{"id":18503,"date":"2018-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-12-16T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/ecclesiology-044\/"},"modified":"2018-12-16T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-16T06:00:00","slug":"ecclesiology-044","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/ecclesiology-044\/","title":{"rendered":"Ecclesiology 044"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[91],"series_event":[484],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18503","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-1-corinthians","series_event-ecclesiology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Ecclesiology 044","sermon_date":"20181216","sermon_month":"12","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":6291,"sermon_slides":6292,"sermon_mp3":6298,"sermon_id":"121618135444628","series_or_event":484,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":91,"chapter_and_verse":"11:27","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nEcclesiology 44, 1 Corinthians 11:27\n\n12-16-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Lesson 44\n\nFather, we\u2019re thankful for\u00a0 Your people, thankful for today.\u00a0 We ask for special blessing today on Sunday School class and the church service that follows.\u00a0 We ask that You\u2019ll be glorified in all things. We ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name, and God\u2019s people said\u2026\u00a0 Amen!\n\nIf you all can locate John 13, the Gospel of John, chapter 13 and verse 5. We are teaching on, as you know, Ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church.\u00a0 And we\u2019re on Roman numeral XI, the subject is ordinances, so all of those ten prior subjects we completed, having finished Officers last week we\u2019re now on the subject of ordinances.\n\nSo basically what is a church ordinance?\u00a0 A church ordinance would be something that the Lord wants practiced regularly in His church.\u00a0 And there are three potential ordinances, one of them I\u2019ve got a question mark by it [Foot washing?] because I\u2019m not really sure that\u2019s an ordinance but it would be number one, Foot washing, number two, Communion, and number three, Baptism.\u00a0 So we\u2019re going to try to cover Foot washing and Communion today as time permits and then maybe, if the Lord tarries and we\u2019re here next week we\u2019ll talk about Baptism.\n\nBut you\u2019ll notice that I\u2019ve got foot washing with a question mark by it.\u00a0 The denomination that my wife was raised, reared in, was called the Grace Brethren Denomination, and it was one of those denominations that I have an awful lot of respect for.\u00a0 Some really good Bible teachers came out of that movement.\u00a0 Names would include John Whitcomb, Alva J. McClain, David Hocking, a number of names you might think of.\u00a0 Of course the best thing that came out of that denomination was my wife, they did a good job with her.\u00a0 And these folks would basically practice foot washing services where you literally take off your shoes and sox and someone is coming along and physically washing your feet. \u00a0And they were basically treating foot washing as if it\u2019s something that is normative in the church.\u00a0 They took it as consistently, consistently foot washing as they did communion.\n\nNow let me just kind of say this; if the church wants to do that I don\u2019t see really in the Bible that says they can\u2019t; there\u2019s no \u201cthus saith the Lord\u201d never have a foot washing service.\u00a0 So I\u2019m not really against the church if they want to do that.\u00a0 The question is does that type of church service, does that rise to the level or an ordinance that we would put on equal par with communion and baptism?\u00a0 And I\u2019m of the persuasion that the answer to that is no.\n\nBut first of all, where do they get this idea of foot washing services.\u00a0 If you go over to John 13:5-7, it\u2019s something\u00a0 that our Lord physically did with the disciples in the Upper Room.\u00a0 It says, \u201cThen He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples\u2019 feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. [6] So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, \u201cLord, do You wash my feet?\u201d [7] Jesus answered and said to him, \u201cWhat I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.\u201d\u00a0 Go down to verses 12-15, \u201cSo when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table<\/em> again, He said to them, \u201cDo you know what I have done to you? [13] \u201cYou call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so<\/em> I am. [14] \u201cIf I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another\u2019s feet. [15]\u201cFor I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.\u201d\n\nSo it\u2019s on that basis that a lot\u2026 not a lot but some Christian denominations, like the Grace Brethren denomination, which I have great respect for, engage in a ritual called foot washing.\u00a0 I have to admit that when I first attended one of these services it took a little getting used to but it\u2019s a very humbling thing when somebody actually washes your feet.\n\nBut here\u2019s the question: is that an ordinance?\u00a0 Is that something mandatory for all churches to follow on equal par with communion and baptism?\u00a0 I\u2019m going to basically say no, I don\u2019t think it is, even though if a church wants to do that I don\u2019t necessarily have a big problem with it.\u00a0 And I say that basically for three reasons.\u00a0 Number one, in the epistles\u2026now what are the epistles?\u00a0 The epistles are not the wives of the apostles; the epistles are the letters, we have thirteen letters of Paul and then we have eight general letters.\n\nAnd beyond that we\u2019ve got seven letters in the Book of Revelation, Revelation 2 and 3, that Jesus wrote to the seven churches.\u00a0 And it\u2019s those sections of the Scripture that if you want to say something is binding on the church you really have to find it there.\u00a0 You can\u2019t just find it in the gospels and you can\u2019t just find it in Acts because Acts and the gospels are transitionary time periods. But you also have to find it in the epistles.