⬇ EPUB

READINGS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, CHAPTER 10

A brother wishes to know whether this morning, you connected holiness with chapter 3 and righteousness with chapter 6, or whether chapter 6 is individual holiness, and chapter 3 the holiness of the temple?

I thought that chapter 6 brought in holiness as regards the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit; he seems to take them up on that ground. That would be clearly individual. In chapter 3 the point is, the temple is holy, and in chapter 5, sad to say, it is that holiness has to be maintained by discipline on account of the existing state of things; discipline becomes necessary; I doubt if you could maintain holiness without discipline down here.

Is not discipline more connected with the ‘house’ character?

Practically, it is the assembly acts that way. It is in order that they may be consistent with the holiness of the temple; that is, in approaching God in worship. The exercise of discipline prevents saints from being corrupted. Then in chapter 6 we see the place which the body of the believer has. This goes to the root of the whole matter. If the man at Corinth had only looked out as to his own body, he would not have been under discipline, it was the use he made of his body that brought him under it. There is another ^[p. 66] thing, the Lord is for the body as well as the body for the Lord. He cares for it, He is the Saviour of it, and it is important that we should have the sense of that. Chapter 6 is the responsibility side; the body is His, a member of Christ, therefore He is free to use it if He sees fit; you are not free to use it as you like.

I think chapter 10 is the close up of the subject which opens in chapter 8. Chapter 10 raises the question of perishing in the wilderness. It finishes up with: “Be ye followers of me”. The question is, are you going on? I think chapter 10 is the crucial chapter.

What is the force of perishing in the wilderness?

That you do not go on to the assembly, you are content with a sacramental christianity. You stop short of God’s purpose. The apostle wants them to go on with himself: “Be ye followers of me”, 1 Corinthians 11:1.

What do you mean by not going on to the assembly? Take the great bulk of people in christendom, they never pass beyond this chapter. The question is whether they go as far. It is only too sadly apparent that they are content with a sacramental connection with Christ, that is, the outward ordinances as a means of grace.

The subject of this section (chapter 8-chapter 11:1) is the use which you may make of liberty. The apostle does not restrict it but maintains it, only you must be careful not so to use it as to injure your brother (chapter 8), or yourself (chapter 9), or to compromise the fellowship (chapter 10). How many there are who do not go on to the truth of the next chapter. They have the ordinances, but they do not apprehend them in their own proper connection with the assembly, that is, the purpose of God for them down here. They lust after evil things. They are drawn back by the world; you may say they are lost, but that is an extreme form of it.

There is a moral order in the things mentioned, it ^[p. 67] is not historical order. Can you give us the meaning of it?

The first thing is, we are not to lust after evil things as they did, they were idolaters, they committed fornication; I think this is with the world. Mischief begins in lusting, then you come under the power of the world, you make unhappy connections. Then comes tempting Christ and murmuring, which is the close and brings destruction. Tempting Christ is saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”

You were speaking about going on to the assembly, are there not many who are satisfied merely with the knowledge of Christ’s work?

In any meeting you know, the larger part never enter into what the assembly is; they may be very nice christians, and one may have a respect for them, but entering into the assembly is another thing, it is to know Christ as Head and the saints as members. You can only realise it spiritually. It is not what we are outwardly, we are here in flesh. The assembly, if entered into at all, must be entered into spiritually, but very many do not enter into it. I do not, however, unchristianise them, but I doubt if they understand the words: “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, Hebrews 2:12. They hear it and get the benefit of it. Perhaps you will say: How far do you enter into it? Well, I can only say, I should like to more truly.

When you say ‘entering into the assembly’, you mean, I suppose, entering into the truth of it?

Yes, the truth of it; but it is necessary that the hindrances should be removed. People claim liberty, but liberty may become a snare. Paul does not deny the liberty, but lets them know that they might use their liberty to cause a weak brother to perish, or even themselves. Look after yourself, you may be preaching to others and forgetting to keep your body in order, and finally you may so use your liberty, as to compromise the whole question of fellowship and bring ^[p. 68] Christ into association with devils. I think we are necessarily much hindered by the state of the church, which we cannot help feeling; we like to be a nice little company seeking to be separate from evil, but I do not think God will allow us to be independent of the state of the church, I mean the church generally. The nearer we are to the Lord the more we feel it. It is questionable whether anyone who enjoys the presence of the Lord can do otherwise. You have to be clear of it, but you cannot be independent of it.

