer for another day; nor in such sense as apostates from the faith, who, after they have received the knowledge of the truth, deny it, and Christ, the Saviour; and so crucify him afresh, and put him to open shame, count the blood of the covenant a common or unholy thing, and tread under foot the Son of God; at least, not every unworthy receiver of the Lord's supper is guilty in this sense; though there might be some among the Corinthians, and is the reason of this awful expression, who looked upon the body and blood of Christ as common things, and made no more account of them than of the body and blood of the passover lamb; but in a lower sense, every unworthy communicant, or that eats and drinks unworthily, may be said to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, inasmuch as he sins against, and treats in an injurious manner, an ordinance which is a symbol and representation of these things; for what reflects dishonour upon that, reflects dishonour on the body and blood of Christ, signified therein.

Geneva Study Bible

{19} Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, {k} unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

(19) Whoever condemns the holy ordinances, that is, uses them incorrectly, are guilty not of the bread and wine, but of the thing itself, that is, of Christ, and will be grievously punished for it.

(k) Otherwise than how such mysteries should properly be handled.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

1 Corinthians 11:27. From that καταγγέλλειν κ.τ.λ[1869] it follows how great is the sin of participating unworthily. This reference of the ὥστε is sufficiently pointed and appropriate not to require us to go back further (to all that has been said from 1 Corinthians 11:20 onwards), as Rückert would have us do.

Ἢ ΠΊΝῌ] Ἤ does not stand for ΚΑΊ (Pott and older expositors);[1870] but the meaning is: a man may partake of the one or the other unworthily, he is alike guilty; neither in the case of the bread nor of the wine should there be an unworthy participation. We must remember that the two elements were not partaken of in immediate succession, but the bread during the meal and the wine after it, so that the case was quite a possible one that the bread might be partaken of in a worthy, and the cup in an unworthy frame of spirit, and vice versâ. Comp also Hofmann. The guilt, however, of the one or the other unworthy participation was the same, and was alike complete; hence ἤ is not repeated in the apodosis. Roman Catholics (see Estius and Cornelius a Lapide) find in this Ἤ a support for their “communio sub una.” See Calovius in opposition to this.

τοῦ Κυρίου] as ΚΥΡΙΑΚΌΝ in 1 Corinthians 11:20; 1 Corinthians 10:21.

ἈΝΑΞΊΩς] in an unworthy manner, i.e. in a way morally out of keeping with the nature (1 Corinthians 10:16) and design of the ordinance (1 Corinthians 11:24 f.). Paul does not define it more closely; hence, and because an unworthy participation may, in the concrete, occur in many different ways, the widely differing definitions of interpreters,[1872] which are, however, quite out of place here. For the apostle leaves it to his readers to rank for themselves their particular way of communicating under the general ἀναξίως, and not till 1 Corinthians 11:29 does he himself characterize the special form of unworthy participation which prevailed among them by Ὁ ΓᾺΡ ἘΣΘΊΩΝ Κ. ΠΊΝΩΝ. See on the verse.

ἜΝΟΧΟς ἜΣΤΑΙ Κ.Τ.Λ[1873]] ἔνοχος with the dative and genitive (see Matthiae, p. 850) expresses the liability of guilt (see Bleek on Hebrews 2:15): he shall be—from the moment he does so—under guilt to the body and blood of Christ, i.e. crimini et poenae corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit (comp Jam 2:10, and the classical ἔνοχος νόμοις, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 869 B E); inasmuch, namely, as the proclamation of the Lord’s death at the participation in the bread and the cup presupposes a moral condition which must be in keeping with this most sacred act of commemoration; and if the condition of the communicant be of an opposite kind, then the holy body and blood, into communion with which we enter through such participation, can only be abused and profaned. Comp 1 Corinthians 11:29, μὴ διακρίνων κ.τ.λ[1876] The often repeated interpretation: “par facit, quasi Christum trucidaret” (Grotius, following Chrysostom and Theophylact), appears once more in Ewald; but it neither corresponds sufficiently with the words themselves (for had Paul meant that, he would have said distinctly and suitably: ἜΝΟΧΟς ἜΣΤΑΙ ΤΟῦ ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡ.), nor with the parallel thought in 1 Corinthians 11:29. This holds, too, against Ebrard’s view (Dogma v. Abendm. I. p. 126); each man by his sins has a share in causing the death of Jesus; if now he communicates unworthily, not only do his other sins remain unforgiven, but there is added this fresh guilt besides, of having part in nailing Christ to the cross (which, with every other sin, is forgiven to the man who communicates worthily). But that would be surely no new guilt, but the continuance of the old; and in this sense Kahnis explains it, Dogmat. I. p. 620. But to bring out this meaning, the apostle, if he was not to leave his words open to misunderstanding (comp John 3:36; John 9:41), must have written not ἜΝΟΧ. ἜΣΤΑΙ, but ἜΝΟΧ. ΜΈΝΕΙ or ΜΕΝΕῖ. Olshausen again, with older expositors, thinks that our passage implies a powerful argument against all Zwinglian theories of a merely commemorative ordinance. This, however, is too hasty and uncertain an inference; because the profanation of an acknowledged symbol, especially if it be one recognised in the religious consciousness of the church (suppose, e.g., a crucifix), does injury to the object itself represented by the symbol. Hofmann is not justified in disputing this. Comp Oecolampadius, Piscator, and Scultetus, who adduce, as an analogous case, an injury done to the king’s seal or picture.[1879] Rückert, on the other hand, is wrong in supposing that we have here a proof that the bread and wine are only symbols.[1880] For, even granting that they are really the body and blood of Christ, there was ground enough for the apostle’s warning in the fact that his readers seemed to be forgetting this relationship. Our conclusion therefore is, that this passage in itself proves neither the one theory nor the other, as even Hofmann now acknowledges, although he goes on to infer from 1 Corinthians 11:29 that Christ’s real body and blood are partaken of in the Sacrament. See, however, on 1 Corinthians 11:29, and comp on 1 Corinthians 10:15 f.

