[Introduction of Brother Dub McClish by Brother Max Marrs, a member of the Northeast church of Christ:]
Good morning. Dub McClish came to Denton, Texas, to preach in 1980 at the Pearl Street congregation where my parents attended church. And it wasn’t long until my parents were talking about this great preacher who had come to work there, and they were so impressed. Well, I had already moved away from home, so whenever I visited I tried to get over there, and pretty soon I was agreeing with my parents—there was a great preacher at Pearl Street in Denton, Texas, then. And it wasn’t too long after that until Dub had the unfortunate experience of preaching my Mother’s funeral. So, I’ve been very close to Dub ever since then. We’ve kept up with his work, and I feel a lot of affection for him. I could talk a long time about Dub, but he just reminded me that I’m “on his nickel,” so I’m going to be brief. This little brochure that we had printed [see “A Brief Biography of H. W. (Dub) McClish”] tells some of the most important facts about him, and I’m sure John [Phillis, preacher at the Northeast church of Christ, Albuquerque, New Mexico] will do a good job of introducing him during the next worship hour. I’m going to say three things. Apparently, Dub McClish does not grow weary of well-doing, as we are admonished in 2 Thessalonians 3:13. I’ll say this, if he does, he keeps it to himself. He really works hard, year in and year out, to spread the Gospel. Marilyn [Max Marrs’ wife] and I get his work report periodically in the mail, and we often laugh, because we have to sit down to read it because it makes us tired just to read what all he has been doing. And that’s been going on for years. Jude 3 says that we are supposed to “earnestly contend for the faith.” And I can tell you, Dub McClish really earnestly contends for the faith with his writing, and his preaching, and his editing, and his travels, and I guess just day to day life. But also, he earnestly contends against error, and in this “PC world” we live in, I’m thankful to God that there are people like Dub who will have the gumption to do that, because those kinds of people are getting few and far between. So, if you want to hear the Truth in love, you’re in the right place this morning. Dub, welcome to our congregation.
[Dub McClish begins speaking – Introductory remarks:]
Well, I’ll settle up with Max after we get through today. He read it just about like I wrote it [laughter]. I can’t tell you how much of a joy it is to be here. I was so grateful for the invitation when it was tendered to me to come, and I’ve looked forward with great anticipation to being here. I knew a few folks that I knew were part of this congregation before I came, but I’ve already met some more of you that I knew, that I didn’t know that I knew that were part of this congregation. That’s already been a very pleasant experience. I look forward to meeting the rest of you, and Lord willing, we’ll have a wonderful four days together, and it will go by very, very quickly. By the time we’re through with this evening’s service, the meeting will be half over, as far as the number of lessons is concerned. So, “what thou doest, do quickly,” as we might misapply a passage.
[Dub McClish begins the Bible Class Lesson. He is using the American Standard Version of the Bible.]
Sometimes, the things that we become most familiar with are things that we come to not appreciate as much as we should. Familiarity does, in some ways, breed contempt—if not contempt, inattention.
At the Bible Class hour this morning, I want to talk about one of those things that I think has not been given enough attention in our teaching and our preaching, and that’s the Lord’s supper. Any time we begin to neglect fundamental things, there is the danger of our drifting away from fundamental teaching. We need to be continual students, even of the fundamental things, and the Lord’s supper is one of those fundamentals.
There have been many inroads made by denominational groups and Roman Catholicism into the realm of the Lord’s supper, and they have corrupted it in various ways. But some of these are now even creeping into some of the congregations of the Lord’s people. And so I want us to spend our time studying just some of the very basic things about the Lord’s supper this morning. I think maybe the best way for us to pursue the subject would be just to ask some questions about the Lord’s supper, and then, seek their answers in the Word of God.
“What are the Scriptural designations for the Lord’s supper?” is a good place to begin. There are four of these.
The first we find in Luke, chapter 22, verses 29 and 30. In the setting in which the Lord had instituted His supper, He said to the eleven (Judas had already departed): “…and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as My Father appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom….” So, putting that into the possessive case, “My table” would be the “Lord’s table.” We correctly refer to it by that term.
Paul used the same terminology in writing to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 10, verse 21, when he said in addressing them on their failure to properly separate themselves from the worship of idols that had been part of their background, “…ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.” You’ve got to make a choice, but there you see, “table of the Lord,” the “Lord’s table.”
