The Lords Table and some warnings - part 2
1 Corinthians 11:17-34 · Bob Eckel · Aug 21, 2016
1 Corinthians, No. 32
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926537415370

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

The task this morning was the Lord's Table. So remember, Roger described this. There was what led up to the Lord's Table in terms of some concerns, and there was what came after the Lord's Table in terms of some concerns, and then there's the Lord's Table.

And so I got the last two. And I think it's good, because as I was saying to Peter last night, preparing a lesson for this class is really the way the Lord teaches us to understand, get deeply involved in this work, so I'm really thankful for that opportunity. Alright, let me get this turned to here in this computer version, sometimes it takes a second to get it up. 1 Corinthians 11 verse 23.

Alright, so let's read the section we have today and then we'll get right into it because of the amount we have to cover. Verse 23, For I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, that same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take ye, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. And after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had stopped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, this do ye, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he cometh. Now this is something we go through, you know, monthly here. And today is the day, is that right? Today is the day, yeah. Okay, verse 27, or verse 28 then.

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves we should not be judged. But when we are judged and we are chastened to the Lord that we should not be condemned by the world.

Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another, and if any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation, and the rest will I set in order when I come. Okay, good. So that's what's before us today. So let's start at verse 23. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. What did Paul receive from the Lord which he was delivering unto them. Question? His message, the gospel, he received the truth about the Lord, directly from the Lord.

In context, is this the gospel account? There are three other accounts of this in the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. So apparently the Lord gave him these instructions uniquely outside of the Gospel accounts. Presumably this was a direct communication of the Lord Jesus Christ about how the Lord's table should be carried out. So the question is when did this occur?

The term for Lord here is Kyrios, which refers specifically to the resurrected Christ. So this wasn't something that took place before he was crucified. This is something that got transmitted after he was resurrected. Now, he didn't spend a lot of time here on earthly soil after he was resurrected. And Paul, of course, wasn't saved at that point in time.

But Paul said he received it directly from the Lord. So when did this occur? That's a reasonable question. Galatians 1.12, for I neither received it from man, Paul's talking about all that he had learned and would ultimately write in the various epistles to the churches. I didn't receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ directly. Now, this is supportive evidence that this time in the wilderness, and you know, by the way, when I get to heavenly places, when I see Paul, if there's any kind of understanding of what happened down here which there may not be. I'm going to ask him what the heck happened out there in a little over three years. Why doesn't the Lord give us more details of that? I don't know but he did and that's possibly and likely when this occurred. But then let's turn to 2nd Corinthians 12 1-4. Roger I'm going to give you that one. Jack could you get Acts 22 17 and 18 for us this morning? Okay, 2 Corinthians 12, 1-4.

Boasting is necessary, but it is not profitable. But I will go out to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago, whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows, such a man was caught up to the third heaven. I know I know how such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know, God knows, was caught up into paradise and heard inexpressible words which a man is not permitted to speak. Alright, so Paul's probably talking about himself here. He's caught up into heavenly places, into paradise. Could there have been communication there? I mean, we can only speculate. And Jack, read the Acts chapter, or the verses there, please. 17 and 18, that's chapter 22.

Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews and with the devout persons, and in the marketplace daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and the stories encountered him, and some said, What will this babbler say? He who seemeth to be set forth Jesus and the resurrection. OK, so the perception here is that he had information that ultimately was not really kind of consistent with their view of the world and it came from another source. So I mean, that's less supportive.

But either the Galatians passage in terms of the wilderness experience or this being taken up into the paradise, this kind of heavenly places for a brief period of time, we have no details there either. Anyway, the scripture says clearly that this was delivered to him by the Lord. So the Lord's table, I'm going to read about in terms of how we handle it and understand it really relates to direct communication. And the reference is to the same night in which he was betrayed, so we don't have to go back to the Matthew passage, but in fact This is this Passover meal that was ultimately occurring right before the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.

