The Lords Table and some warnings - part 1
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 · Roger Henderson · Aug 14, 2016
1 Corinthians, No. 31
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926537225881

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Well, today we're going to start on a two-part section. I got the smaller part, Bob got the bigger part. And he agreed to that. That means I need to learn more. OK, so we're going to look at the words table. And actually, if you look at the passage from chapter 11, 17 through 34, actually it breaks down into three sections. The first section is what's been called the Behavior at the Lord's Table or the Mockery at the Lord's Table. I'm going to cover that today. Then we have the actual section of the Celebrating of the Lord's Table. Some have actually pointed out that if you think about it, that's describing the Gospels, all three Gospels.

Not in exactly the same way, but that's described. Some would call this a review, but I think it's the section that Bob's going to be covering next week and that we cover Actually, what's interesting, I'll be doing the Lord's Table, probably with Bob's help, and Bob's going to be teaching it, and we'll be doing it in the service next week, because we postponed it because of the baptisms today. So anyway, that part we've done, we probably have a fairly good understanding. The parts around it, maybe not so much.

So I'm going to cover the mockery, and then Bob's going to do the Lord's Table part next week, and then also some warnings about partaking of the Lord's Table. So once again, I've used Macaulay's outline. Let me just go down here real quick. I'll just do the whole thing.

So basically, the three sections, 17 through 22, is the section I'll be covering today on the mockery of the Lord's Table. And then Bob will cover what they call the review of the significance of the Lord's Table according to Macaulay. And then lastly, the warnings and partaking of the Lord's Table. So actually, Macaulay went through here.

Each verse, he gave a word. Verse 17, he calls the effect of the problem. Verse 18, he calls the nature of the problem. Verse 19, there's a benefit. Actually, we're going to see here, there's actually a benefit to what's going to happen here that Paul's going to describe. And part of the benefit is that we see other places in the scripture where when there's difficulties in the body, Those who persevere and trust the Lord, actually, that gives a chance for the Lord to highlight them or to show his grace through them. So we're going to see that in verse 19, that he calls the negation, the manifestation, and the rebuke. So we'll see that as we go through here. And it's a neat passage. So let's just have somebody read the passage here. Verses 17 through 22 in chapter 11. And you get extra points, of course, when you read. From me, not from the Lord. Because I really appreciate it. I'll read it. Thank you.

Now, in giving these instructions, I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore, when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What, do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

You know, one thing that comes across here, Paul really wants to praise the Corinthian church. He's looking to praise them. And I kind of like when Vernon kind of covers it sometimes. The Lord is, you know, we can look at, we can view our Lord and Savior and our God, you know, some have taken Him as a, you know, there are times when He's stern and hard and He's holy and righteous, but we look in here as believers in the Lord Jesus, He's on our side. He's for us, and He wants to praise Him. He does everything you'll see in here. He wants to praise Him, but He cannot, because they're not doing what is right. As they gather as a body of believers, they've gotten what was called the love feast, or the agape feast. They've gotten that all kind of... They made that the primary focus, it seems like. And the Lord's Table is maybe something different.

Paul's going to say, hey, you just can't have all this craziness going on. You can't have people drunk during the service. They can't be... This is my food. This is not your food. I brought this dish. You can't have any of it. I mean literally people brought their own food and they ate their own food and they would not share it. We're going to see shortly here. And the people going hungry. So it didn't make a lot of sense that at the very last he says don't you have houses to eat in? If you're hungry, eat at home. Don't come here and have a feast and a drunken whatever it is. Don't do that. That's just not that's not going to glorify the Lord and that's going to dishonor his church.

So Roger, does that mean probably because in the pagan culture that was going on at Corinth, that was what they did. They had these kind of long eating drinking kinds of things and they meshed this with The church. It seems like that's part of, also it seems like that they, the early believers, and you know in Acts there it talks about they were sharing everything in common. They got together. Some have said this, what we see in here, this, some of this feasting, or some of the sharing of things, or the non-sharing in this case. was something that happened. They got together and ate quite regularly.

