THE LORD'S SUPPER AS FOOD
THE LORD’S SUPPER AS FOOD
1 Kings 19:5 - 8; Matthew 26:21 - 30
JT I have been thinking today about the Lord’s supper as being representative of food, as it is also a memorial of the Lord. It occurred to me that perhaps it is less understood as food than it is as a memorial. Luke presents the memorial, having in mind that the Lord would be absent and that He should not be forgotten — that there should be a means of calling Him to mind and thus giving Him place as Head. He therefore makes much of order as such — the hour and placing; “when the hour was come” the Lord “placed himself at table” Luke 22:14 we read. This bears out the instructions of 1 Corinthians, where we have the same idea advanced and enlarged on in chapter 11, indicating how the supper is to be eaten, and our behaviour in it, lest we should attempt to partake of it in an unworthy or unsuitable manner. But Matthew, being the administrative gospel, has in view that it should be food, so that we should be sustained spiritually in the assembly; he therefore stresses the idea of eating, saying nothing about the memorial, but he records the going to the mount of Olives, as if the eating were to give spiritual strength for that. In the challenge as to the betrayal and also in introducing His supper, the disciples were eating; see verses 21 and 26. “As they did eat” and “as they were eating”
FWJ In Mark it says, “Take, eat”
JT The word ‘eat’ is questionable there. In verse 22 of Mark 14 He gave it to them and said, “Take” the word ‘eat’ may be there, but it is doubtful. Possibly it was added by some editor to make it uniform with Matthew, but according to the New Translation it is just “Take”; and it does not say ‘drink’, but “they all drank” Mark 14:23 so it is quite evident that Matthew leads in stressing the idea of eating. I believe that the non-eating of the passover and occupation with other things throughout the week would weaken it, because it was “as they were eating” He introduced it. Unless we keep the feast of unleavened bread, which is a continuous thing, we are hardly equal to this particular food.
FWJ The passover and the Supper took place on the same occasion.
JT Yes, they did, and the one ran into the other. I think the feast of unleavened bread as a continuous eating prepares for this special thing, and, apart from the keeping of this feast, there may be a certain remembrance of the Lord, but certainly no increase of spiritual power through eating.
FRS What would answer to the keeping of that feast through the week for us now?
JT It is called “unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth” 1 Corinthians 5:8 which involves what has come out in Christ in a general way. The passover and the feast of unleavened bread stood in relation to the people of God in the types as going out of Egypt, and as in the wilderness, and as entering the land; so in each position we need that food; each position requires it.
FWJ That does not connect itself with coming together, does it?
JT No, it does not. In Corinthians it is introduced in chapter 5 in view of dealing with evil.
FRS Is it the constant application of the death of the passover lamb?
JT It is the beginning of our spiritual history. The lamb was roast with fire, and was to be eaten with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed” 1 Corinthians 5:7 is an objective thought. It refers to God dealing with the Lord directly as our representative. Later, at the consecration of the priests, you have the idea of boiling; there was the [p. 176] boiling of a certain offering (Leviticus 8:31), which is indirect action of fire. The fire is indirect in boiling; in roasting it is direct. The direct action of God against sin is in the passover, and the feast of unleavened bread corresponds with that in us; but in the Lord’s supper, it is not the Lord dealing with sin; death is there, but it is more in the sense of boiling; it is food of another kind — food that a priest needs. You have already eaten of the passover, but we need to apprehend Christ in love giving Himself for us; it is not so much His bearing the judgment of God as His giving Himself for us. Christ has died for us in love; that supports you in the partaking of the Supper, and it adds to your strength.
Ques Why do we get the eating only with the passover, and eating and drinking with the Supper?
JT Well, I think that in the passover as the Lord partook of it there were both; only in the primary institution there was nothing said about drinking, but in the gospel of Luke there is the passover cup as well as the cup of the Lord’s supper, and it was of the passover cup that the Lord said He would not drink again till the kingdom of God should come. He partook of the passover cup.
Ques Does that infer that His joy in connection with Israel is deferred?
JT Yes. And when He does drink it again it will be in a “new way” It is only in connection with the passover cup you have the word ‘wine’ mentioned; it is never mentioned in connection with the Lord’s supper.
Rem We mention it in our hymns sometimes.
Ques Why did the Lord not partake of the cup in the Supper?
JT It was for them. He did not die for Himself, nor did He pour out His blood for Himself, it is for us; but as coming in by the door into the fold He was on Jewish ground, and acted as a Jew should.
