Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
I want to invite you to take out your Bibles and turn with me this morning to 1st Corinthians, chapter 11. We have been in a extended series, actually in a mini-series, but as part of the extended series in our study of the Gospel of John.
And in chapter 4, when Jesus is speaking to the woman at the well, Jesus says that God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. Well, we took that particular passage and used it as the crux of a mini-series on the subject of worshiping God in spirit and truth.
What does it mean to worship God the way that he commands? And over the last six weeks, we have been looking at this question. Why do we do what we do when we gather for corporate worship? And so far, we've looked at the elements of worship.
Why do we observe the regulative principle? The regulative principle saying that we are only to do that which God commands and worship. In week two, we asked about the order of worship. Why do we have a liturgy, a specific method for worship?
Why not just come in and just do whatever we want each week? Why do we have a specific liturgy? Week three, we talked about the role of singing. Why do we sing? Week four, we talked about the prayers, the specific prayers.
Why do we pray intentionally throughout the service? And then last week, we looked at the subject of the word. Why preach? Well, today we're going to be looking at the role of the Lord's Supper. Why the table?
And not only why the table, but why weekly? As a church, we have committed now since the time of our beginning to have the Lord's Supper every week. And so we continue to practice that. And we're going to seek today to talk about what the Lord's Supper is, why we do it, and why we do it frequently.
But before we begin, I want to also mention this. Today's sermon is going to be very robust. Because this particular subject cannot be engaged in frivolously or simply. It needs to be looked at with the attention that it deserves.
And so I want to encourage you, even now, to gird up your mind for the next hour. Because we are going to be diving deep into some very lofty and important subjects. And I also want to say this. That I'm going to use some language today which may sound foreign to you.
It may even, at times, sound Catholic to you. But I want you to understand. The Roman Catholic Church does not own the language of our faith any more than homosexuals own the rainbow. I'll just make it as it is.
There are words that come out of Scripture. And we ought not be afraid to use them as to fear that we might sound Catholic.
We are Catholic.
We are little c, Catholic. Part of the church of all time. We are not Roman Catholic. We do not bow to a pope. In fact, we affirm against the papacy. As did our Reformation forefathers. But we are part of the church universal which has begun since the time of Christ and stands to this very day.
And will stand until he returns. So, that being said. We are going to read 1 Corinthians 11 verse 17 through verse 34. And I would invite you to stand as we give honor and do reverence to the word of God.
1 Corinthians 11 verse 17 says,. But in the following instructions I do not commend you because you have come together. When you have 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. 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. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.
That the Lord Jesus on 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 it 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. 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. That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died.
But if you, excuse me, if we judged ourselves truly we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat wait for one another.
If anyone is hungry let him eat at home. So that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come. May we pray. Our Father and our God we come to you in Jesus' name.
We thank you and we praise you for the opportunity to study your word this morning. And I pray that we will study it truly. I pray that as we look at the history of this debate and discussion that has happened within the church, Lord, that you would give me clarity of speech and keep me from error.
For Lord God your word is deserving of all attention. Your word is deserved to be preached correctly. And those who intentionally preach in error deserve nothing but condemnation. But Lord I would pray to be kept from error.
Even unintentional error, oh God.
And I pray Lord that as we examine the table today, that you would fill me with your spirit to say what your word has impressed upon my heart. And that your people will hear it and be edified. And Lord God challenged to think possibly more deeply than we have before on this issue.
Be confronted by our traditions and be moved toward closer conformity to your word. God be with us. May your spirit be among us. And when it comes time to take to the table, may we take it afresh as if it were the first time.
And be renewed again in our reminder of what the Lord has done. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen. One of the saddest moments in the history of the Reformation occurred in the year 1529. For it was in the year 1529 that two men who had the opportunity to bring unity to the Reformed Fellowship could not find their unity because of one point of doctrine.
This particular event happened at the Castle Marburg and it is referred to as the Marburg Colloquy. Martin Luther, who I will be preaching on next week as I talk about the need for a modern day Luther.
We need Luther's today. We need our men to stand for truth and we're going to talk about that next week. But Luther, who had led the Reformation in Germany, met with Hilrich Zwingli, who had led a Reformation in Switzerland.
Now, understand this. Zwingli actually was older than Luther. Zwingli also had a list of theses. You remember Luther is very famous for his 95 theses. Well, Zwingli also had a list of theses, arguments against the Roman Catholic Church.
And these two men came together to discuss how they could unify their two movements and through this bring unity to the Reformed movement, which of course was on the brink of splintering and dividing.
Something we still see today. I mean, think of how many Protestant denominations there are. This is why I say this was a sad moment in history because these two men came together and they agreed on 14 out of 15 points of doctrine.
