READINGS ON 1 CORINTHIANS (3)

^[p. 65] READINGS ON 1 CORINTHIANS (3)

1 Corinthians 10: 14 - 22; 1 Corinthians 11: 17 - 34

JT The subject will be the Lord’s supper. We shall find in looking at these scriptures that they cover the truth of the Lord’s Supper: in chapter 10, the fellowship involved in it, and then in chapter 11, the order that relates to it. Chapter 10 does not contemplate the saints together, although the coming together is necessary in order to fill out the truth, but as involving the fellowship, as we have said, it treats largely of our ordinary occupations, our having to do with everyday life. It therefore raises the question of loyalty to the truth; that is, to God and Christ and the Spirit, and lastly to the saints. It is a question of loyalty, beginning really at chapter 5, because there we are told that Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore, we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. The keeping of the feast necessarily implies the formal coming together of the saints, which is chapter 11, but the keeping of it extends to everyday life, as we said, and how we behave, and how we maintain what is due to God in our everyday life, and what is due to one another too, for we have obligations to one another which the fellowship implies.

WSS Does chapter 10 bring before us the general position, and chapter 11 the working out of the truth locally?

JT Just so; our being together. The passage in chapter 11, verse 18 reads, “For first, when ye come together in assembly”. This has in mind how we act when we are together, that is to say how we conduct ourselves, as it were, inside in the assembly, whereas chapter 10 is conduct outside in our ordinary ^[p. 66] affairs.

FJF Does it affect us as to associations, as well as our conduct?

JT I would say so. Verse 14 says, “Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Christ? Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body” Then Paul proceeds to say, “See Israel according to flesh, are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?” So that associations are in view, the assembly being in mind and spoken of. One body is the only association that is allowed. Others would be contrary to the position, contrary to the truth, contrary to the fellowship. In the second epistle the matter of fellowship or associations is touched again. It says in chapter 6: 14, “Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers; for what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship of light with darkness? and what consent of Christ with Beliar, or what part for a believer along with an unbeliever? and what agreement of God’s temple with idols?”. Thus the idea of associations is in mind in both epistles.

CMM Why is the cup put first in chapter 10?

JT It is, I think, to make clear that the fellowship involves our everyday life. The cup would appeal to us as to the blessing involved in the fellowship, blessing resulting from Christ’s death; so it is the communion of the blood of Christ; it is what is external. The order of the Lord’s supper is not in mind there; that is in chapter 11, and that requires that the bread should be first.

SJC Is what is outside governed by the Lord’s table?

JT Well, the Lord’s table is just a term used, because of the allusion to the altar. It is really in ^[p. 67] a Jewish setting in that sense. Reference is made to idolatry, in the table of demons, so that the idea of the table is there. The table suggests that in which we participate together; we have it introduced in Exodus 25: 23 - 30. There is the bread on it and the vessels for what is poured out; there is the idea of eating and drinking. The altar is alluded to here. “See Israel according to flesh: are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?” and then in the epistle to the Hebrews it is said, “We have an altar”, which carries the same idea as the table. “We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle”; that is, our altar is exclusive. The Lord’s table is not the idea of an ordinary table, for it indicates that we have fellowship with one another, have joint participation together.

SJC Suggesting the character of things?

JT Just so, and involving persons.

WSS Would the altar bring before us the thought of the death of Christ as the basis on which everything is established?

JT That is so. I think the allusion in chapter 5 would be that. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Christ is our Passover, then all that is carried over in ourselves when we are together according to chapter 11. At Corinth there was conduct which Paul could not approve, and he refers to it in chapter 11, when speaking of their coming together. The apostle used the word ‘together’, but not as approving their conduct. It was right to come together, in fact they could not have the Lord’s supper without coming together, but their conduct was bad.

WW “We, being many, are one loaf, one body” in chapter 10, does that come into the Lord’s supper?

JT It comes into the Supper in our minds. That we stand in relation to one another is a very important matter, as Paul says, “we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”.

WSS Would you say that the truth that is presented here should govern us through the week; whether as to the altar, or the one body?