[p. 177] You can understand that, but He did not die for Himself. “My blood, that of the [new] covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins” could not have any application to Him.
Ques Why ‘many’, and not all?
JT Well, I think that the word ‘many’ was wider than Israel. “Who gave himself a ransom for all” 1 Timothy 2:6 but the covenant is not as wide as that, it is for God’s people, those who were in direct relation with Him. As the Mediator between God and men He gave Himself for all, but that does not mean that all come into the covenant. It has more the aspect of the blood of the covenant; the passover cup is not the testimony to the love of God.
Ques The passover is not commemorative, is it?
JT At the beginning it was a reminder as to how God took them out of Egypt, so it was to be held yearly. But as applied to us, it is not commemorative at all; it has a spiritual significance only, meaning that it is the state of soul we are to be in. That is the thought.
Rem That has to be maintained as a constant exercise.
JT Yes. So that many fail in the appetite that is necessary for the Lord’s supper for the reason that the state of soul is not there; the feast of unleavened bread is not kept up. The Lord’s supper goes beyond milk, although the youngest believer may have part in it.
Ques Is not sincerity and truth put in contrast to malice and wickedness?
JT Quite. You can understand these being pressed on the Corinthians as those other evils were present there.
Ques In Luke 22:20, it says, “In like manner also the cup, after having supped”; does that mean the passover supper?
JT Yes. The word ‘sup’ does not refer to drinking specially, it refers to taking the passover supper. It may sound paradoxical, but really we have to eat to eat. Even physically it is sometimes so; one is so very weak that it becomes necessary to build up an appetite with delicate food so as to be able to take strong food.
Ques “Solid food belongs to full-grown men, who, on account of habit, have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil” Hebrews 5:14. Would that be on the line of discernment?
JT Yes. So you get in Isaiah 7, “Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and to choose the good” certain food is necessary for that.
FWJ In taking the passover, it is exclusive. They ate the bitter herbs with it, but nothing else.
JT Yes.
Ques Is the mount of Olives an end to be reached?
JT I think so. The fact that it is found in Matthew and Mark only teaches us, I think, that the eating enables us to reach it.
Ques What is the idea of the mount of Olives?
JT Spiritual elevation and strength are suggested in the mount; olives usually in Scripture are a type of the Spirit.
FWJ Does it go beyond resurrection and touch ascension?
JT I think it does. We are raised “through faith of the working of God, who raised him from among the dead” (Colossians 2:12), but then we are “quickened together with him” Colossians 2:13 so that we are in the power of that life. That life is ministered to, I think, in the Supper. We read of Elijah that in the strength of that meat he went forty days to the [p. 179] mount of God; 1 Kings 19:8. It is a question of the support there was, and God taking account of the fact that he needed that. There is the double action, too — he ate twice.
Ques What would that imply?
JT I think the first meal gave him strength to take the second. That at least is the kind of thing you get in a spiritual sense.
Ques Does it create appetite?
JT Yes, I think in the sense in which we are speaking of it that eating creates appetite.
FWJ In regard to food, does John 6 come in at all?
JT It does indeed, only there it is a question of life, but it is on the same line. The sign in that chapter is the feeding of the five thousand, and the teaching is based on that. There it is, He has come down and given His life; it is the most perfect, in a way, of all the chapters. His flesh and His blood speak of a dead Christ as having come down. He came down to die, so that one may eat and live, for His flesh is truly food and His blood is truly drink.
Ques Is that what we do at the Supper?
JT John 6 is another line. “If any one shall have eaten of this bread he shall live for ever” John 6:51: then he that eats and drinks has eternal life. It is a question of eternal life there, but it runs parallel with the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is “This is my body”: it does not say ‘my flesh’.
FRS Would you explain that a little?
JT His body is that in which He carried out the will of God even unto death; it is the food that helps me to carry out the will of God, to be subject to His will. In John 6 the blood as separated from the flesh is the end of that order of man altogether — the total ending of that order.
Ques Has the loaf the assembly as the body in view as well as Christ’s own [p. 180] body?
JT I think so. It has in 1 Corinthians anyway; the idea of the body is that there should be a vessel here for the will of God, but the flesh and the blood in John 6 allude to the ending altogether of that man, so that life is terminated after that order. But the body of Christ as food is to prepare for a vessel here for God’s will, and the cup to prepare a vessel for God’s love — God’s will and God’s love. These are wonderful things!
YY-L The Lord says in John 6, “The bread withal which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” What is the idea of that?