But somehow this particular going to church became something way beyond that. So it could very well be the culture was that way, but the believers, according to Acts, were sharing and doing what they should be doing. But this situation in Corinth was not in that pattern. You know, in our gathering on Friday night, the most recent gathering, we're studying 1 Thessalonians. And Paul's not hesitant to praise the Church for what they're doing right, right? Right, exactly. He really lifts them up. He does. He does. And actually, in the midst of his stern warnings, he says, I can't praise you. I can't praise you. I want to praise you, but I can't praise you. So it's interesting. OK, so let's look at the first verse here.

But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better, but for the worse. So the first part, he's going to give an instruction. And actually, it has a form, it's not an imperative move, but it has a form of it. I'm going to give you some instruction. It's giving a charge. This instruction is to hand on an announcement from one to another. It usually denotes a charge, a command or a charge. The word meaning actually carries the force here, not so much the tense of the Greek. He says, I do not praise you or commend you because you come or meet together. So Paul wants to praise him, but he cannot. So let's look at a verse actually where he did praise him. Let's look back at earlier in the chapter, back in verse 2, 1 Corinthians 11. Verse 2, actually I'm sorry, 11 verse 2. Can someone read that?

Now I praise you brother in that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. That's exactly the one. So it's the same word. He says, now I praise you. He said, I couldn't praise you, what he's going to be talking about here. But he says, I can praise you. And he tells him in verse 2, because you hold firmly to the traditions, just as I deliver them unto you, and that you remember me in everything. So that was verse 2. So here he says, I cannot praise you.

And then he's going to talk about this idea, you come together, not for the better, but for the worse. And verse 20 and 11 tells us, we'll see that shortly here, but it kind of tells us maybe the summary. Verse 20 says, therefore, when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's table. So he says, What you're doing here, don't think that's what the Lord wants you to be doing. You're not to be here just drinking and food and all that. That's not what we're about. We're here to focus on His death, burial, and resurrection. And that's what's going to follow in 23 through 27.

Do we have any evidence that every time they gathered they celebrated the Lord's Supper? Well, you know, people have taken that, you know, if you go back to Acts there, there's that passage in Acts that says they were sharing all things. Other than that passage, I don't know whether, there are some that believe that, and that's why, you know, some, like the Brethren for example, every meeting of the Brethren they celebrate the Lord's table, every Sunday. And, you know, I mean, it certainly cannot hurt, whether, you know, It basically says as often as you do it.

It gives you the liberty to do that. Maybe they were? I don't know. It's hard to know exactly. I was in the Brethren Church for quite a few years. I enjoyed celebrating it every Sunday. But I found what happened was you can make any wonderful thing into a law. Pretty soon, here's what happened.

The Lord's Table became the primary function of that body. Celebrating the Lord's Table. teaching became secondary. So how are you going to grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus? Yes, you're wonderfully remembering what he's done, but you've placed at a lower place the instruction of his words.

So that kind of That's where it could go awry, possibly. Well, it can become somewhat. I mean, this is an interpretation in the fleshly condition that can get kind of sterile after a while. You can't. You can't. Right. I don't know what's perfect here. Yeah.

And you know. So anyway, you know, growing up in the first Christian church that I went to, that was it. Every Sunday we'd observe the Lord's table. But there's no mention of the significance of it. Right. So it's just a ritual. You just went through it. Yeah. And there's no explanation. Right. So once a month. Right. I mean, you know, he's saying they celebrate every time. Right. Yeah. Every every Sunday. Yeah. Yeah. Catholic Church. You don't think these are the ones that I know. But there is the absence of teaching. Right. Yeah. There's no teaching or why are you doing it? Randy?

I would suggest that the Acts 2.42-47 where they get together, I would suggest that doesn't indicate the Lord's Table as much as the hospitality of fellowship.