\n\nSo you take, for example, communion, I can find that in the gospels; I can find that in the Book of Acts, I can find that in the epistles.\u00a0 You take for example the subject of baptism, I can find that in the gospels, I can find that in the Book of Acts, I can find that in the epistles.\u00a0 So that\u2019s why I don\u2019t have a question mark next to communion and baptism as a binding mandatory church ordinance.\n\nThe problem is foot washing, where do you find it?\u00a0 You find it in John 13 as something Jesus Himself did but then again Jesus did a lot of things that we don\u2019t do, right. I don\u2019t know how many of us have walked on water lately.\u00a0 I find it in Christ and His practice there in John 13, He did it one time but I don\u2019t see any foot washing services ever from that point on.\u00a0 I don\u2019t find it in Acts, and I don\u2019t find it in the epistles.\u00a0 So therefore foot washing I don\u2019t really think rises to the same level as a mandatory binding ordinance on the church.\n\nBeyond that, when\u00a0 you look at what Christ said here in John 13:15 it\u2019s very interesting.\u00a0 Jesus says, \u201cFor I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 So what\u2019s the example?\u00a0 Is the example physical foot washing?\u00a0 No, I think the example is the new commandment that He gives later on in the chapter, John 13:34-35, \u201cA new commandment I give to you, that you\u201d what? \u201clove one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another, [35] \u2018By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s the example that Jesus was setting here.\u00a0 He wasn\u2019t setting up a ritual; what He was saying is this wicked world will know you are My disciples when they tangibly see My disciples loving each other.\u00a0 And Jesus role modeled that right there in the Upper Room in the form of a foot washing.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think He was creating a church ordinance when He did that; I think He was just exemplifying what a life of love can look like at a practical level.\n\nAnd then if you jump over to verses 6 and 7 of John 13 it says this: \u201cSo He came to Simon Peter.\u00a0 He\u201d that\u2019s Simon Peter, \u201csaid to Him, \u2018Lord, do You wash my feet?\u2019\u00a0 [7] Jesus answered and said to him, \u2018What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.\u2019\u201d\n\nNow what is it that Simon Peter didn\u2019t understand?\u00a0 Did he not understand the physical act of washing feet?\u00a0 I think it was very easy for him to grasp that.\u00a0 What he didn\u2019t grasp and what would take really the ministry of the Holy Spirit coming on the birthday of the church to fully explain to Peter is the walk of sacrifice, the walk of service, the walk of love.\u00a0 That\u2019s what Peter didn\u2019t grasp.\u00a0 If it was just a matter of grasping a physical service, church service, church ordinance, he would have picked up on it just like that.\n\nSo you sort of put all the clues together and I don\u2019t really think foot washing is something that is mandatory\u00a0 or binding on the church today.\u00a0 It was something that our Lord did one time in the Upper Room to exemplify in that context the walk of love and the walk of service that we are to have for each other.\n\nSo the first ordinance would be foot washing, which I really don\u2019t think is an ordinance.\u00a0 That\u2019s why I put a question mark next to it although some churches do practice it as an ordinance.\u00a0 The two ordinances that I think we have in the Scripture that the Lord wants regularly practiced in His church are number one, communion, and number two, water baptism.\n\nSo let\u2019s take a look at communion, shall we?\u00a0 Three issues: number on, frequency, how frequent are we supposed to practice communion?\u00a0 Number two, what in the world did Paul mean when he says before taking communion a man ought to examine himself?\u00a0 If he doesn\u2019t examine himself he\u2019ll be judged as with the world.\u00a0 And then number three, what is communion supposed to represent?\u00a0 And by communion I\u2019m speaking here of the Lord\u2019s Table.\n\nSo number one, how frequently are we to practice communion in the local church?\u00a0 I was raised in the Episcopalian denomination where we had the Lord\u2019s Table every single Sunday.\u00a0 And then my wife and I were members for a while at a Plymouth Brethren church in Dallas (when I was working on my Master\u2019s Degree in Dallas, and they had communion every single Sunday.\u00a0 Now we here at Sugar Land Bible Church in error because we don\u2019t do it every single Sunday, we do it once a month?\u00a0 And a lot of churches don\u2019t even do it once a month, they do it once a quarter and so are they in error as well?\n\nI think what the New Testament lays down for us in terms of a practice is not so much a number but rather a principle.\u00a0 The principle is consistency, the principle is frequency.\u00a0 So notice if you will Acts 2:42, I just want to show you how this begins to be unfolded in the life of the church.\n\nActs 2:42, this is when the church first started and it says, \u201cThey were continually devoting them\u00adselves to\u201d what? \u201cto the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread\u201d that\u2019s communion, \u201cand to prayer.\u201d\u00a0 So here it doesn\u2019t lay down a number, weekly, monthly, quarterly, it just gives you a principle that they were regularly practicing it.\u00a0 But then the early church met in private houses, they had a corporate meeting in the temple, corporate meetings, and then they met house to house.\u00a0 And if you go down to verse 46 it says, \u201cDay by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread\u201d that\u2019s their magic term there, \u201cfrom house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,\u201d and so if breaking bread there is communion here\u2019s it talking about how they were doing it every single day.\u00a0 So one verse says consistently, another verse says it seems like they were doing it every single day.