Sunday School - The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 16

The Meaning of Communion and the Roman Catholic Mass

Well, beloved, let's open in a word of prayer. Oh, we're ready, or no? Yeah? OK, great. Good and gracious Father, we come before you acknowledging our faults, our fallen nature, our destitute standing apart from Christ.

We pray, Lord, that you would, in this moment, be a reminder to us of our depravity, but also of our security in Jesus, that it is totally by grace that we've been saved, and it is the outworking of your work in us of faith.

And so, Father, we pray that you would enable us to be activated this morning to hear this teaching, to receive it gladly. And also, Lord, that we would know the true meaning of Christ's sacrifice, that our Passover lamb has indeed been sacrificed once and for all time for the sins of his people, for the redemption of their souls.

And we pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. We're going to continue on this morning in the, I think it was the, what is it, 10th chapter? Oh, 11th chapter. We're in the 11th chapter. And so we're still in the topic of mass.

So on page 165 of our books in the Roman Catholic Controversy, we're going to continue to look at the Roman Catholic understanding of mass and how it contrasts with the message of the gospel. And this is a really important part.

This is why I didn't want to skim over this part of the chapter and just move on to the next chapter, is because it really is quite important. So we learned last week kind of the main views on communion.

So the Roman Catholic one is called what? I always have a hard time with that word. Yeah, transubstantiation. English is tough sometimes. So there's transubstantiation, which means what? That's right.

So trans means change, transform. Substantiation, it comes from the word of substance in the Greek. And so there's a change of substance, according to Roman Catholic dogma, of the elements of the communion.

So they actually, the bread and the wine, actually become literally the body and blood of Jesus. Now, it only remains, so the substance of the elements change, but the appearance does not. So that's the Roman Catholic understanding.

So the substance of the matter changes, not the appearance. Then you have, of course, other views. Cosubstantiation, which means what? Consubstantiation, yeah. Means what? Yeah. So it's kind of the Lutheran perspective, which says that the substance themselves don't change.

Rather, it is a substance around or in. So Christ is in and around the substance, but he doesn't change the substance. And then you have the memorialist view of communion, which is basically a memorialist view of the communion table just essentially says that the table doesn't change.

Nothing changes. There's nothing miraculous that happens. There's nothing of substance that changes, but that it's just a memorial. It's just a memorial, and the elements are just there to be a reminder.

Yeah, I mean, I don't want to trivialize it too much, or it's not just something we do. But yeah, I mean, the memorialist view of the communion tables, it says, yeah, essentially, there is no substantial change metaphysically, metaphorically, spiritually.

There's no change to the elements. Rather, this is just something we do as a memorial of the Lord's Supper, of the Lord's table. Well, then there's the spiritual presence, which is the view that we would take predominantly, of course, here in our church, which is that there is no change in the substance of the matter, of the bread and the wine.

But rather, what changes is the, well, not anything that changes, but rather that Christ is spiritually present in the elements. So that His, the elements are true drink, true food, by virtue of the spiritual impartation of His presence.

So we believe in the spiritual presence of Christ in the communion, not just a memorialist view, where nothing, there is no spiritual impartation or grace that's happening in our partaking of communion.

We would say, no, that there is true spiritual value in the communion table, in what we do, in what we practice.

Not just Christ is with us in His presence, because that would be closer to our view, I think. But their view is He's with the elements, as opposed, well, with us, too. But somehow, He's with the elements, not changing them.

But He's there in them, but not changing them. So only the chapters say they change. And I recall, historically, it's like Luther couldn't quite let go of all his Catholicism. He needed something. They're still reforming.

He couldn't let them change substantially, but he couldn't quite let go of it. That's right. Yeah, there was some tension there.

Absolutely, yeah. I mean, you get that a lot with Luther. Luther had a lot. Again, his intent was to reform the Roman Catholic Church, not to start something new. And so his, you still see a lot of the Catholic dogma in all the ways that he was thinking, including in the communion table.

That's right. And so we, again, we hold to a spiritual view of the communion elements. And so what difference does it really make? OK, you've got these four major views that we just went over again. What difference does it make?

You know, tomato, tomato. Or is it?

Daniel? Isn't there like a bit of a play on words? We say represent. They say represent.