Then there is to be also the acceptance of death, the first man cannot go into the presence of the Lord.

It is a very important thing to see how we are affected by the state of the whole church; it would serve as an antidote to what you were speaking about this morning, the tendency to sectarianism.

I do not think it would be righteous not to feel the state of things. It would show a want of oneness of mind with the Lord and with the Spirit.

Still, there is no reason in all this, is there, why we should not apprehend better what it is to be in the Lord’s company?

No; in early times there was very great power, yet it was real hard work to maintain holiness. When Paul, too, had to meet opposition on points of practice, there was much disputation before he gained the day, it was not all plain sailing. It is no new thing for there to be difficulty. Everything was not in such perfect order as we think, there was a great deal at Corinth that would shock us today.

Why are we so little affected by the state of the church?

Because we are so little spiritual. In regard to fellowship, there is only one real basis of fellowship, and that is the Lord. The Lord is the centre of true fellowship, and if you get near the Lord you will feel about things as He feels about them. That is a totally different thing from what is termed ‘coming into fellowship’. It is not a question of coming into fellowship with ‘brethren’, but to the Lord. It is no new thing, “Believers were added to the Lord”. The direction in which the Lord leads your soul is to Himself, that He may give you understanding of His mind.

What is the difference between adding “to the church” and adding “to the Lord”, Acts 2 and Acts 5?

We see after the sin of Ananias and Sapphira that such a sense of fear came upon people that they were afraid to join themselves to the church, but they were brought to the Lord; believers were added to the Lord, and they came to the company as the fruit of coming to the Lord. And that is the way when rightly done. You must get the Lord’s mind first and His feelings about things, then you come to the assembly. They were frightened at first, seeing what the holiness was that belonged to the church. If you take most of our meetings through the country they are low down, there is but little to come to outwardly, and we make them very artificial. Perhaps a few are converted and brought together, with very little instruction or exercise; a little meeting springs up and then they must have a regular system of meetings, Sunday schools, preaching, and other weekly meetings, apart from whether there is spiritual power for it.

What is it to come to the Lord?

I do not know whether I can explain it, it is a sort of thing that is better understood than explained.

Do you think we could say the Lord added to the assembly now?

I would not say that the Lord added to ‘brethren’. It is most important to remember that we are at the end of the dispensation, you are not going to set up things again as they were at the beginning. Take the coming of the Lord as a truth; in early days there was the sense in souls that it was very near, and they lived and walked in the light of it.

^[p. 70] We have to follow righteousness, faith, love, and peace with all that call on the Lord out of a pure heart, 2 Timothy 2:22?

Yes, but coming to the Lord, is a little earlier than that; that follows as a consequence. The first thing is the sense that the Lord knows them that are His. When I left the established church, I felt that I was leaving the world, and was going against the advice of friends: when you come away in that sense, you feel that you are walking in a path the end of which you do not know, you have a sense that the Lord knows them that are His. You are, as it were, walking on the water to go to the Lord, everybody ignoring you, perhaps everybody against you, but the Lord knows them that are His, everyone that calls upon Him must depart from evil. Then the other follows, and you find yourself following righteousness, faith, love, and peace with others.

What about putting away from the Lord’s table?

It is too pretentious for us. Many of those expressions have been used without any wrong intention, but I rather doubt the advisability of using them now. My fear is lest we should make anything of ‘brethren’.

I was only saying the other day that the principles of Philadelphia are carried out in a remnant without any ecclesiastical pretension.

You see a remnant does not occupy the ground for themselves but for the whole church. “Thou hast kept my word”, Revelation 3:8. If you think of the Lord as standing in connection with any particular company, you do not keep His word. You must apprehend Him as in relation to the church.

How do you understand, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20?

The immediate object there, is coming together to pray.

The Lord’s table is a moral idea, and this is important to get hold of, it is not a meeting or a locality.