\n\nNow go over to Acts 20 for just a moment, Acts 20 and take a look at verse 7 as the church is beginning to continue to develop and grow, and what does it say there?\u00a0 Now it says on what? \u201cOn the first day of the week,\u201d now it\u2019s a weekly meeting, \u201cwhen we were gathered together to break bread,\u201d I would take that as communion, \u201cPaul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.\u201d\u00a0 Now you guys should be grateful I\u2019m not\u00a0 your pastor because Paul just kept right on preaching right on till midnight\u2026 wow, what a long sermon that was.\n\nBut you\u2019ll notice that this was happening daily, this was a daily meeting and it talks about them breaking bread.\u00a0 So one verse says day by day, another verse says weekly, another verse says regularly, so what\u2019s the answer. \u00a0People like to have a number, are we supposed to do this daily, are we supposed to do this weekly, are we supposed to do this quarterly.\u00a0\u00a0 And the answer to that is the church is not the nation of Israel.\u00a0 The nation of Israel was a nation that was over a narrow strip of real estate governing one people group.\u00a0 And so that\u2019s why for Israel in the Mosaic Law you have specific numbers.\n\nThere was a specific amount of money you had to give for example.\u00a0 It was not optional, it was like the U.S. tax code, because Israel was a nation over one group of people in one narrow strip of geography.\u00a0 And that\u2019s not the nature of the church, as we\u2019ve talked about.\u00a0 That\u2019s why early on in our series we talked about how Israel and the church are different and we went through the twenty-four major differences between Israel and the church.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why when you come to the church you\u2019re not going to find the numbers that you want because something may work well in one part of the world but not another part of the world. \u00a0Something may work well in the area of numbers in one time era of history but not another time of history because God has designed the church to be transnational in nature, and global in nature.\n\nSo what you discover when you get into questions like this is you don\u2019t have specific numbers related to\u00a0 (A) how many elders should you have, remember we talked about that.\u00a0 Well, there is no number given but there\u2019s a principle, the principle is the principle of plurality.\u00a0 Another question people ask is well how much money should I be giving out of my personal finances to the church and they want a number?\u00a0 Is it 10%, is it more than 10%, is it less than\u00a0 10%.\u00a0 And the reality of the situation is you don\u2019t find a specific number in the New Testament. What you do find are principles though. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 lays out principles, give secretly, give faithfully, give consistently, give sacrificially.\u00a0 Now if we were the nation of Israel you\u2019d have a specific number, not only in terms of leaders and tribes but also the amount of money you\u2019re supposed to give, twenty-three and a third percent; three tithes, two annually, one every three years you gave twenty-three and a third percent of your money.\n\nSo we kind of look at that and we go to the New Testament and we say well where\u2019s our number?\u00a0 Well we don\u2019t have a number because of the transnational emphasis that God has given to the church.\u00a0 What you are given are principles.\u00a0 See?\u00a0 So when you look at this subject of frequency in terms of communion is it supposed to be daily, is it supposed to be weekly, is it supposed to be quarterly, you\u2019re not going to have a number.\u00a0\u00a0 What\u00a0 you\u2019re going to have is a principle and the principle is practice this regularly, practice this consistently.\u00a0 And who determines then want a given church should follow in terms of a number?\u00a0 That\u2019s the call of the leadership of the church which in this case would be the elders.\n\nSo God in the age of the church has given to the church principles to follow and how our specific church follows those principles weekly, quarterly, whatever, daily, whatever, is left up to the leadership to make that determination.\u00a0 So what you have for the age of the church is not numbers the way we want them; if we were living under the Mosaic Law you\u2019d have iron clad numbers but you have principles, principles for the plurality of elders, principles for giving financially, principles for the practice of communion.\u00a0 And so the principle for us in the church age is not a number but it\u2019s supposed to be practiced consistently. \u00a0\u00a0And what that looks like at Sugar Land Bible Church and what that looks like for the church down the street or any church in Houston, or any church in the world for that matter is up to the leadership of that church to make that determination.\n\nSo the first thing to understand about communion is you\u2019re supposed to practice this consistently.\u00a0 Here at Sugar Land Bible Church we do it once a month but we don\u2019t say \u201cthus saith the Lord you have to do it once a month,\u201d and if you don\u2019t do it once a month then you\u2019re somehow outside the will of God.\u00a0 What we look for in our church and any church is are they regularly practicing this.\n\nThe second big issue that comes up related to the issue of communion is the issue of self-examination.\u00a0 And I want to spend just a couple of minutes on this because it\u2019s one of those places in the Bible where I think there\u2019s massive misunderstanding and rarely have I even heard of a preacher or teacher representing this accurately.\n\nSo go over if you could to 1 Corinthians 11, verses 27-31, you\u2019ll no doubt remember these verses since we read them pretty consistently when we practice communion here once a month. \u00a0Take a look at 1 Corinthians 11:27-31.\u00a0 I\u2019ll start at verse 23, Paul says, \u201cFor I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; [24] and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, \u201cThis is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.