Donations for the month of April


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,413
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,622
Posts51,096
Members925
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,411
Tom 3,428
chestnutmare 2,910
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,754
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 20
Tom 12
cathmg 5
Tina 3
John_C 3
Kaylin 1
Recent Posts
A study of the Heidelberg Catechism
by chestnutmare. Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:05 AM
What exactly is a confessional church
by Pilgrim. Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:50 AM
California State Assembly Bill 2943
by Tom. Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:54 AM
Dispensationalism
by Tom. Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:55 PM
James White Article
by Pilgrim. Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:10 PM
Importance of dating the destruction of the Temple
by Pilgrim. Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:13 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: Pilgrim] #30098
Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:27 PM
Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:27 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
speratus queries:
Would a gross and manifest sinner under church discipline be invited to commune if he confesses his past sins to the elders or is penance required first?

Your question makes no sense. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> 1) A church member under discipline is automatically barred from the Lord's Table. Thus there is no "invitation" for him to partake of it. 2) What is required of one under discipline is repentance. If the Elders perceive genuine repentance then the individual is entitled to full communion in the assembly which would include partaking of the sacraments.

In His grace,


How is genuine repentance perceived? Through examination (i.e., confession and contrition) or through the fruits of repentance (i.e., penance)?

Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 #30099
Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:59 PM
Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,413
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,413
NH, USA
Quote
speratus said:
How is genuine repentance perceived? Through examination (i.e., confession and contrition) or through the fruits of repentance (i.e., penance)?

[Linked Image] Start a new thread if you are wanting to discuss the nature of evangelical repentance. For the very last time.... you have failed to supply even one solitary biblical proof that the Church is go demand one who desires to partake of the Lord's Table subject themselves to and pass an arbitrary doctrinal examination by Elders. That the Church should determine as best it can the validity of a person's profession of faith and exclude individuals who are under discipline for unrepentant sin(s) and instruct all who desire to partake of the Lord's Table to examine themselves is not disputed.

If you are demanding that everyone who partakes of the Lord's Table be in complete 100% agreement on doctrine, then may I suggest that theoretically there would only be one single individual qualified..... aka: YOU! There remainder of all who profess the true religion would be barred. Incidentally, that would leave you alone to also fence the Table and I seriously doubt you could fulfill that task against millions of Christ's sheep who would storm in and trample you under foot! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> I must say that your position sounds far more akin to such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses who demand total conformity to the teachings of the Watch Tower than any true Christian church I have ever encountered. [Linked Image]

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: J_Edwards] #30100
Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:30 AM
Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:30 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Speratus stated,

Earlier in this thread, J Edwards writes, "I have visited hundreds of Churches and NEVER been examined once before the sacraments, not once." Sounds like open communion to me. Or did the elders of each of these hundreds of Churches personally know of your confession of Jesus Christ?

As most individuals here know Speratus (and you have been previously advised) I was an evangelist for many years and thus yes the pastors and many of the congregations knew me .... thus this was not open communion, but close Communion.


I have totally forgotten being previously advised of your status as a well known evangelist. Would the communing of Joe Anonymous Pewsitter at these hundreds of churches be close communion as well or should I ask him?

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Speratus Assumes,

I assume
Paul was examined by the elders in the churches he started and the churches he visited. Please show me where Paul communed at churches that permitted those who caused divisions and offenses to commune.

YOU ASSUME, this is the problem... Speratus, are you saying this was the case with EVERY individual in EVERY church without exception that Paul ever visited? Are you implying that EVERY Church had such division and problems that Paul implies the Lord's Table should just have been thrown out? If this was the case just where did Paul ever have Communion? (PS: Paul did not physically stop anyone from communing in 1 Cor 11, but rather instructed them that the communion of "some" was incorrect and instructed them otherwise ....).

Now I provided BIBLICAL proof in my last post. Will you please address the Scripture and stop "assuming"? As usual we desire Scripture, not Speratmess.