[1869] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1870] To this mistake, too, is to be traced the reading καί (in A D, some min. vss. and Fathers), which Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 191, and Rückert approve. It was suggested by ver. 26, and gained support from the καί which follows; but is not necessary, for there is a change of conception.

[1872] Theophylact, following Chrysostom, makes it ὡς περιορῶντας τοὺς πένητας. Theodoret holds that Paul hits at those fond of power in Corinth, the incestuous person, and those who ate the things offered to idols, and generally all who receive the sacrament with bad conscience. Luther: “he is worthy who has faith in these words, ‘broken for you, etc.’ ” Grotius: “qui hoc actu curat, quae sua sunt, non quae Domini.” Bengel: “qui se non probant.” Flatt: not with thankful remembrance of the death of Jesus, not with reverence towards Him, not with love towards others; so also in substance Rückert in his Commentary, and—with more detail and to some extent differently—in his work on the Lord’s Supper, p. 234. Billroth: with offence to the brethren. Olshausen: what is primarily meant is want of love, a disposition to judge others, but with the underlying idea that it is impenitence that makes an unworthy communicant. Kahnis: “unbelief, which does not acknowledge a higher intrinsic worth in the Lord’s Supper.” At all events, it is the lack of a constantly present, lively, and active faith in the atonement brought about by Christ’s death, which is the source of the various states of moral unworthiness in which men may partake of the Supper; as was the case also with the Corinthians when they degraded it into an ordinary meal for eating and drinking (and Hofmann goes no further in his explanation of the ἀναξίως). The more earnest and powerful this faith is, the less can that participation, by which we are conscious of coming into communion with the body and blood of the Lord, and thereby commemorating Him, take place in a way morally unworthy. Bengel is right indeed in saying: “Alia est indignitas edentis, alia esus” (comp. Rückert, Abendm. p. 253); but the latter in its different moral forms is the necessary consequence of the former.

[1873] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1876] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1879] Luther’s objection to this in the Grosse Bekenntniss resolves itself, in truth, into mere hairsplitting. The argument of the old systematic divines again is: The object against which we sin must be present; we sin against the body and blood of Christ; therefore these must be present. This conclusion is incorrect, because the major premiss is so. The presence of the object “in quod delinquimus quodque indigne tractamus” (Quenstedt) is not always necessary, and need not be a real presence. Thus a man sins against the body of Christ, even when he sins against what is recognised as the sacred symbol of that body, and against the blood of Christ, in like manner. Comp. also Neander.

[1880] Otherwise in his treatise vom Abendm. p. 236, where, on the ground of 1 Corinthians 10:3 f., 1 Corinthians 10:16, he does not doubt that what is meant is a direct offence committed against the very things there present.

Expositor's Greek Testament

1 Corinthians 11:27 draws the practical consequence of 1 Corinthians 11:20-26, stating the judgement upon Cor[1767] behaviour at the Supper that a right estimate of the covenant-cup and bread demands: “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be held guilty (ἔνοχος ἔσται; reus tenetur, Bz[1768]; rather, tene-bitur) of the body and blood of the Lord”; it is this that he ignores or insults; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:29. On ὥστε with ind[1769], see note to 1 Corinthians 3:7. What “unworthily” means is patent from 1 Corinthians 11:20 ff.—The or, for and, between ἐσθίῃ and πίνῃ supplies the single text adducible for the R.C[1770] practice of lay communion in one kind: “non leve argumentum,” says Est., “non enim sic loqueretur Ap., si non sentiret unam speciem sine altera sumi posse”. But and appeared in just the same connexion in 1 Corinthians 11:26, and reappears in 1 Corinthians 11:28 f.; “or” replaces “and” when one is thinking of the parl[1771] acts distinctly, and the same communicant might behave unworthily in either act, esp. as the breaking of the bread and taking of the cup at this time came in probably at the beginning and end respectively of the Church Supper, and were separated by an interval of time; see notes on εὐχαριστήσας and μετὰ τ. δειπν. (1 Corinthians 11:24 f.). ἔνοχος (from ἐν-έχω, to hold in some liability) acquires in late Gr[1772], like αἴτιος, a gen[1773] of person against whom offence is committed; see Ed[1774] in loc. To outrage the emblem is to outrage its original—as if one should mock at the Queen’s picture or at his country’s flag. Except ἔλθῃ, the vbs. throughout this passage are pr[1775] in tense, relating to habit.