JT The universal bearing of it. He had nothing less than that in view; it was not simply for Israel, it was there for anyone: that was the bearing of it, but only the eater gets the good of it; eating brings you into it. John 6 stands in relation to the gospel, for eternal life is announced in the gospel; the chapter shows how you come into the proposal of the gospel, but the body is a question of a vessel. God had a vessel here in Christ, but in the Supper I am looking at Him as dead; He died to carry out the will of God.
YY-L When the Lord broke the bread and said, “This is my body” He was not referring to the loaf, but drawing attention to His own body.
JT Quite. The loaf is undoubtedly a figure of His own body. It is that in which the will of God was carried out to the utmost limit. In Matthew and Mark it is not for us; that is Luke, which is to show that He loved us in doing it; but Matthew and Mark is more that it is the vessel of God’s will. He is forsaken in both these gospels on the cross, but He is not forsaken in Luke or John. In the first two gospels it is a question of the will of God being carried out to the utmost limits; “take eat”; I feed on that; it develops a vessel for the will of God.
[p. 181] Rem In Corinthians you have a wider application than in the gospels.
JT You have an application of it there to the doctrine of Paul; the gospels laid the basis for that, but in Corinthians it was intended to be available as a figure of the assembly as the body of Christ; it is remarkable therefore how the gospels prepare for the epistles. It is only as apprehending Christ’s body as here for the will of God that I can be in His body as composed of the saints. How can I be in the body of Christ if my will is active? I may claim to be in it, but I am not in it.
Ques Does that not take you out of your individual position?
JT Yes, I am merged in one body, but what underlies that is that I am subject to the will of God. God does not dwell in that which is lawless. I cannot be in that which expresses Christ if I am lawless.
Rem And the Corinthian truth would be the inlet for us.
JT Quite. You really begin with the epistles, if you understand the gospels.
YY-L The great moral reason God had in bringing about the body was that His will might be continued. God does not do anything without a moral reason.
JT That is right; hence you cannot conceive of anyone who understands the truth of the body insisting on his own will in the assembly; it is utterly incompatible with the assembly, and this food is to enable me to be strong enough to disallow my will.
Rem So it says of Elijah he rose up and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights.
JT Quite; the question of food is most interesting and important, for how can we be sustained without it? Many, I am afraid, live on light, but we cannot really do it; there can be no growth without food. Much is made of food all through Scripture;
[p. 182] the first chapter of the Bible emphasises it — the vegetable — and then, when God puts greater responsibility on man, as with Noah, He introduces flesh, which indicates a principle, that God supports us according to our responsibility, and the greater responsibility of Matthew implies that they were to be nourished accordingly. Men were evidently vegetarians before Noah.
Ques Why is the mount of Olives connected with the singing of the hymn?
JT I think it shows in this gospel that there is power to move on after we partake of the Supper. In this gospel and Mark we are told they went to the mount of Olives, but not in Luke or John, for I think these two gospels, particularly Matthew, bring in the idea of food as supporting us so that we are able to go beyond the mere light. Many partake of the supper as a mere matter of light, and go away without having received one atom of strength more than they had, whereas the idea is that we get strength. It is the strength of a meal for a given period. We eat daily, but Elijah ate only once in about six weeks — forty days — which suggests the idea of food carrying you through a period. In the assembly’s history, I believe the Lord’s supper is intended to carry us through week by week.
Ques So you would not leave out the Luke aspect of the Lord’s supper as a memorial?
JT They go together; we need them together. The memorial is that I bring the Lord in, He is present, so that He becomes Head. But there is not a word of the memorial in Matthew, there it is that I might be equal to the greatness of the occasion if the Lord comes in.
Ques What do we eat in relation to the Supper?
JT It is His body. We have to distinguish between His flesh in John 6 and His body.
Ques Does it connect itself with “Lo, I come” a “body hast thou prepared me”? Hebrews 10 Is it all that was seen in the pathway of the Lord here — the meat-offering side?
JT Yes, but it is now seen as separated from the blood, the life is out of it; and why? Because of the will of God and because of the love of God — the two things go together.
YY-L We have often spoken of His love as nourishing us.
JT Yes, but the thought of the will of God nourishes us. The greatest lesson that man has to learn is, “Thy will be done as in heaven so upon the earth” Matthew 6:10 How is it to be done on earth? As we see it in Christ’s body and appropriate it as available to us. It is complete identification with that.
FWJ Does the flesh stand for a condition, whereas the body is a vehicle?
JT Yes, exactly; the one is a condition and the other a vessel. The condition (flesh and blood) is terminated for ever, but the vessel remains, and the idea of it is continued here in the saints.