A lot of what that hinges upon, the brethren take that breaking of bread as the Lord's. Some will say that's their passage they're going to hang their hat on. I kind of wonder about too, is the breaking of bread really the Lord's? You can spend a lot of time on that. The important thing is Paul is making some warnings here. something that was happening that was getting out of hand.

And it didn't resemble at all the Lord's Table. And that's what he's telling us. So he says it was not for the better, but for the worse. So the meeting was not for the better, for a useful or profitable purpose. It was for an inferior or lesser purpose. And so Macaulay had some words I kind of liked. He said the conduct at the Lord's Table was damaging the church, in that it was harmful and degrading.

This verse shows that every time the church met, two potentials existed. Basically, it could be for the better or for the worse. It also shows that any condition that hinders the purpose of which the church meets, namely edification, should be corrected and not overlooked.

So I kind of like that. We come here to learn about the Lord Jesus, to grow and grace the knowledge of him. And as part of that, we celebrate his death and burial and resurrection in the Lord's table, and that's proper. How often we do that? I don't know. It's good that we do it often, but we can make it into a law too, so we have to be careful there.

All right, verse 18. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear there are divisions that exist among you, and in part I believe it. So in the first place, So, usually when you see the first place, I listen to McCauley in this too, when you see the first place, you look for a second place. Well, you can look for a second place for a long time in chapter 11. You're not going to find it. What you will find is that at the very last verse, let's read the very last verse of chapter 11, or someone read the very last verse of chapter 11. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment.

The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. So it seems like that's part two. This is the first thing I want to talk about and it's basically all this what's going on around the Lord's table. And the remaining matters I'm not going to talk about. I'll tell you that later. There's some other things I want to talk about I'm not going to talk about. It's not going to be part of scripture. So there we have the first and the second.

And when you come together as a church. So it's basically when you come together as a congregation. So it's not, we have to remember here, they were coming together under the, it wasn't like I would go to Bob's house, and he might be over for dinner, and he'd say, we can talk about the Lord, fine. But this was a meeting, it could be in the house, it could be anywhere. But this was a gathering of the body of Christ. And that seems what kind of comes through here.

He's saying, when you come together as a church, it's not come together as brothers and sisters in the Lord for fellowship or whatever, you come together as a church function. And what's happening as you come together as a church function, you're doing things that don't have anything to do with the Lord's table or with edifying the body. So his instruction is about how they conduct themselves at church in observing the Lord's table. Now we're going to get to the second part of the verse.

For I hear that divisions exist among you, and in part I believe it. So I hear that divisions exist among you, So here is a kuo in the Greek, literally, and it's in the present tense. So it's a continuous action. He keeps on hearing. Apparently, he was getting reports. He keeps on hearing that things are happening in Corinth at the Lord's table. So he keeps on hearing that, that there are divisions. This is the word schism in the English. It denotes a cleft, a rent, or a division. And there's some verses that maybe we can look at briefly here. They kind of fall into a couple of different categories.

Can someone read Matthew 9.16? But no one puts a patch on unshrunk cloth or on an old garment. Is that where you want me to go? Yes, exactly. For the patch pulls away from the garment and the worse tear results. At the very last of that verse, no worse tear results. So this division that he's hearing about is a in that passage is rendered as a tear. So it's a tearing.

Let's look at John 9.16. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. So at the very last, there's a division that arose. There's the division. that occurred in that word, then let's look at 1 Corinthians 12. This is going to talk me a little more germane to the verse here. 1 Corinthians 12, and let's read 24 and 25. 1 Corinthians 12, 24 and 25.

There are presentable parts have no need, but God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it. That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. So actually 25 is pretty cool.

Actually it renders schisms, which is what the original is. But mine has divisions in the American Standard. So that's our word. So that's our word that he heard that there were schisms or divisions among the body. A.T. Robertson says, he kind of points out, this is not a formal cleavage.

