THE LORD'S SUPPER A SIGN OF CHRISTIANITY
THE LORD’S SUPPER A SIGN OF CHRISTIANITY
Acts 2: 42 - 47; Acts 20: 4 - 12
JT We can see in chapter 2 how the Lord’s supper has a place from the outset of the dispensation. It became the subject of division and controversy, as is well known, and, no doubt, the Spirit intended the truth governing it should have a place from the very earliest. It had a place with the Lord Himself before He died. Matthew, Mark and Luke all give records of it, but it did not become the subject of doctrine till the Lord went to heaven, and the Spirit having come, we are told after Peter’s address, “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers. And fear was upon every soul, and many wonders and signs took place through the apostles’ means. And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all, according as any one might have need. And every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house, they received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God”, — verses 42 to 46, so there is the proof that the Lord’s supper is placed among the brethren, and according to chapter 20, had a steady place, not only in their doctrine and their faith, but in the celebration of it. It had become a sign of Christianity. It had a place in the minds of the brethren, that is, the celebration of it. We all know how desecrated the thought became through the idolatry of Rome, and still remains so; but the Lord has revived the truth, and since then there has been almost steady controversy, which still remains; but the Lord is helping the brethren, and this will continue till the end. Chapter 20 of this book,
[p. 463] which we touched on yesterday, opens up the truth in a very full way, and the facts opened up in that chapter shew that the truth of the Lord’s supper required progressive clarification. We have just the bare facts in the earlier chapters, that the breaking of bread was there, but later we have that Paul discoursed for a long time (a word that might darken our minds if we were not intelligent as to it), for there is the need for clarification; that is still necessary.
Ques Does that bear on the breaking of bread being on “the first day of the week”?
JT I think that some progress had thus been made, and this is still open to the saints; we may have certain thoughts as to it to get adjusted even now. Paul must have been impressed with that fact, seeing that he discoursed till midnight.
Ques Do we see the need for systematic teaching on the supper?
JT Yes, that is quite appropriate, for the book of the Acts is progressive. Luke began his second treatise by saying “all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach”; that is, the Lord Jesus had not finished doing them, so that the second treatise completes the matter, and besides we have Paul’s communication as to it in 1 Corinthians.
Ques Is the supper the rallying point for the saints?
JT Yes, and hence Paul says, “I speak as to intelligent persons” — 1 Corinthians 10: 15; that we know how to apply it with intelligence; and another thing, it is marked in Paul’s hands by the omission of certain things said in the gospels and adding other things; hence the position is particularly interesting and deserves observation, and above all, what Paul says, for he received them from the Lord, and delivered them to the saints at Corinth.
Ques If Paul omitted certain things, should we do the [p. 464] same?
JT Exactly. If Paul were here now he might have to correct some of the things that we say. They did not seem to meet by any definite arrangement at Troas, but it was all in accord with the systematic movements implied in verse 2, “And having passed through those parts, and having exhorted them with much discourse, he came to Greece”; whether the discourse was as to the Lord’s supper, we cannot say; “And having spent three months there, a treacherous plot against him having been set on foot by the Jews, as he was going to sail to Syria, the resolution was adopted of returning through Macedonia”. That word “adopted” refers to the administrative way in which the apostle moved. Then we have these seven brothers from Europe and Western Asia, which we had yesterday, “And there accompanied him as far as Asia, Sopater son of Pyrrhus, a Berean; and of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius and Timotheus of Derbe, and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus”. There was evident deliberateness centring in Paul. And further, “These going before waited for us in Troas; but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and we came to them to Troas in five days, where we spent seven days. And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow”. He was evidently moving in haste, yet with method, observing the time there might have been; so he remained seven days, then it says, “And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight”. It is quite clear things in his hands were spiritual and governed by right principles, for he was seven days there, and apparently seized the opportunity to celebrate the Lord’s supper.
[p. 465] Ques Why are the twelve mentioned in the three synoptic gospels?
JT The thought of administration enters into the Lord’s supper through much controversy, which would arise, and witnesses would be needed. They would be authoritative witnesses if anything should arise, and so prevent it being a subject of constant controversy.
Ques What is involved in the use of the word “discourse”?