I have no problem in assuming that the churches which continued stedfast in the Apostle's doctrine and the breaking of bread practiced closed communion. After all, the apostle Paul had told the church in Corinth not to eat the Lord's Supper when they were come together because of divisions. So, yes, there were churches at which Paul could not receive communion because they practiced open communion. But there were also churches that continued stedfast in the Apostle's doctrine where Paul did receive the Lord's Supper. He was a welcome guest, not because he was a well known evangelist, but because he abided in the doctrine of Christ.

Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 #30101
Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:21 PM
Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Well Spertmess it appears that your heresy continues on in your unwillingness to submit to the Holy Writ. Now you assume once again,

Quote
…there were churches at which Paul could not receive communion because they practiced open communion. But there were also churches that continued stedfast in the Apostle's doctrine where Paul did receive the Lord's Supper. He was a welcome guest …

Please give us the Scriptural proof, not mere assumption of these churches that “continued stedfast in the Apostle's doctrine” without any error (i.e.: Acts 2:42 will not do it for you: (1) Paul was not yet an Apostle, (2) this is the infant stage of the Church before the divisions of false doctrine, etc.)? Please show us where Paul, the welcome guest, was examined at these churches? And exactly which Church that Paul attended had absolutely no division according to doctrine. Was it Galatia, maybe Ephesus, maybe Philippi, which one(s) Speratmess? Where was there a Church with absolutely NO DIVISION, no erroneous teaching “at all”? Give us SCRIPTURE!

Moreover, where does it say that Paul never had communion at Corinth? Corinthians 11 speaks in “a letter” to correct the wrong version of the Lord’s Table, however it never says that Paul did not communion with them. The Apostle stayed at Corinth for some time; "… he dwelt there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18:11) and this was only one of his visits. So are we to have communion every 1 ½ years according to Speratism? No, No, No, Spertmess, 1 Corinthians 11 states, “But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body” (28-29).

WHEN are you going to deal with the Scripture here? Acts 20:7. When will you submit to the Scripture for the first time? PROVE closed communion from a biblical text, “if” you can find one! The Scripture or continued heresy Speratmess, choose you this day? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: J_Edwards] #30102
Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:49 AM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:49 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
johnn Offline
Plebeian
johnn  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
[color:"0000FF"] -- 1Cor 11:29. for he who is eating and drinking unworthily, judgment to himself he doth eat and drink--not discerning the body of the Lord.[/color]


The standard reading of this passage requires each participant of the Lord's Supper to be introspective, confessing any residual sin, having a quiet examination of the heart, and keeping somber reflection on the sobriety of the event. Thus, the mood of the church has mirrored that of a wake.

The problem Paul addresses in Corinth was that the "haves" were eating the Supper and the "have nots" could not join them. By the time the poor finally arrived there was close to nothing left to eat. As a result, "one is hungry and another is drunk" (11:21). This behavior was tantamount to "despising the church of God and shaming those who have nothing (v 22). It is out of this that Paul says, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord" (v. 27).

The "unworthy manner" in verse 27 refers to the manner of eating not the state of the eater. In other words, Paul is not saying one comes under judgment for eating the Supper while in an unworthy state. He's saying rather that judgment comes by eating the Supper in an unworthy way; in context, by illegitimately excluding the poor from the Supper, who are, after all, part of the "body" of Christ represented by the "one loaf" (1Cor 10:16-17).

In the words of 11:29, such a person "does not judge the body rightly"; that is to say, he judges the "have nots" in the body of Christ as unimportant. The "body" (soma) also refers to the both the bread and the Church as the "body" of Christ.

No one in Corinth died for eating the Supper without first confessing their sins or for eating it in an unworthy state. Fact is, you are NOT worthy to partake of the Supper, no one is. We are called to the Supper on account of Christ making us accepted, all in spite of our unworthy state.

The reason the Corinthians were dying was because they were excluding part of the body of Christ (the poor) from partaking of the body of Christ (the bread), and were "eating and drinking judgment" to themselves. Paul's command that a man "examine himself" when partaking of the Supper is intended to prevent the church from excluding members of Christ's body from partaking, it was never meant to eradicate the inherent joy of the Supper as recorded in Acts 2:46.