They were not separating into two bodies. There was something going on internally, a partisan, like I'm a Paul, I'm a Paulist. What's interesting is he doesn't address what the schism was. He just addresses And maybe it was over the fact that they were going crazy. There are some people in that midst that stood out that were not... He's going to commend them. He's going to say, you were approved. So some in the midst of that actually shown to be that they're walking with the Lord where others did not. And maybe that's part of the schism.

Those who are walking with the Lord saying, we shouldn't be doing this stuff. You should eat at home. Don't bring all that I assume it was wine here. We don't have to drink that. They had wine for the Lord's table, and maybe what they did is they got carried away. Of course, this was before. According to what we understand, this was a meal before the Lord's table, not after the Lord's. And in part, I believe it. So, he believed most of it. Apparently, he didn't believe every single thing they heard.

Sometimes, don't you find in life that people will tell you something, and you say, yeah, I see there's a problem here. But they get down to every detail in the afternoon and wonder, do I really want to react to every single detail? And Paul's saying, well, I believe you for most of what you said, there's a problem here. That's kind of the sentence there. And he's believing, he's continuing to hear it, and he's continuing to believe it. and we surrender as I partly believe it. And then Constable had, evidently those who had reported this abuse in Corinth Church to Paul had given him much details about what was happening. Paul said he believed it enough to conclude that there was a serious problem. And that's kind of what you see in what he's doing, how he's interacting, what he's saying. OK. So here's a verse that you first read this verse and you say, wow, this seems all backwards.

For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." So what he's going to say is that in the body of Christ, it's inevitable, with man's nature, there's going to be factions. But he says, you know there's going to be a positive result from those factions, the people that know the Lord and walk with Him, who are approved.

And we're all approved, right? We're not waiting for approval. They will come to the top and they will stand out in the midst of what's going on. For it is a necessity in the nature of the case. So that's pretty strong. It's a necessity that this is going to happen. Also, there must be factions among you.

This is another word we had, schisms. This is the word heresies. Represents a divergent opinion, but still to be part of the whole. So actually we've had, so in this body they had schisms and heresies. Not too good. Okay, so a couple of verses in Acts that talk about this. Did someone read Acts? How about 17 and 18? Acts 5, 17 and 18.

Then the high priest rose up and all they that were with him, which is the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indignation. and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in common prison. Right, okay. So I was looking for here, this word sect, which is heresies, is interesting. This word is used to describe the divergence of opinions between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. There were quite strong divisions. Remember the Sadducees are Sadducee, right? Because they don't believe in the resurrection.

That's the one. I'm sorry. Anyway, you might have heard that about a thousand times. That's how you remember it. Anyway, so there were strong divisions within the Jewish system. What it helped me to understand looking at how this word is used in other places is that yes, that word for heresies is very dangerous or very much a problem, but it's not that unusual.

The Jews had it in their situation and what we're going to find here in the next passage is Acts 24.14. Someone can read that. This is where Paul is defending himself for many many times. This is one of his occasions where he is defending himself.

He makes an interesting statement here in verse 14. the way, which they call a sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the law and that is written in the prophets. What I found interesting is that the Jews called the Sadducees a sect, they also called the way a sect.

So it's interesting that they both, if you think about it, Whenever Paul preaches, he says, I preach the same God. I'm preaching about the same God that you worship. There's no difference. He wasn't preaching that there was a different God other than Jehovah. This is the one God. I'm preaching the one God, but I'm preaching that he's done something. He sent his son to die on the cross.

That word sect can be used about divergence within a body that is not broken apart. This had a purpose. The fact that there are factions or heresies among you, it has a purpose. The purpose is so those who are approved may become evident. This is one of the benefits, if you will. Approved is tried as a metal by fire, thus being purified. Hence to approve as acceptable men in the furnace of adversity. So a couple of verses that I have for this one.