They agreed on the Word. They agreed on the Trinity. They agreed on the Church, essentially, with some minor differences. But they agreed on so many things walking down the list of the Marburg Colloquy.
You can look it up in the Reformed history of what the arguments and discussions they had and how much agreement was between them. But what divided them and ultimately would not allow them to unite was their understanding of the Lord's Table.
Luther did not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. But Luther did believe that the presence of Christ is in the elements. The language of in, over, around, and through. In, under, around, and through is the language of the Lutherans.
And Zwingli took the approach that the elements do not themselves have the presence of Christ in, under, around, and through them, but rather that the elements represented Christ's body and his blood.
So it was a view of memorialism, even though I'm going to say it is not right to say that Zwingli held a bare memorialism. And I'm going to explain what I mean in just a few moments. But just to be clear, when we understand Zwingli's view, it was more covenantal.
And while he would not see the presence of Christ in the elements, he did not see it as just a memorial feast. He saw it as a true communion with Christ in the elements. So we have to at least be fair to these men when we read what they write and actually contend with what they're saying.
But Luther was convinced that to say that Christ is not present in the elements, that it is not truly his body and truly his blood, was tantamount to blasphemy. And it was Luther who actually, as it says in the text, that as he was debating with Zwingli, would announce, Hocus Corpus Mem, Hocus Corpus Mem, which is Latin, this is my body.
And he would not budge on those four words. Luther was convinced that when Jesus said this is my body, he meant nothing other than this is my body. And he would not be convinced otherwise. And when it came to the point of attempted unity, he said, and Luther was not a man who minced words, he is a hero of mine, but I don't agree with him on everything.
And on this, I certainly do not agree. But he said, I would rather drink blood with the papists than drink mere wine with you. Speaking of the position of Zwingli, Luther was convinced of the real presence of Christ in the elements.
And therefore he could not unite with Zwingli who was convinced it was not present in the elements. In fact, one of the saddest things Luther said regarding Zwingli was he said he believed Zwingli was of another spirit.
You understand what that means?
It means you're not a Christian.
Luther's words of Zwingli were robustly harsh. I mean, they were. Luther did not mince words. And I say this is a sad moment in church history. Because I do believe that this is a place where we ought to be able to have some grace with differing opinions.
I do believe that this is a place in the church where we have to at least have some humility. You understand there are no less than four views of the Lord's table that have been held historically. Here they are, in case you were unaware.
The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is a doctrine that says that the substance of the bread changes into the very flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ. And the word substance is the key because transubstantiation is actually based on an Aristotelian metaphysical idea of the distinction between substance and accidents.
Not accidents like having a car accident, but accidents meaning how something is shown. So, for instance, if I said the substance of this is wood, right? And the accidents is the hardness of the wood, the feel, the grain of the wood.
That is the accidents of the wood. That is how we understand what wood is. You understand the distinction there. There is substance and accidents. There is the reality of the thing and the way we experience the thing.
And the argument of Rome is that the bread, when it is consecrated by the priest, it becomes literally in substance changed into the body of Christ. And yet it still tastes and feels like bread. This is why they say the accidents do not change, but the substance does.
And so too with the wine. As the wine is changed, the substance becomes the blood of Christ, but the accidents remain the taste and texture of wine. Now, this belief is so strong among Roman Catholics that I have even heard one say, and this is not a person of inauthority.
This was just one Roman Catholic who said this, so please do not think I am applying this idea to all of Rome. But I have heard at least one Roman Catholic who said that if a person had just received Holy Communion and died in a car accident on the way home, and were undergoing an autopsy, that during the autopsy, if were they to begin to test what was inside the contents of his stomach, they would find the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
They would measure and find the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Now again, I do not think that all Roman Catholics would agree with that, so please don't think I am in any way trying to besmirch Roman Catholics with said thing.
I'm just saying that's the level of idea of substantival change. The idea of a substantive difference. Interestingly enough, this was one of the doctrines that John Wycliffe argued against. John Wycliffe lived in the 1300s, and he said, he called this, his own words, he called this new doctrine.
Because transubstantiation, the doctrine of this substantival change that occurred on a metaphysical level, that only involved the substance but not the accidents, was considered to be new doctrine. But what was not new doctrine, and this must be understood, and please bear with me today and give me your complete amount of grace, because I will need it to get through this message.
What was not new was the belief that Christ was in the elements. For that belief goes all the way back to the early church. And this is why, if you'll notice on the bottom, I make a distinction between real presence and memorialism.
And I tried to put a gradient there, you can kind of see that it's more red on one side, more purple on the other, just to show that I do believe, I believe there is a spectrum of beliefs. Between those who would hold to a real presence view that would be very much in line with Rome, that it's literally the substance changing, that would be as far that way as you could get.