Ques Does Hebrews 10 help us, “By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ”?
JT Yes, that is it; it is the will of God.
FRS I suppose the body is that in which the life could be laid down.
JT That is the way it is put in John, but here I see a vessel in which the will of God is carried out, but I also see the love of God; so the two things come in, “this is my body” and “this is my blood that of the [new] covenant” In order to come into the love I must be in the will of God. The will of God is morally first, so that I might be in the love of God. All the difficulties among us are because of not appropriating the body. The unleavened bread is simply a question of being transparent and true in all our relations, but [p. 184] the body of Christ is a question of being true to Christ who went into death.
Ques Why is the blood separated from the body?
JT Because of me. The cup is the love of God coming into your heart. The two things go together — the will of God and the love of God. You have a constitution now that is vigorous and able to take advantage of what the memorial effects. The memorial brings Christ in now according to what He is, not according to what He was. How am I to know a Person who can come in through closed doors without opening them? I need a spiritual constitution for that — to join Him.
FWJ So that in the Supper you do not think much of the precious life of Christ on earth, but you have your communion with Him where He now is.
JT Well, you call Him to mind as He is; the eating involves what He was here in His death, for really it is as dead He is before us. Many of us do not touch that at all because of want of spiritual energy; we go away as we come. True enough, the Lord owns our coming as acting in light, but there is more than light needed to build up our constitution. There is not a word about His supper while He was here during the forty days till He goes up to heaven, for it is a question of His being in heaven away from this earth that is the setting of the Supper. But when He came into their midst, He said, “Have you here anything to eat?” He did not specify it, that is to say, He will have part in what you have; what have you here in this locality? As risen from the dead He partakes of what we have, but it is not His supper.
Ques Does the eating bring glory to Him?
JT The Supper is His provision; it is all from His side.
HH In His supper would you say we remember Him where He was?
[p. 185] JT It is a dead Christ you are occupied with; that is the WAY He is to be remembered. Who is to be remembered? The One who has gone, and is now absent. There is not a word about His supper while He was here during the forty days; if it was a matter only of recalling His death, it would have been as suitable then as afterwards, but it is not that — it is remembering Him who was dead. The symbols of His death form the memorial, but the memorial is of the One who is absent.
FWJ So that the Supper would hardly be in place while He was here on earth, but He instituted the Supper in view of His going away.
JT Yes. The food at the beginning of the week carries you through, but the feast of unleavened bread is for the seven days.
FWJ And the latter is kept in our houses.
JT Yes, it is more individual.
YY-L Do you not think that if, from force of circumstances, the Supper is not taken by us, there is a kind of unexplainable feeling of loss?
JT Indeed I am sure that is so.
YY-L You feel starved, though the Lord can make it up to you. But unless we see to it that there is an appetite and real relish for the Supper, we suffer.
JT So you begin your week on the one hand with this food, bringing to your soul the thought of the will of God in One whose delight it was to do it even unto death; and, on the other hand, that in that coming He has brought the love of God to you and made it available for you. That brings in a vessel suitable for administrative action in the assembly. In the strength of that food Elijah went to Horeb, the mount of God, and in the strength of it I go to the mount of Olives with Him. It does not say He went; “they went out to the mount of Olives” It is a mutual movement, meaning I am fit for it; I am fit to take that way with Him.
[p. 186] FWJ So in that way when we drink of the cup the soul is more intimately linked with God in connection with His love than with the loaf?
JT Yes, I think so. The Lord is more personally before you in the loaf, “my body”; but the cup is the new covenant, and the new covenant is God’s covenant, so that the Lord now, as it were, retires, and God is in evidence.
Ques How are we affected during the week by the food we partake of on the first day?
JT You are carried through in assembly character as the anointed vessel, the vessel of testimony. So all that comes out in 1 Corinthians in chapters 11 to 14 bears on how we are here in the assembly. It is an immense thought that I belong to that vessel. How am I to be equal to it save as partaking of that food?
FWJ Does that bring in chapter 10 — the thought of the table?
JT That is to deliver me from worldly associations. Chapter 10 is preparatory; it is a question of fellowship. I must be in accord with the Lord’s death and I must be consistent and true to the fellowship of His death, even although the eye of my brethren is not upon me.
Ques Would you say that the sphere of our service during the week is largely determined by our entrance into privilege?
JT Yes, it gives colour to it; the mount of Olives gives colour to you — the heavenly touch. Then you are looking on to another first day, and thus your weeks go on.