And Burns is going to be, I think, dealing with that maybe this morning. Remember, he's covering the book of Luke. So I think we're about ready for this in terms of what's happening upstairs at 1115. Why do you think Paul needed to mention the betrayal by Judas in this passage? When I kind of prepare these lessons, I kind of have questions of myself and those same questions I'm posing to you. So when I pose a question, it may be that we don't have a complete understanding. Why does Judas need to be mentioned here? Nobody has an answer. That's because I don't either.

Bob, it seems like this is kind of a striking thing. Here's the Lord. He's a God-man from a human level. He's, you know, the cross is coming, and his betrayer is there before him, and so now he's going to celebrate his death, basically. Pretty amazing, I mean, for, you know, you ask a human to do that, to celebrate your death, I mean, it seems an impossible thing. For the God-man, it's not a problem. But it's remarkable, the setting of when he does this. I think that's right, Arch.

I think the Passover meal really represents Ultimately, life out of death is that we would see the crucifixion and resurrection ensue subsequent to this. And the fact that Judas betrayed him really reflects what this whole thing was about. Here's this Passover meal representing the typical Jewish tradition. And here's old Judas. All the disciples are really on board. They don't quite understand what's going on, but they're all there sharing the Passover meal.

And now we get betrayed. So this is kind of the beginning of the end. Betrayal kind of sets the path going forward to the crucifixion. So I think it's mentioned in the Lord's Table because we realize that Christ is not of the earth. He's betrayed by an earthly disciple that everybody thought was just like everybody else. So perhaps that's what is going on here when Paul feels the need to mention the betrayal in this passage.

Anyway, your own thoughts. Maybe a little different pattern. The other thing is, isn't it a fulfillment of prophecy? A fulfillment of prophecy, perhaps. I think that's a potential interpretation of this. Alright, let's move on. Notice this is bread, not a wafer. And don't just let that stand for what it does. And by the way, bread is mentioned repeatedly in this passage, not a wafer. Okay, we'll leave it at that. Okay, verse 24, now we're getting into the meat.

And when he had given thanks, the Lord Jesus Christ, he broke it and said, take, by the way, eat is not in the original scriptures here. Take, this is my body, which is broken, not in the original text. for you, so take this is my body which is for you, do this in remembrance of me. Both eaten broken are not in the original text. For what does the Lord Jesus give thanks? Or as the gospel accounts indicate, blessed. He blessed the bread. What's he giving thanks for? We've got a quiet group here today. Anybody, what are you giving thanks for here? Is this, you know, we pray at mealtime, is this kind of the beginning of that tradition?

I don't know. Some people think it may be. Possibly he's giving thanks to the Father for the opportunity to die for the sins of the world. Well, Tim, that's very, very possible. The thanks would not be the way we would say thanks, right? Going to the cross.

But, you know, I think the garden maybe reflects that experience a little bit more to the point. This was based on Passover so there's a tradition of a sequence of prayers and a sequence of things that were expected as a ceremony. I think this is tradition. The giving thanks was a traditional Passover kind of ceremony and that's why I gave thanks.

Look at this. I think this is critically important. The breaking of bread is related to his body which is for you and in the Greek the for you is of yours. Now look at this passage and when he had given thanks he does say broken but then hey this is my body which is of yours. Remember broken is not in the original text therefore I make something very special out of this simile to you. This is of yours. This bread is of yours. Identification, identification, identification. The bread is the body, and I'm going to take this even a little bit further. Christ said, I am the bread of life, and his body was crucified as we were with him.

Romans 6.1.3-6, we know that passage well. buried with him, and baptism unto death, risen with him, and newness of life. And the exchange life which we live, isn't it his life or bread being lived out within us?