And then there are those who say it's only a memorial, the bread's nothing but bread, the cup is nothing but wine, and it's nothing but a memorial, that would be as far to the other side as you could get.
You understand? And that's why I put that on the bottom. And honestly, I put the scripture passages, because those are the two scripture passages which would be cited.
On the far left side, they would say,.
Hocus corpus, ma 'am, this is my body. And on the right side, they would say, Do this in remembrance of me. This do in remembrance, right?
Both of them are there.
Both texts are there. So you could see how someone could say they're going to the scripture to make their argument, they're just looking at two different sections of the text to make their argument. And just to be clear, those who believe in real presence don't deny that it's a memorial,.
They just believe it's more than a memorial.
That's important to understand. Luther's view denied transubstantiation, but did not deny the presence of Christ in the elements. Luther said to go into the area of substance was to go too far. This is why if you ever talk to a Lutheran, and you say Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, they will have an allergic reaction.
Because consubstantiation, while it has historically been applied to Luther, has never been accepted by nor proclaimed by Lutherans themselves. It's like when somebody talking to a Calvinist says, Well, you believe in, and they'll say something that Calvinists don't believe.
And we say, No, we don't believe that.
We ought to be fair with the language that they use. If they have a specific use of language, we'd be fair to the language they use. Consubstantiation means with the substance. Con meaning with, and substance, substantiation.
So the idea of the Lutheran view, why it was called consubstantiation, is they were saying it's not that the substance changes, it's that the body and blood of Christ are along with the substance. And that is basically what they're saying.
But they don't like the concept of dealing with the substance. They say this reality is not something that can be understood substantively, but rather must be understood spiritually. And therefore, they like the term sacramental union.
That Christ's body and blood is through the administration of the sacrament, united with the bread and cup in a way that we don't know.
We don't know how it happens.
See, the Catholics said they know how it happens. The substance changes, right? That's the difference. We know. But the Lutherans would say, We don't know how it happens. And we're satisfied with the mystery of not knowing how it happens.
We just know that it happens.
Okay. Understand this. And you can argue with me after you want. You can send me an email or come to my office. Or you can stand and spit in my face. But believing that Christ is in the elements is not heresy.
It's not heresy. If it is, we have to condemn the first millennium of the church, because most Christians believed that Christ was there.
How? They didn't know.
Like Lutherans will say, They don't know. But if we look at them and say, You know what? If you believe Christ is there, you are a heretic. Then I think we are being way too confident in a position that I think we should have more humility in.
That's my position. That's my position. Now you might say, Well, then what problem do you have with Rome?
Well, let's start.
Papacy.
Indulgences.
Purgatory. Mariology.
You want me to keep going? I can list it.
What's mariology?
It means the inappropriate exaltation of the mother of God.
No.
Mary, the mother of Jesus. I'm glad you asked. That's a good question. The inappropriate exaltation of Mary, the mother.
What's exaltation?
Exaltation means lifting her up or exalting her. Okay, I'm not going to answer anymore. I appreciate you asking. Well, let's hold off on more questions. Because she could keep going, trust me. And I'm thankful for that.
Here's the point I'm making. And I want you to stay with me on this. When we start discussing the question of whether or not and how Christ is in the elements, what we're going to begin to find is throughout Reformed history, there was a lot of difference on this particular view.
See, the Lutherans believed that Christ truly is present in the elements. And it is a physical presence that you truly eat on his body. You truly drink of his blood. Sacramentally united there. But Calvin's view was much different than Luther's, but yet at the same time did not deny that Christ is present.
But Calvin made a distinction between the physical body of Christ and the spirit of Christ. He would say this. He would say that the physical body of Christ, which rose from the dead, is not omnipresent.
What does it mean to be omnipresent? It means to be everywhere, right? And Calvin said the body that rose from the dead is not omnipresent. Where is the body of Christ right now, friends? I heard a bunch.
Richard, tell me. Right hand of the Father.
Thank you.
I know other people said it, but I heard you say it, so I want to make sure everybody heard it. Calvin said that because the body of Christ is at the right hand of the Father, and because the body of Christ remains human, even though it's glorified humanity, it's not omnipresent.
And therefore, to say that the body of Christ is distributed to all of the bread and cup of the world would be outside of the realm of his humanity. And therefore, when we talk of nourishing ourselves on the body and blood of Christ, it's spiritual, not physical.
This would be the Calvinistic understanding.
Now, I'm somewhat simplifying this.
There's more to it. Because there is a distinction between Luther and Calvin, where Luther believed the body of Christ came down, and there is a belief with Calvin that we actually transcend up. That when we take of the bread and the cup, there's actually an exaltation of us to the presence of Christ, which is at the right hand of the Father.