JT It is used in contrast to the ‘conversation’ that came after the bread was broken; so we have “And he prolonged the discourse till midnight. And there were many lights in the upper room where we were assembled. And a certain youth, by name Eutychus, sitting at the window-opening, overpowered by deep sleep, while Paul discoursed very much at length, having been overpowered by the sleep, fell from the third storey down to the bottom, and was taken up dead. But Paul descending fell upon him, and enfolding him in his arms, said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him. And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away”. The “long spoken” is ‘conversed’, but the conversational thought is somewhat different to the idea of “discourse”. The Lord has greatly blessed such meetings as readings.
Ques Is it unusual to have a word before the breaking of bread?
JT What I have said is the truth. The Lord foresaw much controversy over the supper. This long discourse is a kind of settlement of the matter, though no notes were taken. His discourse was at length, for the brethren must have been hazy.
Rem And much adjustment was needed.
JT J.N.D. gave us much as to [p. 466] it.
Ques Does the apostolic idea bring in control?
JT It would be Paul’s control, for he has the last word.
Ques What would this “treacherous plot” signify?
JT There have been many since on the same point. Some used to say that we broke bread in the land; the truth is, it is in the wilderness. The land is a spiritual idea.
Rem Paul omits things, but he also adds things, “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”. 1 Corinthians 11: 26.
JT Yes, it is to continue till He comes; some say that it may be until the millennium, but it is for the assembly in the wilderness.
Ques What would Paul’s cloak which he left behind at Troas signify? 2 Timothy 4: 13.
JT He speaks of the cloak and “the books” too; I connect them with the Collected Writings of J.N.D., yet that would not be enough. In the early days they used to break bread on ships, but that does not convey the idea of “all that in every place” (1 Corinthians 2); that is a geographical place.
Rem So that the discoursing is to us now, as it was to them then.
JT It stresses the local need, as at Troas. The word “assembled” refers to the local position; it includes all that were there.
Ques Can we gather what would be involved for them in Paul’s discourse “to them”?
JT I think it has the force of local teaching; it is a local position, as in Corinth; and it is always that, as far as I can see; it is not the universal position as we are assembled in a place. If it is for a fellowship meeting in London, it is local, not universal. Acts 15 gives us the first and only universal gathering of the [p. 467] assembly; the general church councils of Christendom had no place for the Spirit of God.
Ques Does Paul reflect the Lord’s mind as to the basic character of the order and truth of the Supper and its effect on the unity of the saints?
JT Yes; so he says, “thus I ordain in all the assemblies” — 1 Corinthians 7: 17. The position at Jerusalem, such as is mentioned in Acts 2, is metropolitan; it is the assembly in the singular; but in chapter 9: 31 it is in the plural. In chapter 18: 22 it says Paul “having gone up and saluted the assembly”, that is the one at Jerusalem, as if the metropolitan idea was still there.
Ques Would the references to “midnight” (verse 7), and to “daybreak” (verse 11), be instructive for us?
JT Yes, the discourse would break up the darkness there; those seven brethren would help the clarification of the saints.
Rem Timothy was among them.
JT They all represent Paul’s work.
Ques Should the Berean help?
JT Very much. He would ask, and insist as to it, as to any point raised.
Ques What do the references to the “first day of the week” and to the “assembling” mean for us?
JT They involve the displacement of what was still held, the sabbath, and the temple too. According to Luke 24: 53, they “were continually in the temple praising and blessing God”, but they never broke bread there; they broke bread “in the house” (Acts 2: 46), which means not in the temple.
Ques Did the saints need to be extricated from Judaism, even Paul himself?
JT Yes; even Paul had a vow; the seven disciples here would help to clarify the brethren.
Ques Would the “breaking bread in the house”
be more a family idea, suggesting smaller companies?
JT Very beautiful that is to every heart who has been through the crises of the last forty or fifty years! Think of the number of loaves and glasses they had in the past! But only one is mentioned in scripture. There has been a gradual clearing of the matter. How clear things are now! Let us hold on to them, and see that we do not recede from it.
Rem It is remarkable that it says “Paul descending fell upon him” (Eutychus).
JT Yes; he gave up the discourse for that purpose. The leading man in the ministry was so affected, and took a lead in the recovery of this boy. So the brethren want to be alive to what has taken place in the last fifty years, even in the collection.
Ques Would this bear on the numbers of our young people today?
