Sermon Tone Analysis

! A Casual Observance with Obvious Consequences

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

 

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgement on himself.

| F |

ewer and fewer people today believe the Word of God.

Nowhere is this observation more obvious than in our approach to the Lord's Table.

I am not a judge, but I am able to observe.

I am not an ecclesiastical policeman, but I do witness what transpires within the churches.

I am obligated to warn all who hear me speak each week, addressing the great issues of the Word of God and cautioning all that we must take care to avoid sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Merely because centuries separate us from the supernatural judgement of those who shared in Korah's rebellion, or the death of Ananias and Sapphira when they thought to lie to God, we must not think that we may ignore God's warnings in this day.

We are cautioned that we must worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for “our God is a consuming fire [*Hebrews 12:28**b, 29*].

And we are also warned against presuming against the Lord whenever we approach His Table.

Though I issue this grave note of caution with regularity as we meet to observe this continuing ordinance, it is mandatory that we emphasise the cautionary note as we consider the text assigned this evening.

No church in the apostolic era was more gifted than was the Corinthian church; no church in the apostolic era was more self‑centred than was the Corinthian church.

Their failure to focus on the Lord of the church led them to assume an attitude which may only be termed exclusive.

They excluded other Christians within the same local fellowship and demonstrated arrogance toward believers outside the immediate congregation.

This attitude, unchecked and unjudged, caused them to presume against the Lord Himself.

Nowhere was their presumption more evident than in the observance of the continuing ordinance.

For them, the rite served as yet another opportunity to promote personal ambition.

No longer was Communion a time of worship, it was merely another opportunity to promote *self *while humiliating others.

In short, they had a casual attitude toward the ordinance of the Lord.

Principles for the Lord’s Supper — In* **chapters ten* and* **eleven* of Paul's first letter, I discover several terms used in reference to this continuing ordinance.

He speaks of/ /the cup of thanksgiving [*10:16*], of/ /the cup of the Lord [*10:21a* and* 11:27*], of/ //the Lord's Table/ [*10:21b*], and of/ /the Lord's Supper [*11:20*].

It is of interest to me that in the majority of references to the ordinance, Paul emphasises the Lord's ownership of the act.

The rite is /the cup of the Lord/, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper.

The fact that he has no hesitation to use the possessive should give pause in any rush toward participation in the observance.

If it is His Table, and if it is His cup, then He has the right to invite whom He wills to share in that meal.

I have a universally recognised right to invite whom I will to share a meal with me, restricting those uninvited from participating in sharing the hospitality of my table.

Therefore, it should be no great surprise that the Table of the Lord might have similar restrictions.

The first principle for the Communion Meal, often forgotten or ignored in this day, is that it is *Christ's right to invite whom He wills to the Table*.

Who is invited to the Lord's Table?

Clearly, from the context, non‑Christians are not invited to share in this commemorative meal.

Since they have not submitted to Christ as Master of life, how can they remember His sacrifice since it was not for them?

Unbelievers and the willingly self‑deluded have no invitation to the Lord's Table.

They neither own His sacrifice for themselves nor participate in the new covenant in His blood; therefore, they have no share in the Table which is spread to remember those very things.

Furthermore, the meal is a church ordinance, restricted to those who have openly identified with Christ through the first ordinance.

Paul, addressing the Corinthians, recognises that the Lord's Table was to be spread [sunercomevnwn uJmw`n ejn ejkklhsiva~/]/ /when you come together as a church [*v.

18a*]… when you meet as a congregation [*Goodspeed*]… or when your congregation assembles [*Conybeare*]… or again the ordinance was observed when you assemble as a church [*RSV*].

It is/ /when you meet in assembly that the ordinance of Communion is to be observed.

The meal is, then, *a/ church ordinance/*.

If I will honour God, I may not simply gather a few professed Christians together and decide I will have a communion meal.

I have no warrant to serve the meal to a sick or dying saint.

I could not serve the meal to a bride and groom because it is considered a beautiful gesture with which to conclude their wedding ceremony.

The Meal is reserved/ /*for the Body assembled, restricted to those who are openly identified as Christians through open identification with the Lord Jesus Christ*.

We have received two ordinances—baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

As is true for the first Christian ordinance of baptism, this ordinance of the Lord’s Table was blessed by and instituted among the churches by command of our Lord.

On that night preceding His passion, gathered with His disciples, He forever altered the Passover observance, giving it a fullness of meaning unrealised prior to that time.

