THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
WB What place has the Lord’s supper in connection with coming together? I notice in this Scripture that the expression “When ye come together” is prominent. Do we come together to eat the Lord’s supper?
JT The expression: “come together in assembly”, appears here. It is a significant expression, showing that in the instruction given by Paul, the Supper had been entirely limited to the assembly. It was not breaking bread “in the house” any more, as they did earlier.
WB As seen in Acts 2, do you mean?
JT Yes, before the temple was formally disowned, the breaking of bread was not, as you might say, so ecclesiastical. They were breaking bread in the houses, and at the same time participating in that which went on in the temple. But after the judgment of that system by God, Paul’s ministry implies that the Supper henceforth must be connected with the assembly. So that to connect it with anything else now, with any sect, whatever it may be, you would simply say, it is not the Lord’s supper. The question is often raised as to whether these denominations really do partake of the Supper. This Scripture would show that, whatever it may be, what they have is not the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper must be connected with the assembly; and notice the first statement is not simply that the saints are together in one place, but they are together “in assembly”.
WB This is quite distinct from what goes before. I mean we get to another section in verse 17.
JT In this verse the apostle speaks of something he is going to prescribe, in regard to which he could [p. 421] not praise the Corinthians, because they were at fault as to it, and he points out that they were accustomed to come together for the worse; and then he says, “for first, when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it. For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you. When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. That is the condemnation of all sectarianism. You cannot connect the Supper with a sect.
RSS It is rather remarkable that the only mention of the Lord’s supper is not what it is, but what it is not. As far as I know, this is the only place where the expression is used. It might, I think, well exercise us in regard to what you were just saying, that there is so much passed as the Lord’s supper in the world today which is not it.
JT The statement, therefore, covers a good deal in that way. It is a condemnation of all sectarianism, and a shattering of all pretension on the part of sects. Whatever they may have, this is what they have not. They have not the Lord’s supper.
JD Why do you judge that the Supper is the property of the assembly?
JT Because he says: “When ye come together in assembly”; that is in verse 18; then he says in verse 20, “When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. It is as if he would say, it ought to have been that, but the things that occurred precluded the idea of the Supper; they rendered it null and void. It was the normal thing, and according to Acts 20, the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, but at Corinth they had evidently lost sight of the light that Paul had communicated as to the Supper. This was no doubt largely through sectarianism springing up among them, so they had disqualified [p. 422] themselves. When coming together it was for the worse. It could not have been for the worse if the Supper had been truly recognised.
Ques Why is “the assembly” mentioned in one place, and “the assemblies” in another?
JT Of course there were assemblies. The point in verse 16 was that all were governed by the same principles. “When ye come together in assembly” in verse 18, the function of the assembly is in view; and then “into one place”, verse 20, shows that the saints may be together in a given place, and not be in assembly. “In assembly” supposes that the saints are in function as the assembly. We were remarking as to Congress, taking the House of Representatives at Washington as an illustration. Strictly speaking, the Speaker has to be there if the House is to be in function. In the House of Commons the Speaker has to be there and the mace has to be on the table. Now you might get all the members in the House in “committee”, in which they select a chairman of their own. When the House is in committee it has no legislative powers, although they are all there in the same place, but when they are all there with the Speaker and the mace they have legislative powers. That, I think, is what answers to coming together in assembly. We are qualified now for administration.
RSS Would it be the same when we come together on Lord’s day morning and break bread? You could speak of that as coming together in assembly character, but not when we are together for a Bible reading as we are now?
JT All the saints here this morning might be here now, but we are not in the same capacity. We were together in assembly; at least that is the light in which we came together in the morning, but not now.
WCR [p. 423] Would it also suggest there is to be no independency?
JT No doubt it does. It surely is important that we should come to one place; but even coming together in one place, as we see here, might be for the worse; and, on the other hand, according to chapter 14, it might be simply for edification, for ministry.
RSS For instance, when we come together “in assembly” we do not come together to speak to one another. We address God. What we are doing now would have been quite out of place this morning. I think anybody could understand the difference.
JT Yes, quite out of place, because “in assembly” the Lord receives His place and He directs there.