But it's still the same. I'd never heard of that one, but it could very well be. You know, why this is an issue is because, first of all, this is an important issue. The Lord instituted the Lord's Supper.

So we should have a pretty good grasp in the theology surrounding it. Because it's one of the few things that he personally instituted that he told us to continue to do in remembrance of him. So therefore, it has great theological significance and importance.

Also has theological importance and significance in the Roman Catholic worldview. Because in the Roman Catholic dogma, the mass is central to salvation. And in the Roman Catholic catechism, in quoting Vatican II, it says, this is from page 165 in our book, as often as the sacrifice of the cross by which Christ, our Passover, or Pash, has been sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.

And so they believe that the reoccurring Eucharist, the reoccurring mass service, is literally the work of our redemption being carried out weekly. Right? And so it is a, again, re-offering of the body and blood of Christ before the altar through the hands of the sacerdote, the priest.

And he offers it, and he is literally offering Christ over for the sins of his people. Right? So they believe it's that weekly Passover. Right? So remember the Passover, if you didn't do the Passover right, you were killed.

You were cut off. Not only were you cut off, like in the Israelite practices, but if you were at the initial Passover, where the Lord carried out his plague upon Egypt, you would be cut off, literally, destroyed.

So there was great importance to it. But from the Roman Catholic view, it is really salvation being displayed weekly, which is why you need to take your weekly mass. And this is why last rites is an important thing as well, because it is, again, that offering of sin, that offering that's being done from the priest on behalf of the sinner.

And it's a very integral part to the message of Roman Catholicism.

If you don't take it, what happens? Or is that a subject for later?

Well, salvation is not definite in Roman Catholicism, right? There is no definite salvation. There is no assurance of salvation with Roman Catholicism, which is why you have the system of penance, and you have the system of works that you have in Rome.

It's because you don't know until you get there. And maybe you did just well enough to escape by, or you maybe have to spend some time in purgatory, or whatever the case may be. And so there is no great assurance of salvation in Roman Catholicism.

So it's kind of hard to answer that question in that way. But ultimately, the answer is, yeah, there is no definite hope, which is why they have to continually, weekly do these things. So and to a degree, again, if you meet the average Catholic, Ben Shapiro, you guys know Ben Shapiro, social conservative commentator who's Jewish?

He made a fascinating statement that I think is true, not just of Judaism, but it's true of Roman Catholicism. He had said recently that the mark of true religion is not what you believe, it's what you do, right?

So it doesn't really matter what you believe, it just matters what you do. Because even if you don't believe what you do, what's right, you find God in the process, right? And that is a remarkable statement, again, because it's a workspace salvation message, essentially.

But it's true of the way that a lot of Jewish people and a lot of Catholic people practice their religion. They don't really know. Sometimes they don't even really believe, but they do, either for cultural reasons or out of issues of just morality.

They want to be a good person. They like the social settings. So they'll do what's required of the religion. And belief is secondary. Belief is kind of, it's there, if it's not there, it doesn't really matter, as long as you do.

And that's Roman Catholicism, that's Judaism, that's every workspace religion in a nutshell. Doesn't really matter what you believe or what's true to the text, just matters more what you do and everything else is secondary.

Where the opposite is true of Protestantism. What you believe is really important. Oftentimes, sometimes, to a degree, more important than what you do, right? Because from a biblical perspective, we all know that we all fall short.

You know, who has ever, apart from Christ, perfectly lived up to biblical standards and morality? No one, no one. You know, I'd venture so far as to say that if your sins from just the past 24 hours were put on display here, we'd probably never see your face here again.

Right? Because it is just the nature of our fallen humanity. And so really, you know, our beliefs are really important. And it will determine, often, how we live, more fundamentally than how we live determining our beliefs.

So this is why it's such an important discussion, because it really comes down to the heart of the gospel, heart of what the biblical teaching is surrounding the finished work of Christ. And so again, Vatican says that Christ is being offered on the altar weekly, and this is a work that is being, that the work of our redemption is being carried out by means of the mass, by means of the sastra, the sastra, which is the priest coming forward, presenting Christ, and then offering him up for the people.

Any questions so far? And so, yeah, go for it. Yeah, I'm not sure who you're referring to. Yeah, so I can't comment on that. But you know, there's two things that I'd like to focus on here, which is one of the things that James White focuses and carries on in this chapter as well.

