THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
DLH What was in your mind, Mr. J., in suggesting the scripture?
FWJ I thought it would be good to see how the assembly was formed and the manifestation of the gifts in connection with the body, and the measure of each one in assembly in connection with chapter 13.
JH There seems to have been a definite idea in saying, “When ye come together in assembly”. Would they come together in assembly as Christ’s brethren?
PR Is the thought of the brethren of Christ in 1 Corinthians?
SH I do not think you get it there, but on the other hand it would not do to answer the question in the negative and say that you were not there as Christ’s brethren.
JA Is He more presented to us as Lord?
JT It would seem so in 1 Corinthians; therefore the thought of Christ’s brethren could hardly come in.
SH Was not the lordship of Christ referred to in 1 Corinthians on account of the discord that was there? The proper relation of the assembly is to Christ.
JH That was rather my thought, and also that it was necessarily His brethren that come together in assembly; but of course the Lord is very prominent in the assembly on account of the disorder, as you say.
EHC The apostle addresses them as brethren in verse 2, but after as Christ’s.
DLH The word ‘brethren’ should not be there.
†Note. — This reading has come to light only just in time for inclusion in the New Series, and although out of date order it is felt to be of general interest and to [p. 465] justify publication here.
Rem The saints there are regarded as in Christ.
DLH I do not myself understand on what ground saints can come together in assembly unless it is in association with Christ risen.
SH I suppose the aspect of the brethren of Christ is rather John’s side of it. I think that is necessary for our understanding of the assembly of Christ, since the light lost in respect of the assembly is recovered by way of John. I suppose the first thing we would understand would be that we are the brethren of Christ, and the next thing we would apprehend therefore is our suitability for union, and that the assembly is regarded in that way as “the Christ”. I think John gives us in that sense the moral suitability, and that is the only way of recovery. We do not get recovery to the truth of the assembly by the intelligent understanding of the epistle to the Ephesians. We are brought first practically to the understanding in our souls of John’s teaching.
JT Yes; the only question in my mind is as to the way things are presented in Corinthians. My understanding of it is that the assembly is viewed as in the wilderness.
SH Would that not rather be the first part of the epistle?
JT When I say the assembly as in Corinthians, I mean that it is convened as in the presence of the world, and that male and female and the like are here, two things that refer to our life here and our present condition; whereas the idea of the brethren of Christ is connected with new creation.
JH In what sense do you speak of the wilderness, because the wilderness is spoken of in the Scriptures up to the brazen serpent, and then there is the wilderness after that point?
JT The wilderness after the brazen serpent is connected with the work of the Spirit in the saints; the ordinances and sacraments are not connected with [p. 466] that in the wilderness, but more with the order of God in the wilderness, which I think we have in the first part of the book of Numbers.
JA What connection have the house of God and the assembly of the living God with the wilderness?
JT The house of God has its bearing towards the world; the assembly of the living God is where all the vitality is.
JA I thought the house and the assembly are both of God, and that the wilderness, which has to do with the individual and his path here, is out of sight in the assembly aspect.
JT Yes, but I was thinking of the bearing of the assembly with what is without, and the testimony, where God is always seen.
EB How far do you carry the thought of the testimony in that connection?
JT The important thought in Corinthians, especially in this chapter, is divine order, how things should be done. Chapter 10 shows the bearing of the Supper on our associations and our daily walk; chapter 11 is a question of order.
FK What really constitutes coming together in assembly as spoken of here?
JT The people coming together to the Supper, I take it; because he says, “This is not to eat the Lord’s supper”, for what they were doing was not orderly.
FK Does it allude to the Lord’s people assembling together? Is it the character of their coming together?
JT It is the assembly, and the apostle indicates that the Supper is the object in view. The Supper is that which, as F.E.R. used to say, rallies the saints.
JH Is it similar to the thought in Acts 20?
JT But there you do not see the assembly. The Spirit of God is emphasising here the assembly of God; it is a question of what is suitable to [p. 467] God.
FK And are we only gathered together in assembly when we come to take the Lord’s supper?
JT It is presented that way here. What they were doing, the apostle says, was not to eat the Lord’s supper.
FK What about chapter 14?
