THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
JT No doubt there was wisdom in the fact that what the Gentiles had was really an extension of what was at Jerusalem: the Lord’s supper was received “from the Lord”, it says here, by Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.
Ques Would you say why he gives the Lord’s supper an assembly setting?
JT It is formally connected with the assembly in this chapter, whereas it was in the house at Jerusalem. It was not in any particular house — in the house in contrast to the temple.
FWJ Is that why the addresses to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 begin with Ephesus, not Jerusalem?
JT What is regarded as the responsible body here on earth in Revelation 2 and 3 is the fruit of Paul’s labours, not what was at Jerusalem.
FWJ Was there a kind of break-up at Jerusalem?
JT I think the city was destroyed, and what had been there was terminated before the Revelation was written. Ephesus stands for Paul’s work, graced with all the special advantages accruing from Paul’s ministry; it thus represents the responsible body at the beginning.
FWJ We have got much further light than the twelve had in regard of the Supper and the assembly.
JT The Gentiles would get all the benefit of Peter’s ministry and of the others, but they had Paul’s ministry first, so that Paul’s ministry was not added on to what was at Jerusalem but was by itself. The coordination of the work through Paul with the work at Jerusalem is an interesting study. The book of the Acts shows how God in His wisdom [p. 430] coordinated what He had wrought among the Gentiles through Paul with what was at Jerusalem and in Judea. The history of the church, the responsible candlestick, is not what was at Jerusalem, but what Paul set up. Giving an account of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, Acts 19:10 says, “All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus”, Acts 19:10. The seven churches were there.
FWJ Was the assembly viewed from another point when houses were left, so to speak? Is it based here upon the assembly meeting in public places?
JT So it appears. Emphasis being laid on the idea of the assembly here in contrast to the houses shows, I think, that the Lord’s supper was the formal rallying point of the saints. “When ye come together in assembly” 1 Corinthians 11:18. In Acts 2 it says they were together. It is mentioned thus as marking general unity; there is no word as to coming together “in assembly”.
It was order the apostle was endeavouring to adjust in this chapter. He begins the subject by saying that he could not praise in regard of that; there were things he could praise them for, but in regard of the way in which things were done in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, he could not praise them. So that more attention is paid to order in this epistle particularly, and elsewhere, than many recognise. They came together ostensibly to partake of the Lord’s supper, but because of their conduct and irregularity in it he says, “This is not ... the Lord’s supper”, 1 Corinthians 11:20. We may render the thing null and void by non-attention to the order that becomes it. He says, “It is not ... the Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20) — a very remarkable word, because so far as they were concerned it was. But he said it was not — a very convenient explanation of what is current around us [p. 431] in the denominations. Whatever it is we do not say, but we can tell what it is not. It is not the Lord’s supper, because of the way it is done and the associations of it.
Ques Would you say that he would give them credit for coming together in assembly in a normal way?
JT I think he did; “For first”, he says, “when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it”, 1 Corinthians 11:18. “When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”, (1 Corinthians 11:20) and then he goes on to show why: “For each one in eating takes his own supper ... and one is hungry and another drinks to excess”, 1 Corinthians 11:21. It is a question of order, and so he begins with saying that he could not praise them, and he ends again in verse 22, saying, “In this point I do not praise”, 1 Corinthians 11:22. It is a question of the way they were doing things; it is brought down to a very narrow compass; what he is dealing with is the order proposed to the assembly.
Ques Is that borne out by the last verse: “But the other things, whenever I come, I will set in order”?
JT Yes; there were other things he left in abeyance, but this was urgent, because it was a very serious thing that the Lord’s supper was becoming null and void. People say this and that is not essential, and that it has been customary to do this and that. But the question is, what this point is that he is dealing with and that he is so insistent about.
Rem I suppose it affected the assembly vitally.
JT Well, I think so; you can understand how these social parties would render null and void not only the Lord’s supper, but also what underlay it — the spirit of mutuality, brotherly confidence, and affection.
[p. 432] Ques By mutuality do you mean participating in the love of God, as shown in the Supper?
JT Yes; “Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26: 27), the Lord said, speaking of the cup; and in 1 Corinthians 10 it says: “we all partake of that one loaf” (1 Corinthians 10:17); “we, being many are one loaf, one body”, 1 Corinthians 10:17. But what he is dealing with here is order, so he says, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you”. He alludes to the thing that he had delivered and the order in which he had set it up among them.
Ques In referring to the thing as having been received from the Lord, is it to impress them with the authority involved — how commanding it is?
JT Yes; from the Lord.
Ques Would you say that he presents it in the same order in which the Lord instituted it?