I'm not asking a question, I stated here as a proclamation. So, let's think through this. Think that of the bread at the Lord's table as our sin nature being crucified. A little bit different reflection on this whole Lord's Table thing. So, the idea here is that we no longer are left to ourselves, we are new creations in Christ Jesus, and by faith his life is lived out in us. 1 Corinthians 10, 17. For we, though many, are one bread and one body, for we all partake of that one bread.

2 Corinthians 5.21 For he hath made him who knew no sin, to be sin for us. And that sin is sin, it's not sins, it's sin. Made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

And of course Galatians 2.20 I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, but not I, but Christ who lives in me. Identification, the bread is the sin nature being crucified.

And we'll come back to this in a second. In the same manner, he also took the cup after supper saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood, this do as often as you drink it and remember it's a me. In the same manner, what manner? In the same manner. Well, he gave thanks for it. If you go back to that, he gave thanks for it. So you assume he gave thanks for this as well.

Which we do too when we celebrate the Lord's table. We pray before the bread. We pray before the cup. Notice that the cup was second. Why is the cup second after the bread? Why not the cup first and then the bread? I told you I was going to give you a little bit different view of this whole Lord's Table thing today, and I'm trying to not have you agree with me, but just open up your eyes in terms of the significance of this. Gary?

Yeah, we had to die first. I like that. The idea of the sin nature being taken care of, then the sins just melt away, because the source of sin is gone. Before God, the source of sin, the sin nature, goes first. And once gone, the value of the cup takes on more meaning. You forgive the sins, what's the basis of it? Is the sin nature still there to be ultimately sourcing the sin?

And as believers with right theology, we know that once you're saved, I was saved, I'm being saved day in and day out, I will be saved, the three verb tenses of being saved. So the concept of the sin nature being taken care of first, then there's no sin to follow. And that's why I said, he who knew no sin, was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God. There's no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. So the cup comes second because the source of the sins has now been done away with.

The cup is the new covenant in my blood. And what's this new covenant? You know, how many covenants, I don't know, eight or so? I'm not sure if that's correct. But anyway, all the covenants of the Old Testament and then the New Covenant or Everlasting Covenant. Let's return to the Old Testament atonement. I'm not going to, just because of time, I don't think we'll look at those verses directly, but it's all about the blood.

And Raj, I wonder whether Hebrews ought to be the book we do next here. Have you guys been talking about that? We haven't decided yet, but that's a good thought. It would be great. Hi, Tom. So, anyway, but I'm just going to take one verse out of the Hebrews section.

I mean, Hebrews talks about the whole atonement, the blood sacrifice. And by the way, the sacrifice of bulls and goats will never take away the sin of the world. okay so even though Israel was steeped in the sacrifice and the annual sacrifice by the high priest Hebrews 13.20 and now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead that great shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant and what's the blood of the everlasting covenant? blood still right? the cup, blood, sins what's the blood of the everlasting covenant?

Randy? absolutely this is the everlasting covenant designed from time infinity past to time infinity future alright first John 2.2 and he himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours but also the sins of the whole world okay so every last sin has been paid for by all of mankind through the history of man However, only we who in fact believe in the gospel facts and truth does that really pay the price of the everlasting covenant. Every last sin has been paid for. All sin for all time has been paid for. It doesn't make logical sense. If you use the human intellect to get into the cross and the resurrection, you're really left in the woods someplace. You have no understanding of this whole concept.

And Romans 8.1, which I just mentioned, there's no condemnation to those who are now in Christ Jesus. So the sins of today, everyone, and good theology is that the old man, the flesh nature, the sin nature never changes.

But we're looked at as righteous. And how much misunderstanding is there in the body of Christ about the fact that what you do today to fall short of God's glory is a done deal. And we confess it and we move on. and that gives the Christian life for each and every one of us a lot of joy and uplifting, doesn't it? It's not a matter of having to please God by what we do. It's our life by faith that ultimately realizes the truth of what we celebrate at the Lord's table.

