Partaking of the Table

[TLFisher]

I have a question regarding the table. Is partaking of the table a privilege or a right?
Whatever the response may be, please indicate why.

Terry

[OBW]

Interesting question. And my response is an unequivocal "yes."

It is a privilege allowed to us because of our acceptance of the sacrifice that caused there to be a Lord's table.

But it should be a right for any true Christian to partake unless there is the kind of sin that would cause the church to have excluded the person/Christian. Like the sin described by Paul in 1 Cor. Excluding for lesser reasons is sectarian and casts a shadow over the very observance.

These are, of course, opinions.

And the second causes no small amount of grief because there are some Christian sects that do not allow participation except by known members or at least regular attenders. If their concern is to avoid somehow allowing the unsaved to participate, I do understand. But I believe those that err on the open side do not risk the status of their table if an unsaved one should participate. The error is on the one who participates, not on the church.

[YP0534]

I think my response will be an unequivocal "no."

Both concepts are matters of law and eating is a matter of life.

Having said that, I also readily admit that I have never touched the reality of the breadbreaking meeting. So, it's entirely possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever.

Grace to you today!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Both concepts are matters of law and eating is a matter of life.

I understand your answer within the context in which you placed it. As Jesus "ordained" the observance the believer is merely to do it — no right or privilege.

But in terms of the "society" of Christians, where we find that there is a consideration of who should or should not partake, then there is some slight restriction because its only descriptions (and not prescriptions) are of a communal partaking. And while not matters of "law" per se, the very limited restriction that the "society" should place on the observance conveys a sense that in legal terms looks like a right or a privilege. Yet at the personal level, there is a further restriction concerning the attitude of the individual toward the body (that Christian "society") in general that should be discerned, causing the possibility of self-restriction.

Your answer is correct in that the terms "privilege" and "right" have such significant meaning in American jurisprudence and its constitution that cannot be conferred upon the Christian life and experience in the precise same way. But simply saying that it is a matter of life does not answer the heart of the question posed.

As described in scripture, there is this practice of the Lord's table. What are the causes given for inclusion or exclusion from the observance? How does, or should, that play out in real life? Should I, a Christian of "good standing" who rightly regards the "body" be able to partake of the table with an assembly that is not usually my own?

So I would read the question a little more broadly than stated to instead be asking on what basis should a person be restricted from participation, whether by the assembly or by the person them self. Saying that it is a matter of life is like suggesting that the answer is in a common dictionary rather than a legal dictionary.

I do not suppose that we will discover "the" answer or answers, but a sense of the actual answers should be discoverable. We should be able, like the counsel in Jerusalem, to come to some understanding of how we should include or exclude ourselves or others from participation.

Now, is that what we want to do? That is another question.

[TLFisher]

Bear with my analogy. Which is a drivers license.

Having a drivers license is not a right as voting, or US citizenship is , but a privilege. It's earned by passing the written and driving tests. Likewise through our salvation and baptism we earn the right & privilege to partake of the table. The right to drive can be taken away by blindness or by an offense. Likewise the right to take the table can be taken away because of a kind of sin as Mike had noted in 1 Corinthians.

The right to drive cannot be taken away because I don't like the way you drive. As for taking the table, Mike had noted "Excluding for lesser reasons is sectarian and casts a shadow over the very observance."

In regard to taking the table, our birthright has fulfilled the qualification by our salvation and baptism through Jesus Christ. Providing sin is not prohibitive, taking the table is a right and a privilege.

Terry

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

As described in scripture, there is this practice of the Lord's table. What are the causes given for inclusion or exclusion from the observance?

Mike, I understood your first response to be that the primary concern is our own discernment of our condition before the Lord.

Did I mistake your answer?

And I guess if we really want to take it in the direction you now seem to favor, I think we need to just get a list of all the verses and tack it up on the wall in the form of a couple of tablets. At least it's fair if everybody knows the rules.

But let me reiterate what I felt to be my bigger point:

I've seen God moving in the meetings of the believers.

I touched something extremely real and solid in my baptism.

