Resh, head of man, first stop, beginning. Look upon my suffering and deliver me, for I have not forgotten your law. Defend my cause and redeem me. Preserve my life according to your promise. Salvation is far from wickedness, for they do not seek out your decree. Your compassion is great, O Lord. Preserve my life according to your laws. Many are the foes who persecute me, but I have not turned to statue. I look on the faithless, with loathing, for they do not obey your word. See how I love your precepts. Preserve my life according to your love. All your words are true. All your righteous laws are eternal. Great stuff there, thank you. All right, we have a couple announcements. First one, Ellen Magnuson. Ellen's update, 16 July 2019. Sadly, it is needful that I report to you that Ellen departed this life early Tuesday morning at 2.19 a.m. She passed quietly in her home and with her loved ones, keeping a vigil. If she were able, Ellen would. I am sure wanted to tell you how much she and her family appreciated the tender and loving care provided by the folks at Take Care Home Health, a local Sarasota company. There will be a visitation on Wednesday, July 24th from 5 to 7 p.m. at our home, and they give the address. The funeral will be at Toll Brothers Funeral Home on the following day, Thursday at 10 a.m. Toll Brothers is up on 40 North Avenue, Orange Avenue in Sarasota, so you can go to that. And then following the funeral at 12.30, we will hold a brief internment ceremony at the Sarasota National Ceremony, which is out on Clark Road. That's a veteran's ceremony. Cemetery. Thank you. What did I say? Okay. Cemetery. Sorry about that. Arrangements are being made for a meal to be served so that Ellen's guests will have an opportunity to visit and the details will be announced. So Miss Magnuson is with the Lord and oh, I wish it was me instead. I just would love to be in the arms of Jesus right now, but he still has each of us here for a reason. And so, uh, Let's see, I got somebody named John Zeismer emailed me a question about Colossians 2, 18 through 33, and the email bounced back. So he needs to send me a good email address or I can't answer it. And I'll say that again on Sunday, because I don't know if he watches the Bible studies or not. Did he email you? He emailed me and I hit reply. It happens all the time. People email me through the website. They've been having problems on the internet. Anyway, it just it bounced back. So John Sizemore, if you if you sent me an email, it happens to me all the time. This isn't something. Yeah. When people come through the website, it for some reason comes in incorrectly. And so all I need is him to send me an email with a good email address. And I will make sure I just don't want people to think I would purposely not answer a question. Becky has several things that are keeping her down. We want to keep Becky in prayer. Won't give the details without her permission. And Neil has a mass on his liver and is going through tests now. He's got some other related issues, something that goes back to his time in the service where he smashed his leg. And so anyway, he's anxious. And my response anytime somebody says I'm anxious is be anxious for nothing. I quote that verse from the Bible. So anyway, there you go. If anybody wants on Sunday, July 21st, it's National Ice Cream Day and Publix is giving away free ice cream. So I got all kinds of things. She came to me. I said, I'm going to church for Bible class. And she said, here, take a bunch. So if you want free ice cream on Sunday, there you go. Those will be right there. What's that? Oh yeah, I did lick it and put it back. No, I did not do that. That is not something I do. And then I got a letter in the mail today, this morning, and I'm not gonna give any of the information other than that her name is Linda, and she had some nice things to say, but I had a brain injury. It's very hard for me to read this, but brainstem hemorrhage. I'm in a wheelchair at home, but am blessed I can use a weighted walker. went out and about. And so that's all a read from there. But we want to keep her in prayer as well, because it just sounds like a very wonderful person. And I know there is one other thing that I was going to mention. One other. What was it? I know what it was. I know what it was. Pat, come over here. You can walk this far. I know you can. All right. Unfortunately, on Sunday, I asked or I said we had Jay. We embarrassed him up here. And it was his birthday. And she never said a word that it was her birthday yesterday. So this is Pat. She's 93 years old. And happy birthday to you. All right. There you go. Here's something. for you for your birthday okay be careful don't break up those are real so don't don't break off the uh little things i'm going to put them over here for now so that it doesn't fall over anyway happy birthday to you pat i wish you had said something because i can't know these things unless people let me know The what? Wisdom. Yeah, wisdom, wisdom. She didn't say anything. After 93 years, she had wisdom enough to not say anything, but I would not have embarrassed her like Jay. I specifically said that I would embarrass Jay, and I did. But he seemed to like it. He kind of liked it. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so we're going to get into the Bible. We had kind of a long introduction, so we'll skip this day in history, and we'll go right into uh Corinthians 11 17 oh you know we were talking about hair coverings and stuff yesterday and somebody emailed me today and asked why do you wear a bandana and i said it's in the commentary i sent it to her and she didn't read it obviously because it's speaking of covering your head with the talib so that you can't be distinguished as a male or a female that's the answer to that i know we kind of brushed over it quickly and but i did say that in the commentary and uh then you pray you pull it off Yeah, well, even with this, it doesn't matter. You know, you get the French people wear their little bonnets, and that's not what it's speaking of. It's speaking of hiding your masculinity, just like a woman would show her, you know, not show her femininity by having long hair. The covering is what distinguishes you, one way or another. This has nothing to do with that, okay? A bandana, a kippah, any of those things are not what that's speaking of. So if you have a problem with me wearing a bandana, that's your problem. It's not the Bible's, okay? Secondly, I had a guy while we were talking about looks and about somebody posted and said he was obviously on Facebook watching and he said he's pathetic looking. So he didn't know that I could see that because the comment was deleted. But I don't care if people don't like my beard. That's their problem. My wife does, and I am here to satisfy my wife. So if you don't like my beard, that's fine. It's too bad. If you don't like the bandana, too bad. That's right. I am who I am. I'm not going to change who I am. I'm not going to start wearing shoes anytime soon. Okay. Anyway, here we go with that. We're in a 1 Corinthians 11. Yes. Oh, we didn't pray. Thank you, Bert. Heavenly Father, we thank you so very much for the chance to come into your presence and to lift up the people that we mentioned, the family who is missing their loved one. We thank you for the blessing of having known Ellen Magnuson. We certainly pray for the other people that are in pain that we mentioned. And we just pray that in the week ahead, they will have some relief from their pains. And Lord, we just thank you for this word, this precious word you've given us. And we thank you that you have given us a sure word that we can conduct our lives by and know that we are in your favor and doing what is right or to know that we're doing wrong and to change those things. So Lord, we ask that we would handle this word properly today and carefully, but I would also pray that the people that watch or are here, that they would check out what they have heard to make sure that it's in line with your word. And so Lord, we thank you for this. We praise you for it. And we do so in Jesus name. Amen. Okay. So we're in 1 Corinthians 11, 17. Oh, the Lord's Supper. That's right. We went through a lot of verses last week. We just went right through it. So anyway, 1117. The following directive. I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. okay a little different it is it's a little different here now i'm giving these instructions i do not praise you since you come together not for the better but for the worse so a little different there but same intent um in verse two paul began his discourse on the head and head coverings with the word of praise now i praise you brethren that you remind remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. Now he is transitioning to a new discourse, a most sensitive and important matter which concerns the Lord's Supper. In this he begins with, now in giving these instructions, I do not praise you. We know then that his coming words are words of instruction on a matter which require correction, which requires correction. He has gotten word concerning it and he isn't pleased with what he has heard. The word you is not in the original, rather it says now in giving these instructions I do not praise. The lack of praise isn't directed towards the people so much as it is directed toward the actions of the people. This is then set in contrast to verse 2, where he directly praised the people. Here the actions of the people are not to be praised. And the reason is noted, since you come together not for the better, but for the worse. The people are gathering, but the actions of the gathering are more harmful than edifying. He will explain this in the verses to come, but the verse has set the stage for it in a tactful and firm manner. Life application here. Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 11 shows us a sound way of addressing others over delicate issues. He has praised the people but withheld praise from their actions. Additionally, he first began with praise and then moved to the withholding of praise. This sets a much more positive tone than immediately entering into rebuke, something which would only cause us readers to tune out at the beginning. We can and should learn from this style of approach. I think I said it a couple Bible studies ago. I may have said it some other time. It was recently. I brought it up that if the IRS comes to your door and they're fundraising, And they knock on the door and they say, we're from the IRS. You won't hear anything else that they say after that because your mind is shut off. You're thinking I'm in trouble. And so that's not how you tactfully approach a subject. You should say, you know, we're here from and we're fundraising. I had some J.W.s do this to me not long ago. They came up and they started talking and they said they found out that I'm married to a Japanese who speaks Japanese. And so, oh, We want to have some translation done, and we understand there is a person here that knows Japanese. And so they're opening up a conversation by not saying we're the Jehovah's Witnesses. And we went through the conversation for probably about five or ten minutes, maybe a little less, maybe five minutes, and Finally, I was just about, literally, it was on my tongue. The next thing that I was going to say was, I thought you guys would be a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses. And right then she says, oh, and by the way, we're from the Jehovah's Witness. And that's when I just shut him down. I said, my wife won't be translating for you at all. And I explained to him why. And I told him, if you want to know the gospel, I'm a preacher. We can stand here and talk about it all day. But I'm not here to entertain your theology at all. They turn around and book. But you want to approach people opening in one way and then get to the meat. And they did that properly. They just are the improper people to do it. So anyway, we'll go on 1118. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you. And to some extent, I believe it. OK, very close there. Beginning with the word for connects this thought directly to what he just said. I do not praise you since you come together, not for the better, but for the worse for. The issue he will mention is one which does not justify praise because their coming together is not for the better, but for the worse. What seems a tad bit odd is that he says, first of all, but never explicitly states secondly or some other word to define a subsequent point. This isn't a problem, but it does imply that the issues that he will raise were known to be separate issues. This is merely the first and most important of them. A second separate issue is that of the improper exercise of spiritual gifts. especially that of speaking in tongues, which he will address starting in chapter 12. I have a lot of excited people and lots of emails eventually over that. I'm not talking about people that tune in every week because I think most people that watch these regularly understand the issue of speaking in tongues and what it's pointing to, but a lot of people don't and they'll see it and they'll click on it eventually and I'll get an email in a year or two arguing this point. No point to argue. It's very clear what it says about speaking in tongues, but we'll get to that in a little while. For now, though, the matter is something that occurs when you come together as a church. This is Paul's words. This then isn't referring to a specific building, which would be in a church, but rather as a congregation wherever they happen to meet as a church. Different locations would have been used instead of a single regular meeting place. What was probably a common closing statement of the times would be something like, next week we'll meet at the house of Flavius Dwyerinius over on State Street. The Lord bless you and keep you and see you then. Okay, so they're not meeting in a specific building, they're meeting house to house and they probably just had wherever it was most convenient. It was in such a gathering that Paul notes, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. The word for divisions is schisma. Anybody heard that before? Schism, that's right. It is the word he used in 1 Corinthians 1 10 when pleading that such divisions wouldn't exist among those in the church. A schisma or schism can be equated to a tear in a piece of cloth. It is something which completely divides Paul had been informed that such tears in the fabric of their fellowship existed, but he graciously adds in, and in part, I believe it. By including that, he is using tact. He knows full well that they exist because of the reports, but he is also showing them that evil reports are always to be taken with a grain of salt unless they are confirmed. And this is true even when they come from someone of high integrity. He is therefore allowing in his words the thought that they may be things that were not actually as bad as presented. Life application, the Bible shows us in many instances and in various ways that we should not listen to those who divide the church on purpose. Murmurings and grumblings must be backed up with evidence, and those who present untruths need to be called out for their actions. If necessary, they should be expelled from the church. However, true reports need to be addressed and corrected as well. All right, 19. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. Okay, a little different. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Factions is probably a much better word. Paul had just said, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. After that, he said, and in part, I believe it. Immediately after that, he begins this verse with the word for. The Greek word is dei, d-e-i. It implies because. It is the logical outcropping of any such type of assembly that there must also be factions among you. In other words, there will inevitably be sects or divisions within the congregation which will spring up. Everybody knows that. It doesn't matter if you have a church of five people, they will spring up. It's the way of the world. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women in Mary the mother of, hang on, I'm going to go back and I'm going to read the paragraph before I give my examples. An interesting confirmation of this is found in the book of Acts. From Acts 1-12, the Jewish church is highlighted and the focus is heavily on Peter. However, from Acts 13-28, the Gentile church is highlighted and the focus is almost exclusively on Paul and his ministry. Read the following seven sets of verses from Acts, noting the same term, one accord in each. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication. with the women in Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. That's Acts 1.14. When the day of Pentecost did fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Acts 2.1. So, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart. That's Acts 2.46. So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, you are God who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them. That's Acts 4.24. And through the hands of the apostles, many signs and wonders were done among the people, and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. That's Acts 5.12. And the multitudes with one accord. He did the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. That's Acts 8, 6. And then it says, it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. That's Acts 15, 25. Seven times this term, one accord is used. The last such occurrence is in 15, 25 at the council in Jerusalem. After that, the term is never used again in the Book of Acts. It was a common trait of the early Jewish church. It is a trait which is completely lacking in the developing Gentile church. It can be understood from this that it was expected and recorded early that the Gentile church agreed and continues to agree on very little. Paul's words show that such factions exist because it is inevitable that they would exist. It is no surprise to God and it is actually a necessary outcropping of the Gentile Church. If there were harmony in all the churches and that harmony included actual heresy, then everyone would be participating in heresy. You see this? Everybody got that? Because there are people that are in churches that are not in one accord and they don't agree with the heresy going on in their church. And what do they do eventually? They get up and they leave. At this time, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is riddled with bad doctrine and outright anti-biblical practices. If they were the church, then everyone would be in the same boat. But they are not the same church. Martin Luther and other people said this is wrong, what they're doing is incorrect, and they split and they went away. A lot of them were burned at the stake. Their bones were dug up and they were given trials after they were dead. for whatever purpose that served. All these kind of things are because the Roman Catholic Church is teaching doctrinal heresy. That does not mean that everybody in the Roman Catholic Church is not saved. It says, I saw somebody post about that just recently, made a comment, if you're in the Catholic Church, you're not saved. Well, what does it say in the book of Revelation? Yet there are those of you who are in, I think, Sardis, who are worthy. They will walk with me dressed in white. You were saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by church affiliation, not by sitting in a church that has bad doctrine or even teaches heresy. You were saved by your faith in Jesus Christ and that alone. OK, so there you