Acts 2:46
-- 46. And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food [color:"0000FF"]with gladness[/color] and simplicity of heart.

john


...be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30103
Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:24 AM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Thanks for the commentary, however you did not address a single question in my post.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30104
Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:53 AM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:53 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
Paul's command that a man "examine himself" when partaking of the Supper is intended to prevent the church from excluding members of Christ's body from partaking, it was never meant to eradicate the inherent joy of the Supper as recorded in Acts 2:46.


Since when are solemnity and joy at odds? A marriage is a solemn occasion, yet it is also full of joy. Or, for that matter, how does sorrow for sin inherently destroy the joy of partaking in the Lord's Supper? I love to partake in the Lord's Supper and have great joy in it. Indeed, the Lord's Supper is a means of grace by which the Spirit assures the believer of his place in the body of Christ as a redeemed sinner, so it seems perfectly appropriate that we consider our unworthiness in order to partake of the Supper worthily. The Corinthians certainly were not considering their unworthiness. Indeed, the wealthy among them presumed themselves to be MORE WORTHY than the poor, and so they gorged themselves on meals which they brought with them under the pretence of observing the "Lord's Supper," and left nothing for those who had nothing.

So, I'm failing to see how exactly your comments are helpful. I suppose you're suggesting we ought to eat the Lord's Supper as a full meal or some such? And I wonder, what do you think it means for a man to "examine himself"?


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: CovenantInBlood] #30105
Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:47 PM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:47 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
johnn Offline
Plebeian
johnn  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
Quote
Since when are solemnity and joy at odds? A marriage is a solemn occasion, yet it is also full of joy. Or, for that matter, how does sorrow for sin inherently destroy the joy of partaking in the Lord's Supper?


Let me try and make a case for the distinction. Here is the verse in question:


Acts 2:46
-- 46. And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food with gladness and simplicity of heart

My thoughts, gleaned from Scripture are this:

The mood of the early church while "breaking bread" was not a time of solemn reflection, not that there is anything inherently wrong with considering one's state before God. Rather, they "took their meals together" with "gladness".

When we look at the Greek agalliasis (gladness) we find its use denotes the exultation that corresponds with Messianic expectations. Examples:

Luke 1:44 agalliasis (exceeding joy) of John the Baptist in his encounter with his yet unborn Messiah.

Jude 1:24 agalliasis (great or unspeakable joy) we will have upon Christ's return.

John 8:56 the agalliasis (rejoicing) of Abraham to see the day of Messiah

1 Peter 1:6, 8, 4:13 the agalliasis (great rejoicing) of Christians in anticipation of the parousia

Rev 19:7 the agalliasis (gladness) of the heavenly multitude at the Messianic wedding


Hence, the Greek agalliasis sheds light on the mood of the church when partaking the Lord's Supper in Acts 2:46. We can understand why the this type of exceeding joy is found associated with the Lord's Supper by examining what the Lord's Supper represents.

If we focus on Jesus' words in verse 16 below we can make the proper connection to the anti-type.

Luke 22:15-18
-- 15. And He said to them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
-- 16. For I say to you, I will not any more eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
-- 17. And He took the cup and gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves.
-- 18. For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come.


Jesus intends to partake of a meal again someday, but not "until" (heos hou) the "kingdom of God comes". The Supper Jesus has in mind that He will again eat is likely the Messianic feast at the end of the age (Luke 14:16-24). He mentions it again after the institution:

Luke 22:29-30
-- 29. And I appoint a kingdom to you, as My Father has appointed to Me,
-- 30. that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The promise to "eat and drink" in the kingdom is while the disciples are still at the table. This eschatological meal (the Messianic Feast) that Jesus spoke of is the "fulfillment" of the meal Jesus is instituting as the Lord's Supper.

Hence, properly the Lord's Supper is an anticipation and foretaste of the Messianic Feast to come in the consummated kingdom at the end of the age.

Other references to the eschatological feast include Luke 12:35-38 where the parousia is parabolically a wedding banquet, in Matthew 25:1-14 it is found in the parable of the ten virgins, Luke 15:22-32 the story of how the Father will celebrate by holding a feast when his prodigal son returns.

The early church believed the Lord's Supper was a petition to Jesus to return and "fulfill" the meal they were observing as a prefigure to the Banquet over which He would preside in His kingdom.