JT Quite so. What is in mind in chapter 10 is the actual celebration of the Lord’s supper, but not the order of it. The cup is presented first, because of the peculiar preciousness conveyed in it, not to imply that the drinking comes first in the order of the service, because it does not. The order is in chapter 11, where the bread comes first.

AM Would it be right to say that chapter 10 sets out the public position, the setting in which the Supper is found? Its holy character demands that it should be celebrated in a clean and holy setting.

JT Without stressing the order. The things belonging to it, of course, are there, but the order is in chapter 11 only, and this order implies the bread first. In chapter 11 the thing in mind is the memorial, or celebration of the Supper. There is a touching value attached to the emblems, and especially to the cup. “In like manner also”, it says, “the cup”, because it was a question of drinking. I think there is special value attached to the drinking, especially as linked with the word, “We have been all made to drink into one Spirit”. It is a grand thought, a full and blessed thought that enters into the Lord’s supper, “one Spirit”; hence we sing,

‘”One Spirit”, glorious Lord!
O blessed, wondrous word!
What heav’nly light, what power divine,
Doth that sweet word afford!’

I think the brethren will follow that we have to distinguish between the things as denoting our fellowship, and as usable in the celebration and the order of the Lord’s supper.

^[p. 69] PL Is the value of the partnership emphasised in the light of what it has cost Christ to establish it, the blood of the Christ?

JT That was what I was thinking. What it has cost Him. It was the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.

FJF That makes it clear that the fellowship is entirely of God.

JT Yes; entirely of God. In 1 John 1: 3, the word ‘fellowship’ is linked up with the apostles only. They have a fellowship of their own according to John’s epistle, but that is not the fellowship of Christ’s death or the blood of Christ, but rather the fellowship of life, the fellowship the apostles had in regard of life, and therefore the life is presented in that epistle as “That which was from the beginning”, 1 John 1: 1. The apostles have a peculiar fellowship in that respect, and it is with the Father and with the Son. We could hardly link these thoughts of the Father and the Son with the thoughts connected with the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is an institution by itself; it is the dominical Supper. He has authority over it and has to say in an authoritative way to those who partake of it, and then it is linked up with the first day of the week.

HW Would it be right to infer from chapter 10 that they were going on with what was really idolatrous?

JT That is the very thing that is alluded to; “Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry”, 1 Corinthians 10: 14. He has that specially in mind, although he touches on judaism too, but idolatry was the immediate thing that was in his mind, for they had just come out of it. He is always tender about them lest he should do anything that would turn them away, because they were so lately brought out of the thing and might go back into it again. There was the Jew,

^[p. 70] and the gentile, and the assembly of God, these three things are spoken of in this epistle. One might go into one of their places of religious service and another into another of them, and there can be no doubt that chapter 14 has in mind one who has done that, and he finally comes into the christian assembly and he finds that God is there. Prophesying is proceeding, and God is brought to the conscience in prophecy, so that the man falls down and is convicted of all; he is judged of all and falling down he worships God and reports that God is indeed amongst them.

WSS So the temple of God is reached in the way you were speaking about this morning.

JT Just so. The temple of God is holy, and we are that temple, because “the Spirit of God dwells” in us. I thought we might link that on with what we had this morning. We spoke about the shrine, which is the holy thought as to the temple where God’s mind is made known. The psalmist says, “To enquire in his temple”. It is the place of inquiry.

WSS I was struck with the link between chapter 3, “Ye are the temple of God”, and what you were speaking of from chapter 12; what one might speak of as the activities which are connected with the temple, although it is the body that is spoken of in chapter 12. The Lord in the second chapter of John, to which we have referred, spoke of “the temple of his body”. Then I wondered if in what has just been alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14, “God is indeed amongst you”, we have the thought of God being there, and are not these chapters 10 and 11 necessary to reach that end?

JT That is good. The temple as we had it this morning is essential to the idea of the service of God and the worship ^[p. 71] of God.

WSS Without the truth of these two chapters we could not reach it practically, could we?

JT Quite so.

PL Would the delicacy of feeling with Paul suggest something of the spirit seen in relation to Christ; “a bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, until he bring forth judgment unto victory”, Matthew 12: 20. Is that what in a certain way Paul secured in the Spirit’s power?