^[p. 71] If a person is put away from among us, of course, he is put away from the fellowship of the Lord’s table, but that is a different thing from saying that, as a formula. People are ready to take up a pretentious idea, and when you have got a kind of phraseology you like to stick to it. You must, of course, take care that in correcting the phraseology you do not weaken the truth. It is best to keep to scriptural terms as much as possible.

Putting away comes out in chapter 5 before there is any mention of the Lord’s table.

Exactly; it is putting away “from among yourselves”, 1 Corinthians 5:13. That is how the scripture puts it, and we are not wiser than Scripture.

For the exercise of discipline there ought to be a special meeting, if you take Scripture for your guide. It is the sounding of an alarm and the congregation is called together. No one person can do that, it must be at least on the testimony of two or three.

What is meant by putting away “from among yourselves”? What would be the extent of it now?

You put the person away from fellowship, you avoid his company. It is not merely that he is put away from the breaking of bread, but he is put away all the week.

You could not hinder such from coming to the meetings, the prayer meeting or reading, but you would not shake hands with him.

Supposing a meeting had been called to put a person away, would it be right to mention it again at the Lord’s table?

As the natural rallying point of the assembly is the Lord’s supper, it might be well to inform the saints there gathered, of what has been done. The conscience of the saints is to be exercised, but that is best done by a special meeting. If things went on as they ought there would be no occasion for discipline.

Are we at the Lord’s table? What is there in the expression ‘Lord’s table’ that it is desirable to avoid?

I do not know anybody who is there. The apostle speaks of what saints do — of partaking of the Lord’s table, it is not a question of where they are. He takes them up as having part in the breaking of bread. In the expression “ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table” (1 Corinthians 10:21) he refers to the bread, I judge, because the cup of the Lord is distinguished in the same verse; but he does not speak of anybody being at or having the Lord’s table. It is really a question of fellowship.

Is the Lord’s table an allusion to Malachi: “The table of the Lord is polluted”, Malachi 1:12?

Perhaps so, but that was Israel after the flesh. The whole point is fellowship. I believe you get to the Lord’s supper through the Lord’s table.

What do you mean by that? Explain.

The Lord’s supper is otherwise a sacrament, and has not reference to the assembly. I used to go to a church where there were many communicants, some 400 or 500; the clergyman was a very evangelical man, and we used to have the sacrament in the evening. I remember that I used to post myself near to the end of the church, so as to delay going to the communion table, in order that I might have as long a time as possible to prepare myself. That proved that to me it was an individual act. In the form of the service it says: ‘Christ’s body given for thee’. But that is not the true idea of the Lord’s supper. It may be done in remembrance of Christ, I know, but it is not done in relation to the assembly at all. The Supper is, in a sense, the basis of our fellowship. Still, if you are going to take the Lord’s supper, you must come to it through the Lord’s table. 1 Corinthians 10 comes before chapter it. It is through the fellowship of His death. That shows the importance of chapter 10 morally.

^[p. 73] Is it right to say the Lord’s supper is the expression. of the Lord’s table?

There is nothing in this chapter corporate, in that sense. The object is to take care that no individual should compromise the fellowship by the exercise of his liberty; the individual responsibility is enforced. The Lord’s table is used in contrast with the table of demons. Fellowship is a subsisting thing from Lord’s day to Lord’s day. You express your fellowship in Christ’s death when you come to the Supper. We are here as christians in the fellowship of His death, you cannot be in the fellowship of Christ without being in the fellowship of His death. He is not a Lord living here in this world.

The breaking of bread then is the expression of that fellowship?

If you are not true to the Lord’s death in the week you cannot have the holiest, when the time comes you are not fit to go in.

I am sure that you have to come to chapter 11 through chapter 10. You may do a great many things which you think you have a right to in the world, but you have to remember that you may compromise the fellowship. If men are in partnership in business, those men are bound together by the articles of partnership, and what one does may compromise all the others. If a christian went and ate in an idol’s temple he compromised the company.

Could you rightly give the bread and wine to one who came in late?

I am not great at order, but I think consideration for one another is a great thing. We are told to tarry one for another.

Is the fellowship of Christ’s death connected with the taking of the cup and the bread in this chapter?