So this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. Why do you think this is proclaimed after the cup and not the bread? Seems like a pretty straightforward question. The thing about the Passover is that you would drain the blood out of the lamb and you'd cook the lamb. Then you'd take that blood and you'd put it on the lentil and say, this is covered. This house is covered. This house is God's house. Set it aside. put it on their outside of their person. Christ says take this inside of you, this life is inside of you. It's a really radical variance from the Passover sequence. It probably would have freaked the disciples out of it initially. Freaked the disciples out of it initially. Yeah, I'm sure they had no clue what was going on here.

But the sequence was you drain the blood and start the roasting of the lamb and then you put the blood Yes, because ultimately once the death has occurred in an animal or even in humans, the blood clots immediately. Trust me. So there's no blood. You know, after the death, the heart quits beating and the blood clots. And so there's no blood after the death. But here, in contradiction to what was typical, where the blood was taken and then the animal sacrificed, we see a whole new pattern, which I think is representative of the everlasting covenant rather than the multiple covenants that led up to the table.

Perhaps we get a clue here in the next verse. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. And that's the idea of remembrance of him. And we're going to look at that in a little bit more detail here in a second. And the Lord's death is a sin nature again and its results in terms of the results of the sin nature of being crucified, the cup.

Once a month, is that how often we should be doing this to remember him? And do we need the Lord's table to do this? So once a month. Roger once a month. What's this? It's an elder decision. I'm not being critical of this by the way. Once a month is fine. I have no thoughts.

One of the things I think is actually a valuable thing for people to do in their own households is take some time and take communion in your own household with your family. There's a really special, well, and you mentioned the wafer versus the piece of bread earlier. It's really special to share those things within your family and have it be one piece of bread. It's very intimate. Okay, and that gets kind of some things that I want to mention here now. And by the way, we've all kind of been here, maybe we haven't, but I certainly have.

And this should not just be a simple rededication of the flesh. As is the practice in many settings. I mean, I mean, I grew up in a mainline church and I had no idea what was going on here. And, you know, you can rededicate the flesh to please the Lord, right?

That's not what this is about. So I think if it occurs in the homeland, I think it's to be motivated in the right way under the right circumstances. And there's no legality to this. I mean, once a month is not a legality, it's just what the body has decided here to do.

The Lord's Table is a very special kind of thing. It's not revving up the flesh. It's really, I think, identifying the truth of what the Lord's Table is all about. And I think I'm maybe giving you a little bit different perspective today in terms of the bread and the cup and what they relate, but it makes the Lord's Table more significant for me.

And this isn't something I just thought of in the last week. It's been something I've been pondering for some time about this. So, anyway, it's a matter of the Spirit of God really enacting visually, mentally, through our remembrances of the details of what Christ in fact experienced on our behalf.

And our behalf is not our sins just being forgiven, which is kind of the standard communion service in most churches. I'll use that quotation. This is a special opportunity for us to really tie in to who we are and the task of what we're all about. And for the churches coming is the rapture. This is not millennial truth.

So John 14.3, and if I go, I'll prepare a place for you, and I'll come again and receive you to myself that where I am, you will also be. So we use that a lot at memorial services or funerals for believers because we feel they're in a better place. I think when he comes we will be in a better place if we die before the rapture but when he comes we will all be in a better place. He has prepared places for all of us and again in a human understanding we don't. really understand this very well, but we know we all are comforted by this truth for each of us individually, and when he comes again, the rapture, it says here, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes again. So again, this is not millennial stuff, this is the rapture.

And therefore, whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord, now we're going to go into this second part of the bookends of unworthiness or inadequate celebration of the Lord's table. Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body of the Lord.

What's unworthy? And Roger touched on this some last week. I brought up a number of things here, let's see if we can discuss these a little bit. How about the unsaved taking the Lord's table? How about feeling you need to be less sinful in coming to the Lord's table? How about the doctrine of transubstantiation as unworthy the idea that actually the taking of a wafer in fact somehow transforms you when in fact you needed to be transformed before you came there and or this could refer to the restaurant like atmosphere of first Corinthians 11 20 to 22 where you come and eat and drink you get your stomach filled and you get a little drunk while you're there. So what are your thoughts here?