JT Yes; they are now allowed at the care meetings, and that helps them; but it was not always so. It has greatly augmented the increase of the gatherings. The Lord has greatly blessed the brethren generally, especially in these northern areas, and in New Zealand, and many parts, and He will still do so. He has saved us greatly from these devastating crises.
Rem It says in Acts 2: 47, “the Lord added to the assembly daily those that were to be saved”.
JT Yes; “those that were to be saved”, that is that saving kept pace with the gathering into the assembly.
Ques So are we to know the steadiness of apostolic teaching in an ordered way?
JT So that in chapter 2, verse 42, it is protective; “And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. That means they were those that the Lord added to the assembly, not simply to meet their need, or what Moses had taught, but with a view to being taught by Paul.
[p. 469] Ques Does that involve a further answering in us to the truth?
JT So Luke by the Spirit was laying down that Christianity was a progressive matter; then it was not complete, now it is. The authority of the apostles enters into all this, as we see in chapter 5: 4; and then there is this matter of the house (chapter 2: 46) that someone has already mentioned; the breaking of bread was never said to be in the temple; it is mentioned in verse 42 as a general fact, but in verse 46 it says, “And every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house”, the note to “the temple”saying it was in the ‘general buildings’, not in the holiest; it was in the public buildings in contrast with the holy place; but it says they had the breaking of bread “in the house”, to protect the thing itself, that it was a family matter.
Ques Could we have help as to the four things that they persevered in? “The teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”; what especially is the apostles’ fellowship?
JT It is just that, as over against the general thought of fellowship; 1 John 1: 3 refers to it, “that which we have seen and heard we report to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us”, the “with us” means the apostles, while the “ye” is the generality of the saints; “and our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”; that is where the apostles’ fellowship stood. It existed and continued in the holy writings; now we are all on the same footing.
Ques Would “in the house” be John’s line therefore, John being the family gospel?
JT It would; and it strengthens that thought that chapters 3 and 4 are Peter and John chapters, Peter, the apostolic side, and John, the family side.
Ques Why is it called the “breaking of bread” and not the “Lord’s supper”?
JT It means it is taken from the first part, the bread, but the name covers both parts; “we being assembled to break bread”, the first element covers all as a formula.
Ques Could we have help as to the Lord coming in at that point?
JT Yes; if He did. Conditions at Troas hardly permitted of that, and we do not have discourses like that now.
Ques Does it mean that in Acts 2: 46 they broke bread every day?
JT It has hardly developed into the first day of the week yet; “And every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house”; you mean that they actually did it every day; well, they may have done, but it is not the same as Acts 20.
Rem In John 20 it is “the first day of the week”.
JT It is to bring out the greatness of the assembly; it is what we had mentioned in prayer, what the Father has, and what the Son has.
Ques Would “fear was upon every soul, and many wonders and signs took place through the apostles’ means” (Acts 2: 43), and having gone up in Acts 20: 11 with the boy Eutychus alive, be both manifestations of divine power?
JT Power you mean in Paul and Eutychus, and looking for power and life in us; well, yes; Paul says, “Be not troubled, for his life is in him”.
Rem I meant power for the service of God.
JT The Lord says to John, “I am living to the ages of ages, and have the keys of death and of hades”, Revelation 1: 18. Surely that enters into it.
Ques How would we approach our brethren in the systems to help them?
JT As to their being recovered, we do not see much from the preachings, but the work is going on,
as Paul says, “to the end that we may present every man perfect in Christ”, Colossians 1: 28. In the mind of God the work will be finished and we should be ready for it.
Rem This boy would have a great place in the heart of Paul.
JT Well, “a living dog is better than a dead lion”, Ecclesiastes 9: 4.
Rem It says, “they brought away the boy alive, and were no little comforted”.
JT How affected they all would be especially the parents, as they took him away alive. You can see how the Lord would comfort them; it was a moral matter, rather than a physical one; how many are falling, and the mothers need comforting as to their boys, sitting in the window-openings!
Ques Is the supper to recall the Lord personally?
JT Yes, in the memorial. Luke mentions it once; he is the only evangelist who does so, but Paul does so; he mentions it in relation to the cup too; this is very important, “in remembrance of me”, or ‘for a calling me to mind’, is an outstanding point.
Ques Why does Paul also connect it with the cup also?