\u201d [25] In the same way He took<\/em> the cup also after supper, saying, \u201cThis cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it,<\/em> in remembrance of Me.\u201d [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord\u2019s death until He comes.\u201d\n\nAnd then look at verse 27, \u201cTherefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner,\u201d now I\u2019m reading from the NASB and it says \u201cunworthy manner,\u201d so if you see that in your Bible I think you should underline that, \u201cin an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. [28] But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment\u201d now the King James Bible, if I\u2019m not mistaken, I don\u2019t have the King James up here but in some versions it\u2019ll say damnation.\u00a0 It says, \u201cFor he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment\u201d or damnation, \u201cto himself if he does not judge the body rightly.\u201d\u00a0 Look at this, verse 30, \u201cFor this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number have fallen asleep. [31] But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.\u201d\n\nSo the way these verses are typically handled is this: when you come to the Lord\u2019s Table\u00a0 you\u2019d better make sure all of your sins are confessed.\u00a0 Every single sin you\u2019ve ever committed in your life (as if you could remember all of them, mine are too many to remember them I\u2019m ashamed to say).\u00a0 So if you\u2019re coming to the Lord\u2019s Table with unconfessed sin in your life then you\u2019d better watch out because the Lord is going to send a lightning bolt and strike\u00a0 you dead, just like He did Ananias and Sapphira.\u00a0 And my goodness, that\u2019s why all these people were sick and weak in Corinth, because God moved in with church discipline \u201cand a number have fallen asleep\u201d which is a euphemism for death.\n\nSo the way this is typically handled is look,\u00a0 you\u2019d better make sure that your sins are confessed before you partake of the Lord\u2019s Table.\u00a0 And if that\u2019s not happening the Lord can move in and exercise upon\u00a0 you maximum divine discipline.\u00a0 So a lot of Christians read a verse like this and they\u2019re absolutely terrified to take communion.\u00a0 I mean, what\u00a0 happens if I confess 99% of my sins but can\u2019t remember one\u2026 I guess I\u2019m in a lot of trouble, etc. So there\u2019s always this fear that comes over people basically because of a common misunderstanding and mishandling of the passage.\u00a0 And they think verse 27 says \u201cworthy,\u201d not \u201cworthily\u201d but \u201cworthy.\u201d\u00a0 \u201c\u2026therefore who ever eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner,\u201d they don\u2019t think it says unworthily but they think it means if they\u2019re unworthy, meaning they haven\u2019t confessed all their sins, they\u2019re going to be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.\u201d\u00a0 [1 Corinthians 11:27, \u201cWherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this<\/em> cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.\u201d]\n\nAnd so what God designed as a celebration actually becomes a tool that I think Satan uses in the minds of many Christians to put them into a state of fear unnecessarily and a state of bondage.\u00a0 And what\u2019s the correct understanding of this?\u00a0 The word in verse 27 is not \u201cunworthy,\u201d it\u2019s very important to understand this, it\u2019s \u201cunworthily,\u201d and there\u2019s a big difference between those words.\u00a0 There\u2019s a difference between\u00a0 unworthy and unworthily.\u00a0 Unworthy is some kind of personal thing; unworthily is the manner in which communion was being practiced.\n\nSo in the Greek language the word translated \u201cunworthily\u201d is an adverb, not an adjective.\u00a0 What is an adjective?\u00a0 An adjective modifies a noun, like the communion taker.\u00a0 This is not an adjective here; this is an adverb.\u00a0 Do you guys remember your basic school house rock or basic parts of speech?\u00a0 And adverb modifies a verb; an adverb describes a verb.\u00a0 It gives a descriptive image, if you will, to a verb.\u00a0 Joe ran to the store: subject\u2014Joe, object\u2014store, verb\u2014ran, now if I want to describe how Joe ran I would throw an adverb in there and I would say Joe ran quickly to the store.\u00a0 Quickly is modifying the verb, how Joe ran.\u00a0 It\u2019s giving expression to that meaning.\u00a0 In the English language adverbs typically end in \u201cly.\u201d\u00a0 And what I\u2019m trying to communicate here is that word should not be translated as \u201cunworthy,\u201d it should be translated as \u201cunworthily\u201d because its describing how the Corinthians were taking the Lord\u2019s supper.\n\nSo what were they doing?\u00a0 If you just look at the context you see what\u2019s happening here.\u00a0 If you look at verse 21 it says, \u201cFor I received from the LORD that which I also delivered to you that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed\u2026\u201d\u00a0 I\u2019m sorry, I didn\u2019t want that verse, I wanted verse 21.\u00a0 Verse 21, \u201cfor in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is\u201d what? \u201cdrunk.\u201d\n\nWhat God is upset with is the manner in which they were partaking of the Lord\u2019s Table.\u00a0 People were actually coming to the Lord\u2019s Table in an inebriated condition.\u00a0 And they were taking the Lord\u2019s Table and turning it into just a common meal.\u00a0 And you see that there in verses 21 and 22.\u00a0 It says, \u201cfor in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.\u00a0 And look at what he says here, [22]\u00a0 \u201cWhat! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?\n\nIn other words,\u00a0 you\u2019re taking something that\u2019s scared and you\u2019re turning it into something that\u2019s profane, you\u2019re turning it into a common meal and Paul says why don\u2019t you do that at home.