Sermon Tone Analysis

Worthy Worship

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

!

Introduction

Thank you for the excellent music ministry this morning and, in particular, for helping us focus our minds on the communion service to follow.

We are in the middle of a sermon series entitled, “The church is a family that…” and today we end the phrase with “…worships together”.

What does the phrase “church family” that mean to you? Might any organization be called a “family” if it is pleasantly characterized by a group that meets often, enjoys one another’s company, and maybe has a warm fuzzy feeling when they’re together?

Perhaps that could be the case.

We casually sing songs like “I’m so glad I’m a part of the family of God”; it’s easy to imagine the song composer, Bill Gaither, as a warm, fuzzy kind of guy.

In small churches, it that may be that several church families are distant blood relations – especially in the back hills of Arkansas!

But is that the extent of it?

Let me assure you, the relation we have to one another is very real and very “family”.

Members of the church – believers in Jesus Christ – are related to one another through our adoption as sons (or children) of God.

Quickly turn to Hebrews 2:9-15:

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

10For it became him, for whom /are/ all things, and by whom /are/ all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified /are/ all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13And again, I will put my trust in him.

And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.[1]

[KJV]

Hebrews 2:10 says it clearly: Christ wanted to bring “many sons unto glory”.

Again in verse 11: “he is not ashamed to call them brethren”; similar Old Testament quotations are given in verses 12 and 13.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is stating that Christ wanted us in a family relationship with Himself.

To accomplish this, He needed to do two things (verse 9):

(1)     become flesh or take on humanity (i.e., the Incarnation) in order to identify with us, and

(2)     suffer death on our behalf (i.e., the Cross) to bring us into close relationship with himself.

He had to deal with our sin problem; otherwise, our sin separates us from the Holy God and we can never be close to Him.

In other words, He did all this in order to make us His *family *– hardly* *just a /pleasant phrase/ when the substance of our relationship was established by the Creator through His blood.

Note verses 14-15: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

This wonderful combination of His “flesh” and His “blood” - the payment for our becoming His *family* – is what we celebrate today in our observance of the Lord’s Table.

W. Robinson put it this way:

“We have, in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, that subtle combination of simplicity and sublimity, of intimacy and ultimacy, of reverence and homeliness.

We are priests worshipping in the heavenlies with our great High Priest whom we adore; we are kings gathered before the throne of the King of kings; but we are also children of our Father, gathered at the family hearth, intimately related to each other in him, in a relationship which breaks down every racial and blood barrier, every class barrier, and which is closer than any blood bond of national or family tie can be, because we are joined in the communion of his body and blood.”[2]

The Lord’s Supper, or The Eucharist, or simply Communion, has been regarded as the central act of Christian worship.

In keeping with this, Olive Wyon wrote:

“The eucharist is central: because it gathers up, expresses, and makes effective the whole meaning of the spiritual life.

It proclaims the Christian Gospel: in it God comes to us with his forgiveness and his strength.

One by one, and as members of the body of Christ, we respond to him with gratitude and awe.” [3]

So today we look at this one particularly important aspect of Christian worship: the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

To that end, let’s take the next few moments looking at a passage in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian family of believers, one that speaks to an issue concerning the Lord’s Table in the context of a local worship service.

!

Exposition

Let’s begin with some explanation of the context, found in 1 Corinthians 11:1-2:

1Be ye followers of me, even as I also /am/ of Christ.

2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered /them/ to you.

[KJV]

The Apostle Paul is beginning to engage in a monologue of several items concerning the Corinthian’s worship.

He sets the stage, first stating that he models a lifestyle and behavior they are to pattern themselves after.

Quite a challenge!

How many of us dare to say that?

He next gives them a word of encouragement and praise, stating they are indeed “keeping the ordinances” as he had outlined them.

Of course, after we read further down the chapter, we discover that this was the “spoonful of sugar” that “makes the medicine go down” – the bible according to Mary Poppins.