And so he says, there's two major areas that I wish to focus our attention on. The first, the idea that the Eucharist involves transubstantiation, that is, that the wafer and the wine are changed by the power of God into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.

So one of the things is, is that, could God do that? Sure he can. He can do anything he wants. He's sovereign, and he can do that if he wants. It's not too hard for him or too difficult. The question is not, can God do it?

It is, does he do it, right? You feel like you wanna say something?

I kinda feel like if God did, he almost makes Christ a liar. So it's impossible for God to lie. We, I believe we've got a biblically-based understanding of the scripture, that we're taking Jesus at his word, and the apostle Paul and how he teaches it.

First Corinthians 11, so maybe I'm just picking over words. It made me shudder a little bit. Could God, God could do anything, but it's impossible to lie and contradict his own son. That's right.

You know, no one denies that Christ is present in the communion, right? We don't deny that. What is the grand difference between what we adhere to in the spiritual presence and what transubstantiation teaches is that one is talking about the substance of the elements being changed, while we believe that the true substance that needs changing isn't the bread or the wine, but rather the heart, okay?

And that's what it always comes down to. What is communion there to do? It's there to change the substance of our hearts, not for its substance to be changed in itself. Amen? I'm just not gonna applaud that.

And so, you know, that's what it really just comes down to. That's, and that's where you understand the heart and the intention behind the Lord's Supper is a way in which we are weakly in touch with the Lord Jesus Christ.

And what do we do? Like, just look at the way that we practice it, right? Here at our church. You know, we take time, we pass the elements, and, you know, and that's a time of reflection. There's no fancy music being played in the background.

There's no videos on monitors. It's just a quiet time, corporately, between us and the Lord, where we get to examine ourselves and confess our sins and come before that altar of grace, knowing that in Jesus we have a fountain of forgiveness, we have a fountain of love, we have a fountain of redemption.

And in a sense, like in the Roman Catholic sense, we, I too would say that the communion tables is a picture of our redemption, but they would go farther in saying, okay, of course, it's not just a picture.

It is actual redemption being played out. And I would agree with that in one sense, which is to say that, again, in communion, we are receiving the spiritual impartation of Jesus's life, right? So Jesus is in fellowship with us through the table.

We are in fellowship with him. We are breaking bread, and it is all pointing towards an eschatological future and reality, which is that one day we will break bread and drink with him and you in the kingdom of heaven, right?

And that's actually pointing towards an actual event. Do we even know what that event is pointing to?

Revelation 19, the invitation to the wedding,.

To the feast, the Lamb's Supper, okay? The communion table is a reminder that we are in covenant relationship with Jesus, and it's leading up to the consummation of the church, which is the Lord's, the Lamb's Marriage Supper.

That's what it's all pointing to. That's why Jesus says, you'll drink anew of it, me again in the kingdom of heaven. And when is that gonna be? That's gonna be at the consummation at the last day when Christ is making all things new, new heavens, new earth, and he comes in glory, and he truly consummates and marries his bride.

And this is gonna be a glorious thing. That's what communion is pointing to. It's pointing towards that future, which is why it says we do this until the Lord what? Returns. Returns, why? Because when he returns, we'll have one last communion with him, and it's the ushering in of the eternal age of the eternal state.

I mean, isn't that awesome?

Emmanuel, go for it. Comes back at the end, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

How does that fit in? Yeah, well, that's a whole nother discussion. I'm sorry. But you know I'm a sucker for eschatology, so here goes the rabbit trail. That's right. That's the easy way of putting it.

But no, you know, the rapture is, of course, it's an interesting notion. I would say that, first of all, when you think of rapture, you're probably thinking of an unbiblical concept because most people's perception of a rapture is this secret event that happens seven years, three and a half years before the second coming, and people just disappear, and you're gonna be looking for your neighbor, and all you see next to the mower is his jeans and a T-shirt, right?

And that's not a biblical teaching whatsoever. It's foreign to church history until the 1850s. You know, it's just not what the Bible teaches. The word rapture is not in the Bible. The word caught up is, which is where the word rapture, raptizo, comes from, which is from 1 Thessalonians 4 .16, which says, when the Lord himself will descend from heaven with the voice of the archangel, and all those who are in Christ shall be caught up with him to meet him in the air, and they shall forever be with the Lord.