Now, we understand that it’s not a piece of furniture that the Lord is referring to, but He’s using “table” in a figurative sense here, to represent what is ON the table, and the significance of that.
Another term that we find in that same 10th chapter of first Corinthians in reference to the Lord’s supper is verse 16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?”The word “communion” here is actually translated from the word that’s most frequently translated “fellowship” in our New Testaments. It has to do with the fellowship that we have with God and Christ through the Lord’s supper, and with one another, as children of God, as we partake of the Lord’s supper.
A third term that’s used twice in the New Testament, referring to the Lord’s supper, is “the breaking of bread.” The very first description we have of any activity of the church of the Lord from its day of beginning in Acts, chapter 2, includes the breaking of bread. In Acts 2:42, Luke says, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostle’s teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
Luke used similar terminology in Acts 20, and verse 7, when he said, “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.” (Now that’s the part of that verse that John [Phillis] and I especially like—he preached till midnight.) So, we have “the breaking of bread” in reference to the Lord’s supper.
Then we have the term—maybe the most frequently applied term—the “Lord’s supper” itself. In 1 Corinthians 11:20, Paul said to the Corinthians who were abusing and misusing the Lord’s supper, “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper….” Now, he was not forbidding them to partake of that which the Lord had enjoined. He was simply saying, if you keep on doing what you’re doing, you can call it the Lord’s supper, but it’s not the Lord’s supper.
So, there we have four terms: “the Lord’s table,” “the communion,” “the breaking of bread,” and “the Lord’s supper.” Inspired men never called this institution by any other terms. Only uninspired men, in their corruptions of the supper through the centuries, have called it by such terms as “the Sacrament,” a term which never appears in our Bibles, “the Eucharist,” or “the Mass.”
Let’s emphasize the fact that it is the Lord’s supper, and not “man’s supper” to do with what he will. The Lord established the supper. He alone has the right to dictate every particular concerning it, including its designations, which we just reviewed in Scripture, but also the elements involved in it. The purpose of partaking of the Lord’s supper, the time and the frequency of its partaking, even the duration and location of the supper, are stipulated by Him, and we dare not tamper with any of those.
But emphasize the fact that it’s the Lord’s supper from another standpoint. It’s the LORD’S, that is, the Lord Jesus. It’s not the Father’s supper—it’s never so designated. It’s not the Spirit’s supper, though, of course, as the other members of the Godhead, they are in full accord with its Scriptural observance. But it peculiarly belongs to the Second Person of the Godhead—to the Son of God. It has to do with what HE did in HIS physical body upon this earth. It has to do with what is to go on in HIS church, which, again, relates to earthly activity.
I have not heard anyone call it, “the Father’s supper,” or “the Spirit’s supper.” Maybe some have just not thought about it. Maybe if they think about it, they’ll start calling it that. They seem to want to corrupt everything else about the Lord’s supper. But by implication, sometimes brethren, even we refer to it as “the Father’s supper.” We do not realize it. We do not intend to do this, but we do it, nonetheless.
When a brother stands at the table and says, “Father, we thank Thee for this Thy table,” what has he just done? He’s called it “the Father’s table,” hasn’t he? Again, he did not intend to do that. That conscious process did not go through his mind, but that’s what he has done. He’s addressing the Father in calling it “THY table.” Or when a brother speaks of “this, Thy body,” in addressing the Father, or, “this Thy blood,” in addressing the Father, he’s doing the same thing, though inadvertently, though without intention of offending God in any way.
But these things are clearly defined in the New Testament, that it is the body and blood of the Son of God. You see, the Father never had a body that He could yield up in sacrifice. The Father never had any blood. It was the SON, Who had the body and the blood, that He sacrificed on the cross, and to which the Lord’s supper directly pertains.
While we’re speaking of the prayers at the table, the better way, the definitive way, to express thanks for that bread, is to say, “Father, we thank Thee for this bread, which represents the body of Thy SON,” instead of saying “Thy body.” And the same with the fruit of the vine as it pertains to the blood of Christ, not of the Father.