JT Yes; according to Luke. What is to be observed in the gospels in regard of the order is that Luke tells us that the thought of preparation originated with the Lord Himself, and He sent Peter and John to prepare. While Matthew and Mark tell us that the suggestion as to where the preparation should take place arose with the disciples, Luke would emphasise that the Lord is concerned about it, that He did not leave it to them. I think that as to the order in which the supper is commonly celebrated, the thing has been taken out of the Lord’s hands; I do not say among ourselves as walking in the truth to some extent, but in a general way the thing has been taken out of his hands. Men have done what they pleased with it. You see the gross extent to which men would go with it in the church of Rome, and in other denominations. In almost every one of them the matter is taken out of the Lord’s hands, and all kinds of additions are introduced, so that it is not discernible at all, whatever they may call it.
[p. 433] Ques Do you suggest that there is some significance in the fact that it was Peter and John who were sent to prepare?
JT I think so; the Lord made His own selection. Peter refers to the government of the assembly. He had the keys of the kingdom, and the Acts show that he took the lead in matters, whereas John refers more to family affections. But the order comes first; before you can have family affections you must have order; hence it says: “He maketh the barren woman to keep house” (Psalm 113:9) (that is Peter’s line), “as a joyful mother of sons”, Psalm 113:9. Children come in when the house is in order, and with joy; she is a joyful mother of children, for the assembly should be that. It should be a place of holy joy, but it should be in connection with order.
Then Luke goes on to say: “When the hour was come”, Luke 22:14. That is not there for nothing. So that there should be punctuality with the saints, “For God is not a God of disorder”, 1 Corinthians 14: 33. Coming to the meetings late is not conducive to edification or joy in the assembly. “And when the hour was come, he placed himself at table” (Luke 22:14) (the word ‘placed’ is to be noticed how you sit) “and the twelve apostles with him, Luke 22:14”
FWJ Do you think that attaches importance to the posture in which saints are found at the Supper?
JT I think it does. All these, I think, are details of importance.
Ques What do you mean by the posture?
FWJ I think we should not allow ourselves to be slovenly as to our posture as before the Lord; you would not get up and disturb unless it were very necessary to do so.
Rem Luke follows the public order, does he not?
JT Yes; throughout his narrative you see that. He introduced Zacharias, a man who was of “the course of Abia”, (Luke 1:5) and he ministered “in the order of his course” (Luke 1:8); he was in order.
Ques Has verse 33 any reference to punctuality?
JT Yes. I think it is a question of patience on the part of those who are there; you are ready to wait for your brethren. But they ought to feel that they have made you wait; it is not love, love would not make you wait. Patience and consideration for each other should mark us.
Ques Would it have a spiritual application — those that are ready waiting for those that are not?
JT I suppose so. You would not force the breaking of bread; the saints need time for composure. Although it should be remembered that we come together to break bread, and so it should not be unduly deferred.
Ques You spoke of preparation in Luke; has it an assembly bearing at all?
JT It refers to how the persons forming the assembly are regulated and to all that accompanies that — the elements on the table. All is taken into account, I think, in the preparation — the furnishings. The Lord says, “He will shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready”, Luke 22:12.
Ques Would you say they were not furnished at Corinth?
JT This epistle shows they were not furnished. It was the divine thought that the assembly there should be a witness to God. In chapter 14 you have God speaking, the prophetic voice, so that God is known amongst them, but before that you have the thought of order. David shows how he appreciated the order of the heavens, and Solomon speaks about the earth, the trees and all that is on the earth; everything in the assembly should speak of God. God is not a God of disorder.
Ques Would you say that order is important in view of the fact that the assembly is [p. 435] public?
JT Quite. Were you to go into any church now and see what is done at “holy communion”, as they say, would you find order there according to God? If you were to go to a Roman Catholic church and see “the mass” celebrated, is there anything there that would remind you of God, the order of God, to say nothing of the other things that enter into it?
FWJ Will you tell us the difference between the Supper and the breaking of bread that you get all through the Acts.
JT The expression the Lord’s supper is only found here; it is where His authority should be recognised. But the breaking of bread is a family thought; the expression had been used when speaking of the Supper at Jerusalem and no doubt it passed out among the Gentiles; at Troas they came together to break bread, it says. I do not know that so much can be said as to the distinction, only that the breaking of bread is a question of what He did being continued. The Lord’s supper is the same thing, only viewed as a whole, including the cup, and suggests the Lord’s authority. Being a supper, I think it calls attention to what it would be in a family when the affairs of the day were over. At the end of the day we are free from care, and we can take up anything that may be of interest. So it is in the Lord’s supper, with all that enters into it. The question is whether we are prepared to enter into everything. The expression “the breaking of bread”, I think conveys more the thought of the memorial, because it was what He did.