\u00a0 I mean, if you want to have a common meal go do that at home, you don\u2019t do that at the Lord\u2019s Table, which the Lord set up in the Upper Room which is something that\u2019s supposed to be sacred.\n\nVerse 22, \u201cWhat, do you not have houses in which to eat or drink?\u00a0 \u00a0Or 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 will not praise you.\u201d\u00a0 What does he mean when he says one person has nothing?\u00a0 They had turned communion into what I would call a [can't understand word] operation.\u00a0 In other words if you had resources and you had money and\u00a0 you could bring\u00a0 your own communion materials I suppose then you could participate.\u00a0 But what if you were impoverished?\u00a0 What if\u00a0 you were a believer in Jesus Christ but\u00a0 you happened to be in poverty?\u00a0 Then you were excluded.\u00a0 And you see, this is what the Apostle Paul is upset about; he\u2019s\u00a0 upset about unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ.\n\nIf\u00a0 you go to verse 18 he tells you this very clearly.\u00a0 He says, \u201cFor, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.\u201d\u00a0 Why would he say there\u2019s division amongst them?\u00a0 Because if you had resources you could partake of the Lord\u2019s Table; if you were a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and didn\u2019t have resources then you could not partake.\u00a0 And so they were creating an unnecessary barrier in Christ\u2019s body.\n\nBeyond that they were turning it into a pay to play operation.\u00a0 Beyond that you had some people showing up in an inebriated condition.\u00a0 Beyond that they had taken something that was sacred and they had turned it into something profane or something vulgar, that\u2019s what vulgar means, common.\u00a0 You know, we have the Latin Vulgate created by Jerome in the 4th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 Why do we call it the Latin Vulgate?\u00a0 Because he was trying to put the Bible into the language of the common person.\u00a0 In this case it was Latin for centuries so they called it the Vulgate, so they were basically taking communion and turning it into something very common, very vulgar, turning it into a common meal, showing up in a drunken condition.\u00a0 And beyond that they were creating unnecessary barriers in the body of Christ.\n\nAnd you see, you understand this context then you start understanding why Paul uses an adverb there in verse 27.\u00a0 The expression he uses is not \u201cunworthy\u201d but \u201cunworthily.\u201d\u00a0 See the difference?\u00a0 In other words, while they were taking communion they were having a disrespectful attitude of the Lord\u2019s Table, not honoring what it represented.\n\nSo that\u2019s what the Lord is upset about and you can see this very quickly when you understand it\u2019s an adverb and\u00a0 you put the whole thing back into its original context, which is what I\u2019m trying to do here.\u00a0 The three rules of real estate are location, location, location.\u00a0 The three rules of Bible study are context, context, context.\u00a0 So if you\u2019re at the Lord\u2019s Table and you\u2019re afraid God is going to strike you dead because you haven\u2019t confessed all of your sins from ten years ago you\u2019ve missed the point of the passage.\u00a0 And I would say that 99% of the body of Christ, maybe even higher, that\u2019s what they think the passage means.\n\nThe danger here is coming to the Lord\u2019s Table and treating it disrespectfully as you\u2019re partaking of it.\u00a0 That\u2019s the danger.\u00a0 It\u2019s not oh my goodness, did I confess all my sins form ten, fifteen, twenty years ago.\u00a0 See the difference?\u00a0 And as long as you\u2019re coming to the Lord\u2019s Table with a respectful attitude you\u2019re in no danger of being struck dead by the Lord, being disciplined to the point of death, getting weak or sick.\u00a0 Now on the other hand, if you\u2019re coming to the Lord\u2019s Table basically acting like it\u2019s a common meal and what\u2019s the big deal, then you do run in danger of running into the Lord\u2019s discipline here.\n\nSo I don\u2019t know how many people have heard the interpretation that I just gave.\u00a0 I would say probably in a room like this almost no one has ever heard that.\u00a0 Has anybody heard what I just said before?\u00a0 We\u2019ve got a small handful of people; your majority of people out there think it doesn\u2019t say unworthily, that it says unworthy.\u00a0 And if you don\u2019t have a proper understanding of that then you\u2019re put into unnecessary fear.\u00a0 So I just share that with you because I don\u2019t want the Christian to live in unnecessary fear.\u00a0 So that\u2019s the whole concept of self-examination.\u00a0 I\u2019m examining myself to make sure that when I come to the Lord\u2019s Table is my attitude towards the Lord\u2019s Table respectful?\u00a0 That\u2019s the issue.\n\nSo communion is to be practiced frequently; we\u2019ve gone over the concept of self-examination, that it means \u201cunworthily\u201d and not \u201cunworthy.\u201d\u00a0 And let me go to a third issue and this has to do with meaning.\u00a0 When we partake of the Lord\u2019s Table what exactly does it signify?\u00a0 And what exactly does it mean?\u00a0 And what you will find within Christendom are three views on this.\u00a0 We think the first two views are wrong and the third one is right.\n\nBut the three views are (A) transubstantiation, (B) consubstantiation, and (C) the memorial view.\u00a0 So let\u2019s go through these so you understand the differences because if you go to a Roman Catholic Church you\u2019re going to get a different definition of what communion means.\u00a0 If you\u2019re going to go to a Lutheran Church you\u2019re going to get a different definition than we present here concerning what communion means.\u00a0 So let\u2019s walk through these as time permits.\n\nNumber one, transubstantiation.\u00a0 Most people know it, either they come out of a Roman Catholic background or they have Roman Catholic friends, etc.\u00a0 Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic view.