JT I suppose the teaching of chapter 14 hangs upon this chapter. The Spirit puts us in order, regulates us.
WJ Corinthians presents the side of responsibility rather than that of privilege.
PR May it not be a serious objection: how can we come together in assembly in the present broken state of things? You think it would still be possible in view of the Supper?
JT All I can say is that you can come together in the light of it and endeavour to maintain the order suitable to it.
PR Without any assumption.
JT This epistle is supreme at the present time because it is a question of divine order; it is a most important epistle.
DLH What is the standpoint from which we contemplate the Lord Jesus Christ and call Him to mind?
JT I think you begin with the Lord. As we come together from our varied associations and responsibilities it is suitable that the Lord should have His place as such.
DLH But “Lord” is individual. At least, I have always understood that.
JT It is said to be “The Lord’s supper”.
HD'AC He is the gathering point. In Luke 24 you do not first find them meeting together as brethren but rather as disciples, but one blessed Person gathered them, and there He was in the midst; in John you find the same company but gathered as brethren and in the Father’s [p. 468] name.
JT The disciples came together to break bread that is important.
JH How do you connect this chapter? Luke and John together?
HD'AC The Lord surely when He brings His own together would bring them all. Everyone does not at once enter into the question of christian relationship and therefore in Luke you have the simplest elements as to coming together-Christ, the Lord as conqueror of death took His place as Head and Host and what they all were really after was Himself; they were together without any message, without any great intelligence of christian relationship.
JT I understand the Supper is left to us and we come together to break bread. It is not presented that He brings us together. The Lord gave the Supper to us as a rallying point for those He loved. It says, “The disciples came together”.
HD'AC They could not help it.
SH In Luke we see the Lord’s activities in each one in order that He might find them together, and the gospel of John gives us the pattern.
HD'AC You would not leave anyone out as to coming together. In Luke’s gospel what is presented to us is what I may speak of as general, the Lord’s activities and so on: in John we see them so gathered. Behind the word of Mary are the Lord’s activities and those activities are carried on in each one of us today.
JT They came together, and that I think you will find is connected with the breaking of bread in the early chapters of the Acts. I was referring to Acts 20.
SH I was thinking more of the remarks of Mr. C. and of Mr. H.
WJ I suppose it is only in Luke’s gospel that we get the institution of the Supper, not in the other gospels. It is, “My body which is given for you”.
[p. 469] I thought the point was the status of those who were gathered. Were they coming together as brethren, disciples, or what? Do you leave out the instructions previous to this in the thought? Is there not some moral connection between what is set forth here in the early part of the chapter? Why does that come in there?
SH If there is not order in respect of those things there will not be order when we come together in assembly. If natural order is ignored there will be disorder when we come together.
JT There were some things he could praise them for, but he could not praise them for the way they came together in assembly.
DLH Is not the idea of the Lord’s supper that He is supreme there?
JT That is what I alluded to in regard to the lordship of Christ and the assembly and the relation in which the Lord is in regard to it.
DLH He is the Host.
JT The Supper is in view of His absence.
DLH When the assembly is convened, He is in presence.
JT If He is the Host, to use your figure, He would necessarily do what is done. Whereas what He left was that we should do it. He did it once.
DLH But I think you will find the apostle referring to the divine order and what the Lord Jesus did: “I received from the Lord ... that the Lord Jesus ... took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup ... For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”. It seems to me as though the Lord gives it.
JT [p. 470] The Lord gave it to the disciples and He gave it to Paul. Paul gave it to the Corinthians, but they were not using it rightly.
DLH But there is a great deal about the Lord and there is a great deal to be corrected; the whole epistle is corrective.
SH The Supper is brought in correctively here. It is really a reminder of what has been instituted rather than the institution of it. Did I understand you to make any importance of our breaking the bread?
JT No; I was thinking they did not have the Supper because they were recognising parties in the meeting, and the like.
SH Mr. H. said the Lord was the Host, and you said that if He were there He would do it.
JT I mean that He did it first as the Host.
SH I think it has only been done once. He only divides the loaf. What I have understood is that it is broken for convenience and the Lord has given it to us in that way.
JT I find it difficult to work that in with chapter 10, the one loaf!