Probably the best one is the James passage, James 1.12. So can someone read that? Blessed is the man who preserves under trial, for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love him.

Right, okay. So basically, the Romans passage talks about the approved in Christ. And basically, we are the approved in Christ already. So it's not something that we're attaining to, but they become evident. I think the key point is that the approved become evident. That's kind of the takeaway here. They who are genuine and have approved fitness may become evident and plainly recognized among you.

That's the Amplified Bible. So I find it helpful when you study the words, and then you see a translation that brings out that meaning that you kind of delved into. Between the Amplified and Weiss and a few others, it's really cool. He used that definition and he folded that definition back into it. That's what Verne has done many times with his Expand and Explain. As you study through a passage, You can create a expanded version which takes advantage of your understanding of the original language and also the definitions of the words and so on. So it makes it helpful to kind of expand that to see where did that come from? How did he get those extra words in there? Did he just make them up? No, he used the text and the definition of the words and the tense of the verbs and so on.

So it's pretty cool. So Macaulay says, the good benefit of factions is to cause those who are approved to stand out by way of contrast. So of all the things that he's talking about here, that's one of the good things. Go ahead. One of the things that I've observed in the body about factions is that the factions in this case are because of the division of carnality, but there doesn't have to be a faction. I think that's just something worth observing is that it could be actually possible that believers are growing together and there's unity. It's not a better Christian versus the crummy ones. No, I totally agree.

If you look at, we're all to be of one mind. Why do we work so hard here at Holly Hills to go over, we go over some of the same areas over and over and over again with the desire that everyone be on the same page and say, yes, I see what you're saying, it's not because of what you said.

You want the person to see it for themselves, from Scripture, for themselves. If they just are convinced what you say is right, that's helpful. But it's so much more wonderful when they see it for themselves and the Holy Spirit shows it to them. That's when you can be of one mind and one body. And that's what the body is to be about. So Roger, it seems to me that the divisions mentioned in verse 18 is maybe less threatening. I mean, these factions are heretics.

We're really thinking about fault or incorrect interpretation of scripture and it's almost cultish in a way. But yet many times that term that we translate as factions or sex is actually used in maybe a less threatening manner. Divisions might be we have a different opinion on some aspect of scripture. I think we all believe, I mean I was going to use one example which I won't because that will get us into a discussion. But the issue of, I think you're interpreting this correct, this is a more serious issue in the body.

Exactly, and Paul wouldn't be taking up scriptural space so to speak. to tell us about something that wasn't an issue. The thing was it was impacting a very special observation which is going to follow in the next verses. They're getting all over the map on stuff they shouldn't be doing. Well the Pharisees and Sadducees is a good example because of the resurrection from the dead, right? I mean, that was a major... They didn't believe in the resurrection from the dead. What are you looking forward to?

I don't know. I don't get it. If somebody took that position here, that would be clearly heresy. Right. If somebody said, I don't believe in the resurrection from the dead, we'd say, We'd probably say, you know, they shouldn't be part of this body. Randy, you had something you wanted to say? Oh, I was going to say Sadducee's position was merely for earthly benefit. They thought, okay, God does exist and he's promised certain things. That's a good point.

And I want those blessings, so I'm going to fall within this very narrow perspective. But there was nothing after it. They actually didn't believe in it. No, no. It's interesting. It's all earthly. If you look at the big picture, Israel's blessing will be earthly based, but it's an earthly existence in eternity. Which is wonderful. 20 and 21. I put these together because it made sense to do it this way.

Therefore, when you meet together as a church, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. There's actually a translation that says it's not possible to eat the Lord's table. He says it's not to eat the Lord's table. For in your eating, each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry and another is drunk. interrupting again. Sure, no that's fine.

But the issue is here, the Lord's Supper may have been very different than it is today. I'm just wondering the history of why we're giving these little wafers and this little glass of juice. It must have been a poor feast like when it was being celebrated. Well, it seems like the love feast, if you will, kind of folded over into the Lord's table.