\u00a0 The Roman Catholic view is when\u00a0 you partake of what they call the Eucharist, which we would call the Lord\u2019s Table, those elements represent Jesus actual body and blood.\u00a0 So the elements in transubstantiation in Roman Catholicism represent the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.\n\nNow when you think about that for a minute, isn\u2019t that cannibalism?\u00a0 I guess I could find some verses where God, I guess, would be against cannibalism.\u00a0 I mean, I hope I could find those kind of verses.\u00a0 But you see, what is wrong with that?\u00a0 What\u2019s the big deal with that?\u00a0 Well it\u2019s wrong because the Bible is very clear that Christ was sacrificed how many times, ONE TIME!\u00a0 I mean, it\u2019s very clear.\u00a0\u00a0 Let me give you a verse or two to demonstrate this.\n\nLook over at Hebrews 10:10, it says, \u201cBy this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, the word \u201conce for all\u201d is the word hapax<\/em> in Greek, hapax <\/em>means one time and in fact we have something in the Bible called a hapax legomena<\/em>.\u00a0 Hapax<\/em> legomena, legomena<\/em> means a word, hapax legomena<\/em> means a word that\u2019s only used on time.\u00a0 So when you have examples in the Bible of a word that\u2019s used a single time and that\u2019s it we call it a hapax legomena, from this word hapax, and the word translated \u201conce for all\u201d is the word hapax,<\/em> meaning one time in Greek.\n\nSo Jesus came into this world to die a single time.\u00a0 That contradicts, does it not, transubstantiation.\u00a0 If you believe in transubstantiation what you believe is Jesus is being recrucified every single mass.\u00a0 See the problem with that?\n\nTake a look if you could at verse 14, you get the same concept.\u00a0 Hebrews 10:14, \u201cFor by\u201d what? how many offerings? \u201cone offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.\u201d\u00a0 The Bible is very clear Jesus died once.\u00a0 Transubstantiation would contradict that.\u00a0 How would it contradict it?\u00a0 Because it teaches that Jesus is being recrucified every single mass because those are His actual body and blood that you are partaking of.\n\nThe second problem with transubstantiation is it doesn\u2019t understand Christ\u2019s metaphorical language.\u00a0 Now here at Sugar Land Bible Church we\u2019re all about taking the Bible literally whenever you can, but the fact of the matter is the Bible uses figures of speech.\u00a0 When the Bible\u00a0 uses figures of speech it\u2019s sort of self-evident that those are figures of speech.\u00a0 So transubstantiation takes literally what should be understood as a figure of speech.\u00a0 Another way of saying it is transubstantiation take denotatively what should be understood connotatively.\n\nLet me show you how they do this.\u00a0 Take a look at Luke 22:19, where Jesus is outlining the Lord\u2019s Supper for His future church, and it says in verse 19, \u201cAnd when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, \"This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.\u201d\u00a0 So transubstantiation advocates argue well, there it is right there in the Bible. The communion elements are Christ\u2019s body because Jesus just said that, didn\u2019t He.\u00a0 So when you partake of the Lord\u2019s Table\u00a0 you\u2019re actually partaking of the physical body and the physical blood of Jesus Christ thereby recrucifying Christ every single Mass.\n\nThe problem is when Jesus communicated that who was standing right next to Him?\u00a0 Peter was standing right next to Him.\u00a0 Now Pete was no doubt looking at Jesus.\u00a0 Would Peter have ever understood this as these elements represent Christ\u2019s body?\u00a0 No, he wouldn\u2019t have understood it that way because He was right there in front of him, he could see Christ\u2019s body; he knows what Christ\u2019s body is.\u00a0 So he would have understood this language in not a literal sense but a metaphorical sense because he\u2019s looking there at Christ\u2019s physical body as the two of them are having a conversation.\n\nSo what do we do with this language in verse 19, \u201cAnd when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, \u2018This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 We would interpret that metaphorically; the elements represent His body.\u00a0 Transubstantiation says no, no, the elements are His body.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Do you see the difference?\u00a0 And did Jesus used metaphorical language about Himself in the Bible?\u00a0\u00a0 Many times.\u00a0 Doesn\u2019t He say \u201cI am the bread of life\u201d? [John 6:48] \u00a0When He says that do you see Him as a loaf of bread, Wonder Bread written on the side?\u00a0 No, we would understand that metaphorically.\n\nJesus says, \u201cI am the Light of the world.\u201d\u00a0 Is He a flashlight that clicks on?\u00a0 No, He\u2019s talking about spiritual light.\u00a0 [John 8:12, \u201cThen Jesus again spoke to them, saying, \u2018I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.\u201d\u00a0 John 9:5, \u201cWhile I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.\u201d]\n\nHe calls Himself a gate and a door, does mean we need to apply some grease to Him when it squeaks.\u00a0 [John 10:7, \u201cSo Jesus said to them again, \u2018Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 John 10:9, \u201cI am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.\u201d]\u00a0 No, He\u2019s obviously speaking metaphorically.\n\nHe speaks of Himself metaphorically as the good shepherd, the resurrection and the life, the way the truth and the life.\u00a0 [John 10:11, \u201cI am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.\u00a0 John 10:14, I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0John 11:25, \u201cJesus said to her, \u2018I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.\u2019\u201d John 14:6, \u201cJesus said to him, \u2018I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.\u2019\u201d]\n\nHow about when He describes Himself as the vine?\u00a0 I mean, is He literally a vine coming out of a branch? \u00a0[John 15:5, \u201cI am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.