go with that. But if you were in that church, you would be getting bad doctrine and you would never be able to lead somebody properly. in proper doctrine, because that's all you're getting is being fed bad doctrine. But a person can be saved on the street and go into a church and spend the rest of their life in bad doctrine. That's just the way it is. You're not going to lose your salvation, but you will certainly not have good doctrine and you'll probably lose your joy as you attempt to work for what you've already received, not understanding that you've truly already received it. It just becomes a cycle of function in your life, but you were saved by faith in Jesus Christ. If this were the case, then the speaking about being in the same boat with the Roman Catholic Church, if this were the case, then the only expected result would be complete judgment on the church, the entire church, just as there was on the nation of Israel and on the temple when they followed that same path of apostasy. But rather in Revelation, Jesus is noted as walking among the lampstands, which represent the churches. And when one church falls to a level of apostasy where it is no longer a church, he removes its land standard, signifying that he no longer considers it a valid entity. That's Revelation 2.1 through 2.5. It is an ingenious system of protecting the church throughout the church age. In seeing these factions, the people could then research and see those who are approved may be recognized among you, Paul's words. A classic example of this is the Protestant Reformation. There was a schism in the church which necessitated seeing who was in fact approved by God, meaning who was adhering to the word and who wasn't. This cycle is repeated often as churches move away from scripture and new leaders arise who hold fast to its truths. Alright, life application. God knew in advance what would occur within the church and he gave us many interesting clues to show us this. He also expects us to pay attention and to cling fast to those who hold to scripture, not deviating from its precepts. To fail to do so will only lead to not being approved by him and to be being rejected as a body of believers. Sound doctrine is where you get that. And there's only one place. It's not from dreams and visions. It's from the word of God. We have God's word. He has spoken. All right. Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. It doesn't come by any other way. All right. I do not believe in extra biblical revelation in any way, shape or form. I don't believe in it. OK, we don't need it. The word amen is on the end of the book of Revelation for a reason. All right. 1120. When you come together, is it not The Lord's Supper you eat? That's close enough. Okay. This verse leads to all kinds of theories and speculations about taking of the Lord's Supper. It also leads to ideas which really miss the point. An example of this is that the term supper indicates an evening meal, which is when Christ shared the elements of the commemoration. Therefore, some have claimed that the evening is the proper time to participate in the memorial. oh hello the point of coming together for it however isn't one of time of day but rather in the remembrance of the work of the lord i mean there are people that actually will say they met and they went from house to house and they had their churches and so only house churches are acceptable and i will say this i've said it before i'll say it again i'll say it again and again every time a church opens and i see this 50 times or 60 times a year people emailing me and they're saying we're starting a new church and they every one of them says exactly the same thing we're going back to the biblical model and they're all different every one of them is different but they all say we're going back to the biblical model okay there is no biblical model for the establishment of a church zero. All we have is Timothy and Titus, which gives some information about the qualifications of elders and deacons and things like that. But the structure of the church, the time of the church, where the church meets, the type of building or not building, you can meet outside, you can meet under the stars, you can meet in the morning, you can meet in the evening, you can meet on Tuesday or Thursday or Saturday or whatever day of the week you want, or 10 days a week if you want. It doesn't make any difference. There is, yeah, 10 days a week. That's an old Beatles song, by the way. Anyway, I know. Eight days a week. I know. That was another joke, and it went right over his head. Anyway, so ten times, yes. It's like giving them the whole ten yards, right? I used to drive my friend crazy when I'd say that. It's nine yards. I just do it on purpose. I think you probably know this. I think you do. Does anybody else know what the whole nine yards comes from? No. P-27s. World War II. They had 27 feet of ammunition. And when they went on their strafing runs, they give the Jappers all nine yards. That's where that comes from. Yes. And I can say Japper because I'm married to a Japanese. OK, people get offended and I love to offend. So there you go. Anyway, yes, that's where the term the whole nine yards comes from. So I know that I like to say 10 yards to get people stimulated. Paul was the first and greatest church star. No, absolutely. So if we're going back to the biblical way, what was his first stop on every city? He went to the synagogue. Absolutely. So that's a good point. We all have to start a synagogue, right? No. Okay. There is no such thing as going back to the biblical model. Okay, I don't mean to offend people by saying that because everybody has this in their mind, but there is no biblical model. There are Presbyterian churches because the Bible has Presbyteros, right? Elders. And then there are Episcopal churches because the Bible has Episcopos, right? Which is overseers, okay? Epi, like Epidermis, and then Scopus was to see overseers, okay? And then you've got this type of church and you've got that type of church. There is no set model of church. Zero. Okay, you can have an elder-run church, you can have a congregation-run church, you can have, you know... Women sitting on one side? Yeah, women sitting on one side, men on another, whatever, okay? There is nothing in the Bible that says any type of church is the true church, okay? Just stick to the Word of God and you will be the true church. That is... Oh, I just lost a page of my Bible. Yes, Burke? The church was already in existence when Paul was saved. That's right! The church was already in existence when Paul was saved. It is the body of believers of Jesus Christ. That is what the church is. All these little, smaller churches are just simply places where those people meet, hopefully, to worship Him and to study His Word. That is the purpose of a church, okay? If you don't have music in a church, who cares? If you do have music in a church, who cares? The purpose of the church is Christ, and learning the word so that we can understand who Christ is. Anyway, let's go on. Let's see here, Revelation 2, the genius system, I said that. Okay, there was a schism after the Protestant Reformation in the church which necessitated seeing who was in fact approved by God. Oh, we're in 20, aren't we? We're in verse 20. Let me go back down here. Okay, I was reading from 19. Oh yeah, here we are. To insist on commemorating the ordinance in the evening, going back to what I said about people saying you have to have it in the evening, adds in a level of legalism which is unnecessary. Paul's point in this discussion, like the previous issue concerning head coverings, is that of propriety of conduct. In verse 18, he noted the divisions which he had been informed of. Then in verse 19, he gave the seemingly unrelated note that there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. That was the previous verse. This isn't unrelated, but the explanation won't be fully realized until later in the discussion. Who are approved are those who are acting properly. If they are recognized among you, then the opposite would be true. And those who weren't approved would be known for their improper actions. But For now, Paul begins with, therefore, to show that he is building upon what he said. It is tied to the factions he mentioned along with the actions of the people within the factions. Because of these things, he notes that when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. Instead of what they should be demonstrating, a united group who are there to remember the work of the Lord and to commemorate it, disharmony. This will be seen in the coming verses. Life application, the ultimate aim of church meetings is not to satisfy oneself. That is the purpose of almost every new church that has started in the past 15 or 20 years is to satisfy yourself. I'm going to that church because I am going to hear great music. I'm going to that church because I love the dreamy pastor with his good looks and how he moves about the stage. That is it. I mean, these new churches that crop up, we're going to be based on the Word of God and then all of a sudden it's based on something other than the Word of God. A charismatic personality, a great band, light shows, whatever. And that is solely, almost solely, intended to please oneself. You see people listening to music and they're going, oh, you can do that at home. I listen to great music all day long. When I'm not typing a sermon or doing the things that need my concentration, I turn on YouTube, And I let them pick songs for me and it plays all day long. And sometimes I stop and I go, oh, that's it. It has nothing to do with worshiping the Lord. Sometimes Christian music plays, sometimes it doesn't. Whatever comes on, unless it has vulgarities, I just let it play. I don't care. I just like background music. And so sometimes they play things that are real spunky and I get happy and then they get into these morbid songs and I'm like sitting there crying at my desk. Whatever, whatever. Anyway, it's not to satisfy ourselves. That's not why we go to church. Nor should there be divisions over matters in order for some to attempt to be exalted in the eyes of others. Rather, the aim of gatherings is to exalt and glorify the Lord. Any time a gathering occurs that is not directed toward that goal, something else will inevitably fill the void and it will lead to disharmony, not unity. 