But every time I have been involved in bread breaking it has been a religious ceremony that I don't even understand or really relate to despite having made a study of it a few times over the years.

Some were less religious than others but all of them had enough character of unreality that I was aware that the most essential part of the thing had been excluded somehow.

And let me confess as a caveat that perhaps the unreality is really all my own having been raised a devout Roman Catholic. It's not transubstantiation so, what exactly is it? That might just be my problem rather than anyone else's. But I really feel with a good degree of certainty that the problem has to do with the Spirit and life rather than additional study of the verses.

Perhaps this matter of asserting rights and enforcing exclusions is an entirely different problem that doesn't have anything to do essentially with the Spirit and life.

I really suspect that it does, but I can be mistaken many times.

[OBW]

My experience with the Lord's table, both in LC days all the way up to this last Sunday has been varied, but usually rich and meaningful. At some level, there has always been a sense of ritual that is not so clearly meaningful. But the environment has also been significant. Although that has been as varied as a lengthy LC "Table meeting" to the very contemplative time that we now enjoy when we have the Table in our assembly, it is a time in which we stop to actually consider the most significant act of Jesus during his brief time on earth.

As for having a list of things to tack on a wall, notice that in my account, there is almost nothing to put there. Personally, I should have some sense of my own present condition and attitude with respect to the body. There is nothing to put on the wall for that. In fact, it almost makes partaking of the Lord's table a right conferred upon salvation, therefore almost no reason for exclusion. Any discussion of why someone should be excluded is almost only needed for those who might have responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the table (whatever that is).

I think that, while the RCC's transubstantiation is wacko heresy, there is something to meaningful ritual. You spend a few minutes focused on the truth of something you do not want to take for granted or let fade in your mind. And in a period in time in which there was a significant illiteracy rate, things like reciting creeds was an important way to make your core belief stick. The table shows us (among other things) the spilled blood of the crucifixion and the one source from which many grains of wheat have sprung.

And yes, it is easy to turn ritual into a mindless thing that is done as a salve for the conscience. That fact is not a slam on the ritual, but on the participant.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

My experience with the Lord's table, both in LC days all the way up to this last Sunday has been varied, but usually rich and meaningful.

I will accept your word that it is so for you but it has never been so for me.

In that rather familiar Local Church way, I have previously tried to convince myself that it was great and all but at the end of the day and being really honest with myself before the Lord, it's just a stack of doctrines and some formalities to me even still.

Assuming that touching the reality of the cup means that there is a testimony in the symbol to our daily experience of the blood, I confess that I may have had the faintest glimmering of that reality from time to time.

But as for the whole "many grains" thing? It's still a mystery most profound.

And the complicated Local Church protocols concerning hymn choice and timing of certain types of prayers? I'm inclined to completely reject that sort of structure outright but I can say that I have difficulty believing there's any reality hidden up in all of that.

Perhaps it is the main residue of my upbringing that I have such a strong aversion to all ritual. Another friend of mine has on a different occasion attempted to persuade me in this vein. It's not an intellectual issue but something quite visceral. I'm not remotely interested in asking anyone to divest of their ritual, but it will take true revelation for me to ever become comfortable performing one.

Though I sincerely do appreciate your commendation, it'll have to come direct from the Lord to do the trick for me...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I will accept your word that it is so for you but it has never been so for me.

I completely understand the notion of ritual just not "doing it" for you.

As far as the LC formula of hymn order, while I actually found meaning in it, it should never have been etched in stone as a rule such that an elder or other more "responsible one" would override any called hymn. God often speaks through the mouth of babes. But at the table, the babes had pacifiers stuffed in their mouths and the deeply grooved path of hymns was never allowed to be abandoned. It was irrelevant that the only disruption to the Spirit was in the blatant disregard for the body in favor of the rules.

Our "bible church" has few things that resemble ritual, although some influence of "Emerging" practice has brought in a little. It is all taken on with meaningful, spiritual purpose and much consideration, and as such I have no complaint.