HG Is Matthew 18:20, the assembly?
JT It is in the sense of legislation, I think. It is not the Supper, but it is a provision for a day of small things; that the principle of administration goes on although things might be greatly reduced in the assembly. That same chapter shows the place the assembly has in Matthew. It is the final appeal court. If one does not listen to it “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”. I think Matthew 18:20 is a provision for our own day. The administration goes on in spite of the fact that there has been reduction, providing there are two or three gathered. “Where two or three are gathered”.
AB Would 1 Corinthians 5:4 help us? “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
JT I think 1 Corinthians 5 is for discipline. It is an assembly meeting that is in view, but it would be for discipline. I believe that for discipline the thing is to call the assembly together. The Supper is the rallying point, as has often been said, for the [p. 424] normal assembly-gathering, but if evil exists, an alarm should be blown so that the saints should be gathered, and as gathered thus the assembly is in function, not now for privilege but for the execution of discipline (Numbers 10).
AFM It would be very unsuitable to call a meeting of that kind, or to use the Lord’s day morning for a case of discipline.
JT Yes, I think the expression in Matthew 18, “are gathered together in my name” is of great importance. The Lord’s authority is implied. Acts 20:7 refers to the normal assembling of the saints for the breaking of bread. It was on the first day of the week. There is a thought implied akin to the convening of Parliament, or the convening of Congress. The members do not go there on their own initiative. The President has to convene Congress.
JD Who is the President?
JT The Lord. It is the Lord that convenes. It is a very important point because it shuts out our wills. If it is the Supper, it is out of love we come. He has left it with us to do. “This do in remembrance of me”. So it is more that we do it. The disciples came together to do it.
JD How would He bring about that gathering in Matthew 18 today?
JT I think it arises from the exercises of “two” who would agree as touching anything. The conditions known to you would lead to exercise; certain conditions that had to be met in the way of administration, and you would be exercised about it, and another would be exercised about it; so that two of you would agree as regards that thing and what you ask is done unto you the Lord says, “of my Father which is in heaven”. But then the way it is done largely is through those gathered. He has committed administration to the saints.
WCR Would that not be [p. 425] levitical?
JT It amounts to that, I think. Those that are agreed about the thing are bearing the burden, and they pray about it; but then there is an additional provision that, as coming together, you have the support of the Lord in the deliberation and administration; and this applies to our own day, because it is brought down to two or three.
Ques Is that true of every meeting?
JT Oh, no, it is a matter of burden. Just as Congress is called together to meet certain conditions. In every country there are certain requirements; certain things have to be met; and hence there is a call, a convening of those responsible. So the Lord brings us together in that way, and now, as together, He is with us; “there am I”, He says, “in the midst of them”.
JD In such a meeting as that would the Lord give His mind by impressions?
JT Yes, I think so. I think He confirms the exercises that you have had. One has often seen it; the saints have been exercised, and the brethren come together, and the Lord is there and He confirms their exercises. So the issue becomes clear, and what is to be done becomes clear.
AFM How about a brothers’ meeting in that connection?
JT It falls under that head very much, I think. It is a meeting of those who are burdened with the care of things.
EHT Is a brothers’ meeting right?
JT It is a meeting of those who have the care of things; those burdened with the things.
JD So you think in instituting the Supper the Lord had the worshipping company in view.
JT I do. I think the Supper leads to that.
GAT I think you referred to the man with the pitcher of water; what had you in mind?
JT The man with the pitcher of water is to [p. 426] guide you. You are guided by the refreshment of ministry. It is only lately one has had to do with people who had been turned aside from the truth, and the thought came before us that the food supply had been cut off. The Midianites had cut off the food supply in Gideon’s day. Now souls experience that. The indication that things are right according to the Lord is that there is food. Many a soul has been guided aright by discovering that they were dwelling in “Lodebar”, a place of no pasture, and finding that there was food elsewhere. The presence of food is an excellent indication of where God is.
WB That is illustrated in Naomi and Ruth. They heard there was food there and found Boaz.
WCR Would you make it a little clearer about the lordly supper?