Ques Would the Supper be more the public side, and the breaking of bread more the private side?
JT The breaking of bread is the memorial for our hearts, but the Lord’s supper is, I think, a sort of central thing of the assembly, involving testimony, because it is not in the breaking of the bread, but it is “as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the [p. 436] cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”. That is to say, it is an essential thing for us, for the assembly, and in our participating in it the testimony lies, but I do not think that the breaking of bread is for public testimony. Nobody but the saint understands it, but they can understand eating; eating is a thing well understood.
FWJ You could not eat before it was broken.
JT No, but I think the memorial comes before the eating. The world has no true idea of the expression, “Breaking of bread”. They use it sometimes referring to an ordinary meal, but I do not think they understand it as a memorial. Whenever they use it they mean that certain persons eat together of the same food.
In Luke 24:35 it says, “He was made known to them in the breaking of bread”, Luke 24:35. Nothing is said about the eating of it. Having broken the bread and given it to them, He vanished out of their sight.
Rem It is the bread which we break.
JT Eating the broken loaf expresses communion in the death of Christ; the breaking of bread being what He did, is the memorial. In the “systems” they cut the bread into small pieces.
FWJ And they have several cups.
JT Whereas the apostle speaks of one cup — “the cup”.
Ques The prophet Jeremiah refers to the breaking of bread as a memorial for the dead; Luke takes it up and gives it a wholly new force, recalling Himself as living, does it not?
JT So that you have there, “And having taken a loaf when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given 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, which is poured out for you”, Luke 22:19,20.
Ques What does “this do” refer to in connection with the cup?
JT I think the giving of thanks. Both elements are brought before the saints according to what they were in His hands, because it is about Him we are thinking — what He did.
Rem That could never be repeated; that first occasion stands alone.
JT But the thing is brought down to you, that is what Christianity is, it is the continuation in freshness of what the Lord introduced. It does not become effete or worn out, it is continued in freshness because the saints are living; it is in the living character of the saints that the thing is continued; it is the presence of the Spirit of God here in us that maintains things livingly, so that with the elements taken up in this way by those who have the Spirit you have the thing continued.
Ques It says, “This is my body which is given for you”, (Luke 22:19) do you think that is for the assembly?
JT Yes. Luke alone says that; I do not think it was intended for others, because it is a symbol of the saints as the body, and none have any part in the body save the saints that form the assembly. I think it is well to bear in mind that the Lord’s supper is the continuance of what He inaugurated, not merely in its outward form, but in a living way; the thing is fresh.
I have often thought that it is illustrated in its freshness in the jawbone of the ass that Samson found — it was not old or dried. That is what should always mark the Lord’s supper; it is fresh. The best reading is: “a fresh jawbone of an ass”, Judges 15:15. He found that — that is to say, it was not long dead. The Lord’s death is not something that happened two thousand years ago merely, it is a present thing; it is now what it was then.
Rem Does not Luke speak in that [p. 438] way?
JT Yes; the thing is there before you, “This is my body”, Luke 22:19.
FWJ So that the other interests in connection with the death of Christ are not in view.
JT No, it is the bearing of it towards the assembly; it is for us.
Ques Then it says, “as often”; what do you make of that?
JT I suppose it is emphasised that it should not be put off for long periods, as they do around us, some every three months, some every month; I should think that scripture indicates it is a weekly thing, it should be a weekly occurrence.
Rem Would you go to John for that?
JT Yes; and to Leviticus 23. We have seven weeks and fifty days there. Days refer to individual experience, weeks to the assembly or collective experience.
Rem You would not limit it to that.
JT I should limit it to the week.
Ques Is there not something left to the spiritual instincts and affections of the saints in regard of such details; we would not put it off for two or three months?
JT That is what I was thinking. Then the next question is, how often?
Ques Does not John 20 help us?
JT In John 20 there is an indication of spiritual periods; you have the first day of the week and then “eight days after”, John 20:26. I think that is a plain indication of assembly experience.
Ques Would not Acts 20:7 suggest that it is the first day of the week only?
JT I think so. “And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread” (Acts 20:7) — as if that was the day for it.
[p. 439] Rem There are indications, but no definite directions in this respect; I thought perhaps it was left to the affections of the saints.
JT I think the indications are very definite if rightly understood; there are no loose ends in Scripture. If we are spiritual enough, we determine what the Lord’s mind is, and we are sure of it.
Rem Then if you missed one Lord’s day you would wait until the next under any circumstances.
JT Why should I not? I cannot take the Lord’s supper by myself; I cannot take it alone. According to the instructions here it belongs to the assembly.