But at the table, also in our prayers, we sometimes—in fact very often—hear the phrase, “Father, bless this bread,” or “bless this cup”, or “this fruit of the vine.” I think I know where that phrase originated in our prayers. I think it must have come from Matthew 26:26 and the parallel in Mark, chapter 14. When the Lord instituted the supper, of course, He and the apostles were in the setting of the last Passover He observed with them. In verse 26 of Matthew 26, it says, “And He took the bread (that’s the unleavened bread of the Passover) and blessed (the King James says, “blessed it”—but it supplies the word “it”, as indicated by the italicized word) (it) and brake it, and gave to His disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body….”
Now, there we have the world “bless” in connection with the partaking of the bread. But it does not say He asked the Father’s blessing upon the bread, which is what we commonly do in our prayer. It simply says He “blessed,” or, “blessed it,” as the King James translators interpreted it.
What does it mean when it says, “He blessed,” in connection with the bread? If we read one verse further [verse 27], we will have an inspired commentary: “And He took the cup, and gave thanks for it….” We do not believe that He did two different things, one for the bread and then something different for the fruit of the vine. He did the same for both. The giving of thanks for the fruit of the vine tells us what He meant in verse 26, when it says He “blessed,” concerning the bread.
Luke give us further inspired insight into what this really means in Luke, chapter 22, verse 19. Luke says, “He took bread, and having given thanks for it….” And so He tells us what the blessing connected with the bread means.
The Lord revealed to the apostle Paul his account of the Gospel. He did not get it from men, Galatians, chapter 2. He got it directly from the Lord. And among those things the Lord taught Paul, he specifies in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11. In verse 23, he says that the Lord revealed unto him that on the night that He was betrayed, He took bread and He gave thanks for it, or, having given thanks for it—. And then, in verse 25, in like manner, the cup.
So, when we read that Jesus blessed, or, blessed it, pertaining to the bread, our minds need to say that means that He gave thanks for it, because that is precisely what He did. He did not need to ask the Father’s blessing upon that bread, you see. The Father’s blessing had been upon that bread since before eternity, because Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world [Revelation 13:8: “All who dwell on the earth will worship Him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”].
No, Jesus was simply giving thanks to His Father. In fact, the only insight we have as to what is appropriate wording for prayers at the Lord’s table is in these passages, Matthew 26:26, Mark 14 and Luke, chapter 22, and 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 23-25. And in every case, the emphasis is simply upon giving thanks for the bread, giving thanks for the fruit of the vine.
It hasn’t been too many months ago until where I was sitting in an assembly such as this that a young man came forward at the end of the sermon to be baptized into Christ. He was baptized into Christ. And then, the Lord’s supper was served at the end of the service there. The brother who got up to lead the prayer at the table began thanking God for this young man who had just been baptized. I know that was fresh on his mind. But you see, it had the effect of taking the minds of those praying away from what the minds should have been centered upon—the Lord’s supper.
We’re taught to pray for many things and for many people in many circumstances in the Word of God. But brethren, the Lord’s table is not the place to do it. Everything we do pertaining to the Lord’s supper ought to be drawing our minds TO the purpose of it and not in any way detracting from it by peripheral things, even though they be good and honorable, and even Scriptural things for which to pray.
What is the PURPOSE of the Lord’s supper? We have some inkling of it in Jesus saying, “…this is My body” and “this is My blood.” We have the same kind of terminology in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11:23, 24 and 25 again. Perhaps we should spend a little time on the significance of His saying, “…this IS My body…this IS My blood.”
Many hundreds of years ago, some Catholic theologian decided that this was very literal language, and that when Jesus said, “…this IS My body…” He meant that it literally was His flesh, and the same of the fruit of the vine, that it literally was the blood of Jesus. And so, sometime later, this became official Roman Catholic dogma, the dogma of “trans-substantiation,” which actually teaches that when the wafer of their mass, which is called the “host,” is placed in the mouth of the communicant, it becomes, it is trans-substantiated into, the literal flesh of Jesus. And likewise, when they drink their sacramental wine, it becomes the literal blood of Christ.
In the 16th Century, Martin Luther came along—the great reformer. He tried to reform, and had some success in reforming, some of the abuses he saw in the Roman Catholic church in which he grew up and in which he was a priest at one time. But some things he changed very little, and this is one of them. The doctrine of the Lutheran church to this day is called “con-substantiation”, and there is about as much difference between the “trans” and the “con” versions as between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. They’re essentially the same.