JT To confirm the truth of the remembrance to us in the supper. The Roman Catholics have it, but the priests only have the cup. We have both; the Lord says, “Drink ye all of it”, Matthew 26: 27; the Roman Catholic priest says, No; it adds to their guilt and lying by so doing.
Ques Would it be in order to give thanks to God for the cup?
JT We have not spoken of that yet. The cup is the second feature of the Lord’s supper. The cup, we used to say, had the blood, and that was God’s part, “the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own”, Acts 20: 28, that is Christ’s blood. So Paul says, “that the Lord 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” (which means it is only for the assembly): “this do in remembrance of me”. And then “In like manner also the cup, after having supped” (that is the passover), “saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” — 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 25. These are the words concerning the two emblems. The idea of God having part in it is not according to the wording of the Lord. Some say, why should the new covenant be referred to at all? There is a reference, and only a reference! It does not say we have part in the new covenant literally; we can only say it is in the drinking, not that we have part in the new covenant.
Ques Does it not say in each case, “in remembrance of me”?
JT Well, it refers to Christ, as I see; not to the Father.
Rem So the assembly has a double witness.
JT Just so.
Rem We ‘eulogise’ the cup; the thing ascends in the thanksgiving.
JT Well.
Ques Is “as often as ye shall eat” (verse 26) an additional feature?
JT Yes.
Ques Do we have the thought of the Lord’s coming to us, for we would love to have Him with us?
JT Yes; the whole matter is the Lord’s, up to the point when we address the Father. We are said to be priests of Christ, as well as of God, in Revelation 20: 6; it is our warrant to serve as priests at the Lord’s supper. It gives us additional thoughts.
[p. 473] Ques Would we refer to the sufferings of Christ at the supper?
JT I think it is right. Peter says, “the sufferings which belonged to Christ, and the glories after these” — 1 Peter 1: 11; there is the question how much we should retain or eliminate in the supper. In the gospels we have the remission of sins mentioned, but not by Paul. We are obligated to keep to the words of Paul.
Ques Does Paul stress the suitability of persons taking the supper?
JT Yes indeed; and he gives a strong warning if we disregard it; one is impressed with the place the supper has in this connection.
Ques Would the sufferings of Christ be more connected with the passover?
JT Why should the Lord not have liberty to speak? It is His supper. Why not leave the wording of it to Him? “After he had suffered” and “before I suffer”, we have both. “He presented himself living, after he had suffered”, Acts 1: 3; why not leave it at that? Isaac is so much stressed as a type, as we had yesterday. He stands related to Rebecca alone in Genesis 24: 67; and in Genesis 26: 8, he is seen dallying with her. So the Lord loves the thought of having us for Himself for a little while.
Rem It is most helpful, not to get our thoughts in a rut!
JT Yes, to keep the truth loosely in our souls; not carelessly, but freely, like the twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis, which is a long chapter; we do not need to bind the truth in creeds.
Ques Does the Song of Songs help us as to reciprocal affections?
JT I think it was intended for that. One has wondered why there is no mention of God in it, except “Jah” — Song of Songs 8: 6. It is a question of the bride and the bridegroom.
Rem It is “The Song of Songs”.
JT Yes, the only one for us, though “his songs were a thousand and five” — 1 Kings 4: 32.
Rem There is plenty of time for our occupation with the Lord Himself; we can dally with Him.
JT Yes, it is an English word that is not hard to be understood.
Ques How do we begin in our thoughts as to the Supper? Is it in the light of Luke 22?
JT I should say we begin with Paul; he is the last word. In Luke 24: 30, the note says, “It has the sense of ‘giving it into their hands’, as a letter”; it shews the liberty that belongs to it. Chapter 24 shews what happened at Emmaus; He placed it in their hands, and vanished, as if to say, ‘You will see me again, but it will be at Jerusalem’, for it is a question of the assembly.
Rem We hail Him as out of death.
JT Another thing comes up there. Paul gives us the appearings after the Lord arose in 1 Corinthians 15, and He appeared to him after He went to heaven. Luke speaks in Acts 1 of His appearing before He ascended. “He appeared to me also”, says Paul, 1 Corinthians 15: 8; that was after He had gone into heaven; and the position stands; He comes to us. Some say He can only do it by the Holy Spirit. We cannot restrict divine Persons. We know He comes, and we are satisfied.