JT It shows the dignity of the Supper, that it is the Lord’s supper. It is not one’s own supper. There is a great difference between the two. If your own supper, you ought to eat that at home. All that side has reference to family relationships, and friendships. All that should be rigidly excluded from the assembly. Household affairs, natural relationships, friendships, must be recognised, but these things must have no place in the assembly. They belong to your own house.
WCR You were saying this morning that we are very slow to change from what is material to what is spiritual.
JT I believe the Lord would help us on that line, and what I would suggest is that by looking into the gospels it will be found that although John does not mention the Supper formally, he gives us more that appertains to it than any of the evangelists do, because he gives us the spirit of things at the Supper.
JD Yes, I think so.
JT John 13 is devoted to the spirit of things at the Supper, whereas the other evangelists give us [p. 427] the Supper formally. They are all to be studied, but John most if we are to get the spirit of things that belong to the Supper.
JD That is, in John you are still holding on to the pitcher of water, but in connection with feet washing.
JT Quite, and he is engaged with the spirit of things; not with the outward symbols, because after all they are like the ark taken into the camp of Israel to combat the Philistines. If you have not the spirit of John 13, the Supper is an empty symbol and really effects nothing.
JD That is saying a great deal.
JT I believe it is right.
BTF Would you say the spirit of John 13 commences at the opening; “having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end”?
JT That is the spirit underlying the Supper.
WCR You were speaking about taking our own supper. There might be members of the family that had little differences and they would yet be able to take their own supper, but is there anything of that kind contemplated in the Lord’s supper?
JT The Lord’s supper certainly should tend to remove them from our hearts; the love expressed in John 13 is intended to remove them.
JD Have you any thought as to what would help us to have a proper apprehension as to the sanctity of the Supper; why it stands connected with the assembly?
JT In the first place there is no circle with which the Lord could connect Himself save the assembly. If it is His Supper it would soon deteriorate in a man’s house. It is quite true that the Lord blessed the house of Obed-edom on account of the ark, but anyone can see the house of Obed-edom could not perpetually be a suitable place for the ark.
[p. 428] The Supper might have been preserved in the early days of Christianity in houses, on account of the energy of the Spirit, but in the decline of things you could not guarantee much in a man’s house.
GAT Why do you object to breaking bread in a man’s house now?
JT Because Paul communicates it to the assembly, and only supposes it in the assembly, and you could only have it preserved in the assembly. It would quickly deteriorate anywhere else.
WCR Would it be wrong to have the assembly in a house in a small place?
JT It is more than once mentioned. Philemon had the assembly in his house, but although in his house, it is distinct from his house. I do not think Paul would ever think of the Supper in a man’s house as his house.
RSS That is only a question of the place really.
JT That is all.
GAT A man should not take any special liberty in his house.
JT No, because it is a devoted thing. He has no more right to the devoted thing than anyone else. Otherwise it is not devoted.
HG There is a striking connection between the Supper and the rapture as to conditions required for both. You have reconciliation-atmosphere. It is the only atmosphere for the Supper, and for the rapture, as seen in Enoch; and then as regards the relationships and position into which you are led, the Father’s house.
JT Those suggestions are very beautiful. The saints are never more pleasing to the Lord than at the Supper; nor are we ever more pleasing to the Father. I have often noticed as regards Enoch that it was before his translation he had the testimony that he pleased God, and the Supper brings that about. I believe the object in view in making the [p. 429] Supper so prominent in these late years is to bring about a state that is pleasing to the Lord, and that the saints should be made conscious of it. I think we are made conscious of it by the fact that He comes to us. He makes us conscious that we please Him.
BTF Would you say the difficulty at Corinth was that they did not discern the Lord’s body? Was it not that which lay at the root of all their failure?
JT No doubt, and they despised the assembly of God. How serious that was! Sectarianism is a despisal of the assembly of God. To have cliques and parties is a despisal of the assembly of God. You may have certain circles, family relationships, and all that, in your own house. That is the place for them, but do not intrude them into the assembly of God, because the Lord is supreme there. It is His assembly and He must determine who is to be honoured there. You may honour a man in your own house. The Lord is to determine who is to be honoured in the house of God.