Is this entirely the latter, Gary? If the emphasis is on you, then that's not right. It has to be on the Lord. So any of these could be the emphasis on you, right? And not really the truth of the crucifixion and resurrection is to remember him. Any other pondering ideas here? Yeah, I think the Lord knows our hearts. You can make a show and go and And we see it frequently, especially in big churches, where somebody takes the Lord's table just because everybody else is doing it. But the Lord knows everybody's heart. It's not up to us to judge these people.

It's kind of like passing the offering plate. You're kind of, gee, what did that guy give? Let's see, maybe I've got a little bit more in here. It's all flesh. And the Lord's table is anything but that. And by the way, you can't wire the flesh up to get ready for that. This is really kind of, it's living above. I mean, in remembrance of Him. Where is He now? This is the right hand.

And getting to know the Lord Jesus Christ is the most important task we have by faith. There's nothing else we need to do than to learn to live by faith. And so I'm not trying to make the Lord's table any different for you, any more meaningful. I'm just thinking that this obviously is something that we need to seriously think about as we partake it even this morning, in terms of what it means to us individually and we're members of Him. Well, doing it unworthy could be doing it out of law, right? Absolutely, yeah. Well, in a sense, Peter, that's really what this says. You know, I want to be less sinful and therefore if I take this table, I'm going to be less sinful.

I mean, it's kind of bringing the flesh to the altar? How many people have been rededicated to come to have a new life in Christ, who have been saved 15 times and they keep coming up front to rededicate their lives? I can't judge that, but often that's the flesh rededicating itself, to get polished up, to get buffed, to live a more meaningful life. That's not what this is all about.

Guilty of the body of the Lord. Wow, that sounds pretty serious here. Guilty perceives crime worthy of punishment. This is not a soft term in the Greek. If you look at Thayer's thesaurus, you don't get the idea that guilty is something that, sorry Lord, this is something more significant. How does this relate to the Lord's table? This guilt that taking the table by those who are unworthy.

Well, John 6, 63 and 64, it's the spirit who gives life and the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life but there are some of you who do not believe for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe and who would betray him. So this passage is taken out of I am the bread of life passage. And again the bread of life has everything I think to do with the bread that we partake at the Lord's table. I am the bread of life. And if you're doing this, you are not in fact anything but guilty. If in fact you're not saved to begin with.

Now the consequences here at Corinth may be a little different than what we're experiencing today. We'll come to that in the next couple of verses. You cannot drink the cup, it says, Paul said when we studied chapter 10, I'm not sure who taught this, I don't think I did, maybe Randy, Roger, you guys remember who, but you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons, and you cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons. So here's the contrast which reflects to the guilt. So if you're coming to the table with wrong motives, in a sense you're drinking the cup of the demon. So, now, consequences we'll come back to in a second.

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, by the way, in parenthesis, that's me putting this in for an unworthy manner, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body or the Lord's body. What kind of examination or put to the test and what kind of judgment is this? Well, if you have some sort of funny memory lapse, and at the moment you don't feel right about it, but you say, well, I'll just do it anyway.

And then, boom, conviction hits. The thing to do is to say, Lord, I grieved your table. I grieved you. I acknowledge that, and I trust in your all complete forgiveness. for whatever it was that was in the way and then just in your heart say Lord thank you for your forgiveness. So this examination of yourself is kind of the motives that represent your taking of the table. Is that the kind of examination? And so, okay, I think you're on the right track there.

Romans 13, to whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. I kind of jumped ahead to the judgment, but that's really what we're talking about here, and Paul again in the epistle to the church at Corinth, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh and the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. So these are kind of just exemplary of the fact there is ultimately an ability to sense motives And when we examine ourselves, we're talking about really the kind of examination that relates to the motive by which we're partaking of the Lord's table. And that's again, it's got to come from the Lord.