JT Just as we were saying today, that he sent Timotheus, instead of going there himself, because if he went by himself he would have to correct everything. He could not be there, with such conduct as is found in the second epistle, without dealing with it, and so he sends Timotheus who is a sympathetic young brother. The apostle speaks of him in that light, saying that he was to be with them without fear. That would mean that the ministry was modified amongst them, so that they might not be in any way scared away from the fellowship, from the assembly, and the service of God. The man contemplated in chapter 14 is said to report (it is a very important thing to have in mind the public side) that God was amongst them of a truth. How could God be there except in a holy way? God is holy; the temple of God is holy.

I think we might say we have touched sufficiently, for the present, on chapter 10, involving the fellowship, distinguishing it from chapter 11 which involves the order of procedure in the Lord’s supper; that is to say, what we do, why we do it, the order in which we do it; and so the first verse of chapter 11 says, “Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ”. Paul brings himself in again in a very striking way, and then he elaborates on the question of headship, involving the covering of the head by the sisters. Then in verse 17 he begins to speak of the order of the Lord’s supper as actually celebrated, and the ^[p. 72] apostle condemns what they were doing. It is quite obvious that the thought of headship should precede this instruction, and so he says, “I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God. Every man praying or prophesying, having anything on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved woman. For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it be shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered. For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God’s image and glory; but woman is man’s glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels”. Verse 10 is one which we should especially notice; there is to be with the woman a token of the authority under which she stands, that is, the authority that is over her. She is to recognise that there is authority over her, and that there is authority over the man too, and that authority is Christ, and even over Christ is God. So that the order is from God to Christ, from Christ to the man, and the man to the woman, and verse 10 is to bring the thing home to the woman, so that she is to be covered in the recognition of the authority under which she stands.

FJF Would that mean that the apostle approaches the subject of order in the assembly by way of showing that there is order in the universe of God? Has that to do with the universe?

JT I would think so. You see from God to Christ and from Christ to man; the word used for man means man as distinct from woman. Therefore ^[p. 73] the authority is from God to Christ, and from Christ to man, and from man to woman, and then in this instruction we are told that nature should teach us, so that universal authority, I would say, or ornamentation if we may use that word, is in mind. The ornamentation implied in the order of God from Himself down to Christ, from Christ down to the man and from the man down to the woman, is something that we have to ponder over, and see what is meant by it. Why should what is the mere physical action of the woman covering her head, or the man not covering his head, why should these things be mentioned? Surely there must be a very good reason for them to be mentioned and especially in view of the fact that the Lord’s supper is just immediately to be celebrated in the chapter.

RJD Why are the angels brought in here. What relation are they to the Supper?

JT They are creatures, one of the great families of God, and their intelligence is remarkable, their power is remarkable, both these things are alluded to. You see for instance in the case of Manoah, the husband of the woman to whom the Angel appeared, how intelligent the Angel was, and how he acted as God really before Manoah, and his wife, and then how his wife is instructed as to the child that she is to have and how he is to be brought up in the light of power, in the light of his mother and father.

PL Have these angels maintained subjection in the presence of insubjection around? They left not their first estate; they are referred to as holy angels.

JT There is a family that left not their first estate, and they are viewed as obedient, and are called elect angels. The apostle Paul charged Timothy in the presence of the elect angels, showing how intelligent and important they are in the presence of God.

CMM ^[p. 74] Would it be correct to connect the thought of “the head of Christ is God” with the Son being placed in subjection in chapter 15?

JT I think that is quite right. The Son shall be in subjection, we are told.

FJF Would you say that the angels all know that the saints are much beloved? The one that spoke to Daniel said, “O ... man greatly beloved”, Daniel 10: 11.

JT They are conversant with what is current in heaven, and with what is current on earth, too, because they are sent out to minister on account of those who shall be heirs of salvation; they are all sent out for that.

PL To reflect heaven’s interest providentially in the care they exercise.

JT Very good; that is very largely how they act, and they are serviceable to God in His providences.

HRHT Is this acknowledgment of the authority under which the woman stands called for only in the assembly?

JT I would say at all times. I do not mean when she is sleeping or resting or the like, but where she is functioning in any capacity that a woman should function in. That is what I understand.

