THE LIGHT GOVERNING THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LIGHT GOVERNING THE LORD’S SUPPER
1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 28; John 20: 19 - 26
JT One thought in connection with the Lord’s supper is that we have to come together in order to partake of it. The chapter we have read from 1 Corinthians shows us that it was partaken of in the assembly, “When ye come together in assembly”. The word ‘together’ is very important.
R So that it is not contemplated that a person takes the Lord’s supper for himself as an individual merely.
JT Nor can he take it at home. His own meal is to be taken at home, according to this passage.
J Why was it necessary that there should be this special revelation from the Lord in glory as to the Supper? I presume it was continued after Pentecost. In Acts 20 they came together to break bread. Why was there this special revelation as to it? There must have been some special reason.
JT What occurred in Acts 20 was probably after this. The formation of the Corinthian assembly is in Acts 18. What appears is that the gentile believers were without any direct warrant for eating the Supper unless Paul had received it from the Lord. It was primarily connected with the passover.
J It comes in connected with the assembly.
JT Exactly. In Acts 2 they broke bread at home. Acts 20 shows that they had already conceived the idea of coming together to do it.
M-s. Is this a confirmation of a previous communication?
JT It is confirmation to the gentile believers that what the Lord had delivered to the Jewish believers, to the Jewish remnant, could now be taken up by them. The Supper was primarily given to those who had the Jewish passover, and the early chapters [p. 126] of the Acts do not make it appear that they had as yet ceased to have the passover, so you will find in Matthew and Mark that the Supper is connected with the passover. It is not as yet dissociated from the passover, from the Jewish ritual, but, when you come to Paul, his ministry, properly speaking, supposes that all that is over, that there is no longer any connection with what was at Jerusalem, and that coming together is the setting aside of the whole Jewish ritual. That which had prestige on earth is superseded by a company of believers in Christ coming together. They require no longer that which is set up at Jerusalem. All that is set aside.
M-s. The passover was taken at home, I suppose.
JT When they got into the land, it was connected with the place in which God’s name was named. Each family had it at home, but it was connected with the temple where God had placed His name.
M-s. In Acts 2, where they continued in breaking of bread and prayers, was not that the Lord’s supper?
JT Yes, but connected with the Jewish remnant. God had not abandoned the system at Jerusalem, and, while that went on, the Supper was not clearly set forth, but you have it in this epistle, and, in Acts 20 they came together. That supersedes the temple, and supersedes the whole.
R It was proper then that it was the subject of a fresh revelation to the apostle, as the one to whom the mystery of the assembly was committed.
JT So that it was connected with the assembly in this epistle and in this chapter.
Ques What is the force of coming together?
JT It supposes that we love one another! The Supper is the celebration by those who love one another, and, as loving one another, we show that we love Christ. If we do not love one another, if [p. 127] we do not love the saints, we have no moral title to break bread at all. Your love to the saints is the proof that you love Christ. What do you say to that?
R It is a question if we do take the Lord’s supper if we do not love one another. It would be a denial of the truth of it. We could not partake in what is the Lord’s thought of it.
JT You could partake of the elements.
M-s. It would not be consistent with the Lord going into death if we did not love one another. It would draw forth love to one another.
JT It is a collective act, a collective thought, and it is celebrated by those who love the Lord, and the proof that you love the Lord is that you love one another. The proof of our discipleship is that we love one another. The disciples came together to break bread, for the Lord had said, “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”. Why do we come together?
H Someone has said, because we cannot help it.
JT We want to meet one another if we love one another.
R It has been said, ‘I go to meet the Lord’. Would you not say that that is not really the right way to come together? That is not the exact purpose, that we should come together as units, apart from one another in spirit.
JT There is no virtue in the room in which you meet, and, if you are the only one there you gain nothing by coming. That is not the right way. It is misleading (one has to speak guardedly) but it is really misleading to say you come to meet the Lord. You come together. If no brethren are there you cannot have the Supper and you gain nothing.
W If you meet the Lord you will gain something.
JT The room does not attract the Lord. You could then have it at home. The room is not sanctified, there is no virtue in the room.
[p. 128] H At the same time you would say that we have the desire to meet the Lord.
JT Yes, “We would see Jesus”, but you would recognise the appointed way.
H We come together and break bread, and then meet the Lord.
JT That is the order.
R You press that, because it says, “All that believed were together”.
JT And here, “come together in assembly”. Many come together, and never think of loving the brethren. It is of great practical bearing the thought of “together”. You are together with those that you love. It is a company of that kind that attracts the Lord.
J And that is fellowship.
JT If you love the brethren, you will not do what will grieve them, and you will not do anything inconsistent with the death of Christ. “Love one another” is fellowship. You are in fellowship with those that you love, and you would not grieve them or grieve the Lord whom you love.
H “If therefore thou shouldest offer thy gift at the altar ... be reconciled to thy brother”, Matthew 5: 23, 24.
