"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
God used men to write the Bible, but He breathed out all of the words. And yet, in some special way, these directives carry with them an extra weightiness beyond the rest of this letter because they were “received from the Lord.”
Further supporting the importance of this practice is the time that it was instituted—”the night when he was betrayed.” In the face of the most difficult experience of Jesus’ earthly ministry, he takes time to teach the disciples. Knowing that He was going away, He set up the means whereby all who follow after Him would remember Him pictorially in the bread and the cup. When we celebrate the Lord’s supper, we give thanks and remember his sacrificial, substitutionary death.
But Communion goes beyond mere remembrance. When the Lord’s Table is observed, the participants are actively proclaiming the Lord’s death. How important it is then to do this the right way! Worship should never be approached casually or carelessly. But remembering and proclaiming the Lord’s death should be with even greater care.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
1 Corinthians 11:20-22
"When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not."
The Corinthians’ way of observing the Lord’s Table was so far off that they were told that they weren’t actually observing the Lord’s Table at all. They were coming to church, and they were eating, but they were not honoring the Lord. Their error was two-fold: 1) they were simply eating. They weren’t properly remembering the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection. 2) And they were selfishly eating their own meal without any thought of what other people had to eat.
How can you possibly remember the Lord and His sacrifice with a large meal that you eat around hungry believers who have nothing? How can you keep everything to yourself, when Jesus gave everything He had for you? To act this way is to "despise the church of God." You don’t love them, you despise them. Rather than edifying, the Corinthians’ aberrant behavior was humiliating the poorer believers in the congregation. And Paul had nothing positive to say to them about what they were doing.
So how might this apply to me? After all, all the churches I’ve ever attended observe the Lord’s Table with far less than you would eat at a meal. Furthermore, when we have a large meal, everyone almost always has access to the same amount. So are we without fault here? Have we corrected all the mistakes the Corinthians were making at the Lord’s Table? I think that we have both corrected the first mistake but made the second mistakes but in a more subtle (though slightly less damaging) way.
All churches I have attended treat Communion with great respect. Sometimes entire services are devoted to the Lord’s Table, and whenever we partake of the elements, we are careful to remember the Lord’s death. So in this matter, I believe that we have corrected the Corinthians’ mistake.
But our obedience is less complete in the irradiation of our selfishness. Today if we have meals at church in America, we don’t eat in front of hungry people. But this may be partially due to the fact that our churches tend to be divided along economic lines. Many wealthy churches have no one who lacks in their congregation. I say that this is slightly less damaging because you are not humiliating those who are less privileged. In fact, if someone came into a church who lacked, he would probably be able to eat like everyone else. However, some of our churches have become so economically divided from one another, that the poor person wouldn’t even consider going to the church in the first place. This is a problem.
The Corinthians’ way of observing the Lord’s Table was so far off that they were told that they weren’t actually observing the Lord’s Table at all. They were coming to church, and they were eating, but they were not honoring the Lord. Their error was two-fold: 1) they were simply eating. They weren’t properly remembering the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection. 2) And they were selfishly eating their own meal without any thought of what other people had to eat.
How can you possibly remember the Lord and His sacrifice with a large meal that you eat around hungry believers who have nothing? How can you keep everything to yourself, when Jesus gave everything He had for you? To act this way is to "despise the church of God." You don’t love them, you despise them. Rather than edifying, the Corinthians’ aberrant behavior was humiliating the poorer believers in the congregation. And Paul had nothing positive to say to them about what they were doing.
So how might this apply to me? After all, all the churches I’ve ever attended observe the Lord’s Table with far less than you would eat at a meal. Furthermore, when we have a large meal, everyone almost always has access to the same amount. So are we without fault here? Have we corrected all the mistakes the Corinthians were making at the Lord’s Table? I think that we have both corrected the first mistake but made the second mistakes but in a more subtle (though slightly less damaging) way.
All churches I have attended treat Communion with great respect. Sometimes entire services are devoted to the Lord’s Table, and whenever we partake of the elements, we are careful to remember the Lord’s death. So in this matter, I believe that we have corrected the Corinthians’ mistake.
But our obedience is less complete in the irradiation of our selfishness. Today if we have meals at church in America, we don’t eat in front of hungry people. But this may be partially due to the fact that our churches tend to be divided along economic lines. Many wealthy churches have no one who lacks in their congregation. I say that this is slightly less damaging because you are not humiliating those who are less privileged. In fact, if someone came into a church who lacked, he would probably be able to eat like everyone else. However, some of our churches have become so economically divided from one another, that the poor person wouldn’t even consider going to the church in the first place. This is a problem.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
1 Corinthians 11:17-19
"But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized."