\u201d] \u00a0No, He\u2019s obviously using the concept of a physical vine to teach a spiritual concept.\n\nAnd that\u2019s how you understand Christ\u2019s statement there in Luke 22:19.\u00a0 \u201cAnd when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, \u2018This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.\u2019\u201d You don\u2019t understand the elements bread and wine as His physical body; you understand those as metaphors.\u00a0 And I think that would have been obvious to anybody standing there and listening to Him, including the Apostle Peter.\n\nBeyond all of this do advocates of transubstantiation have any biblical support?\u00a0 They don\u2019t have any biblical support there in Luke 22:19 but let me tell you the main passage they\u2019ll take you to.\u00a0 Go over to John 6, verses 53-58. And you need to know the name Scott Hahn, he was a Protestant evangelical, just like we are, but then he had this mass conversion to Roman Catholicism.\u00a0 And if\u00a0 you watch the Roman Catholic Church Network, EWTN, Hahn is all over that network all of the time.\u00a0 And his mission in life, and he\u2019s written a number of books, if you go to Barnes and Noble you see all his books, Hahn, H-a-h-n.\u00a0 His mission in life is to get evangelical Christians like ourselves to convert to Roman Catholicism. \u00a0He says I did it, and now everybody else is supposed to do it.\u00a0 The title of one of his books I think is Rome Sweet Home<\/em>.\u00a0 And it\u2019s this idea that the Protestant Reformation really was a mistake and we all need to come back and be Catholics.\u00a0 The Roman Catholic Church looks at us as separated brethren; in other words, we haven\u2019t really figured it out\u00a0 yet that our real home is Rome and Roman Catholicism and it\u2019s just going to take some teaching to win us back.\u00a0 So there is a massive, massive effort on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope\u2019s evangelism plan to target evangelicals and get them into more of a Roman Catholic mindset.\u00a0 They say Peter was the first Pope which is false.\u00a0 They say the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, the mother church and Martin Luther was sort of a heretic and a trouble maker and we all need to go back to Rome.\n\nSo the name Hahn, you need to know that because he\u2019s going to try to proselytize\u00a0 you on this issue.\u00a0 And he\u2019s very effective, he knows Greek, he knows Hebrew, he knows church history, and I would be afraid to discover the countless people that he has swayed in his Rome Sweet Home mindset.\u00a0 And I was watching him once on EWTN, the Roman Catholic Network, and by the way, you guys know I\u2019m not converting to Roman Catholicism any day soon, I came out of the kissing cousin of Roman Catholicism, which is Episcopalian.\u00a0 I mean, all that stuff is in my rear view mirror.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to go back to that if my life depended on it.\u00a0 And you say well why do watch EWTN?\u00a0 Opposition research!\u00a0 Right, the same way a conservative will watch CNN or MSNBC to see what the dark side is talking about.\n\nSo I was watching Mr. Hahn, Scott Hahn I think is his name, and he was going on and on about Rome Sweet Home and then he starts talking about transubstantiation, and then he starts quoting this verse right here, John 6:53-58.\u00a0 And if you don\u2019t know how to handle this you\u2019ll think it promotes transubstantiation.\u00a0 It says, \u201cSo Jesus said to them, \u201cTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.\u201d\u00a0 Well, doesn\u2019t that kind of sound like we\u2019re supposed to eat the physical body, drink the physical blood of Jesus Christ?\u00a0 Verse 54, \u201cHe who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day, for My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. [56] He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. [58] \u201cThis is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.\u201d\n\nNow you look at that and this is how Mr. Hahn was using the verse on EWTN; there it is, right there in the Bible, transubstantiation.\u00a0 [can't understand word] the words at the Mass as you partake of the elements you\u2019re actually eating the physical body and drinking the physical blood of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 So how in the world would your typical evangelical Christian handle this verse?\u00a0 I\u2019m sad to say most evangelical Christians would just buy his interpretation hook, line and sinker because the guy looks very nice, he has a very nice family, he presents himself well on TV, and your average evangelical church today is more worried about getting people in the door numerically than they are about equipping the saints.\u00a0 They don\u2019t have a pastor-teacher whose going to orient them correctly so your average evangelical Christian is sort of caught without their footing on this and they say well maybe this Rome Sweet Home thing has something to it.\n\nWhat I\u2019m going to do, just very briefly, is show you the proper response to this passage and I\u2019m going to show you the proper response to this passage by looking at the structure of John\u2019s Gospel.\u00a0 And you say oh no, not again, you spent three years teaching this when\u00a0 you first got here.\u00a0 But you remember the basic structure of John\u2019s Gospel; there\u2019s a heavenly genealogy, John 1:1-18; there\u2019s the public ministry of Christ, end of chapter 1 through the end of chapter 11.\u00a0 Then there\u2019s His triumphal entry, chapter 12, it\u2019s very clear that the nation of Israel is going to reject Jesus and so that shifts Him into the Upper Room Discourse, John 13-17 and that\u2019s where Jesus starts to outline the new age that\u2019s coming, the age of the church because it\u2019s very obvious that we\u2019re not going to have the kingdom because the King has been rejected by the nation.\u00a0 And then what follows, chapters 18-21 are the passion narratives dealing with the crucifixion of Christ and His resurrection.