[1767] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1768] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[1769] indicative mood.

[1770].C. Roman Catholic.

[1771] parallel.

[1772] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1773] genitive case.

[1774] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians.2

[1775] present tense.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

27. and drink this cup] Literally, or drink the cup. Many Protestant translators have evaded the force of the or, from a fear lest they should thereby be countenancing the denial of the Cup to the laity. See Alford, Stanley, Meyer, De Wette, who, while rejecting a rendering clearly incorrect, point out that the fear which prompted it was quite needless. Calvin renders boldly by aut; Wiclif and Tyndale by or. See also note on 1 Corinthians 11:25.

unworthily] “Not merely,” says Estius, “with a mind distracted by worldly thoughts, though that is not to be commended, but in an irreverent spirit,” in a frame of mind unsuitable to so solemn an act; without faith in, or a thankful remembrance of, the great mystery therein commemorated; and, above all, in a spirit which regarded what is essentially the Supper of the Lord as a supper of one’s own, and therefore as one at which it was lawful to be selfish, or intemperate, or both.

shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord] Either (1) shall be punishable for ‘crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting Him to an open shame’ (Hebrews 6:6), “as though thou thyself didst shed the blood,” Theophylact; or (2) for committing an offence against the Body and Blood of Christ, since “the participation presupposes a moral condition which must be in keeping with this most sacred commemoration; but if the condition of the communicant be of an opposite kind, then the holy Body and Blood, into communion with which we enter through such participation, can only be abused and profaned.”—Meyer. The word here translated guilty (reus, Vulgate) signifies the condition in which a man becomes amenable to punishment. Cf. Matthew 5:21-22, where the word is translated in danger of the judgment, council, hell-fire (see also Mark 3:29), and Matthew 26:66, guilty of death, i.e. of a capital crime. James 2:10, guilty of all, i.e. liable to the same penalty as though he had broken all.

Bengel's Gnomen

1 Corinthians 11:27. Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναξίως) Some read ἢ formerly for καὶ, but καὶ[103] remains, as in what follows, of the body AND blood of the Lord. From the particle ἢ Pamelius, writing to Cypria[104] concerning the Lapsed, impugns the necessity of communion in both kinds. The disjunctive particle, if any one thinks that Paul used it, does not, however, separate the bread and the cup; otherwise the cup might as well be taken without the bread, as the bread without the cup. Paul twice demands, both with the bread and with the cup, the remembrance of the Lord Jesus, according to His own words, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25; but in the manner, in which the Lord’s Supper was celebrated among the Corinthians, a man might at the same time both eat this bread and drink the cup, and yet apart [separately] he might eat this bread unworthily or drink this cup unworthily, since the remembrance of the Lord was certainly profaned by any impropriety, though it were only in the case of one of the two elements, 1 Corinthians 11:21. But if any one among the Corinthians even in that time of confusion took the bread without the cup, or the cup without the bread, on that very account he took it unworthily, and became guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.—ἀναξίως unworthily) They do so, not only who are without repentance and faith, but who do not examine themselves. The unworthiness of him, who eats, is one thing, of eating, is another. “Some indeed say, that he excludes, not a person unworthy, but one receiving unworthily, from the sacred ordinance. If then even a worthy person approaching unworthily is kept back, how much more an unworthy person, who cannot worthily partake?”—Pelagius among the works of Jerome.

[103] The margin of the second edition, with the Germ. Ver., confirms this, his more recent opinion, which is different from the decision of the first edition.—E. B.

[104] yprian (in the beginning and middle of the third century: a Latin father). Ed. Steph. Baluzii, Paris. 1726.

BCDGfg Vulg., Cypr., read ἢ, which may seem to favour the Romish doctrine of communion in one kind being sufficient. A (and according to Lachm., which Tisch. contradicts, A or D) and translator of Orig. read καὶ.—ED.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 27. - And drink this cup. This ought to be rendered, or drink this cup. It seems to be one of the extremely few instances in which the translators of our Authorized Version were led by bias into unfaithful rendering. They may have persuaded themselves that the apostle must have meant "and;" but their duty as translators was to translate what he said, not what they supposed him to have meant. What he meant was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or the cup. King James's translators thought that, by rendering the word or, they might seem to favour communion in one kind only. St. Paul's meaning was that a man might Lake either element of the sacrament unworthily. Unworthily. We are all "unworthy" - " unworthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Christ's table;" yet not one of us need eat or drink unworthily, that is, in a careless, irreverent, defiant spirit. Guilty of. He draws on himself the penalty due to "crucifying to himself the Son of God afresh," by "putting him to an open shame." 1 Corinthians 11:27

Vincent's Word Studies

Unworthily (ἀναξίως)

Defined by "not discerning the Lord's body," 1 Corinthians 11:29.

Guilty (ἔνοχος)

See on Mark 3:29; see on James 2:10.