THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
1 Corinthians 11: 17 to end; Matthew 26: 26 - 30
JT It is in mind that Paul’s account of the Lord’s supper is the last and final one, and the one to be read and understood as we partake of the Lord’s supper. The records elsewhere should all be read with this one, but this is actually what he himself received from the Lord. The three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke all record what happened when the Lord was here; it was all written into the regular records given in the gospels, and that of the Lord’s supper as well, included as part of the New Testament, but as having a bearing towards the millennium. It was not intended for the millennium, but for the assembly; the facts however, that are related, bear on the millennium; the gospels all do, and maybe the brethren may not understand this, and if we are to cut “in a straight line the word of truth”, 2 Timothy 2: 15, we must bear this in mind; what the Lord said in the days of His flesh, and what He said when He went to heaven. These remarks have allusion to Paul’s letter; it is the final record, though maybe the gospels were written afterwards. The apostolic letters have the final place in all matters; hence we must look at them in this matter of the Lord’s supper. What is written here shews how much we may digress, and do so in the taking of the Lord’s supper, even to death; because he says here, “So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body” (not distinguishing the Lord’s body it means). So “On this account many among you are weak and [p. 422] infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, so were we not judged. But being judged, we are disciplined of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world” — verses 27 to 32. So that the Lord’s supper has a great place, a major place, and next to the assembly, the first place, and all that relates to it.
Ques Are we to feel the seriousness of the matter?
JT Yes, that is why I began reading at verse 17.
Ques Is coming “together in assembly” of great importance?
JT Just so, and he says, “When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For each one in eating takes his own supper before others, and one is hungry and another drinks to excess”, verses 20 and 21; that is what they were doing, and it was written to condemn them, for the assembly was being despised.
Rem A dignity attaches to the supper.
JT Just so, and Paul tells them that other eatings and drinkings are not on the same level as the Lord’s supper, and says, “If any one be hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment”, verse 34. Our houses are distinct, and the eating and drinking in them, even if we are together as brethren in them, from the place where we take the Lord’s supper; the Lord’s supper itself is on a much higher level.
Ques Does Paul’s discourse in Acts 20 bear on this?
JT Interrupted, you mean, by the matter of Eutychus falling? How long the discourse was we are not told, but it was of considerable length; it says, after Eutychus was restored, the apostle went up “and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away” — Acts 20: 11; so that the truth he had in his mind, was [p. 423] continued and evidently finished, so that the adjustment needed in Troas, as in most other places, was put right.
Ques Did the divisions among the Corinthians affect them at the supper?
JT They were not acting as the assembly should act. The letter is addressed “to the assembly of God which is in Corinth”; they were looked at as that, in spite of their state, which shews how longsuffering the Lord is in dealing with assembly matters; so it reads, “Paul, a called apostle of Jesus Christ, by God’s will, and Sosthenes the brother, to the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 1: 1 - 3. The apostle had to say the most severe things to them in spite of all this as to the Lord’s supper.
Ques Would their being “enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge” imply that they were “intelligent persons”? 1 Corinthians 1: 5 and chapter 10: 15.
JT The first nine verses of the epistle are objective truth, that is it is predicated of the meeting there, “I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus; that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you), so that ye come short in no gift” — verses 4 to 7; that is in the abstract sense, and all the first nine verses are said as if there was no blemish, because the assembly is there.
Ques Do we discern in it all the working of love?
JT The absence of it was not condemned by Paul, for there were men of value. So I do not think [p. 424] the Lord meant to discount anything because of the state, according to these first nine verses. The hortatory part begins with verse ten, and there he speaks of the discrepancy. When he speaks later of the incestuous man, and such things, he speaks of unleavened bread, and says, “according as ye are unleavened” — 1 Corinthians 5: 7. That is what they were abstractly.
Rem In chapter 11: 18 Paul speaks of their divisions, and then says, “that the approved may become manifest among you”.
JT Just so; they are to be “among you”; they are not seen in the world.
Ques How can we hold the truth abstractly?
JT How could we go on otherwise? In many instances we are very low down as at Corinth, and one wonders how the apostle could go on. They did not travel as fast as the Spirit of God; He was ready to commend the repentant man, but they were not.