21. For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Especially with the uh-oh goes with the next verse, but we'll stick with this one for now. 1121, in the previous verse, it was noted that when they came together it wasn't in the manner of the Lord's Supper. Literally, Paul's words say it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. Paul now explains why this is so. In evaluating it, all we need to do is think of a modern potluck supper. One of my favorite memories of all of attending the Temple Baptist Church down the road was the potluck supper. I gotta tell you what, those Baptists can cook. Everybody would bring in their favorite, or the dish they knew would please everybody the most, and by the time you were done, oh, you'd be, oh! It's just wonderful, potluck supper. Anyway, for an eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others. Instead of bringing along the food and leaving it for all to share in, which is what the known customs of the time reveal, the people would get right into the food they brought. Thus, there wasn't a fellowship in the meal, but rather a sense of greediness in it. People were just diving in to make sure they got a full belly, regardless of what others received. And that wasn't the point back then, it's not the point now. that's why when they have a potluck supper everybody puts it over there and you listen to the sermon you do all of the stuff that goes on and it's like being tortured through an hour or an hour and a half of sermon and you're smelling all that wonderful food but it's to get you ready to enjoy the food but first you go through the worship of the lord then you come together and you have a prayer and you thank the lord for the meal you enjoy the meal right first the soup then the sermon i think it's the other way around that's the Salvation Army used to have. Oh, yeah, that's right. Because those people, they would eat and then they'd leave. That's right. That happened downtown when we used church on the park. You would have to give the sermon and then they would have the food, because if not, if you fed them, they'd either fall asleep or they'd get up and leave or whatever. That's why they did. That was to have the food first. And that was I think that's the first sermon I ever preached, wasn't it? Was it church in the park? It was on the Book of Job. It was, yeah, and you know, anyway, I won't get into it now, but I think that was the first time I ever preached. Maybe not, but I think so. Yeah, anyway, church in the park. Anyway, Tom was there and it was on 19, where it says, if I could have somebody that could put his hand on God and put his hand on me and be a mediator, right? I'm misquoting that verse. It's not coming to mind right now, but that's what I preached on. They told me to keep it short. I didn't keep it short enough, but everybody listened very nicely anyway. One guy was over there from the moment that we started snoring, which was a little bit annoying, but, But anyway, I think that was the first time I ever preached was church in the park. Anyway, yeah, and then they got the mail. Okay, so here we are, instead of bringing along, yes. Okay, and then Paul says, because of this, the result was that one is hungry and another is drunk. The contrasts are obvious. One person who may have been poor and couldn't bring much was left with an empty stomach. The other who got right into the meal overindulged and got drunk, d-r-u-n-k, drunk. As hunger implies deprivation and as drunkenness implies overindulgence, the two are noted to highlight the situation. Because there was a lack of fellowship and sharing, it thus could not be the Lord's Supper of which they partook. Rather, it was a feast of self-interest, not humble remembrance. A final point on this verse is that the word drunk, d-r-u-n-k, is the Greek word methuwo. It means exactly translated as drunk. In an honest evaluation of the passage, it can be taken in no other way. Although highly unpalatable to many, the obvious conclusion to be made is that the gatherings of the early church included drink, alcohol, yes. Whether this was acceptable or not will be realized in verse 22. The conclusion is obvious from the text itself, life application. It is proper to objectively evaluate issues found in the Bible without inserting presuppositions. Have a wonderful night, Freda, about the matter at hand. In other words, we are to let the chips fall where they may. Only then can we be considered to properly handle and rightly divide the Word of God. 1122. Don't you have homes 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 praise you for this? Certainly not. Okay, I'm going to read it anyway. It's very close, but 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. This verse, coupled with the previous verses, is intended as one very strong rebuke of this particular practice of the Corinthians. They were meeting at their observance in a way which disregarded the holy nature of the meal. In his astonishment at their conduct towards one another, he says, what? Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? In other words, if you want to engage in a feast, isn't that a better place to do it? Why would you bring food to this gathering and then sit and gobble it up in front of those you are supposed to be fellowshipping with? This then leads to the next obvious thought, or to despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing. The intent of the gathering was first and foremost to remember the work of the Lord. Secondly, if there was to be a meal, it was not intended that those with much should bring something along for those who have little or nothing. These poor brethren probably didn't even have their own homes, making the contrast all the more poignant. But instead of sharing, people would sit down and eat and drink what they had brought. If this was the attitude, then they should just stay home and eat and drink. Based on this, his obvious question comes forth. What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. Their actions could not be condoned. Christ came to serve others and left the example for us to follow. This concept of serving and sharing was lost during their feasts and Paul left Paul with no choice but to write his words of correction concerning this matter as a side issue, which is necessary for proper doctrine on an important topic. It should be noted in this verse that Paul never rebukes the gatherers for the notion that another is drunk, which he stated in the previous verse. In other words, the fact that they had consumed alcohol isn't even addressed. It's not addressed in any way, shape or form. Instead, he tells them to simply eat and drink at home. if they were to handle the other issue, that of overindulging at the expense of others, in an inappropriate manner. If one were to find fault in this verse for drinking alcohol, as many scholars attempt to do, then they must also find fault for them eating food as well, which would be ludicrous. The subject of drinking is divided many churches. However, if it is looked at from an objective viewpoint, There can only be one obvious conclusion as to whether it is acceptable or not. When I first met the Lord, I wanted to know because I sat in a church that didn't allow anything. You couldn't get up out of your chair. You couldn't dance. You couldn't, you know, it doesn't matter what you wanted to do in life. You couldn't do it. And one of them was no drinking. And I said, well, I've read the Bible. I'd probably read it 50 or 60 times by the time I had gotten to that church. It was probably three or four years after I met the Lord. And so I thought, I'm going to check that out. I'm going to see if that's correct, because you read the Bible and you get an impression. But that doesn't mean you're studying the Bible. And I'd read it many times. And I came out with the full impression that this is something that the Lord actually says is a good thing. Right. And but I thought I'm going to be unbiased in this. And I went through and I read every single instance. I studied every single word. There is no way that you can come to the conclusion that people like Charles Ryery did. He's a guy that wrote the systematic theology that I used in my in the Bible College up there is Southern Evangelical Seminary. Okay, they used his text. Great guy, great theology, but you could tell he had a presupposition about that. And all the verses like this one and all the other ones, he just, he completely changed the intent of the meaning, completely. And so I thought, well, you know, that's just not right. When you're reading the word of God, you have to take the word of God as it says, regardless of whether you like an issue or not. It doesn't matter if Charlie Gere drinks alcohol or not. It makes no difference in my study of the Word. If the Word says don't do it, I'm going to give it up. If it says do do it, and I am, I'm not going to give it up. That's all there is to it, okay? And that's the way everybody should be about every single issue which is in the Bible. It doesn't matter what the issue is, you go where the Lord sends you, okay? Having said that, If you've had a problem with drinking, you should never drink, okay? There are other things you can do with your life. If you have