And so, according to Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 .16, when does the rapture, the catching up of God's people happen? When he comes, when he descends from heaven, right? And so, the coming of the Lord is clearly at his coming, or the catching up of the saints is clearly at his coming.

This is what Jesus also says in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, where it says he shall gather his elect from the four corners of the earth, which is the second coming, is the context, and they shall meet him and be with him, right?

And so, every text that refers to a second coming event or a rapture event is directly correlated with the second coming. When you look at Revelation chapter 19, for instance, from verses six to 10, it talks about that eschatological event, which is this great multitude, which is the saints, they're being gathered before the throne, and it says in verse seven, let us rejoice and exalt and give him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.

That is the catching up of God's people. When God's people are raptured or caught up and will be changed, 1 Corinthians 15, in the twinkling of an eye, our substance at that moment will be changed, it will be in resurrected glory, it will be presented to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that's gonna be awesome.

It's just gonna be a glorious event. And so we'll be presented perfectly without blemish, Ephesians chapter five, and so that happens at the second coming. Again, which is one of the reasons why I'm all-millennial, is because only in all-millennialism does these chain of events have a perfect sequence and actually make sense to what the grand text of the Bible is teaching.

And also, this is also pointing towards what communion is all about. It's a preparation for that day. So when we think of, like, you know, before a wedding day, you do dress rehearsals. You know, I just did a wedding in Wisconsin for a friend of ours, for Alberto and his beautiful bride Karina, and, you know, we had to go there several hours beforehand and we had to practice.

We had to do the run-through maybe like three or four times just so we make sure we get it right because it's an important day, isn't it, when you get married? And it's a beautiful ceremony and there's significance behind everything, and so you wanna make sure you get it just right.

So you do a couple run-throughs. Well, every Sunday when we gather, we're doing a run-through. We are preparing ourselves for that marriage supper. We're preparing ourselves for that eventual event.

And so that's the way I want us to think about communion is we're not just doing this monotonous thing just because, you know, we're kind of commanded to do so in Scripture, but it's leading up to something.

It's building towards something, and that's the right mentality to have in regard to communion. So hopefully I killed two birds with one stone with that, right? Okay. He asked a question about eschatology.

You missed it, man. And so, yeah. So any other thoughts or questions? It seems like you got something else you wanna shoot? No? Okay. All right. And so that helps us kind of set the framework for this discussion this morning in regard to communion and regard to mass and the Eucharist is that the substance of the elements is not what's of importance here, of ultimate importance, because I think there is importance.

For instance, anyone here ever been to a Mormon church service before? No? Okay, I'll save you a lot of time. It's very boring. And it's not as if that's the most important thing, but they have weekly communion as well.

Okay, the Mormon church does. But the Mormon church practices communion a little bit differently. Here in our church, we'll have unleavened bread as an element for the bread. And then they will have grape juice or wine.

Mormon church has wonder bread and water that's passed out every week. Yeah, water, not even grape juice. And it's not just like one church. This is common standard practice in all Mormon churches. They don't have even grape juice.

It's just water. And it's not unleavened bread. It's literally wonder bread. I saw the bishop in the back, you know, with a loaf of wonder bread, just cut it up and just put it in the little tubes, right?

So, and this is, again, common practice. What is wrong with that? If the evangelical church did that, what would be wrong with it? So the bread is leavened. That's one issue, right? And you've probably been to a lot of different, maybe evangelical churches, non-denominational churches that'll serve leavened bread.

I know I did. I went to a church, a really groovy church plant, probably like 10, 12 years ago. A really what? A really groovy church. Yeah, it was a cool church. It was like all the hip young people went.

It was an Acts 29 church plant. Mark Driscoll was like super cool still. And so all the cool reformed guys went to this church and we did communion by, they called it by intention. So we would take bread and it was actual bread, so like, you know, but it was probably like sourdough bread.

It was actually pretty yummy. And then we would dip it in the juice and then we would, you know, eat it that way. So they called it doing communion by intention, they called it. And a lot of churches would do that.

They'll just have regular bread or wafer. So it's not even, I don't even know what it is. I don't even know what it's made of, but it's not unleavened bread. And they'll have that with grape juice or wine.

I have a problem with that. I think that the substance of what Christ has called us to do is of really great importance. And I don't think we should take liberty in changing things or elements that Christ has so clearly ordained for the church, which is why we take such a passionate stance in regard to baptism as well.