Ques Would Timothy striving to present himself “approved to God” (2 Timothy 2: 15) be like “the approved ... among you” in 1 Corinthians?
JT Timothy was to be a workman there, but here Paul has in mind the state of the whole assembly, and he says, “For I did not judge it well to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2: 2). He limited his ministry because of their state.
Rem Is the supper on Lord’s day morning the greatest test as to where we have been in the week?
JT Just so; it is public, and not done in a corner, and hence the importance of being accurate. Paul leaves out certain things that are recorded in the gospels, and he also adds to their accounts. Luke mentions the memorial only once, here it is twice.
Ques In the references to the bread and the cup you [p. 425] mean?
JT Yes.
Ques Why did he say he received it from the Lord?
JT He was the only one who could say it. It really belonged to the assembly, and he had the ministry of the assembly given to him.
Ques Is the eating intended to have a moral effect upon us?
JT We must have the actual emblems, the bread and the cup; we are never told what was in the cup; in chapter 10 the cup comes first, but in the actual partaking the bread is first.
Ques Why does he mention divisions and sects before the Lord’s supper?
JT To shew what they were doing. We may hardly realize now what they were doing, and how serious it was. They were meant to be taking the Lord’s supper, but they were not. “For each one in eating takes his own supper before others, and one is hungry and another drinks to excess” — verse 21; such conduct allowed; it shews how patient God is, where the assembly is in mind.
Ques What does the memorial signify?
JT It is mentioned both as to the bread and the cup here; and the latter is only found here. The Lord intends it to be a heart matter with us. We are on His side, and hence the position is exposed to persecution.
Ques Is it more His person here?
JT Yes, it is His person, but it is His absence; that is the thing. The Lord intends that what He had effected should be shewn and known before He comes into the company. There is what He has that He loves and can come to. It is ourselves to begin with, and the Lord loves to see us, and as we keep the directions, He will come.
Ques Is the heart to be filled as well as the mind?
JT Just so; all that is suitable, for they are [p. 426] intelligent persons. But He is not here, and the teaching is to affect us so that we become intelligent.
Ques Is there a distinct difference between the teaching here and in Acts 20?
JT What Paul says in the discourse, you mean. You can add what he said also after he had taken up Eutychus, “And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away”, Acts 20: 11. Paul is the main person in the matter, and he went away after the long speaking, which was conversational now, and no doubt it was about the supper.
Rem It was so that those who entered into the conversation would be able to be left.
JT Yes, and they “were no little comforted”, after Paul’s discourse and his “long speaking” (though no notes were taken that we know of!). The whole assembly had got low, and lost the sense of the Lord’s supper prophetically; I mean, it had lost its ground, almost to the verge of idolatry, where it is now.
Ques Is Paul’s discourse necessary there, and 1 Corinthians 11 helps us to understand this?
JT Just that.
Ques Would recovery be on that line? No doubt they were fully recovered before he had done with them.
JT I think that. Paul’s discourse in Acts 20: 7 is like what we read in 1 Corinthians 11. We cannot be sure how bad the situation was at Troas, but we do know it was very bad at Corinth.
Ques Why is the memorial mentioned twice, the supper beginning and ending with these two elements?
JT As to actual physical fact, but whether the thought of it ends there, I should hardly like to say, because I think it goes on. The thought of the Lord’s [p. 427] spiritual body, that is the saints as one body, goes on to the place the assembly has in the service of God.
Ques Should we be affected first by the Lord’s absence and then by His presence?
JT That is good. The fact that He is there is good, and must mean a change; it goes on to the brethren and the sons of God.
Ques Is oneness needed, but it did not exist among them?
JT He began with that in chapter 1: 10 and what follows, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been shewn to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. But I speak of this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is the Christ divided? has Paul been crucified for you? or have ye been baptised unto the name of Paul? I thank God that I have baptised none of you, unless Crispus and Gaius, that no one may say that I have baptised unto my own name”, verses 10 to 15; he shews it was a fact that there were schools of opinion.
Ques Is there a reference here to the Lord’s own body?