But, as I mentioned before, there are surely some who have simply gotten into doing something that they think is the thing to do. I will not presume to discern who falls in that category. And there are some that do not "do it for me" either, and I typically abstain rather than go through motions that are hollow for me.

Not sure I would treat the Lord's table in that manner since, unlike the others, it was commanded "as often as you do it." Sometimes, obedience is as good a reason as any. On the other hand, if I cannot have a good sense toward Christ and his sacrifice, along with a proper attitude toward the body, then I should consider abstaining.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure I would treat the Lord's table in that manner since, unlike the others, it was commanded "as often as you do it." Sometimes, obedience is as good a reason as any. On the other hand, if I cannot have a good sense toward Christ and his sacrifice, along with a proper attitude toward the body, then I should consider abstaining.

See, the thing is, it's not the sort of thing that I have any true resistance or rebellion against in terms of not being "obedient" so I'm not sure where that really leaves me. I really, really want this, in other words. I just don't want to be faking it and calling it obedience. That I give the same mite as the widow doesn't make mine a gift.

But as to the last, AMEN! I'm at least clear that this is the threshold on my side as to whether or not participation would itself be disobedient...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

See, the thing is, it's not the sort of thing that I have any true resistance or rebellion against in terms of not being "obedient" so I'm not sure where that really leaves me. I really, really want this, in other words. I just don't want to be faking it and calling it obedience. That I give the same mite as the widow doesn't make mine a gift.

I can sympathize with your plight. Try this. Don't worry about the ritual part. Just do it. It was commanded. But while almost ignoring the ritual in which you are engaged, focus yourself on the significance of the sacrifice of Christ; on the benefits you receive as a result of that sacrifice; on love God has for you. You can figure out something. The point is remembrance. The ritual is for focus. If you don't really need it or desire it, just do it anyway while you almost ignore it. When you remember; when you are in awe of the God that would stoop to do such a thing for us; then you are remembering and you are partaking. Someone else's contemplation of the actual elements may be their remembrance. It may not be so for you. But you do remember. (And without really knowing you, I know you do.) Don't get worried about faking. You are a believer and you remember. That is not fake That is the purpose. Getting a feeling out of eating some kind of wafer and drinking grape juice or wine is not the point. It is like repeating the Schma (sp?) by good Jews every morning. It reminds them before their feet hit the floor that there is One God and they should love Him. (Not a bad ritual.)

Much grace to you as you deal with this.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is like repeating the Schma (sp?) by good Jews every morning. It reminds them before their feet hit the floor that there is One God and they should love Him. (Not a bad ritual.)

Funny you should say that.

Just last night I finished read a book written by some Messianic Jews who I'm certain would strongly agree with you. (The author was more about feasts, the Sabbath and keeping Kosher, but I'm sure he'd commend us to this one as well.)

Originally Posted by OBW

Much grace to you as you deal with this.

I greatly appreciate the prayers.

I've been seeking the Lord regarding this one since even before I left the Local Church, almost since the day I first prayed to receive Him...

[WoundedEgo]

It is my considered opinion that the new testament and the passover are for Jews only:

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant ***with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah***:

The celebration is for Jews to celebrate deliverance from Egypt, enhanced by Jesus to a celebration of God's new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah.

The passover occurs once per year. That is "as often as you do it":

Nu 9:4 And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, that they should keep the passover.
Nu 9:5 And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by WoundedEgo

It is my considered opinion that the new testament and the passover are for Jews only.

Well, like I said, I just finished a book by some Messianic Jews who would agree with you.

Of course, it is clear that Paul was quite concerned about Gentiles too, especially considering that he was the "apostle to the Gentiles," so I'm not sure where that leaves your analysis...

[WoundedEgo]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Well, like I said, I just finished a book by some Messianic Jews who would agree with you.

Of course, it is clear that Paul was quite concerned about Gentiles too, especially considering that he was the "apostle to the Gentiles," so I'm not sure where that leaves your analysis...