HCA Do you think the Lord’s act avails for all time here, and we take it up in response to His word?
DLH All it says here is that we eat it; it says nothing about our breaking it.
SH Except in chapter 10 and that is the teaching of it. We break it; that is, we each eat of it.
JT But the Lord breaks it, and He told them to eat of it.
HCA Do not we break it necessarily in obedience to His word here?
DLH That is partaking of it.
JT The breaking of it is that act which recalls Christ to me.
HCA I thought that had caused trouble, and made the breaking of bread the act of a minister.
[p. 471] JT It ought to be the act of one who manifests the spirit of Christ.
R You look upon the breaking of bread, the vital part of it, as that which we, each one, do?
SH Yes; it is “which we break”; that is, we all put our hand to it. Chapter 10 is the teaching of it and that is the table and that is what is to characterise us all the week, and in that sense we come afresh to it. It is not exactly something new.
R So that the simplest saint present breaks bread just as truly as the one who breaks the loaf.
JT It does not appeal to me so; it seems to me the breaking is an act of one, that which one does.
DLH There is no assembly in chapter 10.
JT I do not think you will find in the institution anything about the disciples breaking. The Lord did that. I look for that act. The Lord always did it, and that act suggested Him to their affections in Luke 24.
DLH That is all I see in it, but I do not attribute that to the Lord’s supper.
JT It was the most familiar thing possible.
SH Yes.
DLH I never myself attach importance to the breaking of bread by the individual, though of course one must needs do it. He does what is necessary in order that each one might do the same.
ASL I thought that in the one breaking the bread the saints gathered together were doing it. He is simply doing it as for the assembly.
JT To my mind the word ‘break’ is not suggested, I think it refers to the Lord’s act, whereas eating of it is our appropriation of it. I do not understand the eating to be the breaking of the bread.
DLH How do you understand, “We break” in chapter 10?
JT That is we are all committed to it.
HD'AC It is His supper; it is not spoken [p. 472] of as our supper.
SH It is His provision and His appointment.
FWJ The Lord Jesus instituted the Supper, and is the one who breaks the bread the continuance of that institution?
JT Yes; I think there is a suggestion of what characterised His act on the night of His betrayal.
HD'AC No one could give it to us but the Lord.
JT Paul received it of the Lord.
DLH It seems to me the bread must be broken in order to present the thought. That is the Lord’s body has been given for us, and therefore it is necessary that someone should do it, but we take it from the Lord.
JT Oh yes, it was given to the Jewish disciples and then it was given to Paul to carry it on, and he gave it to the Corinthians.
EB Then the giving of thanks and breaking of bread recalls what the Lord has already done?
JT That is what I understand. It is suggestive of what He did. It is that act that suggests Christ to me.
SH Scripture says we partake of the one loaf, not broken bread.
JT But it says, “The bread which we break”.
SH What is set forth in that is that there is the responsibility to walk in respect of what is set forth in that loaf.
GW What the disciples received on the night of the Lord’s betrayal was a broken loaf and that is what they partook of.
SH It was a loaf that was broken.
EB In Acts 20 I notice that J.N.D. gives “We being assembled to break bread”, and later in the chapter, “And having broken the bread, and eaten”.
SH The term ‘breaking of bread’ applies to the whole thing, to the drinking of the cup as well. The whole act is called the breaking of bread. The Supper itself is spoken of as the breaking of bread.
JT Would ‘the Supper’ not be a more adequate term for it?
PRM “They continued ... in breaking of bread”.
SH The general term in connection with it is the breaking of bread. It does not say they partook of the Lord’s supper. It is evidently a term which passed into use. The cup is not a fresh pouring out.
ASL So it is unsuitable to be pouring one out in the middle of the meeting. Before the bread is broken the assembly gives thanks through its mouth piece, so to speak. What is the thought there, for it is universally done?
SH It is after the pattern of the Lord; He gave thanks.
JT It is very important that should be made clear.
SH The whole thing is expressed in that: it is the eucharist.
Ques Do you agree with that, Mr. T.? It is after the pattern of the Lord, the One who gives thanks for the saints.
JT That is how I have always taken it.