I think that is the expression of it. Someone was speaking of it as going on through the week. I am sure it does in one sense, but there is, at the same time.

^[p. 74] the definite act. The apostle takes them up on it: “the bread which we break”, 1 Corinthians 10:16. In baptism you are committed to death, in the Lord’s supper you are in the fellowship of His death. You are one body. It is all in connection with the thought of fellowship, fellowship necessarily is of the character of partnership. You are all one company, it is one fellowship. The apostle takes them up on a known and ostensible act. In things here, a deed of partnership constitutes one firm.

“The bread which we break”, etc. Is it thus that we express what is true always?

The apostle takes them up on their own act and shows them the moral force of it. The position is illustrated by the history of Israel. Those who ate of the sacrifices were in communion with the altar. The apostle’s great point is that the act of one person might compromise the whole company.

Would the act of one person compromise the one body?

I hardly think it is quite the idea here of the one body.

Is it more the thought of one company?

Properly speaking it includes every christian, that is, in the scriptural idea of it. The great point is that as we are here in the fellowship of Christ’s death, there should be no inconsistency with it. It is the privilege of every christian to be a partaker of the Lord’s table. It is a truth that ought to affect people.

You connect the Lord’s table with the bread, what do you connect with the cup? What does it convey to you?

You must have the bread and the cup in order to have a complete symbol of death. If I am in the fellowship of Christ’s death I must be in separation from idolatry.

The Lord’s table refers to partaking of the bread ^[p. 75] which is distinguished from the cup. The Lord’s table is a moral idea.

I quite agree with you; the apostle brings them up on their ostensible act, you are committed to it by your own act and deed, not as in baptism, by the act of another. Every one is committed to it, we are identified as one body with the Lord’s death. Every one identified with it has to be true to it. Christian fellowship exists not only when breaking bread, it is a test of your ways. It involves your individual responsibility, and shuts you off from everything that is inconsistent with Christ’s death. It is the Lord’s table and the Lord’s cup. The table is what the Lord sets before you, as if I should invite anybody to partake of my table. It is what I set before them. The ground of our fellowship is the death of Christ, our fellowship is the fellowship of all christians; fellowship is a common bond and is not dependent upon our agreement. At first it took in all saints, so it does now in principle. The death of Christ is the only bond. It shuts out all distinctions in the flesh.

Do you think we get the death of Christ here as the peace offering? That is the offering that sets forth fellowship on the common basis of sacrifice.

It might be, but the idea in that seems more individual. There is a slight reference to the shewbread, only now it is one loaf instead of twelve.

How do you understand the peace offering to be individual?

It was a person that brought it.

But the sacrificing priest and Aaron’s sons and the offerer all partook. But in the assembly it is simply Aaron and his sons, the priestly company. We see in our chapter how the priests in eating were bound up with the altar, so now we are bound up with the death of Christ. Every one in that fellowship is bound to maintain it and no single individual can go and do what he likes. I have a very great repugnance to the ^[p. 76] use of theatres for preaching, if people see you use them they will think that after all you do not think so badly of them. They are places that are associated with what is morally filthy, and I think we should shrink from using places that are devoted to what is unclean.

There is also a great difficulty about using public halls.

I think it is a great mercy when you get a room that is free. A public assembly room is not the same as a theatre, that is a place that is wholly given up to what is bad and defiling. So it was if a man went to an idol temple, it was giving a sort of sanction to idolatry. You have not that literally now in this land, but the principle remains.

Does idolatry refer to association with the world? John says, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols”, 1 John 5:21.

The people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play (Exodus 32:6), that was an expression of idolatry. The way in which it is put is remarkable; it refers to the golden calf but it is not put in that way.

You could not say of the sects that they are in the fellowship of Christ’s death. They really go upon the ground that Christ is in honour here, but it is the same principle as it was with the Pharisees. Your fathers killed the prophets and you build their sepulchres. The world killed Christ and now they set up temples in honour of Him. Christ has been rejected and is in rejection. I do not believe that people in the sects and systems are in the fellowship of Christ’s death, in fact, I am sure they are not, though no doubt many remember His death for them individually. They have not gone forth to Him without the camp bearing His reproach. You have to go outside the established order to find Christ.