Is this what Jesus meant when He said, “…this IS My body” and “this IS My blood”? Well, if it is actually literal, we should depict Jesus actually slicing off some of His flesh and not using any bread, or plucking a vein or an artery and putting that in the cup and say, “Drink it,” rather than offering them some other beverage besides His literal blood. But obviously, He did not do that. It plainly says He took bread and said of it, “…this is My body.” And He took the cup of the fruit of the vine and said, “…this is My blood.”
Here we have the employment of a common metaphor, a figure of speech, in the Bible, and one that we use every day and don’t even think about it, because our minds just automatically think that way. But a metaphor is a figure of speech in which one says that this thing IS another, when it actually STANDS FOR another, or, REPRESENTS another.
In John, chapter 10 and verse 9, Jesus said, “I am the door….” I’ve never heard of anyone trying to place a literal construction upon that and make Jesus something that swings back and forth on hinges. No, there are ways in which He represents a door—of entrance or of keeping people out.
Two verses later [John 10:11], He said, “I am the Good Shepherd of the sheep….” Did Jesus ever actually have a flock of four-legged sheep? Why, of course not! But He was as to men as a Shepherd is to sheep, and so it’s just said in the metaphor, “I am the Good Shepherd of the sheep….”
And so, that figure [of speech] is employed as He instituted the Lord’s supper, “this IS My body….” That is, “This bread represents, symbolizes, signifies, My body,” and likewise, of the cup. So, when a brother stands at the table and says, “Father, we thank Thee for this bread, which REPRESENTS the body of Thy Son,” he is stating exactly what the Scriptures are indicating that Jesus meant.
But again, the purpose of the supper—what is it? Well, Jesus said, “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup,” 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 26, “ye proclaim the Lord’s death until He come.” The King James says, “ye do shew [show, or show forth] the Lord’s death till He come.”
Here, we see that the Lord’s supper centers upon the death of Christ, and we don’t mean to harp on the prayers at the table, but surely we want our prayers to be in harmony with what the Word of God teaches. A phrase I’ve heard in the prayers at the table over the last several years all over the country as I travel about preaching is, “Father, we thank Thee for this supper, which memorializes the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.” I haven’t been able to find the “burial and the resurrection” in the New Testament in connection with the Lord’s supper, brethren. But, here, Paul very definitely states, the purpose of the Lord’s supper is to proclaim the DEATH, and memorialize the DEATH, of our Lord.
Well, do we not see that in the way that the Lord talked about His body and His blood, as He instituted the supper? And then He said, “…this do in remembrance of Me,” Luke 22:19-20 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. But not of His birth, as important as that was; not of His mighty miracles, as important as those were; not of His resurrection, as absolutely essential as that was to His deity. All of those, and every other thing about our Lord’s life, are absolutely important, but HE said, “This is a memorial to My death.” And that’s where we ought to leave it, brethren—right where HE left it. HE knew the purpose for which He established it.
There are cemeteries scattered all over our nation that have stones erected “In Memoriam” to those who have been laid to rest. There are monuments in your capitol; there are monuments in the Texas State capitol in Austin; there are monuments in our Washington, D.C., capitol to great men who’ve gone before. We memorialize those men and what they accomplished and what they stood for.
Jesus didn’t erect an obelisk. He didn’t build a huge building of some kind. He simply established the Lord’s supper and said, This is how you’re to constantly remember the price that I paid for your redemption. As you eat the bread and as you drink the cup, do so “in REMBMBRANCE OF ME.”
So, the Lord’s supper is not a sin-forgiving sacrifice, as the Roman Catholic mass makes of it. Our Lord was sacrificed; He sacrificed Himself once for ALL, Hebrews 9:26 [ASV “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”] and Hebrews 10:10 [ASV “By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”]. This is simply a memorial for the “ONCE FOR ALL” sacrifice. Another never need be made for the sins of mankind. It is not just for the sins of the “elect,” as the Calvinists define them. But He gave Himself “a ransom for ALL,” 1 Timothy 2:6.
The Lord’s supper is not something to be celebrated in connection with a wedding or a funeral, as men have desecrated it, but it is a simple memorial to the DEATH of the Son of God for the sins of the world.
Well, how often are we to partake of the Lord’s supper? We read something of its frequency in Acts 2, and verse 42: “And they continued steadfastly in the…breaking of bread….” That does not tell us what the frequency is, but it tells us there WAS a frequency. It tells us that they did it on some sort of a regular basis. They did so “steadfastly” and they continued DOING it steadfastly.