I don't know how in the world, you know, if you look at these, he has three charges here he's going to make. Someone takes their own food first, one is hungry, another is drunk. So I'm going to look at each of those three. When you get down to actually observing the Lord's table, you see none of this.

This is to be done before this. If they're drunk, they shouldn't be there. They should be at home. If they're eating their supper, we couldn't get filled by what we have here. Exactly. That's why he says, eat before you come here. Don't you think because the original Lord's table The last supper was a meal. They were sitting around a table and there was food. They really ate the food. It wasn't little wipers. There was a real meal. They appeared to really drink wine because that was part of the culture. I think it probably is. a meal, but they've taken it too far. And they certainly aren't fit to celebrate the Lord's table in what has occurred here. This is my food. You don't get any of that food. This is my food. This is my fried chicken. It's not a potluck. This is the first potluck.

If you look at the Lord's table when he did do this, They were taking the Passover, which would have been the whole lamb. It would have come with the bitter herbs and the whole nine yards of what was the Passover. And they had quite a few rounds of drinking too. Traditionally, they would dilute it to about 20% of wine and 80% water.

I don't know why I know that. But the idea being that it was a celebration, and it was a feast. And we've gone, at least in many churches, to get a little way for a little piece of bread and a cup of juice. It's a pretty substantial shift, but the focus isn't the same. But you can see right here, this gets way out of hand. It really does. So let's dive into this here. Therefore, when you meet together, a meeting of the church. Once again, keep that in mind. This is not just getting together for fun.

It is not to eat the Lord's table. Eat the Lord's supper. So he says, that's not what you're doing. You may think you're doing that, but that's not what you're doing. Actually, the Amplified kind of picks up on that. It is not the supper instituted by the Lord that you eat.

So that's interesting that the translators even picked up on that. I thought that was pretty cool. The supper has become something quite different than the Lord's table. So there are three issues that Paul talks about here. So in your eating, we're going to look at the word eating in a second here. He actually has the idea of feasting, the original word. So each one takes his own supper first. What does that mean? One is hungry. What does that mean? Another is drunk. It's pretty obvious what that one means. So we're going to look at each one of those. So the first one.

Well, first let's look at eating. Eating to eat, to consume food, by implication to feast, banquet, the idea of luxury. And we won't look at that right now. But if you look at that passage in Luke there, it talks about in the days of Noah, there was eating and drinking.

There was feasting. And that's kind of what the sense of this word is that it can be used in many situations for feasting. So that's kind of what they were doing. They were feasting. Each one takes his own food first. Literally, each one his own supper takes first.

Almost the same thing. Okay, so the word takes first is a verb. It's present tense, continuous action. This is not like a one-off situation where they do it just for one time. Every time they meet, this is mine. It's the idea to take before another, to anticipate and do before another. the meeting of the first Corinthians. They were the rich and they were the poor. That's always going to be the case. But the rich in this case, even though apparently they were believers, maybe they weren't strong, they did not want to share what they had. Everybody brought their own food, but they wouldn't share it. And that seems totally contrary to what we see in the early parts of Acts there. Totally different than that.

So the Amplified picks up, each one hurries to get his own supper first, not waiting for the poor. So it seems like it could be people arrive at different times, and so who knows, it was a mess. So that's kind of the idea of each one takes his own supper first. It's not totally clear what that means, but I think there's enough from the takes first verb and just the structure of this, that they're taking it from the culture.

The rich had the food and the poor did not. They had very little food. Okay, so the idea of one is hungry. So this seems to be, this apparently is referring to the poor believers in the church who had little to eat. And so, Coswell had a few words here to say about this. The Lord's Supper was usually part of a meal that the Christians shared together, the so-called love feast. In Corinth, instead of sharing their food and drink, each family was bringing its own and eating what it had brought. This resulted in that the rich had plenty but the poor had little and suffered embarrassment as well.