had a problem with, you know, this or that, I mean, there's all kinds of addictions out there. There's a thousand different addictions. If you have that in your head where it's something that grabs at you, you need to stay away from that particular issue, whatever it is. That's just how the world works. We all have limitations. We all have things that pull at us and we need to be careful about those things, but Take the Bible as it is written. Let me go back. The subject of drinking has divided many churches. However it is looked at from an objective viewpoint, there can only be one obvious conclusion. Unfortunately, personal passions about subjects such as this inevitably lead to false interpretations of scripture. Life application, whatever you do, whatever you do, do it to the glory of God and without harming others in the process. I have no problem talking about this issue because this is a doctrine Bible study. Okay. That's what you do is you talk about doctrine. If you have somebody that has a problem with this issue, you might refrain from it in one way or another. But if people come to learn the word of God, they're going to get that here. Okay. If they disagree, they can send me an email and I'll tell them where they're wrong. Okay. Or I'll acknowledge that I'm wrong, which I've done at times. You know that very well. So there you go. 1123. And just to add, okay. You said the word addiction, like, you know, that that is a problem. No matter what that's right that you're addicted to. So. The thing is, is that when you, when you're with somebody who's got. You just don't want to absolutely don't even bring it up or, or you should learn from that addiction that they say, okay, well, you know what? That person suffered from that too, but, but, you know, I know that. Three or four is where the trouble starts. That's right. I read the funniest thing a day ago. I won't say who posted, but somebody you all know. I told her that I'd be home after four beers at 10. He says, I always get those two wrong. I'll be after 10 beers at four. It was just kind of a funny thing. Anyway, I just, it was just a funny thing. And you know, anyway, don't drink 10 beer until four o'clock in the morning. Okay. That's don't do that. Anyway, he had two things to get right and you got them both wrong. Okay. So 1123. Can I read it up there? Oh yeah. If you want to, nobody will see you, but yes. The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread. I see why you said that. I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I didn't either. Now I hear you. It's what we say every week when we take the Lord's Supper. Do you have something first? No. Perkins laughing over there about something. Well, I figured you both would be. Oh, with the two things. You know what? And that was I won't get into because we got the camera going. I don't want to waste their time when they don't know what I'm talking about. But I was the one in Israel doing the camera at the time. So I was laughing about that. I thought it was classic. He he handled it so well. I mean, it's just. Oh, just you know. Oh, no, no, no, no, that's fine. That's short enough where it doesn't matter. Okay, because of the error of the gatherers at the observance of the Lord's Supper, Paul now takes time to spell out the solemnity which the occasion deserves. And so he begins with, for I received from the Lord. This means with all certainty that Paul was told directly from the risen Christ about the events of the night before his crucifixion. This very well may have occurred while he was in Arabia. Everybody know that? Galatians 1, 17, he says, I went down to Arabia. He was there, okay, receiving instruction from the Lord. The implication is, okay, because people say that's Saudi Arabia and that proves that the Mount Sinai was in Saudi Arabia and that the Exodus went through the other tongue of the Red Sea. That is completely incorrect. Arabia is speaking of the Sinai Peninsula, which up until just very recently was called Arabia Petraea. OK, now it's called the Sinai Peninsula. But all along for the past 1900 years, up until just recently, it was always called Arabia Petraea. The original Sinai is in Mount Sinai. I'm sorry, the Sinai Peninsula. It's not over in Saudi Arabia. Those videos that people post are incorrect. They're made up. It was started by Ron Wyatt. The guy, he found Noah's Ark, he found the Sodom and Gomorrah, he found the Ten Commandments, he found everything. This guy, right? The Ark of the Covenant. The only thing that guy didn't find was Jesus' birth certificate, okay? He made it up. It's all made up, but people have kept going on because you get money selling these books, okay? Anyway, let's not worry about it, but he went down to Arabia. That's Arabia, Petraea, or the Sinai Peninsula. He went to where probably where Moses received the Ten Commandments. That's probably where Paul received his instruction. We'll go on, though. That's just speculation. That's not in the Bible. He was in Arabia during a time of personal instruction because of his calling and commission as the apostle to the Gentiles. The fact that the I is emphatic and singular shows that this was not passed on to him by another, but by Christ himself. That which I also delivered to you indicates that he had already instructed the Corinthians on this matter when he was present with them. The letter he received told him that his words were not acted upon, and so the letter includes this instruction to be maintained as proper doctrine. If followed, error would not creep in again. as it had. Unfortunately, even though we have the letter included in the Bible, error still creeps into this most solemn ceremony. However, correction is available by merely opening the Bible and reading it. How sad it is that this simple procedure is so enormously either neglected or mishandled. I'd say it's probably, well, they're both bad. The words that the Lord Jesus are given to show believers that the ordinance was instituted by the Lord himself. Further, it is exclusively of the Lord. He didn't ask one of the disciples to conduct the affair for him. Rather, the entire ordinance is of him. On the same night in which he was betrayed is an account which is recorded in various ways in the four Gospels. However, the description which most closely follows Paul's words here are that of Luke, with only a few minor variations they match exactly. The only real differences are that Luke says, given for you, while Paul leaves out given. Also, Luke omits this do as often as you drink it after the giving of the cup. Despite this, they are implied in his words in the same manner during the giving of the bread. Finally, he says he took bread. This was at the time of the Passover. In the law, the Passover requirements say this. In the first month, on the 14th day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the 21st day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses. Since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened in all your dwellings. You shall eat unleavened bread. Exodus 12 verses 18 through 20. The bread which was consumed at the Passover was Unleavened! It had no yeast. In the Bible, yeast pictures sin. Okay, just as leaven makes bread rise, so sin puffs up an individual. The bread itself was a picture of the sinless bread of life, Christ. Because of this, it is proper to present unleavened bread at the observance of the Lord's Supper. This is not a legalistic addition to the rite, but rather it is what is proper and honoring to Christ. To use a common loaf of bread is to abuse the very picture which is being made in the ceremony, life application. Traditions are often one of the worst cancers in a church body. When a tradition is introduced and it is elevated to the level of scripture, then only a degradation of the sanctity of scripture can occur. However, if a tradition finds its roots in scripture, it is proper and honoring of God who gave scripture that we follow through with the tradition. How much more important then is proper adherence to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. It is a tradition which is actually mandated by the Lord himself. How sweet and pleasant it is to come, O Lord, to your table, to share in communion with you in the bread and cup. Yes, I will participate as often as I am able and to have a time of reflection before we sup. I think on you, my Lord, who died on that tree. I will think on the cross where my sin was washed away. I will ponder the relation between you and me. and I will call to remembrance your work, the price you did pay. Glory to you, Lord, how you care for the sons of men. We will continue to fellowship at this table until you come again. 1124, but Burke's got something first. That hand is, it went up like a rocket. You said 17 a minute ago, but I want to read to you 11 and 12. Okay. Or I would have you, no brother, This is the death, burial, and resurrection we're talking about here. Right. He said this. For I neither received it from man nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation from Jesus Christ. Yep. He received all of this. Directly. Not at a campfire. Nope. Directly. Which I had somebody that I already told you about. I went through the ceiling. He said Paul got all of his information and I don't have a campfire. They're trying to divide Paul's letters into this letter is actually to the Jews, and this letter is actually earlier in this. Okay, if he got his revelation from the Lord before his ministry began, then that means every single thing that Paul says is consistent. We don't divide it like hyper dispensationalists do, and that is what they do. they take Paul and they say well Romans 9 through 11 is not addressed to the church at all it's addressed to Jewish believers and they have to say that because otherwise it completely dispels their entire theology about what they're talking about okay there is one gospel it goes to Jew and it goes to Gentile and Paul's words do not change anywhere in his theology they are consistent all the way through we don't say well this doesn't belong to Paul and this does belong or this doesn't belong to the Gentile church and this does it is all of Jesus Christ and it's all one gospel. We need to be careful with that because people will very easily twist the word. It's what Paul warned about, you know, and so did Peter. There will be people that come in and do these things. And that is introducing heresy into something that is profoundly beautiful. It is very organized. You take one little bit of this out, you pull it out, and it all unravels. Okay? And people end up being caught in real bad situations because of that, pulling at their face and wondering if they're saved or if they can lose theirself. Go on and on with it. All right, go ahead, 1124. 