So sprinkling isn't baptism. It's something different. So if you have leavened bread for communion, that's not communion. That is something different, by definition, because what the Lord said and what he has instituted should be what is practice.

So that should be the practice and rule of the church is what Christ has said. So, I mean, and I talk to evangelicals, you know, about this sometimes. They look at me like I'm crazy. And it's like, well, who's the crazy one?

We just want to do what Jesus says. And how he established it. So to do anything other than would be, you know, excuse the strong word, but it's a bastardization of what he has called us to do. And so I would say that the elements are important, okay?

Or the substance of the elements. I think it needs to be unleavened bread. And I think it needs to be wine or at least grape juice. Now, within Baptist debates, there's a strong debate between grape juice and wine, right?

You got something flowing over here. What do you got? Now, there's a true tension there. There's a true tension there. I want to embrace the tension there because there is a true tension there, right?

Especially within Baptistic circles. I've got friends who are Baptists who they will never, you'll never catch them drinking alcohol of any kind, right? And they are true to that. And even with the communion.

And I'd say, and I've heard some pretty persuasive arguments from their side and saying, listen, if you think the alcohol or the wine that Jesus was drinking is anything like alcohol today, you've got another thing coming.

It was very different the way that they, you know, produce wine, the way we produce wine, very different things. You know, if wine to a large degree was more just almost like sparkling, you know, grape juice, and that's more akin to what Jesus probably would have used anyways.

Very low alcohol content, if any. And so, and I've heard some persuasive things in that regard. And I've actually, one of my Baptist friends, he says, you know, the right way of doing it is just having a bubbly grape, sparkling grape juice because it's, the idea is the spirits.

It's the spirits that's in it that makes it bubble. It's like, it's alive. That's why there's that connection with wine because it's spirits. Spirit, when we talk about spirits, we're not talking about like actual spirits.

We're just, spirits is just a term for alcohol. And what makes alcohol interesting is that there is fermentation, which has, you know, living organisms, essentially, that makes it kind of alive and bubbly and all these things.

So that's a whole other paper trail. I have changed in that, in that I was once one of those Baptists who did not drink, you know, drop of alcohol. And I did so for conscientious issues. And I was working at a addiction recovery program.

I seen how alcohol ravages and, you know, really fundamentally can be dangerous for people's, you know, lives and their spiritual wellbeing. And so, you know, we always offered grape juice as an alternative.

But now I've become more, I'm becoming more staunch in thinking that, yeah, I think just wine. And that's the way I'm leaning towards. But again, we got to at least get some grape in there. So, I'm more lenient on the drink side of things, but I am more, you know, there is obviously a tension there, yeah.

You got it.

The Importance of Examining the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11

Category. It's actually this ball of grape juice, and you pour the water on it, and it would, and all these crazy, I think, I get a little uncomfortable when anybody other than a super Cambridge scholar tells us what happened 2 ,000 years ago.

I really feel like my first response is, you don't know. It was 2 ,000 years, you don't really know what wine. Now, the Philistines were the first to make beer, and we have some idea what, because we know beer must be.

I'm not advocating beer, I'm just saying, we know they were the first. But, you know, they start talking about, okay, what did Jesus have in the bread and all this? You just take your best guess according to the scripture.

Not the best guess, but, you know.

Do what you can with what the information you have. Like 20 centuries ago. And I would say, in response to my Baptist friends who think that the alcohol content was more like non-existent, we know from 1 Corinthians 11 that the brothers were getting drunk off of the communion.

And so, right, that's right.

He was getting drunk, but he enjoyed something, it came to him, that's right.

Wine makes the heart glad, and, you know. I'll be honest, I hate alcohol. I can't stand it, I just can't stand it. There's nothing about it that makes me happy. But, it doesn't taste good. There's just no good taste to it.

But anyways. I love them. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. We'll never get out of this. No, we'll never get out of that debate, huh? But again, so the effect here is important.

We have to remember, what's the importance of the sin? The substance. That's where we got on this, kind of this tangent here on the elements. I think the elements are important, right? So, what is presented has to be what Christ told us to do.

Which is, the communion was of unleavened bread, and it was of the fruit of the vine, wine. And so, those are the two elements I think we must have in order for it to be true communion. However, it's beyond the actual matter of the substance, is the substance of the heart.