Maybe what we do now is in response to the error that was in the text. I tried to Google that but I couldn't come up with an answer. Another is drunk. Apparently they had brought too much wine. Or maybe there was an abundance of wine and they just kept on drinking it. Kept on doing it. I don't know. I thought it would be good to go back. We talked about this passage.

Let's look at Acts Acts 2, 44-46. This is what the early church did. Read this in light of what Paul is talking about. How is this different than what the Corinthians were doing? Acts 2, 44-46. If someone would like to read that, that would be great.

And all that believed were together and had all things common, and so their possessions and goods were part of them to all men, as every man had need. And a continuing daily with one accord in the temple. Breaking bread from house to house did each agree with gladness and singleness of heart. Good, thank you.

I like the part here where it says they were sharing, verse 45, and they were sharing with all, anyone that might have need. So the early church was not the situation. This somehow is a divergence from what the early church was all about. Rightfully so. You're not doing what you should be doing. You should be caring for your brothers. You put your brothers first. You're not doing that. So that's 20 and 21 talk about the problem. Then 22 is his final rebuke. So he says, What? In strong contrast. What? Do you not have houses? Do you fail to have houses and wish to eat and drink? So two issues he's going to address here.

By your actions or do you despise the Church of God? So you're despising it by coming there for a different purpose. You're coming there for a purpose that it wasn't intended to have. The Church of God was intended to honor the Lord Jesus and you're not doing that.

Despise is to think down upon or against anyone. Hence, to signify, to think slightly of. And once again, there's a lot of present tense in this passage. So they were continually, by doing this week after week, or how often they were doing this, they were continually despising the Church of God.

And that passage in 1 Corinthians 10.32, that talks about That's a passage that says, give no offense either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the Church of God. So that's in contrast that they're despising it. And that passage in 1032 says, give no offense to either the Jews or the Greeks or the Church of God.

So now back to this despise. To think down upon or against, hence to signify thinking slightly of, So in Romans it talks about, you think lightly, and then Peter talks about despising authority. Or do you despise the church of God and mean to show contempt for it? So that's the first issue about his sharp rebuke to that church, to the Corinthians. And shame those who have nothing. What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. And shame those who have nothing. To shame is to make a shame, confound, dishonor. I see James there.

Can someone read James 2.6? I think it kind of speaks about the poor man.

But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Listen, my beloved brethren, has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to those who love him? And then he says, but you have dishonored the poor. And he says, oh by the way, it's the rich that really hurt you, the poor man is not going to hurt you.

So it's kind of an interesting contrast there between those two. So do you interpret this as if people are coming to get fed and therefore the one who has nothing or has very little food, doesn't get a chance to also eat? I'm not sure how to understand this. I found that a tough one. It seems like that person, he just is concerned about feeding himself. With no concern, each one takes his own supper first. So there might not be enough left for those who are hungry? The thing is, it's not a potluck.

According to the cultural, it's not a potluck, so you bring your food, Randy brings his food, Randy eats his, you eat yours, and you don't share. Go ahead, Randy. Well, I think one of the observations is that you're getting this Greek influence, because the Jewish understanding of Passover would have been like, okay, well, I'm in charge of providing my family a lamb for Passover, and I might invite several other households because we've got to finish this thing, that's part of the law. You come here into this situation, you've got a heavy international, we'll say pagan or secular influence, and they don't have a tradition like that. There's no Passover outside of Judaism.

So they come in and they go, I've got my stuff. What's your problem? What's your stuff? So it's a different... cultural experience. And so I think that's part of it. Well, and that's why Paul says what you're celebrating is not the words table, you know, because we all, we know the cup, we share the cup, we share the bread. We, those are shared things. There's no sharing going on in what's happening here. So don't, and he says, that's not what's happening. So, you know, a lot of it is the cultural implications.