It's not physical. We don't all fly up. We don't have a rapture every Sunday. But the idea of we are meeting with the presence of Christ spiritually, through the Spirit, and the Spirit in the body of Christ is at the right hand of the Father.
So there's sort of this mediating position, where we're still believing that Christ is present, but not in the same way that the Lutherans believed.
Right?
So the Calvinists had their view. And Zwingli's view is hard to discern. Because some could say, well, Zwingli believed in a bare memorial. But then at other times, you will see that he talks about spiritual participation in Christ through the elements.
He talks about it being a covenant sign. He talks about being communal significance with the presence of Christ in the meal. So it's hard sometimes to know exactly. Again, these men didn't write one book or one pamphlet.
They wrote and preached for years. So if someone says, well, Zwingli's view is bare memorialism. Well, I would say Zwingli was actually a little closer to Calvin than a lot of people realize. Because Zwingli did believe there was an actual communing with Christ through the elements.
And so, when we look at these views, we find ourselves in a situation where I think there is a great deal of humility that needs to be had. You want to know my view? You want to know what we believe and teach at this church?
We have believed and taught the memorial view. That the elements themselves do not contain the body and blood of Christ, but rather they represent the body and blood of Christ. But having said that, I want you to know that I do not believe that we should condemn the Lutherans or the Calvinists on this issue merely for distinctions on this point.
Because when we do, I think we demonstrate an amount of hubris over history that we should not try to have. And I want to say this. When we say that it is a memorial of the body and blood of Christ, we should not ever say that it is a bare memorial.
I have defended this in various contexts. I've defended my position. I'm going to defend it from the text in just a moment. But in my defense of this particular position, I always like to remind everyone.
One, they will say the memorial view is the low view. I say if it's the right view, then it's not the low view. If it's right, it ain't low. Number two, when we say it is a memorial, we are not saying that Christ is not present with us.
And I would say even that Christ is with us in a unique way, as I believe he is uniquely with us in worship. I believe he is uniquely with us when we participate in these things. And so to simply say there is nothing happening, that's the part I can't get on board with.
The idea that there's nothing. And this recently came up in a class I taught on baptism. One of the most dreadful things that has come into the vernacular of the Baptists, and we be Baptists, one of the most dreadful things that come into our vernacular is baptism doesn't do anything.
Shame on you to say that what Christ instituted and commanded you to do does nothing. Now if you want to say baptism does not produce regeneration, but that is produced by the Holy Spirit prior to our baptism, because it is from that we actually come to faith and are desiring a baptism, I would say I agree.
But if you say it does nothing, then why do it?
I'm serious this morning. I think we need to recapture the value of these elements and what they actually are for. There are Baptist churches that don't even remember the last time they took communion.
You think I'm making that up?
I interviewed a guy six months ago on my show, and we were talking about communion. He says, I don't even know the last time we did it. I take great offense at looking at what Christ commands us to do and saying it doesn't do anything.
You know what happens when you say that? You stop doing it. There are Christian denominations that stop doing water baptism. Oh, we don't need water baptism. Oh, we need spirit baptism. Therefore, we don't baptize anymore.
Shame on them for taking the very elements Christ gave us for our ordinances and saying they're unnecessary. I'm convinced we have in many ways been wrong in this area. I don't mean just us in general.
I mean as Baptists. But here's the thing. Our Baptist forefathers didn't believe like many Baptists today. You go back and you read our Baptist forefathers, and then you come and read some big Eva Baptist of today who's having peanut butter and jelly and milk for communion, and you want to slap the slobber right out of his mouth.
Sorry, I'm serious today. This is important. This is important. I fear that we have been so afraid to be called Catholic, so afraid to somehow be connected to the Catholic Church that we would be unwilling to actually believe what the Bible says.
I said I was going to take a little longer today, and I know I preach long anyway. But I want to look at this text. I want to walk through this text because it's important. And so let's do that. So we'll waste no more time.
Let's go beginning at this part, verse 17. In verse 17 it says, but in the following instructions I do not commend you because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. Understand, everything that comes after that sentence is a correction.
In fact, all of 1 Corinthians is a correction. But this particular part, he is outlining the fact, I am telling you what you're doing is wrong. I am not commending you in this. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you.
I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. By the way, that's an important truth in general. It is important when people say, oh, there can't be any divisions in the body of Christ.
No, there has to be some divisions so you can show who the fake ones are. There's going to always be false denominations and false churches. That's going to happen. Paul says, I know there's going to be divisions among you because that's how the truth shows itself.
If everybody was unified on everything, somebody's got to compromise the truth. Jesus prays for our unity, but he never ever once prayed that we would be unified in falsehood. That must be understood.