That's what is being transformed in communion. And so, it's the believer's heart that's changing, not the substance itself. So, the substance of the element is a vehicle for change for the substance of the heart, because it's a reminder, it's a spiritual presence of Christ in the life of the believer.

And so, if we talk to a Roman Catholic, I really think that that is the way to go. So, if you ever talk to a Roman Catholic on this issue of transubstantiation, you ask, okay, what's of greater importance?

That the elements change in substance, or that the heart of the one who is the recipient changes? What's the more important aspect here? And I think you'll find some common ground in saying, well, of course, the heart of the recipient is more important.

And so, then you have something to build on as you're talking to a Roman Catholic on this issue of transubstantiation. Any thoughts or questions on that? Pastor, and then, that's right.

I think about sort of like the matter of like mother bread and water, and so forth. Do you think the warning of kind of like getting it right and examining itself before you take part in communion is the same sort of like, you know, as in getting it served, I think, right, as well?

Because like, if we have, you mentioned our church for example, and we're like, you know what, it's not that really serious that we give up, you know, and we would like to have some flexibility with the wine, grape juice, or even some other liquid.

Do you think it would be the same, rather than, you know, bringing judgment upon themselves as well with a vascularization, as you said, with communion?

You know, so there's a context to that phrase. You know, we bring it up a lot in the context of communion, right, to examine oneself. Let's go actually go to that text in 1 Corinthians 11. We can see the full context here.

Let's start in verse 17. 1 Corinthians 11, 17 says, but in the following instruction, I do not commend you. So he's saying, you're not doing good in this area. Because when you come together, it is not for the better, but for the worse.

For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part. For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. Okay, that's a very interesting statement. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What?

Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. So what's happening in the early church here in Corinth is that as they're coming together for church and as they're coming for communion, each person was kind of bringing their own plate and bringing their own food.

And they're eating separately from the others. And then they're also not sharing. They're not taking corporately. It's like each person's doing their own thing, right? So he says, you're not doing communion.

You're not doing the Lord's supper. You're doing something totally different, which is exactly my point that I made earlier about the elements. If you're doing not what was instructed, you're by definition doing something us, something other than.

And so he's saying to some of them, and they're even getting drunk. And this is where it gets important. Verse 23, for I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you. The Lord Jesus, the night when he was betrayed, took bread.

And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, this is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also, he took the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood.

Do this as often as you drink in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. So this is a institution that is to continue until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, which ushers in the Lord's marriage supper from Revelation 19.

Verse 27, 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. This is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. So what's he actually talking about here? When he talks about discerning the body, discerning not eating or drinking in an unworthy manner, he's not saying, oh, this is like a personalized thing.

That's what he's condemning in the first place. What he's saying is make sure you don't come with this attitude of independence, right? Because what he's not saying is, oh, examine yourself to see whether you're worthy to receive or to partake.

That's not what he's saying. A lot of Christians will interpret that. So let's say they have a sin that they've sinned this week, and because of that sin, they're gonna exclude themselves from the table, right?

That's not an appropriate use of the table, and it's not an appropriate use of this text. And this is how a lot of evangelicals will approach this text, and they'll make it very individualized, and they'll say, well, I did something wrong this week.

I don't think I'm worthy to partake. It's not what he's talking about whatsoever. Again, the context is some of you guys are being knucklehead boneheads. You're not doing communion right, and you're drinking judgment upon yourselves, okay?

Yeah.

The body, are they saying without considering other church members?

I would say that's exactly what he's talking about.

Or recognizing that this is the body of Christ.

No, I would say, I'd say both. There's a double entendre there, right? So he's clearly saying, listen, you guys are, what were they doing wrong? They weren't taking it corporately. They were being selfish.

They were hoarding for themselves. Some were getting even drunk in communion. And so he's saying, the way you're doing it is wrong. That's not even communion. It's not even the Lord's Supper. Here's the right way of doing it, from what I received from the Lord Jesus Christ, is this.

And he institutes that. And then he says, and you have to, don't drink and take of this in an unworthy manner, because then you'll be guilty concerning the body and the blood of the Lord. And if you eat and you drink without discerning the body, which is, of course, Christ, but also the body of Christ, the church, then you're actually drinking judgment upon yourself.