This is why the early church's mood of the Supper was one of second-coming anticipation and exceeding "gladness" rather than solemnity.


john

Last edited by johnn; Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:54 PM.

...be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30106
Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:40 PM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
John Said,

This is why the early church's mood of the Supper was one of second-coming anticipation and exceeding "gladness" rather than solemnity.

Another commentary, however one wrongly interpreted. I might add to your commentary and state that the Lord’s Supper looks not only forward to the second-coming, but as the Scripture plainly states, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come” (1 Cor 11:26). Christ died for the sins of His elect and thus that should make any saint solemn and thus when he knows he is forgiven this should bring forth “gladness” for then he may with “simplicity of heart” look forward to the second-coming. Thus, first we see a turning inward and then we see a turning upward (1 Thess 1:9-10, 3:10-13). Self judgment as demanded by Scripture (1 Cor 11:28-29) brings true “gladness of heart,” for it brings true healing (2 Chronicles 30:17-21)! True confession allows for the true worship of God (Nehemiah 9:3; Isaiah 59:20).

Though used out of context (you focused only on the glad ending and not on the solemn beginning, etc.), you said Acts 2:46 states, “And continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food with gladness and simplicity of heart,” however, it falls on the heals of, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38), and, “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching,” which included confession of sin (Acts 2:42) and other elements as well (Acts 2:37-47). To attempt to have true glad gladness and simplicity of heart, without true confession is simply an impossibility!


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30107
Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:21 PM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:21 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
The mood of the early church while "breaking bread" was not a time of solemn reflection, not that there is anything inherently wrong with considering one's state before God. Rather, they "took their meals together" with "gladness".


You are assuming this incompatibility between solemnity and gladness without any justification. As I mentioned, a marriage is both a solemn occasion AND a joyful one. It seems clear to me that the Apostle expects the Lord's Supper to be BOTH solemn and joyful. Or, what do you think it means for a man to "examine himself"? Can this possibly be exclusively about the mistreatment of the poor? What you fail to recognize, in my opinion, is that we can hardly have a sense of joy without a knowledge of our misery.

Quote
Hence, properly the Lord's Supper is an anticipation and foretaste of the Messianic Feast to come in the consummated kingdom at the end of the age.


Of course, it is also about declaring the Lord's death until He returns, as the Apostle plainly states.


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30108
Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:57 PM
Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:57 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,413
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,413
NH, USA
John,

First of all, Welcome to The Highway Discussion Board. [Linked Image]

I have to agree with both J_Edwards and CovenantInBlood, re: it is not an either/or choice between solemnity and joy, but rather a both/and one. I do think that "Lord's Day 1" of the Heidelberg Catechism sums up this truth nicely, especially Q&A #2.


[color:"#0000CC" size="4"]The Heidelberg Catechism
Lord's Day 1


Question 1: What is your only comfort in life and in death?
Answer 1: That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death,[1] am not my own,[2] but belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ,[3] who with His precious blood [4] has fully satisfied for all my sins,[5] and redeemed me from all the power of the devil;[6] and so preserves me [7] that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head;[8] indeed, that all things must work together for my salvation.[9] Wherefore, by His Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,[10] and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live unto Him.[11]

1. Rom. 14:7-8
2. I Cor. 6:19
3. I Cor. 3:23
4. I Peter 1:18-19
5. I John 1:7; 2:2
6. I John 3:8
7. John 6:39
8. Matt. 10:29-30; Luke 21:18
9. Rom. 8:28
10. II Cor. 1:21-22; Eph. 1:13-14; Rom. 8:16
11. Rom. 8:1

Q2: How many things are necessary for you to know, that in this comfort you may live and die happily?
A2: Three things:[1] First, the greatness of my sin and misery.[2] Second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery.[3] Third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.[4]

1. Luke 24:46-47; I Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:3-7
2. John 9:41; 15:22
3. John 17:3
4. Eph. 5:8-11; I Peter 2:9-12; Rom. 6:11-14; 7:24-25; Gal. 3:13; Col. 3:17


In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: Pilgrim] #30109
Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:10 PM
Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
johnn Offline
Plebeian
johnn  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
Quote

[color:"FF0000"]I might add to your commentary and state that the Lord’s Supper looks not only forward to the second-coming, but as the Scripture plainly states, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come” (1 Cor 11:26).[/color]


The church today finds the Lord's Supper to be solemn partly because of the words of institution: "do this in remembrance of me".