This isn't something that we conjure up. The new nature spirit has to be what we're talking about here. Now the judgment. For this reason, many are weak and feeble, sick among you, and many sleep. For if we judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But where we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned by the world.

Wow. This has been a section of scripture that's been really, really, it's kind of long hair and short hair for men and women. I mean, this whole issue of how much was that just coincidental and to some extent cultural for the time and how much of this really continues to take place. For this reason, many are weak or feeble and sick among you, and many sleep, by the way, probably die. Sleep is often translated, more die in scripture than is sleep. That's kind of neat because we never die, our souls never die, but sleep is someone who has obviously no ability to communicate, so usually, typically translated, die. So this must have been happening in Corinth, but is it true today? What are your thoughts? If you partake of the Lord's table with inadequate motives or incorrect motives, do we get sick? Do we get feeble? Yeah, Randy.

I think we could, I hesitate to say this, but I think we could extrapolate beyond just the Lord's table, that it's probably symptomatic of the larger life beyond just the Lord's table, that you're getting to the Lord's table and you're still focused on fleshly things. If you're not abiding and the Lord continues to try to restore you back to that fellowship, and you're not listening, and you're not listening. Hebrews 12 tells us that there's consequences. So those consequences play out with illness today or death, do you think?

Paul seems to say that. I don't... I tend to think that this is kind of like speaking in tongues, that there were things of the age that ultimately were very evident and exemplary of truth of scripture. It played out. That's just an opinion. I don't know whether this occurs today or not. Do people die because they take the table? I'm not sure we really have the ability to know that.

Right. That's why this is so debated by the commentary. But we do see, along with Randy's point, we do see like Analyze and Sephari, there are recorded acts there. where they were, their lives were taken. And so, does the Lord at some point in a believer's life take them home? Possibly. I don't know whether we can... And we're not to be out there judging. Well, you just... Take you home.

This is the elver's job. God knows. God knows. It's on your resume. The Holy Spirit gave special revelation to Paul that he would have this piece of information, but it's not something that we can diagnose. It's not like I could You know, if I were to come along to anybody in this room and be like, you know, watch yourself, because I think you've got some sleep time coming. That's probably not a good call. I shouldn't do that.

But Paul's saying that there can be these consequences. When we looked at chapter, what was it? Chapter five, where he talks about the burning of the flesh, the adultery. I mean, he's like, all right, give that person over to Satan for the burning of the flesh. So that will be resolved because otherwise this might be a consequence.

That's not a logical jump I don't think. But keep in mind the apostolic age was a different age in many ways, many reasons. Again, I use tongues as a perfect example. Do we believe actually that there is truly the gift of speaking in tongues? I think most of us would say no, that was for a time. Once the scripture was complete, that was no longer possible. Keep in mind, speaking in tongues is not some crazy language that only some people can speak and understand. They claim this. But speaking in tongues was probably known languages, like, you know, if I'm in Sweden, I speak Swedish. And it had a purpose. It was to glorify God that His message should get out. I'm tending to think that this... Keep in mind, let me pause here just a second in my thought process. Keep in mind the Lord's Table per se is really three or four verses. And the bookends are more verses than the Lord's Table itself.

So this at its time really was a time shortly after the resurrection. This was a time to really soundly establish doctrine in the new church. So the consequences of doing this incorrectly or unworthily were made more significant because of the time. If God is still doing this, We're not in a position to judge how and when he does it. And it's not our job, as Randy said, to get into other people's souls and minds to figure out what their motives are when they take the Lord's table.

I love Psalms. After I got saved, the 32nd Psalm was really incredibly important to me, but I just pulled a verse out of it. I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and now forgave thee iniquity and thy sin. So that's kind of revisiting this whole aspect. It's in the Psalms, but yet the concept that was brought across in the Psalms really is very appropriate here.