SH I was referring to the giving of thanks. Why do we give thanks? Because the Lord gave thanks.
GW Do we give thanks in the same way as the Lord gave thanks? How did the Lord give thanks? What is the force of the Lord’s giving thanks? What did He give thanks for?
ASL Was it not that habitual act? He never took bread for any purpose without giving thanks.
GW Well, what do we give thanks for?
JT Would He give thanks in connection with His prospective death?
DLH If Scripture does not give us details we must leave that question.
GW What is the standpoint from which we give thanks?
DLH It appears to me that in the giving of [p. 474] thanks we are calling the Lord to mind, the Lord as having gone into death and there having dealt with the whole question of sin to God’s glory, having removed all that was contrary to God on the one hand, and on the other as having established everything that was according to the will of God. It appears to me that those are the thoughts that are brought before us in the breaking of bread on the one hand, and the drinking of the cup on the other. In the cup we have the new covenant in His blood, which brings the will of God primarily before our souls. In the breaking of bread it appears we have much more the thought of what has been removed, and the love of God that has found One competent to remove it; and in the cup we have the thought of God’s will as having been established.
SH It is wonderful that the Lord could give this at such a moment. He could do so knowing that He was going to remove man after the flesh in judgment in His body. What do we give thanks for? We cannot go beyond our own standpoint, and if we give thanks intelligently according to the Lord’s mind it is that man after the flesh has been removed from the eye of God. In the cup there appears under the eye of God all that has come in for His pleasure. No doubt what the Lord contemplated was not only the removing of man after the flesh but what He was going to acquire for Himself.
GW Two thoughts came before the Lord at that moment, and in view of the accomplishment of what was in His mind He gave thanks. Our thanksgiving, in retrospect, must be in some measure on the line of the Lord’s thanksgiving.
JT I add that the Lord, in a sense, was Head of the house in the institution of the Supper. You may term it ‘host’, but it is more His family: I think that it is a family suggestion. The Lord was very simple, and was accustomed to take the place of Head in the [p. 475] home circle. He always gave thanks, and so on that occasion (and I always refer to it in that way) it is that which Christ presents to me as having to do with His own and surrounding Himself with them on that memorable night. It is a most affecting scene: the Lord’s affection going out to His disciples in all He is saying and doing: that is the comfort to my soul.
JA Nobody but Himself could have broken that particular bread on that particular night.
SH They all happily gave Him that position. He said, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ... so I am”.
EHC Would it be right to say, ‘We receive this bread from Thy hand’?
DLH But is not the Lord Himself the prominent Object before the assembly at the commencement and in the breaking of bread? When I speak of the commencement I refer to the breaking of bread, when we come together to call Him to mind, to remember Him: therefore He is evidently the prominent Object before the assembly. But in the cup we have the will of God suggested, the good pleasure of God and that is the last point in the Supper, and it leaves us with the impression engraven upon our souls that God has found a way of bringing to pass all His pleasure now. That seems to me to lead us rightly, I would almost say inevitably if things are right, to worship. In a sense it promotes worship.
SH The moment there is the apprehension of the glory of His Person there must be worship.
DLH Yes, but would you not say that then He takes His place not as the prominent Object exactly but as the Leader of the whole assembly?
SH And that is the aspect of His death that ought to be more prominently before us. When we think of His death, we often think of what He has lost, but I think we ought to think more of the acquisitiveness of [p. 476] His love.
DLH I should like to ask how we can look back and call the Lord to mind unless we are at the standpoint of the other side of the Jordan.
SH That is the standpoint F.E.R. contended for, and he made a remark which has been a good deal misunderstood. That is, the breaking of bread was an incident in our history, not in the wilderness exactly, but in our history, for in one sense we are always in the wilderness. That is, our position is an abstract one. In its true, proper, abstract thought, all these distinctions, men, women and so on, are gone.
JT The assembly viewed as in the land requires state.
SH Whether we have state to take account of it as such, it is how the Lord regards the assembly. In the epistle to the Hebrews you have the great thought of the house of God, Christ in the midst, and He is continually there and praise is constantly ascending up to the Father by Him. You have the idea of the house of God over the whole of the universe and praise going up to Him (chapter 2).
R There is to be the state of soul to reach that.