Moving on, he says, when you come together it is not the Lord's Supper that you... By the way, there's the term Lord's Supper in the scripture. So it is appropriate to call it the Lord's Supper. But understand this, at this particular time in history, there was a different method for having the Lord's Supper than we would call our Lord's Supper today.
You see, at this particular time, there was something called the agape, sometimes called the agape, or depending on how you pronounce it, it was called the agape or the love feast, which means when they gathered together for worship, they feasted together during their time of worship.
And that agape feast had within it the participation in the Lord's Supper. It was not the only part of the meal, but it was the focal point of the meal. And when they did that portion, it was called...
Don't swallow your tongue, Baptists. It was called the Eucharist. I'm sorry, the Eucharist. The agape means love. It is the love feast. Eucharist means thanksgiving. Where does that come from? It comes directly from the text.
Jesus took bread, and when He had broke it,.
He gave thanks for it.
That word right there, Eucharist thanks, is from the Greek text of Jesus' institution. That's where the word comes from.
Rome doesn't own it.
It means thanksgiving feast or thanksgiving meal. And it was within the agape.
You had the agape feast,.
And at some point in the agape feast, they would take bread, they would break the bread, and they would give thanks to God for it. Therefore, it was called the Eucharist or the thanksgiving. And then they would take the cup and give thanks for it, and drink the cup.
So this is what we have here in the early church. We have this practice of the agape feast which surrounded the Eucharist. Later, however, the agape feast is separated from the Eucharist. And the Eucharist becomes part of the liturgy of the worship of the church, and the agape feast becomes a separate thing.
In fact, many people believe that the Eucharist was participated in the morning. The church would gather in the morning for worship, and they would have the Eucharist, and they would gather in the evening for the agape.
So that was the initial separation. We see this as early as the second century. I have a very long writing here from Justin Martyr. And unfortunately, time does not allow me to read it all. But from Justin Martyr's first apology, meaning he's defending the faith.
This is a man who lived in the middle of the second century. He's defending the faith, and he gives the way that the sacraments were to be administered, meaning the bread and the cup. He says that wine mixed with water and bread was brought forward to the president.
We're joking about that this morning. What they called the person who was leading the administration of the teaching and the sacrament was called the president, not the pastor. So from now on... But the president would be brought the bread and the cup so that it would be prayed over and administered to the people.
So as early as the mid-second century, we see a separation in the agape and the Eucharist. Now, here's the thing. By the time we get to the fourth century, I'm sorry, yeah. By the time we get to the fourth century, there's no more agape feast.
The agape feast actually was outlawed at the Council of Laodicea. Here's what it says in the 28th Canon of the Council of Laodicea. This was in 364, so fourth century. It is not permitted to hold love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord's houses or churches, nor to eat or to spread couches in the house of God.
And someone might say, why in the world would they stop the love feast? Well, actually, we see the beginnings of the problems of the love feast in Paul's own writings right here. Paul tells us in his own writings that even in the first century, when the church came together to eat, they could not do so without factions developing among them, and the greatest faction that developed among them were those who brought food and were unwilling to share it with those who didn't have food.
What a desperate thing to come into the house of God with food for yourself, and instead of sharing it, you gobble it down before the other person can have a morsel. By the time of the fourth century, I read some of the documents from around that time of that council.
Apparently, the priests and the leaders of the church were even beginning to hoard food for themselves, so they just said, no more.
No more.
Can you imagine if Brother Mike and Brother Andy and I came rolling up in here, had a big old box and said,.
Y 'all can't have nothing.
We're taking them home for us, and we start taking it and we put it in our car so no one can have it? What a terrible thing that would be. And so they just said, you know what?
By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier, but just so if you are taking notes, or you can have my notes when I'm done, but the agape feast is actually mentioned in Jude 12. In Jude 12, it's talking about false teachers in the church, and Jude says these are hidden reefs at your love feasts, meaning the false teachers would come in and sneak in, but they would be there, and they were there during the love feast.
So the word love feast is in the text. They have this meal, but that meal was essentially outlawed in the fourth century. Baptists brought it back with a passion, though. We call them potlucks, and we do it right.
But anyway,.
Point of it is, by this time in church history, the liturgy had become ensconced as part, I'm sorry, the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper had become ensconced as part of the church service or the liturgy of the church.
Okay, so getting back to the text. This is where Paul challenges them.
He says,.
For in eating, one goes ahead with his own meal, one goes hungry, another gets drunk. That's the key issue. Some of you are eating to your full,.
Some of you have nothing.
One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What does that mean? That means literally there are some getting drunk, but it means there's those over here who are overindulging, while those over here have nothing.