HRHT Praying in the home, would she be covered?

JT Quite so. It is to bring in the order of God. We may say, Why should it be? Well, God says so and that ought to be enough for every subject heart. If we bow to Scripture, then we get understanding about it.

PL So that subject holy women would love to reflect this subjection in that economy of blessing in which sovereign love and mercy have set them.

JT You see how much pleasure God has in these holy women; such as Sarah and others. God ^[p. 75] dignifies them in the way they are spoken of; Mary too, and many others that could be cited, all as examples for us now. We have remarkable things mentioned here too, the creation of man and woman in verse 8, “For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels. However, neither is woman without man, nor man without woman, in the Lord”. Neither is left alone, each is provided for, but all “in the Lord”, and that is the great point that the Lord is stressing, as a warning against the evil of mixed marriages. God undertook to provide a wife for Adam, and if so, why should not He take the same pains as regards ourselves, both sisters and brothers, as to marriage? but they all should be “in the Lord”, because the whole economy is in the Lord. Why should anyone break through it for the sake of getting a husband or a wife, breaking through the economy of God, the order of God?

PL And in so doing snapping, one might say, ruthlessly, the most sacred bond that divine love could forge here in relation to the fellowship.

JT Great thought is taken as to it. Man is mentioned first in Genesis 1, but chapter 2 brings out the distinction, and the result, “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh”. That is the great result reached and it has come down the line to us, and it is to be carried out in the assembly, for the assembly is peculiarly representative of what is feminine. She is the bride of Christ, including brothers and sisters. “I have espoused you unto one man”, the apostle says, and that one man is Christ, and the bride, the person who is espoused, is ^[p. 76] the assembly.

SJC If the truth of this, in the early part of chapter 11, were really held, and everything related to God was in order, there would not be room for division.

JT It must necessarily affect the unity of the saints as spoken of in the latter part of the chapter, where the Lord’s supper is celebrated.

FJF So the assembly would reflect in every detail the mind of God?

JT That is what is so important now, and the Lord is helping the saints in regard to it, so that the assembly may be representative of the presence of the Holy Spirit here upon earth as taking care of what belongs to God, and a sure guarantee of the preservation of all that belongs to God subjectively. God is greatly helping the brethren on those lines.

HW What is the difference between being “in Christ” and “in the Lord”?

JT I think “in Christ” is a fuller thought than “in the Lord”; because the Christ is really an expression which means that the person so named is the One who does things for God. He is the One that does everything for God. We read, for instance, as to the creation, that not one thing was made without Him. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made”. John 1: 3. Well, that is very important; there is nothing without Christ, and it is to bring out fulness, I think, in all that is done. How thoroughly He is in the hand of God as John says in his gospel, “The Father loves the Son”! It brings out what the Father finds in that Person, because He does things for Him, and therefore it says. He “has given all things to be in his hand”, John 3: 35.

Having said so much about the first part, then we might proceed to the second part; that is to say, the order in which the Lord’s supper is to be celebrated, and it says in verse 17, “But in prescribing to you ^[p. 77] on this which I now enter on, I do not praise, namely, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse”. This shows that because of the disregard of these things of which we have been speaking, there is a worse condition than if we were not together at all. We may thus come together for the worse, rather than for the better, and then it goes on to say, “For first, when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you”. We have had that already in chapter 1; it is the first thing mentioned as exhorted against. Here it is brought in again in regard to the Lord’s supper, that division is apt to be there, for it says, “For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you”. That is to say, the approved were not only present, but they were manifest among them; “that the approved may become manifest among you”, Paul says.

WSS It is remarkable that in such conditions there comes to light that which is pleasing to God. Despite the breakdown suggested here in sects or schools of thought, those who are approved of God become manifest.

JT Very good. It does not say, If they be approved; they are assumed to be there.

WSS And by reason of these conditions (in themselves, matters of a distressing character) that which is approved of God is brought to light.

JT Showing how God carries out His will.

PL “For he will be like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ lye”, Malachi 3: 2.

JT Very true.

FJF Would that mean that the approved would have the Lord’s support and the others would feel that? Is that the way it would be manifested?

