THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
FER What we call ‘meetings’ is expressed in Scripture by coming together into one place — the assembly (chapter 14) — the whole assembly come together.
Ques In this chapter is it coming together to break bread?
FER I do not think so.
Ques Did their disorderly ways rob it of its own proper import?
FER I think that is the idea, verse 20.
Rem There is a difference between assembly meetings and the assembly come together.
FER You cannot appoint assembly meetings. The only idea of meeting is the assembly come together.
Ques. With arrangement?
FER What convenes the assembly is the Supper.
Ques Is the Supper the outward expression of the oneness of the assembly, and therefore the realisation of it?
FER I think so: it is the divine institution and becomes the means of bringing together.
Ques Is it the outward sign of our fellowship?
FER Yes, it is our fellowship. It is the only assembly meeting except for discipline, but that is not normal. If normal, the one occasion is the Supper. I understand prayer in the assembly, or thanksgiving, or worship, but the assembly is convened for the Supper, to eat the Supper.
Ques Is chapter 14: 23 for breaking bread?
FER It picks up the subject again from the middle of chapter 11. The assembly is for the Supper, but the Supper is not the end of the meeting. In the [p. 177] Supper we come to Him as the Mediator of the new covenant and then He is Minister of the holy places. The cup is ‘the new testament in My blood’.
Ques Is there an opportunity for ministry after the Supper?
FER I think so, or for anything to which the Lord might lead.
Ques At Troas, did the apostle preach before they broke bread?
FER It is a very difficult matter to tell: the breaking of bread and the meal became mixed up together and it is difficult to distinguish. It says, “And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten” — that was the meal, I think.
Rem Suppose the company in a place come together for prayer or reading.
FER That is not the assembly: two or three are free to come together as in Matthew 18 — the assembly is a different thought; you have to give complete place to the head if the assembly comes together. In chapter 11 you get the head, in chapter 12 the body; before you have the assembly you must have the head.
Ques Saints might come together without coming in assembly?
FER I think so. The first principle in coming together in assembly is that the Head directs. I think the Supper brings Him in as Head. You come to Him as Mediator of the new covenant and then He is the Minister.
Ques Would Matthew 18 include coming together in assembly?
FER It would hold good for the assembly, but that is not really the point of it. The prominent idea there is the kingdom.
Ques When gathered in assembly are we not gathered in the name of the Lord?
FER [p. 178] Yes; but the assembly is more than Matthew 18. The Supper is taken up too literally: it never can have the same application to us as to the disciples. The Lord could not say strictly to us, ‘Do this for My remembrance’, because we never had Him with us. It had a direct force to them, not to us.
Rem But Paul had it from the glory.
FER Yes, but we have to take it up intelligently. To my mind the death of Christ is a common meeting ground for Jew and gentile. The apostle goes back to the institution of it; it had a special significance to the disciples who had companied with Him. Calling Him to mind involves that they had been with Him, associated with Him. “As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup ye announce the death of the Lord until he come” — in its application to us the idea of remembrance is dropped.
Ques Would the thought of breaking bread and drinking wine have conveyed what is similar to Jeremiah 16: 7?
FER Yes. Calling to mind involves that they had been in association with Him which could not have literal application to the gentile. I think He instituted the Supper as that in which they would call Him to mind. That cannot have literal application to us for we commence with His death. His death presents to us the expression of His self-sacrificing life.
Ques It brings you to the same point, does it not?
FER Yes, that is just what it does; we do come to the same point by a different way. His love is here, only His death is the expression of the love that is here, not that was here.
Ques Is not the Supper meant to call something to our minds?
FER The Supper comes before us as the great expression of love, the love expressed in death.
[p. 179] Ques Is it not that in the Supper He presents Himself to us in death?
FER Yes. Remembrance is bringing the Person before you as you have known Him (calling to mind). Paul goes back to the institution, in which he himself had no part. It was not peculiar to Paul or part of his line, but the Lord gives it to him. He presents to us the symbols of His death, but His death comes before us as the expression of the love that is here: it is not a means to you of calling Him to mind as He was on earth; our knowledge of Him began in death. In the presence of the death of Christ there is a common meeting ground for Jew and gentile.
Ques Then, to the disciples, the Supper would recall the Lord as He had been with them?
FER Yes, I think so. Every bit of His life of ministry had been of the same character as His death — all was the expression of self-sacrificing love, the great expression of which was His death, and therefore death was the means of remembrance, but all His life had the same character. It is plain enough to everybody that the gentile must begin with His death.
Ques What would you say is the real difference between the apostles and us as to the way of remembrance?
FER They recalled Him in love as He had been with them, in a way which we cannot literally. The Supper in that sense gave a ground which would be common to Jew and gentile. They could not be on common ground in the presence of His life, but they could in His death. They are not the memorials of His dying but of His death; He is dead; it is death accomplished, the blood separated from the body.
Ques I suppose in the gospel there was the celebration of the passover?
FER That was a distinct thing in which the gentile had no part. In the early church they kept up the passover as a yearly festival among the gentiles as [p. 180] well as the Jews. As a matter of fact we have begun with the Lord in His death, though the words have not been understood (i.e., calling to mind). You accept His death as a testimony of His love.
Ques Have we not been much occupied with His sufferings instead of His death?
FER It used to be, but not so much now, I think. You cannot go back to what is antecedent to death.
Ques It is clear you must take up the Supper intelligently not literally. Is it the difference between the portrait of one known and one not known?