JD In the Supper, I think you said it was to give Him His place; to bring Him in. What for?
JT First of all, He desires to have a place in our affections. You see in the narrative given by Matthew it is simply: “This is my body” and as to the cup it is; “This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins”; for many. And so in Mark. But when you come to Luke, it is, “This is my body which is given for you”. That is to say, for a certain class of people. His disciples. Matthew says “many” and Mark says “many” but Luke says “you”. Therefore Luke has the assembly in view. The Supper denotes that Christ gave His body for us. Then also as regards the cup He says, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you”. I think Matthew and Mark simply support the [p. 430] ministry of the twelve, when the Supper was not as yet dissociated from the Jewish system. It is simply seen as associated with the passover in Matthew and Mark, but Luke disassociates it from the passover. It is a thing by itself, and it is formally stated by him that the body is “for you”.
JS Would you say that in John 20:20 we get the answer to that? “Then were the disciples glad”.
JT He comes to us. I think it is realised there. It has often been remarked that John 14 indicates the line. Verse 15 is, “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter; that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you”. Then He says, following upon that, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”. That was enjoyed at the beginning. Failure is not contemplated. It goes on to say; “He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; but he that loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him”. This supposes that there were those who were not keeping His commandments, and the proof of love would be in anyone who had them and kept them, and He would manifest Himself to such an one as that. I believe the Supper would be suitable to one like that; or to two like that; or three, those who had the commandments, any number like that. It would not be just like “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”. This is the whole company at the beginning. And then the question is raised as to how He could manifest Himself to them and not unto the world, and the Lord says, “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him”.
RSS That is a further thought.
JT His commandments are specific things by which we are governed here, but His word is more. Those who love Him do not stop at the commandments. They want to know all that is in His heart. What is in His mind has been revealed, and so we are to keep His word; consequent on this He and the Father come.
GAT What did you say the commandments were?
JT 1 Corinthians 14:37, says, “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you; that it is the Lord’s commandment”. It is, as it were, a fixed law by which the assembly is to be governed during the Lord’s absence.
RSS When it comes down to John 14:23, there it says, “If any one love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him”. What does that refer to? Here it is both the Father and the Son, and They will come and make Their abode with you.
JT It seems a wonderful statement as regards an individual, but look at the kind of man he would be, the one who kept the commandments; the one who kept the words. I think it is a chapter that is intended to provide for conditions that would arise in the history of the assembly, so that even if you are reduced to yourself you are not at any loss. You have the greatest privilege the assembly could have, namely, the abiding of the Father and the Son. You can scarcely conceive of anything greater. It is the character of the thing. It says, “we will come to him and make our abode with him”.
RSS It is not just a visitation, it is more than that.
GWH If according to our expectation [p. 432] He comes,
what should become us in that part of the meeting?
JT There is a change in the meeting, I am sure of that. We have had it so often, but still it seems we do not take it in. He does things. Read Judges 6:19 - 21; “And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour; the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it. And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh, and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the Lord departed out of his sight”.
I have turned to that because it gives you what Gideon did and what the angel did. Now what the angel did corresponds with what the Lord does in the midst of the assembly. What we do is to celebrate the Supper. That was what Gideon did, as it were. He brought in certain things which were quite suitable. He acted intelligently. Now the angel acts from himself in regard to what Gideon did, changing the whole scene. That is an illustration, as far as I understand it, of what the Lord does in the assembly. What the angel did affected Gideon, and so what the Lord does in the assembly makes its impression on us. That is the point to get hold of.
RSS What the Lord does is of quite a different character from what we do.
JT John is the one that knew the Lord. He said “It is the Lord” (John 21:7). That is what the spiritual man recognises. Gideon recognised that it was an angel of the Lord; we recognise that “It is the Lord”.
WCR You recognise when the Lord affects a [p. 433] brother.
JT You are not thinking of the brother. It is what the Lord is doing you think of.
BTF “In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12). Is your thought that praise goes up through the saints?