JT Well, I think you have illustrations throughout Scripture of how God intervenes on behalf of those who are approved of Him. For instance, when ^[p. 78] Moses came down from the mount to find that the golden calf was being worshipped, he said, “Who is on the Lord’s side?”, and the Levites rallied to Moses’ side. God intervened at once; the matter was made clear. When Aaron and Miriam questioned Moses, saying that the word was not only given to him, but to them too. God immediately intervened and demanded that they should all come out to the door of the tabernacle and the result was that Miriam was smitten with leprosy; thus Moses was supported and there were those approved of God. To Timothy it is said, “Shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed”, 2 Timothy 2: 15. I am sure God is proceeding on those lines since Pentecost and even from the very first, from the introduction of sin. God has been there to show His approval, as of those who stand in a day of evil. In Noah and Abraham and all the prophets there was always manifest approval of God for what was right, so that we need not fear. “Only be strong and very courageous”, Joshua 1: 7. It is a question of being strong and firm in what is right; therefore the word is, “follow righteousness”; let us make it our leader.

FJF It is said even of the Lord Himself “a man approved of God”; Acts 2: 22.

JT Just so. There is much in our minds just now as to this passage; that is to say, the actual order of the Lord’s supper, and it is now a time when we might have help from one another. The Lord’s supper is the one thing that is really introductory to the whole service of God.

SJC Is what is connected with the cup wider than what is connected with the bread?

JT Well I would make it all one thing, there is only one supper, it is the Lord’s supper; it has a dual character and is viewed as it is now before us.

^[p. 79] I should not like to put one part of it before another, although the order puts the bread first.

CMP What is the distinction between the coming together “in assembly” (chapter 11: 18), and “the whole assembly come together in one place” (chapter 14: 23)?

JT I am glad you bring that up, because it will help us to distinguish between what we have in the service of God on the first day of the week in cities where there is more than one gathering and what is in chapter 14 regarding a gathering for the service of ministry. In this chapter it is just “in assembly” whereas in chapter 14 it is “the whole assembly”. “If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place”. The article is before, “the whole assembly”, whereas it is just “in assembly” in chapter 11. The article being inserted in chapter 14 is to show that all the saints in a town or city are in mind, whether there is more than one meeting or only one, all are to come together into one place.

WSS The whole assembly would mean that all the saints available in the city are to come together.

JT That is right; whereas the article is omitted in chapter 11; it is just “in assembly”, not “in the assembly”; it is the character of the gathering together.

WSS If there are 500 or more brethren in a city they could not very well come together to break bread all in one place.

JT Quite so.

FJF They should all come together ‘in assembly’.

JT There used to be larger meetings in large cities, sometimes up to three hundred together to celebrate the Lord’s supper, and, of course, it was somewhat unwieldy. The Lord helped us as to this in accord with the facts in the beginning of the Acts where it would be very clear that the Lord’s supper must have been celebrated by a large number, and ^[p. 80] that it must have been in several rooms or halls. There were at least three thousand, and you could hardly imagine the Lord’s supper being celebrated by three or four thousand actually together; it would occasion great difficulty, because of the largeness of the company. Undoubtedly they had smaller companies, because it says, “breaking bread in the house”; that is the word used in Acts 2. You could hardly think that there was a house in Jerusalem large enough to accommodate three thousand people, but the word is that they were “breaking bread in the house”, and we have mention in the epistles of several houses which were used in that same connection.

RJD Do I understand that when brethren are together in large numbers for conferences, extra rooms are used for the breaking of bread?

JT We do have smaller gatherings. In America we have about twenty gatherings a year, which we call ‘general gatherings’, where the saints continue together for three days in view of ministry. On the first day of the week the ordinary rooms are far too small to accommodate all that come together, and so we hire other rooms, or use rooms in private houses, and the Lord greatly blesses that, I have noticed. I suppose it is so here, too.

CMM Would the assemblies in the house of Nymphas, Aquila and Philemon suggest the idea?