FER It must have had a peculiar force to those who had been in His company but we see the wisdom of giving what was common to Jew and gentile. They knew the love in His life; we begin both together in His death and that is the great point in these chapters.
Rem It gives the Lord’s supper a most important place.
FER The effect is, it connects you with a living Christ; the very fact of the Supper brings you into the presence of a living Christ. Chapter 11 gives the head; chapter 12 the body and the Spirit.
Ques In the prayer meeting is not the assembly in entire subjection?
FER In its true character of the assembly, the Head is there and everything else excluded — no activity of mind; a good thing to get rid of. He directs: the mind is like an eye. The secret cause of so much weakness is that the head is not recognised. The Lord’s supper is a scene of life though you have the remembrance of death. The death of Christ is the great expression of divine life — a curious thing to say! It is divine love come into death in the way of testimony; death is all set aside and what remains is life. “He death by dying slew”. He came into death to [p. 181] annul death.
Ques Was it not by rising that He annulled death?
FER No, morally by coming into it. Resurrection is the expression of its being done.
Rem The wonderful thing in grace is that the Creator charged Himself with the responsibility of the created; not man, bearing the responsibilities for men, but God charging Himself with what lay upon man.
FER Then He had to become a man to do it. Exactly. Death is no trouble for me, for divine love has been into death; no one could be frightened at death if he saw divine love had been into it. “Perfect love casts out fear”.
Ques Is the remembrance a sort of backward movement in our souls?
FER Not exactly that. The assembly comes together as if never come before — all begins anew. The Lord would have it that way. He is Mediator of the new covenant: the Testator died that the covenant might be established, that you may understand by the death of Christ the disposition of God towards you. Then He is Minister of the holy places, and leads you into all the good of reconciliation. With regard to going back — we begin with it, not go back to it. You recall His death, not on our side but on His side, as the expression of what is within, the greatness of His love.
Ques Has there not been the idea that the actual act is the remembrance of Christ?
FER Yes, but if people knew the force of the word they would not think so. “Calling to mind” has no meaning except as to someone with whom you have been familiar.
Ques Is it not more the thought of calling Him into presence?
FER That is what it is practically to us.
Ques There is a hymn of which one verse begins: ‘We love Lord Jesus to recall’. (192:1) Do [p. 182] you think it suitable?
FER I think that is sentimental, you cannot work yourself up to it. All that is of the Lord’s appointment, you can count on the grace of God to give, but if it is after your own fancy, you cannot work yourself up to it. In the church of England you never succeeded, it was artificial and effort, but if you take the Supper up according to His appointment, you will prove the grace of the Spirit in bringing your mind into accord with what is presented to you. In partaking of the bread and cup you announce His death: what man could boast in is food for us; man could boast in having got rid of Christ, and we can boast in it.
Rem The bread of comfort and wine of consolation was understood by the Jews (Jeremiah 16: 7).
FER A great point gained is that the Supper is introductory — not the end as it used to be.
Rem I think it is still so with many minds.
FER I was in hope that things had got a little further. To my mind it is introductory that you may be prepared for the ministry of the sanctuary. It is increasing greatly to my mind. You enter on a scene where love is at rest — not love in activity as in discipline here, but where love is at rest, because all is according to divine glory in the assembly, it is the fruit of love in activity. It is a wonderful thing that you are associated with the Head and are fit to be so. Quickening properly refers to the coming of the Lord, but now you are quickened as to affections, not in body — you are competent as regards affections, which are formed according to Christ.
Ques Is there any thought in the Supper of our taking our stand with the One the world has rejected?
FER I think you announce His death — you say, Goodbye to the world; there is an end of everything in His death. People get up on Sunday and dress in their best as though it were a kind of crowning day; you ought to count it as the end of everything in the [p. 183] world. You are identified with the One whom the world refused.
Rem The holiest does not belong to the wilderness. Ephesians and Colossians are instructions for individual progress, but you want Ephesians and Colossians for the holiest.
FER The holiest belongs to the land.
Rem I remember the awful fog we were all in at Witney about a great many things!
FER The service of God must be, as man supposes, carried out according to man’s order. They put up buildings and think they can worship God according to their own fancy, but you must give Christ the place He has been pleased to take. He has taken the place of Centre of the universe, leading everything on man’s side Godward.
Ques Can we enter the holiest except in the assembly?
FER I think not. You have the priestly company in association with the true Aaron.
Ques Man may say he will bring the best of everything he has got, but is that according to divine order?
FER Christ is Minister of the true tabernacle.
Ques Is it not a very serious matter to give up the breaking of bread?
FER If things come to that pass that it is necessary, it is a very serious consideration.
Ques Could individuals in an assembly enter the holiest if the assembly does not?
FER It must be a question to a large extent of the work of God in individuals. You come together as saints; because a person is not up to the mark you cannot say he must not take part; you have to accept it. As to hymns, if the hymn is right and true in itself, not false, it does not present any difficulty to me. It is a great point to get a true idea of it; you can hardly raise the question who is in it and who is not. You have to go on patiently, not for a week or a month [p. 184] or a year, but for years and years, till the idea is built up in people’s souls. Take newly-converted persons — you cannot expect them to be very intelligent about the assembly, but you cannot shut their mouths. Often there is much freshness with them. In the perfection of it, the idea of the assembly never can be perfectly realised down here in this scene of imperfection. The only thing is, if you do apprehend these things, you ought to stick to it, and not go on on the line of accommodation, but you must have consideration for others — that is the great thing in this world. We are so apt to get impatient when things go wrong. To erect these things into a kind of system which you are going to force on people, whether they like it or not, is simply disastrous and fatal.