Paul says, I cannot commend you in this. You say you're eating the Lord's Supper. And you're not, because of the way you're treating one another. And then he goes on to say, 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. Can I say this just for a moment? How we treat each other is a big part of our worship. I mean, as simple as that is, how we treat each other, remember what we're supposed to come together to do to fulfill those one another's that the scripture calls us to,.
Love one another, forgive one another.
How we treat one another is actually part of how we worship. Paul says, you're not even having the Lord's Supper because of how you're treating one another. Now he gives the words of institution. These words are hugely important.
He says, for I receive from the Lord what I also deliver to you. I could spend a Sunday on just the fact that Paul did not get his message from men, but he got it from the Lord, our God, directly. And by the way, this is the first written account of what was said by Jesus on the night before he was crucified.
You know how we know that? Because 1 Corinthians was written before Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the accounts of Jesus from the narrative. This is Paul writing possibly a decade earlier than the writings of the apostles, or rather the gospel writers, on Jesus' words.
So this is the oldest written account of what Jesus said that night. He says, I receive from the Lord what I also deliver to you. That the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had Eucharist given thanks, that's where that word comes in, 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 it 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. Now, before we go to the warning passage which begins in verse 27, let us just for a moment look at these words.
The emphasis in Paul's account of Jesus' words seems to be on the word remembrance. He uses it two times in this text. He says that we are to do this in remembrance of me. People ask me why hold the memorial view rather than the real presence view.
People, again, I get this question quite a bit. And my initial answer is that I do believe that that's the natural reading of what Jesus is saying here. And they would say, but he says, this is my body.
And I agree, he does clearly say this is my body. But for a moment, if I were to reach into my wallet and I were to take out a picture of my beautiful wife who's not with us this morning because she is home with our sick child.
By the way, today is 28 years from the day we met. We met 28 years ago today. If I were to pull a photograph from my wallet and hold it up and say, this is my wife. Every one of you would know what I mean because you would know that I am not physically betrothed or married to a piece of paper over covered with ink and gloss.
But you would know that if I held up a picture of my wife, what I meant is that this represents my wife. This represents who she is. This is a picture of who she is. And if you want to know what she's like, look right there.
That's exactly, that's her picture. I believe when Jesus held up the element of bread and he said, this is my body. The very fact that his body was actually there and present at the time would have led to the natural understanding that he means this represents my body, not that this physically is becoming my body.
Because his body is literally what's holding up the bread itself, you understand.
His body's there.
But he says, this is my body. And as I said, I believe it means this represents my body. And then he held up the cup and he said, this cup represents my blood. That by itself is my understanding of hocus corpus man.
This is my body. And I think it's reasonable. But it is the next part that really emphasizes for me why I would hold such a view. Because he says in verse 26, for as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
The text does not say, as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you receive the Lord's body within your body. That's not what he says. But rather that in doing this thing, you are proclaiming a reality that occurred in the past.
God does this all the time. You walk through the text of scripture and you will see memorial after memorial after memorial. In fact, God gave the people of Israel seven memorial feasts. Each one meant to do what?
Point back to something from the past. To point to a reality of something that had happened. And when you eat this memorial feast, you will remember the Lord your God. You'll remember that he led you out of Egypt.
You'll remember that when you were in the wilderness. You'll remember when you were in the booths, the tabernacle. You'll remember these things. You have these meals as a memorial of what God has done.
And let me just add to that. The very meal Jesus is doing this thing in was the memorial of the Passover. Jesus is celebrating the Passover with his disciples,.
Which itself is a memorial meal.
If there was nothing else in all of this and Jesus is teaching us a new memorial,.
It would be the fact that he's in a memorial when he does it.
This is the beauty of this position is its simplicity. Jesus continues what God had begun in the old covenant. And that is the continuation of a memorial feast for the people of God. God instituted memorials for Israel so that they would not forget what God had done.
And God institutes a memorial feast in the new covenant so we would not forget what God has done. You proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. This is meant to represent that once and final sacrifice of the Lord Christ,.
Not to redo it.
You see, this is again, I want to step back to Rome for just a moment. Rome believes not only that this is a body and blood of Christ, but they believe that this is the sacrifice of Christ represented on the altar.
That's why they call their table an altar. They believe the priest comes and administers an unbloody sacrifice. That's the way they define the bread and the cup. They call it the unbloody sacrifice of the mass.
And I want to read to you what they believe happens. This is why I believe Rome does enter into an area that I think is dangerous. As I said, real presence is not something I would say is heretical. But Rome does go too far.
And I want to read to you why I would say that. Now this is not official documentation of the Roman Catholic Church, but this is well attested and well regarded among Catholics as being what they believe.
This is written in the book entitled The Faith of Millions by John O 'Brien, who is a priest in the Catholic Church. And I want you to hear what he says happens when the priest of the Roman Catholic Church administers the sacrament.