JT I think they would, and these that I allude to are very frequent and very simple; we are all familiar with them in America, and I have no doubt they are in Australia. These larger meetings are not so frequent in Great Britain, because the gatherings are so near together, and there is not the same need to come together for three days; they have so many meetings, but at the same time the principle is here that I am speaking of. If there are more than can be accommodated properly according to the second ^[p. 81] of Acts where the breaking of bread was in the house, then we should have several houses, or several rooms, or whatever they may be called, and the Lord will be in each of them; that is to say, as we are in assembly; we gather in assembly, in each room or house.

WSS You have in mind the possibilities which are connected with coming together in assembly in connection with the service of God leading from the Supper?

JT Just so. Usually we might say in any one of those meetings that we have on the Lord’s day, we have the general order of service recognised to be right, and even although the number may be smaller, yet we proceed on the same lines; that is to say, we have service in God’s assembly.

CMM “This do” in connection with the loaf would be what the Lord did, would it not, the giving thanks and the breaking of the loaf? Then in connection with the cup, “this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”, would be what the Lord did, as giving thanks for the cup?

JT That is what I understand.

CMM Not the drinking.

JT In what happened at Emmaus, the drinking is not mentioned. The Lord vanished as He broke the bread, after He gave thanks for the bread. The drinking is not mentioned, but the Lord’s supper requires the drinking, for there are two parts to the Lord’s supper, the first is the breaking of the bread and the second is the drinking of the cup. It says, “In like manner also the cup”.

CMM The Lord did not drink of the cup, did He? The “this do” is connected with the giving of thanks for the cup rather than with our drinking of it. Is that right?

JT Paul says, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord ^[p. 82] Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, 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, after having supped” (that word ‘supped’ means ‘taking supper’, that is the passover supper) “saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”. I would say, that “this do” is just what is said in this verse. The Lord took the cup and passed it to them, even as He broke the bread, but there must have been some action in regard of the cup, which is covered in the word, “In like manner also the cup”. I think it ought to be understood spiritually, but there must have been something in like manner; that is to say the same idea would be attached to both the bread and the cup as to what the Lord did.

FJF He took it apart from the passover supper.

JT That is right. He took the cup too, apart from the passover supper. There was the cup in connection with the passover supper, because He said that He would not drink it again, but then the cup He took later belonged exclusively to the Lord’s supper which He was instituting.

RL Should the brother serving on that occasion give thanks for the bread and “in like manner” for the cup?

JT Yes; that is the order, and we would have to do that to follow what the Lord did, because “this do” is what He did; it is part of the institution; it is ‘for the calling of Me to mind’. That is what the Lord has specially before Him; that He should be remembered.

AWP Is there the thought of the Lord making Himself known to us as the Mediator of the new covenant, and our getting a fresh sense of the love of ^[p. 83] God?

JT Well, that is said, I know, but I prefer to confine all to the Lord, for it is the Lord’s supper; it is never spoken of as God’s supper, nor the Father’s supper, nor the Spirit’s supper. It is the Lord’s supper, so that what is done ought to bring forward the Lord, not God, or the Father or the Spirit.

FJF Is that why it is called the dominical Supper?

JT Just so; we are right in saying that, and it agrees with the Lord’s day, the dominical day.

JPvN Would you say that we remember the Lord as risen; not the sufferings, but the Person?

JT Of course, the Lord is risen; that is true, but I do not think He is stressing the fact that He is risen. When He first appeared to Paul, He said to him, “Why persecutest thou me?”, Acts 9:4. Viewed simply and abstractly as risen, He is not persecuted. He is at the right hand of God and in power; He is not persecuted there. What we remember refers to where He is down here and what is going on down here, not in heaven. When He appeared to Paul and said, “Why persecutest thou me?” Paul was really persecuting the saints; so that when the Lord said that, He was identifying the suffering saints with Himself. The Lord is in heaven, of course, corporeally, but then the Lord is also regarded as having part in the sufferings of His own here, and I think that we ought to bear that in mind, in partaking of the Lord’s supper, that it is a question of the sufferings in which He is in His body here, in His people, and how He feels things.

SJC Is that why the setting is always given as one of betrayal?

JT Just so. It was the night on which He was betrayed. Why should that be said? That is carried through by Paul in 1 Corinthians, it is the public setting of the Lord’s supper.