But we have to look elsewhere to see what the actual frequency is. Luke’s second statement concerning the “breaking of bread” phrase tells us that in Acts 20, and verse 7: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them [“preached unto them” – KJV], intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.” (ASV)
Yes, but someone says, “How do we know that wasn’t just a fellowship meal that they had together—the breaking of bread there? Well, the Bible answers that question. In verse 6 of Acts, chapter 20, we learn that Paul and his company had come down from Philippi—took them five days to so travel—arriving at Troas a week before the first day of the week—Luke says, “…where we tarried seven days.” And then, in verse 7, “And upon the first day of the week,” which was the next day. So, they arrived on a Monday and stayed an entire week, and then they had this gathering, this assembly in which they broke this bread.
Now, Paul was not there on vacation. In fact, I don’t think Paul ever took a vacation. (That doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to take a vacation.) But I don’t read of any of Paul’s vacations. He may have taken some—the Bible just doesn’t tell us.
But he was not at Troas on vacation. He was—look at verse 16 of Acts, chapter 20. He was hastening to get to Jerusalem by the Pentecost [“For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.”]. Now, between Passover and Pentecost is how long? It’s 50 days—that’s where the “Pente” of Pentecost comes from. It was 50 days distant from the Passover, which means you had seven full weeks and then one more day, which made the day of Pentecost—the first day of the week, by the way. But Paul wanted to get to Jerusalem in that seven-week time-frame, envelope, there. They had already spent five days coming down from Philippi, verse 6. Now, they’ve spent another seven days in Troas. Two weeks of it is already gone. And they’re sailing by ships that depend upon the whim of the wind, and they do not know what the schedules are going to be, and so, Paul wants to make the best use of his time. That’s why he intended to depart on the morrow, verse 7. Verse 11 says he did depart the next day.
So, you see, Paul could have saved an entire week of travel time if this had just been a common fellowship meal. This was a breaking of bread, brethren, that could not have been done on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday, or it would have been done on those earlier days. It was a day that was specified that the breaking of bread was to take place. The first day of the week is that day.
Now, we do not know from Scripture of any other day upon which the Lord’s supper was ever served or celebrated. Someone says, “Yes, but this doesn’t say every first day of the week.” Well, no, it does not. Nor does the commandment in the Old Law say, “Remember every sabbath day to keep it holy,” but no Jew ever asked which sabbath day. They understood that, as often as a sabbath day came around, they were to remember that sabbath day to keep it holy. And so should be the understanding of the Lord’s supper in connection with the first say of the week.
But we do have some help from another passage or two. In 1 Corinthians 16 and verse 2, Paul told those Corinthians, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings [or, “collections”] when I come.” [KJV] “Umm,” you say, “I thought that was the contribution, not the Lord’s supper.” Well, you’re right. It’s the contribution. But there’s some things that inter-relate with the Lord’s supper and it’s observance, too.
You’ll notice he did not command them to meet on the first day of the week. He knew they were already meeting every first day of the week. And, in fact, if you are reading the New American Standard Bible, its translation of this verse is more accurate than the King James or the 1901 American Standard Version. It says, “…every first day of the week….” And if you like to dabble in the Greek and have a Greek Interlinear, you’ll see that your Greek Interlinear literally says, “every first day of the week,” or, “the first day of every week let each one of you lay by in store, as God has prospered him….” Alright, they were already meeting “every first day of the week.” Paul had established that church, and you know that he taught them to meet each first day of the week.
Well, what other things were they already doing on the first day of the week? Do we know what those might have been? In particular, we know one of them from a lengthy passage in 1 Corinthians 11, to which we’ve already gone a couple of times this morning. They were observing the Lord’s supper, though they were abusing it in their assemblies in Corinth. Now, their assembly is the first day of the week, 1 Corinthians 16:2. Where is the Lord’s supper? Look at verse 17 of chapter 11: when “ye come together”; verse 18: “when ye come together”; verse 20: “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper….” The entire rest of the chapter has to do with correcting their abuses of the Lord’s supper, and then he concludes the chapter, and says, “when you come together,” and “in your coming together.” So this is the assembly in which the Lord’s supper was being eaten each…first…day…of…the…week in the Corinthian church.