SH I quite admit that, but because there may not be the state it does not do away with it.
JT The assembly of Christ in Canaan necessitates the work of the Spirit. The Supper is connected with our position here. The youngest believer participates in it, but all do not go on to that which is proper assembly privilege as far as the subjective work goes.
DLH I want to say another word upon what I understand ‘over Jordan’ signifies. It does not necessarily bring a person of itself into what you were speaking of as Canaan. It suggests a peculiar position. Just over Jordan was not exactly in the land. The saints were not exactly in the enjoyment of their heavenly position until such time as they took possession, but they were over Jordan nevertheless and that [p. 477] seems to me to signify the true standing and position of the assembly in association with Christ risen.
SH Then there is another point connected with it: are the wilderness and over Jordan to be regarded as successive?
DLH I think you would say they are not necessarily successive.
SH They cannot be: the two coalesce. Although we are in the wilderness, and shall be till the Lord comes, yet there is another side, resurrection, Gilgal and the passover at Gilgal, which I suppose typifies the Lord’s supper. Concurrently in our actual position here, there is our place of privilege in connection with a risen Christ: we take account of ourselves as over Jordan, and that is the position we occupy.
JT Whilst Canaan and the wilderness are, in one sense, concurrent, the believer is not in both at once, not in the same instant.
SH True, the one is abstract.
JT 1 Corinthians does not deal with risen with Christ: it deals with the position of the saints here in the presence of the world, and the Supper is before the world. There is that which goes on amongst the Lord’s people which the human eye cannot see, and which is our highest privilege. We pass over to association with Christ and that is not abstract; it is real. There may be those in the assembly who do not do it, but the thing is done. That side of the truth is Colossians and Ephesians.
SH Exactly: that is just where the Supper comes in.
JT Therefore the great exercise one has is the necessity for the subjective work so that we should be in accord with that which is external. Corinthians does not deal with subjective work; it is what is external.
SH The epistle to the Corinthians is corrective it is impossible for us to understand the true nature [p. 478] of the truth from it. It is to recover them to the normal truth which they had under the eye of God. Therefore in the epistle to the Corinthians we get a line of truth presented to us not on the line of the gospel, which relates to the world, but on the line of the assembly, which recovers the saints to the true assembly position. If we are to understand the Supper we have to understand the object which the Spirit of God has in view in the epistle.
JT The Spirit of God has left this epistle on record for us and manifestly it is the epistle of order, and the Supper is in connection with that order.
SH The Supper is brought in correctively: it is that things may be adjusted in our souls.
DLH That is because we are actually here; we have to take account of that, so women have to keep silence and so on.
JT All I had on my mind is the place in which the Supper stands. In the Supper rightly taken up you have Colossian and, indeed, Ephesian truth.
Rem The epistle starts with the assembly sanctified in Christ Jesus and you must be over Jordan to be in Christ Jesus.
JT We are entitled to take account of ourselves in that way at all times.
SH These Corinthians were not able to do it, but if they had understood the Supper (and that is why he brings it in) how dare they allow that for which Christ has died?
Rem As to risen with Christ, it is a matter of faith, it is part of the gospel which brings you to that point. It is not only that He is raised but that we are raised with Him through faith of the operation of God. You could not speak of being quickened together with Him by faith.
SH Because the Corinthians were not at that; it seems to me a difficult matter to say that on that [p. 479] account the Supper was connected with the wilderness. It is to lift them out of their wilderness condition.
JT This is a scripture left on record for the ordering of the assembly, and we ought to leave things as the Spirit of God places them. He has placed the Supper in connection with what is visible.
SH But then it is the teaching of the Supper.
JT If you have the teaching of the Supper that requires a subjective work. I have no difficulty about over Jordan provided you mean by ‘over Jordan’ a wilderness condition. The manna went over Jordan. Risen with Christ and new creation ground go together, and risen with Christ is the platform faith lays hold of, and quickening with Christ puts you there.
ASL Is that proper assembly ground, and is there any other than resurrection ground?
JT There is no other ground for the assembly than heavenly ground. The point of God’s assembly is that it is a place in which God’s order is seen, and therefore an unbeliever might see it and be affected by it.