It was *Jesus* that, during a seder with his Jewish disciples, associated the seder cup and pita bread (not a cracker) with the new testament. And we are not left to guess with whom that testament was made, as the text says *explicitly* that it was with the house of Israel, and of Judah. There is no need to infer from indirect clues.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by WoundedEgo

It was *Jesus* that, during a seder with his Jewish disciples, associated the seder cup and pita bread (not a cracker) with the new testament. And we are not left to guess with whom that testament was made, as the text says *explicitly* that it was with the house of Israel, and of Judah. There is no need to infer from indirect clues.

Piffle.

No one can seriously contend that Hebrews 8:8-12 (and the prophesy cited) in context is an exclusive deal with Israel and Judah, and that reading is just completely at odds with the totality of the revelation of the truth.

Christ has become our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Regardless, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. The blessing of Abraham has come to the nations in Christ, and, in fact, in Christ, we are all Abraham's seed.

You might be right about the cracker, though...

[WoundedEgo]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Piffle. No one can seriously contend that Hebrews 8:8-12 (and the prophesy cited) in context is an exclusive deal with Israel and Judah, and that reading is just completely at odds with the totality of the revelation of the truth. Christ has become our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

You do realize that you are quoting the letter "To the HEBREWS," no?

Regardless, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. The blessing of Abraham has come to the nations in Christ, and, in fact, in Christ, we are all Abraham's seed.
You might be right about the cracker, though...

That does not mean that the new testaments was not specifically promised to the house of Israel and Judah:

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Well, let me ask you, are these words meaningless to you?:

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant **with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah**:

Suppose I found a nice contract I liked, and it said "with the house of Smith and Jones"... could I just ignore that and add my name?

Ga 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man‘s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

So what view of scripture allows you to ignore this specification of the parties with whom the covenant is made?

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by WoundedEgo

Well, let me ask you, are these words meaningless to you?:

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant **with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah**:

Suppose I found a nice contract I liked, and it said "with the house of Smith and Jones"... could I just ignore that and add my name?

Ga 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man‘s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

So what view of scripture allows you to ignore this specification of the parties with whom the covenant is made?

Look, if you want to go with your whacked-out construction of the scriptures based upon half-understanding of them and insist that you're right - BE MY GUEST!

I'm not about talking you out of your bogosity, just suggesting that you're bogus is all. But I really have no leading or interest to go all into the construction of the original covenant referenced (which is where your first problem is) through the interpretation of the letter to the HEBREWS (YOU realize that's who it was written to, right?) to show you the path of light, truth, orthodoxy, etc. Good Lord, no!

Seek the Lord for the light in His Word and don't lean on your own understanding is about all I can do for you, other than to add just this:

A covenant (not identical with a contract, BTW) involving multiple parties can contain provisions that are applicable to only some of the parties without nullifying the agreement between parties not mentioned in some particular rider or other.

God created Adam, and through Noah until Abraham there was no peculiar people of God. Even in establishing the chosen nation of Israel, it was obvious that the eventuality of God's kingdom was to encompass all of the earth, the selection of this one tribe being the instrumentality by which He would accomplish His universal purpose. But Hebrews 8:9 even makes clear that the old covenant referred to in context was the Mosaic law, which coming along later could not nullify what was established through Abrahamic promise.

But you've got something etched deeply into a hard head and it's just not my job to try to scratch that out for you.

Good luck with that!

[TLFisher]

Prior to taking the Table, how often is 1 Corinthians 11:27 used as a word of warning?

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Before taking the Table, we must have already taken some time to examine ourselves as in verse 28.

"But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup."

Terry

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

Prior to taking the Table, how often is 1 Corinthians 11:27 used as a word of warning?

"Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."

Before taking the Table, we must have already taken some time to examine ourselves as in verse 28.

"But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup."

Terry

While not directly quoted, I hear it regularly along with the general admonition that you should feel no compulsion to partake, and that if you feel inclined to refrain for any reason you should do so.

[OBW]

One more thought on 1 Cor 11:27. At some level, we are all guilty of the blood and body of the Lord. I know that this aspect was not what Paul was talking about, but it is probably one that would lead us to deal with the offenses that would make us currently guilty as the verse intends.