JT If you come to meet the Lord the Lord would raise the question as to the brethren — how about the brethren? Do you see what I mean? “If therefore thou shouldest offer thy gift at the altar, and there shouldest remember”. You are sure to remember it. That is where remembrance is brought to you, because God will remind you.
J That is very important.
JT You cannot ignore the brethren and you will not if you love them.
M-s. What is the force of “Let a man prove himself” (verse [p. 129] 28)?
JT He comes as a self-judged person. In this chapter the point is conduct in the assembly, not outside of it. In chapter 10 it is a question of how you behave outside it. If you come without examining yourself, you will be judged by God. The indirect judgment of God is outside, but the direct judgment is inside, and, if you do not judge yourself, you will be judged.
R That direct judgment is because the Lord is in connection with the house of God. Judgment begins at the house of God.
JT You are immediately in the Lord’s presence, and there it is direct judgment.
R There the Lord allows nothing to pass.
JT It is a serious thing to come into the assembly. If we judge ourselves we shall not be judged of the Lord.
H The judgment of the Lord is as direct today as it was at the beginning.
JT On account of weakness at present, it does not appear so, but we are under the direct judgment of God in the assembly. You can remember, if you look back, instances of it. If sin is allowed and unjudged, it is as sure as anything can be that you come under the judgment of the Lord.
R Though it may be long borne with.
JT There are men who will not submit to the Lord’s will; hence the importance of self-judgment.
H It is very serious to be in connection with the assembly, for it is the house of God.
JT “If first from us” — real christians, you know. Then, on the other hand, if you are misjudged, the person who misjudges you shall come under judgment. You recognise, “The righteous Jehovah is in the midst of her, he doeth no wrong. Every morning doth he bring his judgment to light”, Zephaniah 3: 5. You can leave things, if you are suffering for righteousness’ sake; the Lord will bring it to light.
[p. 130] J It is striking in the early chapters of the Acts.
JT Each feature there brings out some feature of the testimony, and nothing is repeated. Ananias and Sapphira’s case is the example of the direct judgment of God.
H It was in connection with them that I referred to it that it is as direct now as then.
JT We have that striking instance to remind us of what it is, the direct judgment of God. I hardly know of anything that is of more direct importance than that we should see what it is to come together and what more befitting than that as loving the Lord and loving one another, we should have the Supper which makes way for Christ.
J That which speaks of His love to us, not so much our love to Him.
R “The night in which he was delivered up”. Is that connected with the fact that we take the Supper in connection with the Lord’s absence? He is the absent One.
JT Yes, and it suggests to us how irrepressible His love to His disciples was. The pressure was terrible at that time, not only the pressure from without but the pressure from within. Satan himself was there in one of the number, “The hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table”. And yet His love was there.
J That is very striking. Having so soon to come into contact with sin, and yet His love was just the same to His own.
H At a time when He might well have expected that they would have thought about Him, but He is thinking about them.
JT One can understand Paul’s desire, “To know the love of the Christ”. There is a distinction between the love of God in Christ and the love of Christ. The two things are seen in Romans 8, the love of Christ from which nothing can separate us,
[p. 131] and the love of God in Christ from which nothing can separate us. The love of Christ is His love as Man for us, as His brethren. He is on our side, as I understand it. The High Priest is taken from among men, with a man’s feelings and affections — always divine, for even in Aaron we have that thought — clothed in blue, pointing to the fact that he is the heavenly man, and he had the breastplate on. The breastplate refers to the place that the saints have on His heart as a Man. The love of God is more presented in Moses, the apostle, seen on the part of God, to present the love of God to us.
J So it is never said that God loved the assembly?
JT No doubt God does love the assembly, but it is a different idea entirely.
R Why is it always spoken of as the assembly of God, not the assembly of Christ?
JT That comes out in Corinthians, the assembly of God. It was not man’s assembly, that is the force of it.
R It is a common term, the church of Christ, but it is not scriptural.
JT “My assembly” is the nearest approach to it. One can understand Paul’s exercise that the saints might know the love of Christ “which surpasses knowledge”, and yet it is to be known. A consideration of the circumstances in which the Supper was instituted helps us, because everything there tended to repress that love. The weakness among the disciples themselves, and especially Judas’s defection, all that tended to repress it, and yet it shone there.
R The Lord said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”. He does not say, “to eat the Supper with you”. Why the passover? Because He would bring Himself before them in that way.
JT In the celebration of the passover, He was like the Head of the house, as in Israel, and it was [p. 132] touching that He should regard them as His house; but then, after supper, He took bread, supper being finished (see note to John 13: 2), so that, there the disciples are set on a new footing. Instead of the passover, they are to have His Supper, “This is my body which is given for you”.
J Having come together, what follows? How do we go on?
JT We come together for that purpose, to break bread, and therefore we seek to do it. Would you not say that?
J That would be the primary object of coming together.
M-s. What is really involved in the breaking of bread?