\n\nSo Scott Hahn is quoting this verse and I guarantee you, I didn\u2019t see it, he\u2019s not giving this outline and he\u2019s not telling people that what he just quoted from comes from part 2 of the book, before Israel rejected their King and before we have any insight or knowledge of the coming church.\u00a0 Now the concept of communion is for the church and so he\u2019s quoting a part of John\u2019s Gospel that has absolutely nothing to do with the church.\u00a0 The church is not even on the horizon, it\u2019s not even known yet, it\u2019s an unknown mystery or commodity when Jesus is speaking in John 6.\n\nNow if Jesus had made these comments in the Upper Room Discourse that\u2019d be different; you may have an argument because there the church and its coming work is being outlined, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 But these remarks are not found in the Upper Room Discourse, they\u2019re found in Christ\u2019s public ministry\u2014in fact, very early on in Christ\u2019s public ministry, before the church is even on the horizon.\u00a0 So I kept waiting with bated breath watching EWTN for Scott Hahn to explain this.\u00a0 I know he knows it because he graduated from some of our more elite Protestant Bible colleges.\u00a0 But he doesn\u2019t tell people what I\u2019m telling you here.\u00a0 He uses the Bible in a very selective way to achieve his agenda.\u00a0 What\u2019s his agenda?\u00a0 Rome sweet home!\u00a0 And a lot of people have documented that Scott Hahn gets his money from the Roman Catholic Church itself.\u00a0 So he\u2019s, to a large extent, on their payroll and he\u2019s their guy that goes into Protestant churches to evangelize us t come back to Rome.\u00a0 So he would use this verse and he\u2019s not explaining at all to the audience on EWTN that the verse has nothing to do with communion.\u00a0 It has to do with the public ministry of Jesus.\n\nAnd by the way, speaking of the public ministry of Jesus what was Jesus even talking about here in verses 53-58 when He\u2019s talking about the necessity of eating His body and drinking His blood.\u00a0 He\u2019s using that as a metaphor for what?\u00a0 Faith!\u00a0 In other words, the transubstantiation advocate is taking literally (once again) what the Lord originally set up to be understood figuratively.\u00a0 You say well how do you know that?\u00a0 How do you know He\u2019s speaking figuratively here?\u00a0 There are three rules of Bible study, context, context, context.\u00a0 Back up in the chapter to verse 35 and verse 36.\u00a0 If you understand verses 35 and 36\u00a0 you\u2019ll see exactly what Jesus is talking about in verses 53-58.\n\nWhat does He say there in verses 35-36?\u00a0 By the way, do you guys all agree with me that verses 35 and 36 come before verses 53-58?\u00a0 I mean what is Hahn doing who knows better, in my opinion?\u00a0 He\u2019s piecemealing the Bible using improper Bible study methodology to deceive people because he has an agenda.\u00a0 Go back to verse 35, what does Jesus say?\u00a0 \u201cI am the bread of life, he who comes to Me will not hunger, he who believes in Me will never thirst,\u201d well then how exactly do I come to Jesus so I don\u2019t hunger and thirst?\u00a0 Verse 36, \u201cBut I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not\u201d what\u2019s it say again in verse 36, \u201cbelieve.\u201d\u00a0 His whole point is to believe.\u00a0\u00a0 His whole point is to trust Him because you trust Him what does He do?\u00a0 He comes into your life, He satisfies the deepest yearnings of your life spiritually, so He analogizes himself to the \u201cbread of life\u201d and He comes into a person\u2019s life to quench spiritual thirst and to quench spiritual hunger.\u00a0 That\u2019s Christ\u2019s point.\u00a0 How do you access that?\u00a0 By way of faith.\n\nAll verses 50-58 are doing is an amplification of that principle.\u00a0 But if you\u2019re not going to connect verse 53-58 back to its context which is clearly revealed in verses 35-36 then\u00a0 you can make the Bible sound any way you want.\u00a0 I mean, I hope we understand this folks, you can make the Bible say whatever it is\u00a0 you want it to say if you don\u2019t care about context.\u00a0 Judas went out and hung himself, go thou and do likewise and what you do, do\u201d what? \u201cdo quickly.\u201d Well, there are three Bible verses I just strung together to support the doctrine of suicide.\u00a0 So based on the Bible we\u2019ve all got to go out and we ought to commit suicide\u2026 I quoted the Bible!\u00a0 Well as you all know I quoted the Bible completely out of context, I strung a bunch of verses together to achieve a pre-ordained result.\u00a0 This is what the kingdom of the cults do regularly; this is what Scott Hahn (who knows better) who\u2019s on the payroll of the Pope, this is what he is doing over and over again to evangelical audiences teaching them that somehow transubstantiation s in the Bible.\u00a0\u00a0 But the reality is it\u2019s not in the Bible at all.\n\nSo what is the problem with transubstantiation?\u00a0 Number one, it violates the single sacrifice of Jesus Christ.\u00a0 Number two, it\u2019s meant to be understood metaphorically if taken literally.\u00a0 Number three, it\u2019s totally lacking in Scriptural support to make it work you\u2019ve got to go to some passage that\u2019s not even related to the age of the church.\u00a0 And you also have to ignore the context of that passage.\n\nSo what is the meaning of communion?\u00a0 I can tell you this much, it\u2019s not transubstantiation.\u00a0 It\u2019s also not something that\u2019s somewhat close, which I don\u2019t have time get into, consubstantiation, which we\u2019ll cover next time.\u00a0 The true meaning of communion is the Zwingli view; Zwingli, the Protestant Reformer in Switzerland as the Protestant Reformation was taking place, said no, it says \u201cdo this in remembrance of Me.\u201d\u00a0 We believe in the memorial view here, that the elements are designed to assist memory so that you can recall what Jesus did for us, which gives us an attitude of gratitude.\u00a0 So I\u2019ll cover the transubstantiation view and the memorial view next time as we continue to talk about church ordinances.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t