Tom. And that last word means hold that thought. Selah. Thank you Tom. That's good. I can't say anything more than that. And notice the results of the self-judgment. We are chastened by the Lord that we may not be condemned with the world. Okay? So the idea here is, you know, if some died, I'm not going to go there, but the idea of sickness or being feeble or weak is ultimately a process of chastening at that time that the Lord used to bring attention to the importance of the Lord's table.

Does this suggest that the judgment is from our flesh? Is it condemnation for the act or is this eternal condemnation? Well, for whom the Lord loves, he chastens and scourges every son whom he receives. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons.

The best I can do with this scripture is to think, if you're taking the Lord's table unworthily for whatever reason, that's a chastening process that the Lord's going to use. Are you going to become sick? and weak and feeble? Are you going to die? I don't know that's relevant today, but ultimately the Lord's table is there purposely for us in remembrance of him in the right way. So you have to kind of look at this again in terms of today and how the Lord uses unworthy partaking of the Lord's table in terms of the consequences. Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another, but if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment, and the rest I will set in order when I come. So to some extent this seems to address the unworthy matter of it at the time that people were coming to party, or get their stomachs filled, or to get a little extra imbibing going on here, and that was probably the most likely explanation for unworthiness of the Lord's Table.

So this is a worldly experience applied to a very spiritually important and uplifting event. So what I'm going to do at this point is kind of summarize this passage, and then let's talk a little bit more in terms of whether or not this is out in left field someplace, or in fact, if it's appropriate in terms of thinking about how the Lord's Table applies to ourselves. Number one, the idea of the bread relating to our identification with his crucifixion and resurrection and he claiming himself to be the bread of life. The bread seems to me to represent the crucifixion of the Adam nature and the old nature.

The cup represents, if we didn't look at all those verses in Hebrews, maybe I didn't know we'd have time, but we could go back and look at them now. The sacrifice of bulls and goats cannot take away the sin. The sins, and that's plural, it's not the sin of the world, it's the sins of the world. The blood, the cup, represents that aspect, an important second aspect of the crucifixion, and of course the resurrection to follow. and when we look at the unworthiness of people were doing this who had other motives ultimately I think to condense In context, this cultural experience that was occurring at the time, it looks to me like it was mostly related to this last issue of people coming to meet their own human needs and not really, maybe some were unsaved, we can't really say that convincingly, it was written to the church, but it certainly was appealing to some in the church who were in fact using the Lord's Table to satisfy their human needs of hunger and drink.

People's thoughts. You go for a little bit more, this is my body which is yours, of yours, which is of yours. What I took out of that, I don't want to overly spiritualize this, but my body is of yours, in other words, the idea that he's taking, I mean our body is sourced in sin, is it not? So my body of yours, in a sense, looks like identification to me.

And we know that Romans 6.3 again, being crucified with him, buried with him with baptism unto death is not sins, it's the sin nature.

And remember reckon these truths to be true in terms of the co-crucifixion. I'm just relating that to a view that I have about the bread and how we should interpret it at the Lord's table. I think it's valuable at the close right there in 33 he says wait for one another because I think not only is it our individual being joined with Christ but it's also the togetherness of the body being joined with one another because of Christ. If we do it out of selfishness, then we're not waiting, and we're just going, this is about me, or me and Jesus, if I'm going to be sort of spiritual but still selfish. But that's a consequence. But this morning when we take the Lord's table, I mean, have we waited for one another? I mean, how do you apply that to the existing body of believers?

Well, in this case for the church, They weren't thinking about the one another element. OK. OK. I got what you're saying. We don't tend to race through it because it's at the end of the service. But in the case of this, if I get a special service and they were just like, well, it's Friday night. Let's do this. I've got other things to do or whatever else. And not waiting seems because there's not a together one another aspect to it. So waiting implies just kind of a more mature understanding of what in fact is happening here, right?