Now, Paul did not teach one thing to the Corinthians, and then when he got to Ephesus, taught something else. In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul says, “I teach the same thing everywhere in every church,” and that’s the way it still ought to be today, brethren. I know some of my preaching brethren who, when they go on the road and preach in a lectureship, they preach mighty, mighty strong, but they don’t preach nearly that strong at home. We ought to be consistent; we ought to preach the same Gospel the same way all the time and everywhere. That’s what Paul did.
So, here we have the Corinthian church observing the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week and, in fact, every first day of the week, according to 1 Corinthians 16:2. And it’s not just in Troas. It’s not just in Corinth, but it’s everywhere Paul went and preached. That was the universal practice of the 1st Century church—every first day of the week. And so it must be for the Lord’s church today.
There are numerous Protestant denominations that observe their version of the Lord’s supper once a month, some once a quarter, some less frequently than that. And often the excuse is given for doing it that infrequently that, “it would become too ritualistic and, thus, meaningless if we observed more frequently.” I have never heard one of them argue that about passing the contribution plate, nor engaging in prayer, nor having sermons. That excuse, of course, does not at all hold up.
Uninspired church historians for the first few hundred years after the 1st Century—after the apostolic period came to a close—though they record these abuses starting to come into the Lord’s supper, still in their abused state of it, they were doing it every…first…day…of the week. That part of it remained.
Now, what should be the manner of our partaking?
Paul answers that, too. Of course, by implication, the very purpose of the Lord’s supper ought to tell us something about that. The solemnity with which the Lord took that bread, knowing that just shortly after He had done this with His disciples, they would be going eastward across the Brook Kidron, and in the Garden of Gethsemane [John 18:1], He would be arrested and taken to trial, and then crucified—just on the very, very eve of that—the same night—our Lord took that bread and said, “This is My body…do this, eat it, in remembrance of Me.” And He took that cup and said, “Drink ye all of it…in remembrance of Me.”
But Paul makes it very plain as he is discussing these very same things the Lord revealed to him. In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 27, He says, “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner....” The King James says “unworthily,” but that could leave the wrong impression that it might be possible for somehow we of ourselves could be worthy of that great sacrifice, which none of us ever could. But it is the MANNER of which Paul is speaking here—in a worthy manner—and the American Standard Version brings that out better. “…shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” That’s serious business, brethren!
But what does he mean by “worthy manner”? Well, I suppose we could substitute another word or two—“in an appropriate manner,” “a manner in keeping with the solemnity and sacredness of the supper and what it means.”
You know, we understand that there are various kinds of behaviors that are appropriate in certain settings that are not appropriate in others. You go to a football game and your team scores and you stand up and you scream and yell like you’re crazy. But you don’t do that at a funeral—totally out of place, totally inappropriate.
Well, what would constitute appropriate or worthy behavior in partaking of the Lord’s supper? First of all, I would suggest remembering the PURPOSE of it. It is to REMEMBER the DEATH of our Lord—the PRICE THAT WAS PAID FOR OUR REDEMPTION! Peter so eloquently stated this in 1 Peter, chapter 1, beginning with verse 18: “…knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, (even the blood) of Christ: 20 Who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world….” That’s where our minds are to be as we eat this bread and as we drink this fruit of the vine, brethren.
And if we fail to discern the body in doing that, he says in verse 29 of 1 Corinthians 11, we eat and drink judgment—the King James says “damnation”—upon our selves [“For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.”]. That is SERIOUS business!
I’ve found some things to be helpful to me through the years as I partake of the Lord’s supper. I would not in any way bind these upon anyone. I simply offer them as suggestions. But, it’s so easy for our minds to wander. I like to get my Testament out as we’re observing the Lord’s supper and just read again those simple, matter-of-fact accounts of what ungodly and wicked men did to our Lord when they nailed Him to the cross. Read them from Matthew 26, 27; Mark 14, 15; Luke 22, 23, 24; and even 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Or slip back to Isaiah 53 and read what that inspired prophet said of our Lord 700…years…before…they…occurred! He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him. With His stripes WE are healed. And His justice was taken away. Brethren, that’s where our minds are to be when we eat this bread and when we drink of this cup.
May our minds go back to that solemn, sacred hill called “Calvary” as we eat and drink IN MEMORY OF HIM.
Thank you.