JT I would say that is why 1 Corinthians 10, verses 16 and 17, comes before chapter 11.
Ques Why is “the night in which he was delivered up” referred to at that point?
JT To touch us and affect us. Why should we go on with a party spirit, when His betrayal should be before us and humble us. They were not humbled, they were puffed up.
Rem So Paul here is enforcing that it is a love matter.
JT Just so. “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you” (verse 23) really refers back to verse 17; it was the night of His betrayal, and yet they were carrying on as he describes.
Ques Is what He was doing in the night put over against what we are doing? Is Paul’s thought to sober us?
JT Just so. He was delivered up, and by whom? One of His own; and hence let us challenge our hearts as to where we may be when taking the Supper. He had spoken of Judas, the betrayer there, not of His actual death. Of that He says, “thus shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” — Matthew 12: 40, which is also to affect us, and so it says in verse 27 of one eating the bread or drinking the cup unworthily, that he “shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord”. That all makes it very solemn.
Ques Are we to be conscious of being approved or being disapproved?
JT We should be.
Ques Would you make clear the difference between the presentation of His body and His blood?
JT “This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood”, verses 24 and 25; the word “supped” refers to the passover supper; it means He has finished with the passover supper and is dealing with His own supper, “in remembrance of me”. But you are concerned as to the new covenant?
Ques Is the love of God presented in the new covenant?
JT Let us go back again to the use of the word “this”, “This is my body”, that is one of the “this’s”; and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” is the other; “this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”. The question is, what does “this” mean? It is not manifestly the actual wording of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. That is a formal covenant made with “the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” — Jeremiah 31: 31, not with us, and does not have the same force as the word of the covenant here in this chapter. The idea of covenant is there, but to bring it here and say this is the blood of the new covenant, well, we cannot say the new covenant is formally introduced with us; it was the cup that they drank, but it was only an illustration of that. The covenant established by the blood of Christ is another matter, which we drink as a memorial; so the thought of the new covenant is there, but not “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”; that is not what he is dealing with here; it is the memorial.
Ques Is there any reference here to the Hebrew servant of Exodus 21?
JT It means He shed His blood.
Rem In the cup He says, “I love”, Exodus 21: 5.
JT Well, yes; but this is “the new covenant in my blood”.
Ques This record is final here. Certain things are left out; remission of sins, for instance. Should they be referred to?
JT They should not be.
Rem Paul’s ministry is something extra; it is our charter.
JT That is just the word. He brings something to bear on us, and it is to affect us.
Rem We cannot say the Lord when here said what Paul said, but He said this to Paul. The remission of sins comes in Matthew 26 in connection with the cup, so in drinking we would carry it in our minds.
JT We need intelligence as to how we take [p. 430] the Supper; if you quote from the gospels, then quote them intelligently; Paul received this from the Lord via heaven.
Ques Did not all come through the Lord’s words in the gospels, but this came to Paul direct?
JT Examine it; it is extraordinary language, especially in this epistle.
Ques Is the teaching to enable us to all say the same things?
JT Just so; and if a brother says, (I have heard it, not in this country!) that the Father’s name or the Holy Spirit’s name was connected with the Lord’s supper, he did not know what he was saying.
Rem So that this is our charter.
JT Just so.
Ques May we address God later on when the Lord comes in?
JT It is never said to be God’s supper or the Father’s supper or the Spirit’s supper, it is the Lord’s supper. We need to be priestly, not as the priests in Malachi 1 and 2.
Ques Should we not address God at all?
JT No; it is the Lord’s supper; we are made priests to Him, and He can proceed in this precious time; as constituted priests we know what to say and how to feel.
Rem “He is thy Lord, and worship thou him”.
Ques Is Paul enforcing the thought of the Lord’s love in the supper, so that the remembrance is for His heart, but the memorial for the world?
JT It is for our hearts too, as in the case of the cup-bearer; “Only bear a remembrance with thee of me when it goes well with thee”, Joseph says to him, Genesis 40: 14; this is over against the typical scripture in Exodus 32: 1, “For this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt — we do not know what is become of him!” We ought
[p. 431] to know what is become of Him, of Christ, for He is risen and in heaven, and is ready to come to us when the time arrives; He loves to hear us and to come to us.