From this, the church has traditionally focused solemnly on the death of Christ and His suffering in order to redeem us. The focus is historical -- a looking back.

1. How does this compare with the early church practice: they "broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts."

2. How does this compare with Jesus' eschatological prospect of eating and drinking again in the kingdom.


What then does "Do this in memory of me" mean? Allow me to explain how these words of Jesus will tell us the purpose of the Lord's Supper.


Literally, "Do this in remembrance of me" is "do this into (Greek eis: for, toward, with a view to) my remembrance".

Who is to remember whom? Either we are to remember Christ (traditional view) or Christ remembering us.

The phrase can be translated as: "do this in order to remember me" or "do this as a reminder to me (so that I'll remember you)".

The Greek anamnesis translated "remembrance" occurs only four times (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24, 25; Heb 10:3) with the only context not involving the Lord's Supper being in Heb 10:3, which states:

[color:"0000FF"] Hebrews 10:3
-- 3. But in these [the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood] there is a annual remembrance [reminder] of sins.[/color]

The meaning of Heb 10:3 is the sacrifices are to be an annual "reminder" of their sins, not a "memorial". Heb 10:3 establishes the meaning "reminder" as an option for anamnesis. This is important as to whether the Lord's Supper is only a remembrance (looking back) or a reminder (of something yet to be).

One example of the usage of anamnesis in the Old Testament (LXX) where the Greek meaning is "reminder" is in Psalm 70:1, the heading reads:

[color:"0000FF"]Psalms 70:1
-- 1. To the Overseer, by David. --`To cause to remember.' O God, to deliver me, O Jehovah, for my help, haste.[/color]

Literally, this reads "For the end, by David, for a reminder (eis anamnesis), in order that the Lord might save me". Here eis anamnesis likely means "for a reminder [to God], a reminder for God to save David.

Other passages where God is called upon to "remember" are Psalms 25:6-7;74:2;119:49;132:1.


Jesus' words of institution "do this into my remembrance" combined with the fact that Jesus would never again eat the meal or drink the cup until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God, adds weight on the phrase. Therefore, the content of this "reminder" is for Christ to come again and to inaugurate the Messianic Banquet in fulfillment of the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper, as oft as done, is a reminder "unto Me" (that is Christ) that His Church awaits the Messiah's return and the fulfillment of the Marriage Feast when He will yet eat again.


[color:"0000FF"] -- 25. In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me." [/color]

Verse 25, "as often as you drink it" introduces the purpose of drinking the cup: "When you do it, it is to be done into (eis, "with a view to") my remembrance (or reminder)".


[color:"0000FF"]-- 26. For "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's death until He shall come.[/color]

Verse 26 "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup" introduces the purpose of the Supper: "a proclamation of the Lord's death".

Verse 26 seems to suggest that anamnesis has a historical rather than eschatological focus (proclaiming the historic death of Christ).

But, who would be proclaiming His death? To unbelievers? In the first century meetings in private homes unbelievers would not be commonly present. Paul mentions the possibility of an unbeliever walking in during a meeting (1Cor 14:23-24) but that is not the norm for meetings in private homes. Who do we proclaim His death? To ourselves? Why do Christians need to proclaim His death to each other?

In light of Luke's eschatological focus, Paul's words make equally good sense if we view this "proclamation" as one directed to Christ Himself. We are proclaiming, as a "reminder" (anamnesis) to Christ whereas He has initiated the New Covenant by means of His death, He has yet to bring it to its consummation by returning.

Note, in 1Cor 11:23-26 the eschatological element in the phrase "until He comes" in verse 26. Literally in the Greek it produces the awkward "until the goal is reached that he comes", and means, "until the goal of the proclamation is reached - namely, his coming".