SH But that would not bring the assembly down to the wilderness side of things.
JT Far from it. Within the circle of the assembly, that is not the wilderness: what I am thinking of is the bearing of it.
Ques When we come together at the beginning of the meeting is it not as those that have affection for the Lord?
JT I think so. We are in the presence of the wilderness: we are in the presence of that which is outside.
Rem I have said to such as have said that, ‘If that is considered to be the wilderness, I would like to be there’.
JT The breaking of the bread is physical action it is [p. 480] not spiritual.
SH We need death and resurrection because w are here.
ASL That being so puts us in a spiritual sense on other ground while still in the wilderness.
DLH I have always thanked God that there is a spot where we are free to leave what we call the wilderness, its circumstances, anxieties and difficulties, by the priestly grace of Christ on our own side and where we can be together on the new platform.
JT At the same time there are things that are not connected with new creation that we do, such as breaking the bread and passing the collection box round.
SH That would not be the exercise of the gifts.
JT “Until he come” has the outside world in view as testimony, but there is that which is spiritual where we know divine relationships: that is what I call Canaan.
HT When you speak of risen with Christ do you see anything beyond that, association with a glorified Christ?
JT That is the only way we can be in association with Him now, because He is glorified.
SH There is a point in connection with resurrection that is of importance: it gives us a heavenly position on the earth. The line of truth connected with resurrection no more takes us off the earth than the fact of resurrection. That is actually where we are in assembly. We know of the other side which comes in on the abstract line: we are united to One who is in heaven, and we take account of ourselves as being in Christ Jesus, but the blessedness of the truth that is connected with resurrection is that we are with Him.
JT I do not think that we can take any more ground in the sense of our souls than God gives us, and that is Ephesian ground: therefore however little we may be up to it, it seems to me we maintain the [p. 481] full position of the assembly. Colossians is collective, but it is not full assembly position: Ephesians is, and if we want to get on to what is brought before us we ought to have the faith in our souls of the full position.
SH There is the whole order of things that is connected with resurrection and our place there in Christ Jesus.
JT But Israel will be on resurrection ground. John 12 gives us the resurrection platform.
SH I fully admit that: the reason that it is possible for us to maintain it is because we have got it.
JT We have got the ascended Man. You do not want wings for resurrection.
SH It is change of place; ascension is not change of things.
JT You are associated with a Man who is ascended and we ought not to go from that as the height of christianity.
Ques Could we come together as conscious of our full assembly position?
JT It is in that light that we come together. I think it is a very important thing that we should have the full height before us.
SH There might be a simple soul breaking bread who knows nothing more than the forgiveness of sins, and as to the state of his soul does not go beyond that but those who are more advanced can take account of such in their full relationships, and I think it is necessary for us to maintain the full standard of the truth, allowing at the same time for every condition of soul, and dealing with the utmost patience over everyone so that they may be led on.
ASL Allowing for all the states of soul, what is the proper light in which the assembly comes together?
SH In the light of Christ, risen with Him, raised up together and seated together in the heavenlies in Christ; but that is an order of things that is presented to us in the resurrection platform. We are here, but [p. 482] we may take account of ourselves as having these things in Christ by the Spirit, we cannot pass from the resurrection plane for the simple reason that we are on the earth whatever light we may have that is beyond.
DLH Now there are two words which we ought to take account of: ‘with’ and ‘in’. If it is a question of resurrection it is ‘with’ Christ but if it is a question of ascension and association it is ‘in’ Christ.
SH It is that that makes the truth of resurrection so important, because it makes all these things possible for us if we find the resurrection plane here. It is not on the earth but it is here, and if we have not that plane, we have nowhere where we can enjoy these things.
JT Resurrection is a matter of faith just as much as ascension.
DLH Only our ascension is in Christ and not ‘with’.
SH It never says we are seated with Christ, but we are risen with Him.
ASL Though we are on the earth these things are not on the earth: they are outside of the earth. That word in Ephesians 2: 6 is also important; it is “heavenlies”. There is no such thing as ‘heavenly places’: that is material.
R Is all this involved in the words, “This do in remembrance of me”?
DLH I do not think that is a question of position at all: it is Himself.
JT The absent One.