Rem But there might be a group on board a ship.
JT I am sure that would not do. You have other scriptures that bear on that. That is not a locality. The assembly’s setting according to Corinthians is in a certain place; I do not think you can call a ship at sea a place. It is going to some place, but I do not think it is a place.
Rem I do not feel able to express myself on it, but I thought if on board a ship for some six or seven consecutive Lord’s days with a group of saints, it might be possible in the light of this “as often”.
JT Paul gave thanks for the loaf on board the ship in Acts 27, but it was not the Lord’s supper. You can get bread on board a ship, food for your soul, and you may be able to distribute it to the passengers, but it is not the Lord’s supper.
Rem You could not come together in assembly on board a ship.
JT I do not think so. It is “with all that in every place call”, (1 Corinthians 1:2) etc. I do not think that you can make a ship a place in that sense.
Ques I would like to ask why it is that such an important and intimate thing should take place in public, in the presence of unbelievers?
JT I think it is because eating is a testimony that you are appropriating that which denotes the Lord’s body — the body and blood of the Lord. It is a dead Christ that is public — not a living Christ, but a dead one, and that is a terrible thing for the world; “ye announce the death of the Lord”,. It is His death, not Himself, that attention is called to.
Ques It is not a thing to which the public are invited?
JT No, but it is there. It is “ye do shew”. Ephesians goes further, it speaks of angels seeing what is going on; but I think those who are guilty of the death of Christ are in view, and it is a solemn thing for them.
Ques What is the point of laying such emphasis on the Lord’s supper?
JT That is to keep out social things from the assembly. It is all very well to invite anyone you wish to your own house and to eat supper with them, and if you are hungry to eat at home, but do not bring special friendships into the assembly. The inscription over the Lord’s cross was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, involving that the world was committed to His death.
John says there were certain ones who were at the cross of Jesus, which means that there are certain ones who are identified with Him. The Lord’s supper is that I am identified with the Person whom the world crucified, so that in eating there is a testimony; you show the death of the Lord until He comes.
Ques And in calling Him to mind there is something for His heart in the remembrance?
JT Yes, quite; and then something for our hearts. I do not think that an unbeliever understands the breaking of bread, but any one can understand eating and drinking. The blood is separate from the body, and we are eating it, it is complete identification with it. And, moreover, we are saying that is the thing we live on. What are they living on?
[p. 441] It has been remarked that the Lord’s supper sustains us in the wilderness. Baptism takes us into the wilderness, but the Lord’s supper sustains us in it; that is what we are living on. What the world has rejected as worthless, and worse than worthless, we are living on.
Rem That is a grand thing.
JT It is indeed. It shows how the assembly is sustained. And the world — what has it got?
Rem If we understand the teaching of the Spirit and appreciate it on the privilege side, we shall hardly be likely to disregard the Lord’s authority, I mean the outward order would flow from the right state within.
JT Quite. In this chapter it is not a question of what I am doing outside, but what I am doing inside. I may be guilty by what I do at the Lord’s supper in respect of the body and the blood of the Lord — a serious matter indeed.
Ques What does that mean?
JT Well, see how serious it is. I may do injury to a brother outside, but here you are guilty in respect of the Lord’s body. What could be more serious?
Rem In chapter 11 it is the body of the Lord, in chapter 10 it is the body of Christ.
JT Think of Him at Gethsemane and at the cross! If you are acting lightly, or foolishly — disregarding to judge yourself — how very serious.
Rem Not discerning the Lord’s body.
JT Exactly; you do not see that is what is involved in it.
Rem “They found not the body of the Lord Jesus” (Luke 24:3) — it speaks in a very affectionate way.
JT Yes. It is very beautiful in the end of the gospels to see the affection that the body drew out, the body of the Lord. Joseph comes in first, and he emboldened himself, it says. It was no small matter [p. 442] for a man of his standing to go in to Pilate and identify himself with the Lord’s body. He was not careless or negligent. It was a serious matter to him, and he took the body and wrapped it in linen and laid it in a new sepulchre hewn out of a rock, so careful was he as to it, so precious was it in his eyes. And then the women brought spices; and Nicodemus, according to John, brought about a hundred pounds of spices. All these things are mentioned to show what the body of the Lord was to those who loved Him.
Ques Is your thought that we should have just as much care in approaching these things?
JT Yes. If you look at it as it is, “This is my body”; it is a spiritual thing. It is not the material body and blood of Christ; it has spiritual significance in it. It is as real to you as if it were there materially.
Rem “The night in which he was betrayed” — I suppose that brings into view the surrounding elements which were there when the Supper was instituted.