The Lord's table

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by freeatlast, May 20, 2012.

  1. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    First have you ever thought about how much tradition can influence people into believing that a practice they are doing is of God when scripture paints that practice another way then what is being done? In other words if something is always done by a particular church or churches even if the people read in scripture about how it actually must have been intended the scriptures become veiled because of their practice.

    Now to the question. What if the way we are accustomed to taking the table is not what the Lord intended? I ask that because in reading scripture, 1Cor 11 when Paul is dealing with the Cor. Church something caught my eye. When we take the table today we have been conditioned to believe it is some sort of religious ceremony that the people partake and the leadership administers. What if that was not the intent? I say that because of the wording in 1Cor. 11. Here is what it says;

    17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

    If you notice these people did not believe that this was some ceremony where unleavened bread and some drink (unleavened) was passed out as in a little small wafer, or cracker, and a small cup to sip some kind of juice. They were having a literal meal at their gathering and it was being called the Lord’s table. Paul rebukes them not for having a full meal and calling it the Lord’s table, but for taking it improperly while there are divisions, some not getting anything because others would hoard the food, and some would even get drunk. By the way it is sort of hard to get drunk on grape juice. Paul does not rebuke them for using real wine or having a real meal, just for how they are acting when taking it. They were coming together which was not rebuked. They were having a full meal which was not rebuked. They were using real (leavened) bread and wine which was not rebuked. The problem was they were eating and drinking as individual families and not as the family of God, the church. Each one looking out for self and even some getting drunk. In that he says just eat drink at home if that is what you are going to do. Now let me back up a little.

    As you know the Lord’s table was instituted to replace the Passover meal, got that, meal, which the Lord also took in the same night. It seems logical to me, and I believe backed up by scripture, that if the Passover was a meal why would it be unreasonable to believe that the Lord’s table was also a meal instead of what we practice, a cracker, and a sip of juice? Based on this are we taking the table the way it was intended?So why would it not be proper, in fact more then proper, even the correct or the intended way to come together and have a meal that had bread and wine, and the bread could be a normal meal setting, and the wine real wine or not and what ever else that someone might bring and it be the Lord's table if taken in remembrance? The Passover meal was one large ceremony so I am thinking that the Lord’s table was to be one coming together doing away with ceremony, eating and drinking respectfully to celebrate what the Lord has done. A remembrance meal if you will. I am thinking we have made the table into something totally and just religious when it was intended to be a celebration. When we go to be with the Lord and set at the marriage supper of the Lamb and Lord serves us I am believing that is going to be a celebration and a real meal, not just some religious ceremony. So with this I think the same should be for the Lord's table we practice today instead of what we do. What are your thoughts on this?
     
    #1 freeatlast, May 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2012
  2. DiamondLady

    DiamondLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you need to go back and reread this passage. Paul was upbraiding them FOR eating together. In verse 22 he asked them if they didn't have houses to eat in and that's where they should eat.

    The Lord's Supper is a time of remembrance, reflection, restitution, and restoration. In our church it's a very reverent time. We rarely follow the ritualistic style you may find in other churches, however it always follows those four R's. We remember what Christ did on the cross, we reflect upon our own sins and seek forgiveness, if we have a problem with another we go to them and make amends and seek to restore the right relationship.

    I don't think the "method" is what is important in participating in the Lord's Supper. What's important is the condition of the heart and if all is right with God. I'm more concerned with the warning given in verse 28-30 : "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
    For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. "

    I don't believe there's anything wrong with having a remembrance meal PRIOR to partaking of the Lord's Supper but I believe scripture is VERY clear about what constitutes the two portions...the bread and the cup. We've done a drama where the men of the church portrayed the disciples. Sometimes things like this make the Lord's Supper more meaningful and brings you closer to the foot of the cross. I do not believe, however, that what you've interpreted is what scripture is saying here.
     
  3. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't agree. He is not scolding them for having a meal, but for having it like they are just eating a meal at home but calling it the table of the Lord and so he tells them to go home and do that. At the table of the Lord all who are His should be welcomed, but they are not practicing that.
     
  4. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems to me that when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, it was after and separate from the Passover meal.

    It also does not appear that the elements were part of a meal. It was the bread and the wine, that's it. No meat, no vegetables, no dessert.

    The unleavened bread was in one piece, and Jesus broke it and passed out the pieces. The symbolism is obvious. That's exactly what most of us do when we observe the Lord's Supper. We either break off a piece of the unleavened bread, or it is broken for us in advance and we take a small bit.

    I don't draw from the account in I Cor 11 that the meal and the Lord's Supper were the same thing.
     
  5. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,617
    Likes Received:
    44
    Are you talking about adding, say, Aunt Bee's pickles?
    Or Sister Bessie Mae's 'mystery casserole'?
     

Share This Page

Loading...