Listen closely. When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he goes to the heavens and brings Christ down from his throne and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.
It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed, it is greater even of the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once, but a thousand times.
When the priest speaks in low, Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest, who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and vice-regent of Christ on earth?
He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ. He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.
No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of Alter Christus, for the priest is and should be considered another Christ. It is baloney. It is.
And therefore, we cannot unite with Rome, for such is blasphemy. For such is blasphemy. But that's not the same as saying Christ is present at the table. That's not the same thing, and we must be careful.
But understand, that is going to a dangerous place. Because you have now created a priesthood that re-offers the sacrifice of Christ over and over. And as Dr. James White, who wrote the book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, said, it is possible that a Roman Catholic could partake in the Mass a thousand times in a lifetime and still die unclean.
The sacrifice of Christ is a once-for-all sacrifice that needs not to be repeated, only to be remembered. That's what we believe. It need not be re-administered, but rather it needs to be remembered.
Therefore, Christ says, do this in remembrance of me. The book of Hebrews says, We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Once for all.
Verse 14 of Hebrews 10 says, For by a single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. If you are in Christ, and you are justified of your sins, and you are being sanctified, you have had a once-for-all sacrifice done on your behalf that has washed away every sin and made you fit for heaven.
That's what the Bible teaches. And that's what we stand on. I'm going to ask for just a couple more minutes of your time. Please stay with me because this is important. The warning passage must be considered.
Whosoever, therefore, eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. This is one of the passages that will be used by those who believe in real presence to emphasize.
How can you sin against it if it's just bread and wine? If Christ is not truly present, then how is sinning against it really and truly something that could bring about what the warning says? It says, let a person examine himself and eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body drinks judgment on himself. And because of that, many are weak and ill and some have died. They would say, how could that be if this is merely a memorial?
And this is why I say, number one, don't use the word merely, not around me. So I will correct you quickly. Nothing Christ does is mere. But I can say this, if I had that picture of my wife and you took it and tore it up and spit on it and stomped on it, I probably wouldn't be very happy.
Because when you mistreat that, you are emblematically mistreating what it represents. And if you don't understand that, how about this? What if somebody brought an American flag in this room and lit it ablaze?
You'd lose your mind probably, as would I. You understand the point? When you attack that which is represented, you attack what it represents. You understand that? Therefore, we eat the body and blood of Christ figuratively in the table and when we mistreat the body and blood of Christ, we are in fact not taking seriously what it represents.
Does that make sense? Now, I do want to say this because I do think this part is misunderstood a lot and that's the unworthy manner part. And this sort of, I want to say, I always learn things when I go back and I study the text and this is something that jumped off the page at me this week and I had considered it before, I've taught through this, I taught through 1 Corinthians years ago but I don't think I emphasized it enough and so I wanted to emphasize this again.
When he says, whoever eats and drinks in an unworthy manner, the primary context of that is the people in this meal who are mistreating the ones around them. Because that's the whole context of what's happening.
They're coming in with their food, they're eating it to the full and not giving to those who have need and they're being stingy and unloving with their brethren. So the primary understanding of eating in an unworthy manner is eating when you have ought with your brothers and sisters in Christ and are mistreating them.
People often say, what does it mean to eat in an unworthy manner? That's the primary context. But it can be extended out from that. There are other ways to eat in an unworthy manner. Number one, if you are not a believer.
If you have not received the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, then please do not eat of the bread or drink of the cup. That's something even our Presbyterian brothers and sisters would agree with us on. Because while they baptize their infants on birth, they do not give them communion at birth.
But they wait until they do what? Make a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ before they receive them to the table. Only a few Presbyterians, there's a new denomination, not new, but a relatively recent denomination that does do something called paedo-communion.
Which means they give the element of bread and cup to the, well, infants, but young children. That is not something we see historically. Historically, children have not come to the table until they profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is why we tell you, when we fence the table, and fencing the table means when we tell you who's welcome to come to the table, it's very simple in this church. If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, that's the first thing.
If you're not, please do not partake. And children who have not been born again, who are not yet believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, we would say, let them abstain. Let them abstain until they have made a confession of faith.
Now, parents, that is, you are the ones who will be administering with your children whether or not they've made a profession of faith. You understand that. But your elders, your pastors, we do want to be a part of that.
If you have children who are ready to make a profession of faith, we want you to bring them to us. And make sure they understand the gospel. And when the time comes to baptize them. But you understand, the table is not for an unbeliever.
What if you aren't a member of this church? You are still welcome to participate. Under this one simple caveat, you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you are not under any official discipline or sanction from another church.