JT Yes. The Son thinks of the Father. Now if He is acting in the assembly it is toward the Father. He acts in that connection. He knows what the Father seeks. He said to the woman of Samaria, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). It is remarkable that He should have said that to her.
RSS I have often wondered why.
JT I think to set aside all material worship; to set aside the prejudices as to what they had in mount Gerizim and what was at Jerusalem. God, as a Spirit, could not be connected with either of these mounts. Things must be spiritual, so He says, “The Father seeketh such”. “They who worship him must worship (Him) in spirit and truth”. He seeketh such as His worshippers. I think that in the assembly the Lord has brought in the worshippers. As I was saying yesterday, “One Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him” (1 Corinthians 8:6). We are by Him. He has brought us in in that way before the Father.
GAT The Lord says, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing”. I think you made a remark once that He sings through the hearts of the saints.
JB In Habakkuk 3:19 it says: “To the chief singer upon my stringed instruments”. As though He is the One that plays upon our hearts.
JD Is your thought that the Supper gives Him the place of Head consciously among the saints?
JT That is what I understand, and now He plays on His own stringed instruments, as our brother was remarking.
JD I want to get your thought about Jacob [p. 434] being the best type of a worshipping man in the Old Testament.
JT It is very remarkable that he should be the one selected by the Spirit in Hebrews 11 as the worshipper. “By faith, Jacob when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff” (verse 21). That is what is said of him. It is a very beautiful ending of a course such as his. We were remarking at the close of our meeting yesterday that the moral reason for the house of God being connected with Jacob lies in the fact that he knew how to live at home. Abraham taught him how to live at home. We are told; “By faith he ... having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise” (Hebrews 11:9). That is, he lived with his child and his grandchild in the light of God’s purpose, and he lived with them according to that. He lived with them in tents, as a stranger and sojourner. That was Abraham’s side, and it was in keeping with what the Lord said of him; “that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord and do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him” (Genesis 18:19). He had God’s end in view. Jacob profited by the example of his grandfather, because it is said of him, in contrast with Esau, that he was a plain man, of no outward consequence or lordliness. He was a plain man and dwelt in tents. Therefore I think he is morally qualified to receive the light of the house of God. The idea of living at home and respecting a father’s instruction and example is according to God. God honours that, and it leads into the house of God. So that the house of God stands related to Jacob and to his offering, the drink-offering, the oil, and the worship. He was a worshipper.
JB He had reached the top.
JT I think he reached the highest point in faith [p. 435] in a way; yet that same man had to say, “Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage” (Genesis 47:9). Still it was a pilgrimage on the whole and God gave him a desired end. If Abraham had seen that end he would have rejoiced. He would have thought that the example he set Jacob had been successful.
Ques Is that Scripture used to indicate that an individual can worship?
JT Surely. As regards Jacob, it is very remarkable how fully he justified Abraham. Although a homely man, yet he was not blinded by natural affection like Isaac. Isaac was blinded but Jacob crossed his hands, it says, “wittingly” (chapter 48:14). He disregarded the course of nature. One of the best evidences of a spiritual man is that he disregards natural things in the things of God. He acts intelligently. He crossed his hands wittingly. He says: “I know it, my son” (verse 19). He was far ahead of Joseph at that time. “I know it, my son ... he also shall be great, but truly his younger brother shall be greater”. He had the mind of God.
GAT You put that down to the testimony his grandfather left?
JT I think it began there.
GAT Do you mean by that that we ought to be exercised as to the testimony we leave in our homes as parents?
JT I was noticing recently that a man’s responsibility does not cease with his own children. In Abraham’s case it extended to Jacob, and in Joseph’s case it extended to the fourth generation, to the sons of Ephraim. Job had two families. He saw the second family to the fourth generation.
WCR I suppose you see in each great servant something natural permitted that hinders them. You spoke about Isaac’s natural affection.
[p. 436] JT No doubt in each one there was something. In fact one could easily show there was something, but I think it is a day in which young people are greatly exposed, and what God would do is to bring about a right example. Abraham dwelt with Isaac and Jacob.
JB It is significant as to Jacob’s staff that in our pilgrimage the top that is within reach of any of us is to be a true worshipper.