You read the passage and it just says that what Bob was talking about, they just says, basically that you, I'm losing it here, each one takes his own supper. So that's what the piece of scripture says and then how you fill in the details behind that. So the second point here is that you shame those who have nothing. And so by that you said that there are some that have nothing in their midst and you're shaming them apparently by They have nothing to eat, so you're eating away and they're not eating anything. What kind of love feast is that? Amplify picks up, while you humiliate those who are poor, have no homes, and have brought no food. What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. So the Amplified says, what shall I say to you? Shall I command you for this? No, most certainly, I will not.

So it kind of ends on a pretty, you know. And then right from this, Paul is going to go in and say, well, here's what celebrating the Lord's table is all about. And he's going to go back and talk about the fact that he had a revelation from God. He got this information directly. You know, there are other accounts we have from the apostles, from the disciples, Mark, Matthew, John, Luke. So in this case, he's going to say, as we get into the next verse, he's going to say, I receive this directly from the Lord. And that's how we start out the Lord's table when we celebrate it. I receive from the Lord. that which was also delivered to me." He received it directly. In contrast to what was presented in the Gospel, Paul has a direct revelation of what should be done and how it should be done. Which is in stark contrast to what we just went through.

How they were mocking what the Lord's Table was all about. That's basically all I have for today. Any other thoughts? I think this is actually something where I have a very strange history with this passage. There was a charismatic T. Bill Thomas and it's probably the best explanation he ever did. Because I still can't disagree with him and a lot of the other stuff later on. You're crazy.

But the thing that's interesting is the celebration factor of the Lord's Supper is something that is often lost. We have this sense of reverence without celebration. I think there's an element of celebration that this church is coming here and they're celebrating, but they're going far off the other direction, right? But celebration of what the Lord has done is actually an element of what's going to go into it.

Bob gets to teach that next week, so I won't put too much material out in that You want to teach next week? Sure, whatever. This idea that they're celebrating the Lord's Supper, that's actually a thing. But they got it way wrong. I think for us, you kind of touched on what's the purpose of the Lord's Supper for the participants. And there's an element of that where it's not just this silent reverence by itself, but also a celebration together. I like what we do, where we spend a little time talking about the significance. You could just go through and we could just read the passage and just pass the elements. And that could be it. And some churches, that's all they do. I think like the First Christian Church are talking about.

But if you take the extra time to spend a little bit of time and say, well, what's the significance of this? What does the Lord want us to see there? Then it can make it so much more rich. I find that the few minutes we spend before the Lord's table, I get the privilege of preparing some of that, Mike and Vern. So that allows us to see and celebrate, if you will, and thanking the Lord for what He's done.

I think if it's without that, I think it's monotonous and then it becomes just a tradition. It's sort of like when Bob and I have been to bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs. They say all this stuff and it means nothing to them. It means more to us than it means to them because to them it's just ritual and tradition and the words don't really mean anything.

Good. Come next week I think. I think I have a perspective on the Lord's Supper. It's hopefully scriptural but unique. Kind of a different view of what we go through. Wonderful. I'm excited to drill down and support that view. That's great. That's one of the reasons I wanted Bob. I said I'd like you to do this. Most of the time Mike and I do the Lord's Table. And so here's a chance that another brother and the Lord, I think it's cool.

Well, we'll wait and see. You may in fact feel like I'm coming because I'm hungry. But I don't know. Wait a minute. Don't you have a house? No, it'll be fun to bounce this off everyone next week. That's good. we're not getting the most out of Lord's Day. Wonderful, wonderful. We'll see what you think. Well then Bob, I'm going to ask you to help me with Lord's Day. No way! We'll see. We'll see what you think. Okay, let's close then.

We thank you, Father. We thank you for our time today, Lord. Thank you for the blessings we have, Father. Thank you for your word, Father. down to earth. It doesn't miss anything. It tells it as it is. It tells about the difficulties and bodies of believers, Lord. And we pray we learn from that and we praise you for your word and how it's the food that we need. In Christ's name, amen.