And it's not self driven to come get something to eat and something to drink. Didn't Roger talk last week about that there were people who were wealthier And they were coming in first and eating the food. And the poorer people who didn't bring anything, they were at the back.

This ties it in very well. So I think what he's talking about is that when you come together to eat, wait for one another. Nobody's running up there who has who's wealthy and they get in the front of the line. It's everybody together doing it. Good. That's a good reminder.

Actually one of the verses I covered, actually some translator, they hurry to eat their food. They want to get it before, I'm going to eat all the food so I get my share and you won't take part of mine. I want to get my share and I'm going to hurry. So this says wait. Wait for one another.

Good. That's great. Chet had a comment. The concept of the Lord's Table is present tense. So it's something you do, and there's three options. Either you're ready, or you're not prepared, or you come and there's some discipline. But he said, get yourself ready. Be prepared and have the right mindset that your focus is on the Lord and not on you. So really, as a believer, it's not an option. You get yourself ready to observe who Christ is and the significance of the Lord's name. And it's in remembrance of Him, right? It's not about us. It's about Him. Go back to what Pat said with that whole part of words of yours. What does that have to do with the body? Would that have something to do with the church body? I don't recall whether that's a plural interpretation or a singular interpretation. I'd have to look back at that. It could be the individual or it could be the body I think. I think either way it's interpreted the same way in my opinion.

It's identification. Actually the rendering that I've seen of yours is given on your behalf. That's another, which isn't quite as where you exactly gone, but it still focuses that there is a relationship between what Christ did and what you are, and that's why he did it. So maybe it gets to the same point. On your behalf is what I've seen as an alternate translation of yours. On your behalf. But if we're asked by faith to believe that we're crucified with Christ and buried with him in baptism unto death, in fact that is on your behalf. I think that's fine, but it doesn't dispel the idea of identification. Other thoughts anyone?

You're saying that bread is our sin? Sin nature. Our sin nature, that's what bread represents. Keep in mind this is where the Lord has led me over many Lord's tables and that may be out in the field someplace, but it personally fits me and it really makes this a much more meaningful experience. I'm not forcing that on anybody here. Would you say it represents our identification in that regard? It's Christ, not the sin nature?

I think you very carefully pointed out that the order of the Passover meal now has been modified the way we look at the Lord's table. It's a whole different event. The blood, again, after the body has already been crucified, the source of sin. You say, well, the Lord could cleanse the sins first, and why wasn't the cup first?

Anyway, maybe I'm overly... but again, I'm personalizing it for me, and I'm just sharing that with you to see if that helps some. Well, I also just was thinking, you know, he became sin for us, he took on the sins of the world. He was a sinless Savior, but he took on the sins, and so... On our behalf. Exactly. So the fact, you know, the struggle is that, well, you know, And that seems like, here's a sinless saver taking on the sins. He cannot be sinned, but he took on the sins. And by doing that, he paid for the sins. What fits perfectly comfortably in my mind and soul is the fact that to take care of the sins, you've got to take care of the source. And that's where the body of Christ globally, I think, has gone.

That's why we come to Holly Hills. correctly interpret scripture in terms of how it impacts our day-to-day lives. Getting the flesh buffed up under legal terms is not pleasing to the Lord nor ultimately making us feel uplifted in terms of who we are in Christ. By the way, that should make our lives joyful and uplifted and free. Christ said, you know, when I set you free you shall be free indeed and that's free to live a life without sin. Because, by faith, we live in this new creation we are in Christ Jesus.

Randy, close us in prayer, would you please? Heavenly Father, we come before you with gratitude that we can take a close look at this passage and be reminded of what Christ said, his purpose, teaching his disciples things that they wouldn't come to understand until later. As we take communion even upstairs, Lord, that this fresh exposition would come to mind and we would be rejoicing in our identification with you, rejoicing in the life that we have with you. And with one another, we thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.