Hence, the purpose of celebrating the Lord's Supper is to sound a plea for the second coming: "As often as the death of the Lord is proclaimed at the Lord's Supper, and the maranatha rises upwards, God is reminded of the unfulfilled climax of the work of salvation, 'until (the goal is reached, that) He comes".

The command to remember Him is not a command to preserve the memory of Jesus (i.e., "repeat the breaking of bread so that you may not forget me") but is eschatological. At the end of Corinthians (16:22) Paul makes the statement, "maranatha!" or "Come, O Lord!", a statement that parallels Rev 22:20 "Come Lord Jesus!". Historically this phrase may have gained prominence in the early church's celebration of the Lord's Supper. Maranatha likely means "O Lord come!" rather than the perfect sense "Our Lord has come!", everything seems to point to a future hope.

We petition Christ by "proclaiming" (1Cor 11:26) to Him that the New Covenant, represented by this meal and initiated by His death, stands unconsummated, and that we long for Him to bring it to its fulfillment in the kingdom (maranatha!). It is a reminder that Christ is still "not eating" with his Church and still "not drinking". The anticipation of the Messianic celebration that will one day come produced for the early church a jubilation and "gladness" (of Messianic expectation).

john


...be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30110
Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:46 PM
Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:46 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,413
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,413
NH, USA
John,

Methinks you are either diminishing or perhaps even ignoring the fundamental purpose of the Lord's Supper, which is similar to the purpose of the Passover of the O.T., which was a commemoration of the deliverance from Egypt. In the institution of this Supper, the Lord Christ said:


Matthew 26:26-28 (WEB) As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "All of you drink it, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.


Paul is obviously expounding upon these very words in 1Cor 11:29. The fundamental purpose/meaning of the Lord's Supper was first and foremost to proclaim the atoning work of Christ; "proclaiming the Lord's death" from which comes salvation, i.e., remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification, adoption, sanctification and final glorification. In this Supper the individual is professing his/her need of that great redemption provided by Christ, the satisfaction it provided both unto God and to the soul that apprehends it by faith and the continuing provision it avails through the indwelling Spirit until the Lord returns.

I think Charles Hodge sums it up nicely and whose interpretation of the text is to be preferred:

Quote
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
What Paul had received of the Lord is recorded in the preceding verses. Here and in what follows we have his own inferences from the account which the Lord had given him. The first of those inferences is, that the Lord’s supper is, and was designed to be, a proclamation of the death of Christ to continue until his second advent. Those who come to it, therefore, should come, not to satisfy hunger, nor for the gratification of social feelings, but for the definite purpose of bearing their testimony to the great fact of redemption, and to contribute their portion of influence to the preservation and propagation of the knowledge of that fact. For indicates the connection with what precedes. ‘It is a commemoration of his death, for it is in its very nature a proclamation of that great fact.’ And it was not a temporary institution, but one designed to continue until the consummation. As the Passover was a perpetual commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and a prediction of the coming and death of the Lamb of God, who was to bear the sins of the world; so the Lord’s supper is at once the commemoration of the death of Christ and a pledge of his coming the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hodge, Charles I & II Corinthians Banner of Truth, pp. 229, 30)

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: Pilgrim] #30111
Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:12 PM
Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
johnn Offline
Plebeian
johnn  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4
Pacific NW
Note:

My replies were adapted in greater part by the work of Eric Svendsen. Just want to be sure to credit the original author which I failed to do here, that was an oversight I shall be more diligent to avoid. Thanks much to all who replied.

john


...be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Re: Examination - 1 Cor 11:29 [Re: johnn] #30112
Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:20 PM
Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:20 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
CovenantInBlood  Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Virginia
Quote
johnn said:
Note:

My replies were adapted in greater part by the work of Eric Svendsen. Just want to be sure to credit the original author which I failed to do here, that was an oversight I shall be more diligent to avoid. Thanks much to all who replied.

john


I thought it sounded familiar . . . <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bingo.gif" alt="" />


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 20 guests, and 114 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Dutch Michael, Ray, robertolang, SmallFry, drewk
925 Registered Users
Shout Box
April
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
736,659 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.056s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 3.0068 MB (Peak: 3.3165 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-04-23 11:40:45 UTC