JT It is important to bear in mind that the apostle here does not record what the disciples did on the occasion. He does not say what they did, although we know they did something. He says, “I received from the Lord ... that the Lord Jesus ... took bread ...”. He tells us what the Lord did. That points to something that we have to consider because it is a question of what He did, if we are to be reminded of Him. What the disciples did at the time would not remind us of Him. Our actual taking the bread and eating it does not remind us of Christ, because He did not eat the bread, neither did He drink the cup. He did eat the passover, we know, and drink the passover cup.
J That is in keeping with His present position.
H Do you confine the word ‘do’ to the breaking of bread, and not to the eating of it?
JT I do not see how it can mean anything else.
H After the drinking in Corinthians there is the word ‘do’ still, although there is no breaking.
JT “Having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body ... this do ...”. “In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup ... this do”. I think it was what He did, the blessing of the cup. He blessed the cup.
R It is what the Lord did in taking it and the moral import of what He did in giving His body and His blood.
JT Look at Luke 22: 19, 20, and 1 Corinthians 11: 24, 25, “In like manner”. The word ‘manner’ referred to what was done.
R I would like you to repeat that. One has always thought that “This do” referred to the whole thing. You put emphasis on the breaking of the bread. Do you mean by each one?
JT By the person who breaks the loaf. The loaf has to be broken before you take the Supper. The unbroken loaf is the Lord’s body, the expression perhaps of our unity. But in order that we should partake of it, it has to be broken, or else why do we break it?
H At Emmaus “He was made known to them in the breaking of bread”. Though the words do not occur in the actual Supper, it has bearing on it perhaps.
JT We know He did not eat of it at the time, but He simply broke it then.
J They recognise the manner in which He did it.
H Do you connect the giving of thanks of the Lord with the breaking of it, not merely the breaking of the bread, but the way He did it and the giving of thanks? The one who breaks the bread, the way in which he gives thanks for it and the sense he has of the Lord’s love, should bring Him into recognition.
JT The Spirit records what the Lord did, not what the disciples did. They did something no doubt, but it is what He did that reminds us of Himself, not what they did. It has been said that the breaking of the loaf is simply for convenience. A man sitting down at his table does certain things to make the food more easy to partake of. He does it [p. 134] because he is head of the house, and supposing the head of the house is taken, if there is affection in the household, they remember what he used to do in his capacity as head of the house.
H And a son doing it afterwards might bring the father to remembrance.
JT The son does it because it has to be done, not because he is head of the house, because he is not head of the house. We do it because it has to be done but the act reminds you of the Lord.
J There is nothing special attaching to the brother who breaks the loaf.
JT Nothing whatever, but there is something special in what is done.
Rem The Lord Himself is to be recalled in the love that went into death for us.
JT If we love the Lord, we cherish the things that remind us of Him, His devotedness in devoting His body to us and in giving His life. All that comes before us, because in chapter 10 the Lord’s body is for God’s will to set aside our will. He said, “Behold, I come, ... to do thy good pleasure”, but then He devoted that body to us. Nothing could appeal to us more than that, “This is my body, which is for you”.
H What had been for God’s pleasure is now for us?
JT He devoted His body to us as going into death to set aside all that was against us. We remember the absent One as He is; it is the absent One we remember. That is the point of the Supper. It seems to me strange that anyone should think otherwise. It is remembrance. Of whom? Of One who is absent. It ceases when He is present; there is no more need for it. There is no dead Christ now, you know. He does not say, ‘This do in remembrance of Me as dead’, but “of me”. He is alive. It is not a state we remember, but a [p. 135] person.
W As gone into death.
JT What we do shows the Lord’s death. What He did reminds us of Him; what we do is testimony to the world, our eating and drinking. They can see us eating the loaf and drinking of the cup. That is quite another thing.
Ques The actual breaking of the loaf is not in any way symbolical of the Lord’s death?
JT But it reminds us of what He did, and of His being Head of the house, which is a touching thought.
S It surely reminds us of Himself in death.
JT All that comes before us surely, but it is a person we remember, not a state. It does not say, ‘Remember Me in death’, but it says, “For as often as” you do it, “ye announce the death of the Lord”, which is testimony. You surely remember it if you show it forth, but the point is that you remember the Lord.
R “This do in remembrance of me” comes before the other.
JT The history of the church only shows the necessity for it, because they have forgotten the Lord. The Lord is forgotten, “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!”.
M-s. It would be preservative in that way. The Lord’s supper is recalling His love to our hearts.
JT It preserves the assembly’s affection.
H Is not the affection connected with the thought that such as He went into death?
JT And in all those circumstances His love shone. The Supper brings all that to our attention. You have the thought here, “The night in which he was delivered up”.
R Morally that night exists now. Outside it is still the night of His [p. 136] betrayal.
JT Judas went out, and he carried the spirit of the betrayer into the world. It added to the wickedness of the world. The spirit of the betrayer has gone out into it. Now in the presence of that, we maintain our sense of what the Lord is to us. The Supper is for that purpose.