By the time we reach verse 17, he continues with the subject of today’s study.

17Now in this that I declare /unto you/ I praise /you/ not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

[KJV]

 

Oops!

This doesn’t sound good.

Is it possible to “come together not for the better, but for the worse”?

Do you mean coming to church isn’t always a good thing?

Well, let’s just say that the way they were conducting themselves, when they gathered together for this purpose and under these conditions, needed correction.

We live in a society that values tolerance.

Nothing is wrong /per se/; everyone has different opinions and beliefs and we simply need to respect those for what they are – /personal/ or /relative/ truth.

In fact, as Danny Kroeker read for us last week from Chuck Colson’s book, How Now Shall We Then Live?, it seems that the only thing our culture refuses to tolerate is intolerance!

Absolute “right” and “wrong” are held as archaic concepts – outdated from today’s Post-Modern viewpoint.

Nevertheless, God has clearly communicated through His Word things that please and displease Him; that which is right and wrong; holy and righteous acts against sinful, rebellious ones.

Bad attitudes and behaviors aren’t automatically changed into good ones just because they are conducted within the confines of a church building or performed in the presence of the believers gathered.

There is a right way and a wrong way.

Paul now goes on to explain what they did wrong and why they needed correction.

18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20When ye come together therefore into one place, /this/ is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

21For in eating every one taketh before /other/ his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22What?

have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this?

I praise /you/ not.

[KJV]

 

“First of all” probably means that this matter was of prime importance to Paul.

As we see from verse 34, there were other items of lesser importance that needed correction and he intended to deal with them personally when he next visited.

The context of this issue surrounds a common early-church practice of enjoying a “love feast” – a type of “potluck” similar to our Fellowship Meal here at First Free but with a few key differences:

·         Many scholars attribute the love feast as the means by which these early Christians chose to distribute food to the less fortunate among them.

We see this practice in other passages, such as Acts 6:1 (“widows were neglected”) and Acts 2:44 (“had all things in common”).

·         The act of eating together was quite commonplace, occurring at almost every opportunity of meeting (Acts 2:46 – “daily”, Acts 6:1 – “daily ministration”).

·         These meals led into an observance of the Lord’s Table.

So what was the problem?

The apostle indicates that the church at Corinth was divided into sects or splinter groups (v.18).

The KJV use of the word “heresies” in verse 19 is interesting.

The Greek word haireseis actually means[4] a /choosing/ or /taking of sides/.

This could infer that the divisions in verse 18 were actually partisan factions.

No one knows the exact nature of the divisions, but it could have been a “rich versus poor” dispute.

Note the phrase “every one taketh before his own supper” (v.21) closely followed by “shame them that have not” (v.

22).

It seems that people (perhaps the wealthy or those with abundance) would eat their own food before others (who perhaps had less fancy fare or brought nothing to contribute) had a chance to share.

It is also possible that the divisions had some other cause that resulted in the poor being left out.

For example, if factions were taking sides over what color to paint the church foyer (a purely /hypothetical/ situation), then it is possible that one group might not want to share their food with those of the opposing view, eating the food they brought before others had the chance.

The poor believers, who may have had nothing to do with the dispute, find the food gone by the time they arrive – through no fault of their own.

A war between two sides can create casualties among the innocent bystanders.

Whatever the cause, voluntary divisions existed and were disruptive.

There is some debate over the meaning of verse 19.

It could be saying that divisions will always exist and implying that sometimes God allows such trouble to invade so that those who defend the truth and those of godly character emerge from the fray – something along the lines of Romans 8:28 (“all things work together for good”).

On the other hand, it could be saying that a /taking of sides/ or a /difference of opinion/ is inevitable but that a good discussion will show who is well grounded in their faith – akin to “disagreeing without being disagreeable”, avoiding disruptive separation or division.

Since I think both views could be acceptable, I choose not to choose (seated firmly on the fence) but take the counsel of both interpretations.