Read again Dr. Luke's account of the conclusion of that Pascal Meal.

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.

For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me” [*Luke 22:17‑19*].

Notice in particular that final imperative which Jesus issued,/ /[D]o this in remembrance of me.

These words are the same which the Apostle cites in* **1 Corinthians 11:24b* and* **25b*./

//Do this in remembrance of me/, reminds us of our Lord's purpose for the meal.

We are to remember Him, actively calling to mind His sacrifice because of us.

The meal becomes an* **act of commemoration*—a meal of remembrance—for each of us as we eat it.

Paul teaches us as well that this is *a statement of anticipation* when he reminds us that whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes [*v.

26*].

The meal is to continue until our Lord returns.

This is our Lord's own word, recorded both by Luke [*Luke 22:18*], by Mark [*Mark 14:25*], and by Matthew [*Matthew 26:29*].

In each instance recorded, Jesus spoke of a future date when He would again eat the meal with His disciples.

Therefore, at the Lord's Table, we express our anticipation at His return.

Again, by the teaching of the apostle, the Lord's Table provides opportunity to make *a **statement of communion*.

In our older translations, we find the act of sharing in the rite referred to as a/ /*communion*.

In the translation which many of us employ, we find this observance referred to as a/ //participation/ [*10:16*], translated from the Greek word koinwniva, usually translated/ /*fellowship*.

The meal is, then,* **a** **statement of fellowship*—fellowship both with the Lord and with His saints.

The principle enshrined and which we are obligated to understand as we share in the meal, is that */the Lord's Table is because grace has been conferred, and not to receive grace/*.

Nowhere in all the Word of God is found so much as a hint that the meal is more than that, and in particular there is no mention that in some way the meal is a means of conferring grace either in whole or in part.

We are not made acceptable to God through sharing in the meal—that is a late addendum by an apostate, or at the least, an apostatising church.

Such a teaching is utterly foreign either to the spirit of the Word or the text of the Word.

Yet, multitudes gather weekly, in observance of a ritual which they suppose makes them acceptable to God, or at the least more holy, ignoring the instruction of the Word of God.

Practise at the Lord’s Table — With one arresting phrase, the Apostle forces us to examine our practise at the Lord's Table./

/ [W]hoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an *unworthy* manner/,/ rivets attention on our attitude at and our approach to the Lord's Table.

Many reading this verse have assumed that since the word/ /*unworthy* is an adjective, they are excluded from the Communion Meal.

After all, who among us is *worthy* to sit at the Lord's Table?

I have actually had people absent themselves from the Communion Table because they were/ //unworthy/.

“Pastor,” began one woman, “I'm not worthy to take Communion.”

I knew her to be a Christian, but I nevertheless replied to her statement.

“That's right,” I shot back.

“You are not worthy, but Christ has made provision for you anyway.”

Innately we recognise that we have no inherent goodness to recommend ourselves to God.

We are not worthy.

But for focus is not on our worth, but on our attitude.

In the Greek language,/ //unworthy/ is an adverb, modifying the compound predicate eats or drinks.

While/ //unworthy/ is an adjective, notice that it modifies the noun /manner/ and not the pronoun/ //whoever/.

For clarity of translation, the translators rendered the adverb by an adverbial phrase;/ /*/unworthily/* is translated/ //in an unworthy manner/.

Rather than moral quality, it is our/ /*/manner/* of life, our/ /*/attitude/* toward Christ and the instruction of the Word, which is under scrutiny.

Neither personal worth nor character is in view; our attitude as we approach the Lord's Table is in view.

The question is not “Am I fit to come before the Lord?”

I am not worthy!

The question is whether I hold the proper sense of humility, obedience and reverence as I come before Him to share in His table.

The issue goes back to principles previously enunciated: it is Christ's right to invite whom He wills to His Table or to exclude whom He wills from His Table; the observance of the ordinance is because grace has been conferred, and not to confer grace.

If we hold opinions other than these clearly taught, we err, inviting divine judgement of our attitude.

This is the reason the apostle will insist shortly that/ //a man ought to examine himself/.

Our examination must first insure that we belong at the Table, that we are indeed a Christian.

Have you trusted Christ as your Lord?

Is He Master of your life?

Are you saved?

Knowing that we are saved we must insure that we have openly identified with Him, proving obedient in first things and having been baptised as He commanded.