How pitiful it would be for a Christian to faithfully go to church week after week, even multiple times a week and for God to say to him, "Your going to church was a waste of time," or perhaps closer to the text, "Your going to church hurt your walk with Me." Such a statement would be devastating, but the seriousness of these instructions warrants the severity of the warning.
The Corinthians were observing the Lord’s Table (or communion) in a fashion that was so damaging that it made church attendance counterproductive. Before addressing the specific problems with their observance of the Lord’s Table, Paul shows us the foundational problem—divisions among the believers.
Verse eighteen says, "when you come together as a church, . . . there are divisions among you." They were coming together, and yet they were not together. The divisions mentioned in earlier chapters were among factions within the church. Groups of believers had aligned themselves with this or that person. But here the divisions are social and economic. People were allowing what they had to make a clear distinction between them and their fellow believers.
There are some distinctions that are natural and beneficial. For example, there are some people in churches who passionately follow after God. When they come to church, they sing from their heart, and throughout the week you can see that God has done something special and humanly unexplainable in their lives. Other people in churches profess to know God, but when you look at their lives, you cannot see anything different in their lives from the life of an unbeliever. That kind of natural distinction must be recognized because it helps us know how to better minister to the different types of people in our church. However, separating believers on the basis of something as spiritually irrelevant as economic status, is in no way beneficial. In fact, those kind of distinctions can make church attendance worthless.
How pitiful it would be for a Christian to faithfully go to church week after week, even multiple times a week and for God to say to him, "Your going to church was a waste of time," or perhaps closer to the text, "Your going to church hurt your walk with Me." Such a statement would be devastating, but the seriousness of these instructions warrants the severity of the warning.
The Corinthians were observing the Lord’s Table (or communion) in a fashion that was so damaging that it made church attendance counterproductive. Before addressing the specific problems with their observance of the Lord’s Table, Paul shows us the foundational problem—divisions among the believers.
Verse eighteen says, "when you come together as a church, . . . there are divisions among you." They were coming together, and yet they were not together. The divisions mentioned in earlier chapters were among factions within the church. Groups of believers had aligned themselves with this or that person. But here the divisions are social and economic. People were allowing what they had to make a clear distinction between them and their fellow believers.
There are some distinctions that are natural and beneficial. For example, there are some people in churches who passionately follow after God. When they come to church, they sing from their heart, and throughout the week you can see that God has done something special and humanly unexplainable in their lives. Other people in churches profess to know God, but when you look at their lives, you cannot see anything different in their lives from the life of an unbeliever. That kind of natural distinction must be recognized because it helps us know how to better minister to the different types of people in our church. However, separating believers on the basis of something as spiritually irrelevant as economic status, is in no way beneficial. In fact, those kind of distinctions can make church attendance worthless.
1 Corinthians 11:16
"If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God."
Does this mean 1) if some people don’t agree, don’t be contentious about this issue, just let it be, or does this mean 2) don’t be contentious about this issue, simply obey? I think that the second interpretation is intention of the statement, but I also believe that the first is true.
The text seems to be urging the people not to resist obeying. We might say "This is our practice regarding head coverings; it is not our practice to be contentious, so don’t be." That being said, if some disagree (as most do), I should not be contentious either. Whether or not others should do this or that is not as important to me as doing right personally. God does not hold me accountable for other people’s choices; He holds me accountable for my choices.
Does this mean 1) if some people don’t agree, don’t be contentious about this issue, just let it be, or does this mean 2) don’t be contentious about this issue, simply obey? I think that the second interpretation is intention of the statement, but I also believe that the first is true.
The text seems to be urging the people not to resist obeying. We might say "This is our practice regarding head coverings; it is not our practice to be contentious, so don’t be." That being said, if some disagree (as most do), I should not be contentious either. Whether or not others should do this or that is not as important to me as doing right personally. God does not hold me accountable for other people’s choices; He holds me accountable for my choices.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
1 Corinthians 11:13-15
"Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
This is the point where many people discussing the issue of head coverings, mistakenly assert that the hair is the covering and that coverings on top of the hair are not needed, citing "her hair is given to her for a covering." However, the fact that God gave women hair for a covering is being used here to support the assertion that they ought to put something over their hair during public worship.
We might restate it this way, "See, it is natural for wives to wear a head covering when they pray. Look at the way men and women are made. It's natural and beautiful for women to have longer hair than men. God designed women to be this way, and the design points to the fact that they should wear a covering in public worship."
This is the point where many people discussing the issue of head coverings, mistakenly assert that the hair is the covering and that coverings on top of the hair are not needed, citing "her hair is given to her for a covering." However, the fact that God gave women hair for a covering is being used here to support the assertion that they ought to put something over their hair during public worship.
We might restate it this way, "See, it is natural for wives to wear a head covering when they pray. Look at the way men and women are made. It's natural and beautiful for women to have longer hair than men. God designed women to be this way, and the design points to the fact that they should wear a covering in public worship."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)