Now, why would that matter? Because we do believe that we as a church should honor the discipline of another church until such time as you are reconciled to that church. The only time we would ever lift that is after full investigation.
We determine that the other church has put you under discipline incorrectly. And that would take time of actual investigation. And we have done that. Just so you know, there have been times people have come, and we have had to talk to their previous church because they were under discipline from their other church to find out what was happening.
And I know of at least one case, it didn't happen here, but I do know of at least one case where a man was disciplined incorrectly out of a church. And another church had to essentially re-accept him into membership because he was inappropriately disciplined out of a church.
That does happen. The church doesn't always get it right. One thing I can say about Presbyterians, at least they have a higher court of appeals, right? I mean, I can say that they do have the Presbytery.
Our court of appeals is essentially the church itself. You all are the court of appeals. We stand together, we walk together, we fall together kind of thing. We don't have, there ain't no, I mean, we ain't got a denomination, Brother Mike, do we?
We ain't got nobody we can call. But we would, I will say this, and I think Brother Andy and Brother Mike would agree, if we had a situation that we were struggling through, we would reach out to other churches of like mind to help us through it.
Right now, and y 'all can know this because it's not, the church that I'm helping did publicly make this statement. There's a church, not in our city, but in a nearby city, that was having a very difficult time, and their elders reached out to me and three other pastors to ask if I would sit and counsel with them through their difficulty.
And I was thankful of God to do that for them. Because that's what we should do as brothers and sisters in Christ. If there's a church that has need and is struggling, we should come together and help one another.
That's what it means to be part of the body of Christ. Now I know I've gone off a little bit and we're way over time, but let me just finish this. Notice what it says when it says, let a person examine himself then.
This is the third way. I said if you're not a believer, don't take. If you're under discipline from another church, don't take. But I would say this, examine yourself. If you have ought against your brother and you've not reconciled with your brother, or you have sin in your life that you have not repented of, and you refuse to repent of it, then don't come to the table.
But, if you today with the rest of us confessed your sin and have repented of your sin, then come to the table. And you might say, but I'm struggling. Well beloved, so am I. And so is he. And so are everyone in here.
Struggle does not mean you don't come to the table. Because if that were the case, none of us would ever come. But, remember what Jesus said, if you come to offer your gift at the altar, now I know this is a different context,.
If you come to offer your gift at the altar.
And you remember your brother has ought against you, go and be reconciled to your brother, I will say there are times where we should reconcile with one another before we partake of the table.
In fact, you know when we shake hands,.
We call that the passing of the peace? You know historically in the liturgy of the church what that was? That was actually done right before communion. And it was an opportunity. It was called the passing of the peace because it was an opportunity.
Let's say Kelly and I have ought against each other. We don't, so I can name you. You're sitting right out there. Let's say Kelly and I had an issue between us. Before I take communion I could go to Kelly and I could seek her forgiveness.
And I could pass the peace of Christ between us before I take of the table. So listen, if you come next week and you got something against me, you come tell me right before Andy gives us that. No, I'm just kidding.
But the reality is we need those times of reconciliation. And the church recognizes that. Coming to the table should be a time where we're reconciled with one another. We're not holding out against each other.
We're not hating one another. But we're actually coming in unity around the table of the Lord. I have so much more to say and no time to say it. So let me just finish by saying that what this table is, is this table is in fact an opportunity to be reminded about the gospel.
And if somebody asks you, why does your church take communion every week? Tell them the same reason we preach the gospel every week. Because every week we need to be reminded of what Christ has done. The supper ensures that we proclaim the gospel every week.
Because the gospel is that Christ died for our sins. He rose and he's seated at the right hand of the Father and we are waiting for this. This is the day when he will come. Beloved, do you believe that?
Do you believe Jesus Christ died for your sins? Do you believe that he took upon himself all of the wrath of God on your behalf and gave you his blessed righteousness so that you could stand before your God on the day of judgment?
If you believe that, if you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, then prepare yourself right now to take this table together in remembrance of what Christ has done.
Let's pray.
Father, I thank you for your word, for your truth, for all that you have done and all that you're going to do. And I pray, Lord, if there be one among us or even many among us who have not yet bowed the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ, that they would, in your mercy and grace, be given a new heart.
Given the gift of regeneration and, Lord, that through that they would come to faith and be ready to receive from your table the promises that you have given. Lord, we do pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ.
All around the world,.
Even those who may disagree with us on this particular issue. Lord, that we would have grace and mercy in our differences. Lord, I do grieve over Zwingli and Luther being unable to find unity. And I do pray for unity in the church today.
But, Lord, I also pray that we would continue to stand firm on the truth of your word.
And not waver.
Lord, I pray that now, as we partake in the Lord's Supper, that we will remember the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. And it's in his name we pray.
Amen.