Rem If we understood more the announcing of the Lord’s death, we would be more subject to the teaching of the Supper.
JT It involves the government of God; there it is most solemn; “But let a man prove himself”, that is, prove himself as to judgment.
Ques Does partaking of the Supper rightly need moral power with us?
JT Just so.
Ques Are we to look for some intelligence in those asking to break bread?
JT It is the business of the elder brethren to teach them; hence the elaboration of the truth of the passover in Exodus 12, especially in verses 43 to 50, is a parallel thought, and the difference in the passages is like the difference between the gospels and Corinthians. What Paul gives here is basic.
Ques When does the proving take place, before, or at the Supper?
JT All the time. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body” — verses 27 to 29. I should not like to limit the ‘proving’, though it would be very intense during the eating and drinking. The proving with Israel was with the unleavened bread; leaven was to be judged, and 1 Corinthians 5 bears on this, as to the judgment of the wicked man, as to the truth about sin, and the truth as to whether we are sincere.
Ques Is there to be continuity in the Supper, “until he come” (verse [p. 432] 26)?
JT That is a solemn thing. It is His public coming, and all is dealt with then.
Ques But if this proving takes place at the Supper would it not interfere with our service?
JT It shews us it is before us throughout the week, like the feast of unleavened bread which was for seven days.
Rem You feel this teaching to be very needful.
JT I never felt it more, because the Lord is stressing it in view of the service of God, and the time is short.
Ques Is a word suitable after the Lord’s supper?
JT It is quite in keeping.
Rem On the lines of teaching?
JT Yes.
Rem Sometimes we feel that it is easier to give thanks for the bread than for the cup.
JT I do not think so.
Ques Does the Lord make us know His presence then?
JT The breaking of bread calls Him to mind; our pure minds know what to say and what to do. The bread is “for the calling me to mind”; we recognize Him as the bread is broken.
Ques Are the questions raised in chapter 10: 16 on the line of “proving”?
JT Yes; it is the public position; the idea of fellowship is not in chapter 11, but in chapter 10. Chapter 11 is privilege, and the inside position. But the idolatry mentioned in chapter 10 is what we have abroad in Christendom, from Rome downwards.
Ques Why is “as often as ye shall drink it” mentioned in connection with the remembrance?
JT That is not said in regard of the bread. The memorial in the bread lies in the breaking, not [p. 433] in the eating.
Ques What is in mind in the discipline (verse 32)?
JT I suppose the general sense as mentioned in Hebrews 12 applies. It is attributed to any conduct objectionable at the Supper where He is; I see it more today. But chapter 10 is public.
Ques Self-judged persons may still be disciplined by the Lord?
JT Quite so; “For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body”, verse 29; it alludes to a person who is misbehaving; “But if we judged ourselves, so were we not judged”, verse 31. The persons spoken of as “we” there are misbehaving in the assembly.
Ques Would the discipline in Hebrews 12 be in view of holiness, but this is different?
JT Yes; it is a remarkable thing that it is dealt with in this way.
Ques Are all included in “if we judged ourselves”?
JT “For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body. On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, so were we not judged” — verses 29 to 31. It means the person who is misbehaving.
Ques Should we be clear of everything that may be laid to our charge?
JT Quite so. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord”, verse 27; that is what is in mind; something is laid to the charge of the Corinthians; “But let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body”, verses 28 and 29. Not distinguishing the Lord’s body is almost a crime.
[p. 434] Ques Is it like the sin of chapter 5, or is this more serious?
JT Both are equally serious. The apostle is very tender when dealing with the Lord’s body, and I hope the saints are all taking it in; it is most serious how little is taken in.
Ques Is the same end in view in the discipline as in the ministry, to bring us to things?
JT Yes.
Rem Coming together “for the worse” (verse 17) is very solemn.
JT Quite so.
Ques Does the reference in chapter 10: 7 apply to this, “The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play”?
JT It is what happened at Corinth; he is dealing with that kind of thing.
Rem The Supper is not to satisfy our natural hunger.
JT It says, “If any one be hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment” (verse 34).