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. Okay, they drop out take eat from in the Alexandrian text. Here it says take eat, this is my body. They drop that out in the Alexandrian, just so you know that. Paul continues with the words of instruction concerning the Lord's Supper, which he received from the Lord as Burke just said, on the night of his betrayal, he took bread and then gave thanks over it. A common form of thanks at such a time would have been, blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth. This then is a picture of the coming resurrection of Christ. He's giving this blessing, he's saying these words, which he probably said himself, and he's speaking of himself coming out of the grave. Though the bread of life would be laid in a tomb, it would come forth from the earth in victory. The term had given thanks is the Greek word Eucharistias, Eucharistias. from which we derive the term Eucharist. That's right. So it says, thus, this is often called such. After the Eucharist, he broke it. Bengel comments on this. The very mention of the breaking involves distribution and refutes the Corinthian plan, every man his own. which is what they were doing in the previous verses. In other words, he is showing that the breaking of the bread implies parceling it out to all attendees. This is set in contrast to the improper attitude mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 21, which said, for an eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others, and one is hungry and another is drunk. Next, after breaking the bread, the Lord instructed them to take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. If nothing else, and there is more, but not as biblically explicit, these words show that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not only wrong, it isn't even well thought out. This teaching says that the elements given by the priests of the Roman Catholic Church literally become the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus. In essence, one is literally eating his flesh each time they take communion. That is what Roman Catholics teach. This is also similar to the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, which teaches consubstantiation. It is similar to but not quite the same as the Roman Catholic teaching. In refutation of this, the scholar Benson wisely notes the following, as the clause which is broken cannot be taken literally because it would imply that Christ's body was broken or put to death on the cross at the time he said this contrary to truth, so the clause this is my body cannot be taken literally for the two clauses make making but one proposition. If the clause, this is my body, which is the subject of the proposition, be interpreted literally, the predicate, which is broken for you, must be so likewise. Consequently, the proposition will import that the bread in our Lord's hands was converted into a thing which at time had no existence. Very well said. Said differently, if the bread is literally his body, then how could he hold it in his hands and say, this is my body? Likewise, in breaking it, his own body would have then been broken at that time. Neither was the case. Rather, he was showing that the elements are symbolic representations of his body and blood, not the actual elements. In closing this portion of the instruction, Paul finishes with, do this in remembrance of me. The word do is poie. It means be doing or continue doing. It is to be a common continual practice when the church comes together. There is nothing wrong and everything right with continuing in this practice at every gathering. After all, it is in remembrance of the Lord Jesus, which is the very purpose of gathering together in the first place. Life application, the Lord's Supper is a symbolic remembrance of the work of the Lord. Be sure to participate in it as often as your church holds it. And if they don't hold it often, then show them the words of the Lord. What is frequently treated as an inconvenient side issue is actually the heart of where our faith and practice should lie. Oh, yeah. Once every four months, maybe. If we're lucky. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe once every six months. Yeah. What are you doing? Yeah. I mean, and then they kind of, well, I won't get it. That's all right. Anyhow, in the same way, after supper, he took the cup saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this whenever you drink it. remembrance of me. Okay, close enough. In the same manner is referring to the Lord's previous handling of the bread, its blessing being broken and being passed to the disciples. It is in this same manner that he also took the cup after supper. The words after supper are used only by Luke in the Gospels. It is an addition which is intended to mark a distinction between an ordinary meal and that of the Lord's supper. And although it doesn't mention that he blessed the cup, he would have done so just as he did with the bread. In the blessing, he would have spoken these words, Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, creator of the fruit of the vine. This again makes a picture. Christ calls himself the true vine. In John 15 1, he then said to the disciples that they were the branches which bear fruit. The creator of the fruit of the vine then is a picture of the work of the Lord and of his work through those who belong to him. As Paul notes in Ephesians 2 10, for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. The cup after the Lord's proclamation would have been shared with the disciples, and the proclamation is, this cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. It is obvious, just as it was with the bread, that this is only a sign and a symbol of the work of Christ and not literally his blood. Therefore, both the bread and the wine are symbolic of the body and the blood of the Lord and also of the covenant which is ratified in him. The term my blood is being set in contradistinction to the blood offered in the old covenant of which the law was comprised. Let me take you to Hebrews chapter 9 and read you this. Here's what it says. But Christ came as high priest of the good things to come with the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is not of this creation, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood. He entered the most holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. You read the book of Hebrews. We'll get to it eventually in our studies, but you read the book of Hebrews and you study it. We just got done with it. You can read it online. I do not know how anybody can come to the conclusion that we must observe the law of Moses. It's like reading the book of Galatians and the conclusions that some people say, oh, well, that actually means. They're so simple, they're so basic when you understand what is being said. How could anybody put themselves back under that type of bondage and reject the Lord who fulfilled all of the things that they're talking about, especially in Galatians and in Hebrews? I just don't get it. What the law of Moses could never, never make perfect is realized in the shed blood of Jesus. The law of Moses said the man who does these things will live by them, right? Nobody could do it until the lawgiver himself stepped out of the eternal realm, put on a garment of human flesh, and he did it. The law of Moses did not perfect Jesus Christ. It simply showed his perfection. There's a huge world of difference between there. The man who does these things will live by them, and he did them because he was perfect and he remained perfect, all right? Thus, the law is set aside by the work of Christ completely and entirely. As the Hebrew says again, in that he says a new covenant, he has made the first obsolete, annulled, that's right, annulled is in chapter 7, that's chapter 8, 13, he has made it obsolete, annulled, obsolete, and set aside, done, nailed to the cross. What? Kaput! I like that. The second supersedes the first, thus annulling it entirely. It is this marvelous work which we remember when we partake of the Lord's Supper. And the Lord says that this is to be done as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. Anytime the church gathers, it is right and appropriate to partake of the Lord's Table in remembrance of his great work which he has obtained eternal redemption for his people. Life application. When you come to the Lord's table, it should be with remembrance that it is his death which is being proclaimed. It was the highest price imaginable to restore us to God, so remember to partake of the elements with profound gratitude and respect. All right, and we do that before we actually take the Lord's Supper. We all stop, we pray, we're silent for a minute or two, and then we come up here. And there are times where somebody will come up and I'll compliment their necklace or something, and I'm not being degrading of the Lord's Supper. We have already acknowledged this is the Lord's Supper. I'm acknowledging them because I might not get a chance later. Whatever we say, it may be my last time to see him because a lot of people, I hate to say it, but a lot of people when we finish and I say amen, they are out that door so fast and you'd think they'd have a fire on there. They're backside tradition. It's tradition. That's right. It's good tradition to be the 1st out the door anyway. And I don't have time to raise my hand and say, see you anyway. That's okay. I'm not picking on anybody in particular, except this person that person never mind anyway. Okay. So here we go. 1126. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Christ's words of instruction to Paul have been completed, and so now he states the word, or, to show that his words of explanation lie ahead. What Christ proclaimed has a purpose. As he said, do this in remembrance of me. For Paul's four then is given to reiterate and fully explain this. Every time the Lord's Supper is held, it is a memorial. You go back through the Old Testament, you got the word zikaron, a memorial. This shall be a memorial. What happened when the 250 people were outside and they had their censors and they were burning illegal incense before the Lord? What did he say to do? it. Take those, those are holy. Beat them into a sheet and put them over the altar, meaning the altar of burnt sacrifice, okay? That wasn't a memorial, that was a sign to the people of Israel. That's a sign, and then you have the memorial, something that calls to remembrance, and he says something later about a memorial, and he uses the word zikaron, or memorial, many times in the Old Testament or Old Covenant. saying this is a memorial to the Children of Israel. This is a memorial to the Children. This year is a memorial for us. This is the Lord's Supper, and it is to call to remembrance what the Lord has done. Okay, it is a memorial. And so as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. It is an open proclamation that we believe that Christ died for us. As he is Lord and as he died, then this is the only possible explanation. Being the Lord implies sinless perfection. As the wages of sin is death, then his death must have come as a payment for sin, but not his own. In other words, he is our substitutionary atonement. Further, it implies that his righteousness that his righteousness, in that he is not sinned, is imputed to us. What would be the point of him dying if this were not the case? There would be none. Everybody understands substitutionary atonement. Charlie Garrett sinned. Charlie Garrett sins. Charlie Garrett is fallen. He is in Adam. Christ did not sin. He is perfect. He died in perfection. His blood covers Huffer. that covers my sin so that when God sees me, he does not see me, he sees the shed blood of Christ. The work of the Lord imputed to me, okay? And my sin went to Christ. He who knew no sin became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in him. That's right. substitutionary atonement. Thank God for what he has done through Jesus Christ. Think about it. I mean, think about the enormity of that concept right there. Absolutely. How laughable a work is. Yeah, I'm going to repeat that so they get that. Think of how laughable a work for your salvation is. What can you add to the cross of Christ? What can you add in order to be made more right before God, because we're going through that right now in the book of James. We're in chapter two. Tomorrow is 23, I think, and then we'll get to the big one, 224, in another day. All right, it's complicated. There are a million views on it, and most of them are wrong, or what they say. Real quickly, we'll just talk about what they say. Roman Catholic says that you must participate in your salvation through works and to keep being saved. You need, it adds to your grace. in order to do, you do works in order to add to the grace that was imputed to you by Christ. In other words, you're helping save yourself and you're continuing to add to the grace. Nothing can add to what Christ did, nothing. There's nothing we can do to add to the cross of Jesus Christ. The Protestant view, the Reformed theologian view says that works are a natural extension of saving faith. If you are saved, you will naturally do good works. Okay, there's a problem with that. I've been talking about for the past couple days. The first one is the very simple question. What works? What works? What are you talking about? Because that's when somebody starts saying you need to have works in order to be saved or prove that you're saved. Well, it works. Yeah, it could be whatever this guy up here says. Oh, you're not doing that. You can't be saved. And you get that on social media a lot. Facebook in particular. He can't be saved. It doesn't. He said a bad word. One bad word, right? Whatever. Okay. Forget that. 224, we'll get to it in another day or so, and the answer will be out, but I'm not going to jump ahead on that. But the one thing you want to ask when people say that is, what works? What can I do to add to the work of Jesus Christ or to somehow highlight it? Okay. You tell me. All right, we'll get to it. Anyway, where was I? There would be no point in him dying for us otherwise. Therefore, this is our proclamation. We are to participate in the Lord's Supper, acknowledging his work on our behalf, as it says, till he comes. Whether Christ's return was expected in a short time after making His ascension, or whether it will be 10,000 years from today, we are to continue making this solemn proclamation until that time. Before I go on, and I may say it in my comments afterward, but it's on my mind right now, and I want to make sure I get it out. What does it mean? What does it imply when it says we take the Lord's Supper until He comes? It means He's coming, but what does that imply? Well, on our part, I'm talking about on his part. He is coming, but what does it imply? That he's alive! That he's alive! Well, no, because it says we're remembering his death until he comes. We're not just remembering Christ's death. We're remembering it until he comes. In other words, it is a remembrance of what Christ did Until he comes, he is alive. Okay, that's the people seem to miss that. And that's an important thing to remember is we're not just remembering Christ death. We're remembering it because he is alive. And there's a giant difference between that and some denominations, which seem to just end at the death. Well, no, I'm just saying their attitude is that Christ died for our sins, and that's all you hear about. He died for our sins, but he's coming again. Yeah, the crucifixion, and that's the end of it. You watch a movie, and that's not the end of it. The end of it is that he came out of the grave, and he went up to heaven, and he is coming again. Okay, so that's the point. I'm not saying that they teach that. I'm saying that's their attitude. That's their attitude, and that's not... we're remembering the Lord until he comes. The first Corinthians, he died, was buried, and resurrected. Resurrected, that's absolutely right. And if that's their attitude, then they don't believe that. Well, no, I'm not saying that. They do believe it, but that's what they stop at. They don't focus on it. Yeah. Of notice, the fact that the Lord's table doesn't explicitly include the resurrection. It doesn't say you proclaim the Lord's death and resurrection till he comes. The death of Christ implies substitution. If he is coming again, it implies that he has risen and ascended. So I did include it. I just didn't want to forget what was on my mind. As this is true, it therefore implies that if his righteousness is imputed to us and that we will in fact rise again Everybody got that? If it's imputed to us, we will rise again. In other words, the Lord's table is a table of, begins with F, ends with A-I-T-H. Anybody? It's a table of faith. I'm gonna read that again. The death of Christ implies substitution. If he is coming again, it implies that he has risen and ascended. As this is true, it therefore implies that his righteousness is imputed to us and that we will, in fact, rise again. The Lord's table is a table of faith. We are placing our hope and trust in the promises of scripture that they contain the truth concerning the work of the Lord and the return of the Lord. If scripture is not the word of God, then as Paul says elsewhere, we are truly, we are the most to be pitied, right? If it is, then nothing can separate us from the surety of the promises which the Lord's Table implies. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again, and we will be like Him at that time. We will be given eternal life and all of the promises of the Word of God will be realized in us at that time. It's either it's hopeless and why are we doing this? We might as well be pitied or it is absolutely the word of God. It is true. And nothing can thwart the observance that we're taking every Sunday. Absolutely nothing in heaven or hell or anywhere in all of creation. Nothing can thwart what God has done. I'm with the latter as well. And when I see people really struggling over the prospect of dying. I don't want to die in pain. But I have no problem at all with dying. Zero. And I think everybody needs to think their position on that issue through very carefully. I'm not questioning their faith. I'm just simply saying that there is no reason to be afraid of it. Zero. We have people. What? Well, no, I don't even think that. Just some people just don't want to die. They just don't want to die. And to me that, why? There's nothing in this life that I think I really need to cling on to this because what God has might not be as good, right? Adam was created outside of the Garden of Eden. He was placed in the Garden of Eden. He was made from the dust of the earth, and then after he blew it, which God knew he would, what did he say? From dust you have come, and to dust you will return. He was made outside of the Garden of Eden. He was dust, okay? He wasn't made in the Garden of Eden, picturing heaven. That's why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, the second Adam, the heavenly man, He comes from heaven, which the Garden of Eden pictures. Adam was made outside of the garden and he was rested in the garden. He was made of dust. There is nothing here that is of value. Nothing. He was put into the garden and he would have lived forever and he didn't. So, out of the garden he went again and to dust he returned. Does everybody see what's going on there? We are going to the place that that pictured. We will never die again. We will not be earthly. We will not have bodies that are corrupt and that hurt and that stink and that whatever else you can think of that's negative. We're not going to have that. If you are worried about death, I would not go so far as questioning people's security and their salvation, I think. Some people, yes, but people that are strong Christians that want to stay here need to question why they want to stay here, because there is nothing as precious as what is coming, not even close, okay? I don't want it to be painful. If it is, the Lord has determined that for me. Bill Bright, who I bring up from time to time, died in a lot of pain. He had a breathing problem and he kept dying every day more and more until he finally just died, right? And he never lost his testimony through that. He was always faithful to the end. We just lost Ms. Magnuson and she, right to the very end, was as faithful to the Lord through all of the pain since April of anybody I've ever met. I've never seen a person so content with her position in whatever it was. Anybody that went to visit her, I'm sure we'll come back with the same report. She was faithful, even in her pain, to say, God is so good. God is so good. God is so good. I bet you she said that a thousand times to me. Right. And the last time I got to see her last Saturday, I didn't know that she was even in hospice. And I went there and she's in hospice. And I said, where is she? Oh, she's in hospice in the house here. And he said, you've come. I want you to see her, but don't take a long time. And we did. And I went in and all she could do was say, Charlie, And then we had a prayer, maybe one minute and I left. OK. But even then, you could see that she was radiant about her state. She knows where she's going. Don't fear what is coming. I mean, don't do it. Oh, I just I just want to be out of here. Yes. When I was talking to Paul. Oh, yeah. And Paul. At his last days. Yeah. I was like, OK, you're nervous about it. He goes, yeah, I am. Well, specifically what? He goes, well, just not knowing. I go like, But I see every one of us have come out of the womb. We were crying like heck and trauma and all this stuff like that. And how many people reflect back and go, oh, that day I was born. I just was worried about that. Oh, my gosh. Terrible. It's like, you know, it's like this. It's just another step. It's the threshold. It's a threshold, and you're going over it. And we're all going to go through it, so why worry about it? Okay, the only people that need to be upset about it are the people that are left behind that miss you. If you're a Christian, you've got the sweet spot when you punch your ticket. Anyway, here we go. Let's see here. It doesn't mention the resurrection. I've already said that. Let's see here. I'm going to read it again. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. And we will be like him at that time. We will be given eternal life and all of the promises of the Word of God will be realized in us at that time. Finally, and once again in this verse, we see the nonsensical nature of the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation, the bread and wine literally becoming Christ's flesh. Paul said, for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, he does not say nor does he imply that we are eating the Lord's body or drinking his blood. If that was the case, he would have said this. He's writing the Gentiles who had no idea what they were doing. He's giving them the instruction they need and for all the church age afterward. Okay. Instead, just as was seen in the words of Jesus, the bread and the wine are symbolic of his work. Nothing more. Nothing more. Life application, participating in the table of the Lord implies that the words of scripture concerning Christ are true, accurate, and complete. If you cannot accept the words of the Bible, then how can you accept the truth which the Lord's Supper promises? The very hope of heaven itself is tied up in the surety of God's word. Have faith that the Bible is absolute truth, absolute 100% truth. 1127, we got time for it. 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. Okay, little different with this one. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Okay. Therefore is given for a mental review of what Paul has already laid out concerning the Lord's supper. One, the Lord Jesus shows that partaking in the bread is given as a symbolic remembrance of his broken body. Two, he shows that partaking in the cup is given as a symbolic remembrance of his shed blood. Three, in taking the elements, one is making a proclamation of the Lord's death, talking about that substitution, what he did for us, covering our sins, taking away our sin debt that we owe, until he comes again. Thus, therefore, has been given to reflect on this. Understanding this, then, whoever eats of this bread or drinks of this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Some translations incorrectly say whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup. The conjunction is or, not and. During the Lord's Supper, partaking of either element demands the same respectful attitude when received. Also, note that Paul uses the same term bread, not flesh. The continued use of the word bread, even at the point of consumption by an individual, shows that it was, is, and remains bread. That's right, it does not somehow transmute into the actual body of the Lord, even when received. The same is true with the cup. It does not become the Lord's literal blood. Were it so, Paul would have said in this verse as an indication of it. This is of the highest importance to understand and remember because the Christian is not re-enacting a bloody sacrifice. Instead, he is remembering one once for all time. Next, the words unworthy manner are appropriate. The Greek word is an anasias, which is, or actually it's anachias, but whatever, which is an adverb unworthily. Their x in Greek is kind of a ch like we have in the Hebrew. You hear it from time to time. So anachias is better. But anyway, those who don't partake of the Lord's supper because they have done something wrong, which makes them believe they are unworthy, have misunderstood what is being conveyed and should be corrected. All people, even those who seem the epitome of piety and self-control, are inherently unworthy of this honor. Were worthiness a consideration in partaking of the Lord's Supper, there would be no Lord's Supper. Zero. Rather, it is those who flippantly receive the elements, or who treat them in an unholy manner, who are being spoken of. The sacredness of the ritual, not the state of the individual, is what is being spoken of here. To come with arrogance, to mock the ritual, or to conduct oneself in an impious manner are reasons for guilt. And the guilt bears a penalty. The term for guilty is inechas. It essentially means libel to penalty. They have committed a personal crime deserving of punishment. Now, before I give the life application, we are not being imputed sin in Christ Jesus, okay? If we were, we would lose our salvation, but we're not, so we can't lose our salvation. There's another verse for eternal salvation right there, but we can still get penalties. We can have earthly penalties in this body for doing something wrong, and we can also have heavenly loss of rewards, okay? Life application, we better stop at this verse. The Lord's Table is a solemn remembrance of the death of Jesus Christ. It should be conducted with a sense of dignity and in a most pious manner. Likewise, it should be received with gratitude, a holy demeanor, and in a way which honors the greatest deed which ever occurred in all of human existence, the death of Jesus Christ. So with that note, we'll go ahead and say a prayer. will be done. Heavenly Father, thank you so much for Jesus. Thank you that what he did is fully sufficient to bring us to a point of salvation if we call on him and receive what he has done. And it is fully sufficient from that point on to forever keep us saved. There's nothing we need to do to keep on being saved. We can't add to the grace which has been bestowed upon us, but we can bring dishonor on it. And so we would pray that we would not do so, that we would not forget the salvation we've been granted, that we would be faithful stewards of your word. of our time on this earth until we meet you. And Lord, help us to be that way. Help us to be honoring Christians, willing to follow you wherever you go. And for anybody that's fearing their state because of sickness or anything else, if they have anxiety or are struggling with the thought of maybe dying, replace that fear with a sense of joy. that something far better is ahead. And no matter what happens through life or death, we are Christ's and we have that sure hope, which cannot be taken away from us. Give us this peace, which passes all understanding and help us to then display it and pass it on to others who need it as well. We pray this in Jesus name. Amen. Oh, let's back this thing up here. you But don't lie, don't lie