What is the reason that in chapter 10 the cup comes first?

^[p. 77] The blood was always dealt with first in the sacrifices. You must have the wine separate from the bread to have a complete figure of death.

Would you connect going forth without the camp with the Lord’s table?

The fellowship of His death would put them there, I should say.

I should like to know a little more of what fellowship with His death is?

I think in this chapter the point is that you are in this world and are in the fellowship of His death; you accept the company that are on that ground. You are identified with His death in this world. It is not so much the position which His death gives me before God as that which it gives me in this world. What is seen in the systems around is not the fellowship of His death and rejection, but it is professing to do honour to Him, setting up fine buildings and connecting His name with them. You have to go to chapter 11 through chapter 10. What is evident to me is, that people may have the sacramental symbols of Christ’s death and never be in the fellowship of it, accepting the grace side of it, God’s side, so to speak, without the rejection side, the rejection side is here. The death of Christ is the test of everything, we ought not to be mixed up with anything here inconsistent with it. The Supper is the entrance door to the assembly, as that which places you in touch with Christ and with one another. The table is the other side, and in effect it comes out here in the world. We have expressed our fellowship in His death, and now it tests every association in the world, I cannot take up with anything inconsistent with it. We are always in the fellowship of His death. In John 6 you are eating His flesh and drinking His blood, that is, the fellowship of His death is maintained.

That is if we are to enjoy life?

John 6 is the carrying of it out. It is continuous.

^[p. 78] If you have any sense of the love of Christ, how can you go on with things inconsistent with His death, such things as idolatry or worldly association, you could not go on with them. It involves the refusal of all that made that death necessary.

In the case of the eunuch it is after Philip came to the passage: “His life is taken from the earth” (Acts 8:33), that he goes into death in baptism; it had a great effect upon the eunuch, it formed his position on the earth.

In the Lord’s supper you are in the fellowship of that position. No one can baptise himself, and no other can take the Lord’s supper for him. In the Lord’s supper you are remembering the One whose life was taken from the earth, but how can you call Him to mind if you are inconsistent with His death!

What is the difference between the fellowship of His death and the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:9?

One is the obverse of the other. I see there are three aspects of fellowship — fellowship of the Lord, of His death, and the fellowship of the Spirit; but I think all three go together.

In speaking of ‘our’ fellowship, what do you mean?

I mean the whole christian fellowship.

It has been used to indicate a narrower sort of fellowship; you would refuse that and hold it important that we should include the whole, would you not?

Yes. Is not our fellowship the fellowship of all christians?

In the midst of the professing church you are led out to the Lord. In the second epistle to Timothy, the Lord becomes very special to you. The great mass are viewed as departed, and what was general at first had become special, and so it is today.

‘Partake’ and ‘communion’, here are different words.

Quite so, but ‘partake’ involves communion. The apostle is referring to a definite act, they had partaken of the bread and the cup, but it was on the part of the ^[p. 79] whole christian company, and it was communion, participating in common. We are all in one common bond; our confession is that we are one body.

What about the fellowship in 1 John 1?

That is christian fellowship, it is in walking in the light of God’s revelation and the blood cleansing us, we have fellowship with one another. In Corinthians you have the special bond of fellowship.

Is the fellowship in 1 John 1 an everlasting thing? Someone has said there will be no fellowship in heaven.

I do not think there will be any fellowship in heaven the word to me implies a special bond in a scene of contrariety, that is, I believe, the force of it in Scripture. And there will be nothing in heaven to call for fellowship.

What does “fellowship ... with the Father and with his Son” mean?

I think it was apostolic, strictly speaking. There was, besides christian fellowship, the promulgation of the truth, it was communicated to the apostles, and what they had seen and heard they declared for the fellowship of the saints. It is in contrast with the darkness around, it was a bond of fellowship which held them together. God is revealed now.

Is not the idea of fellowship among men something possessed in a special way where the mass are not in it, such as the freemasons?

Yes, the idol was a bond of fellowship among the gentiles, the altar was the same to Israel when the world was fully of idolatry.

If there is not fellowship in heaven what about the hymn which says, ‘Close to Thy trusted side in fellowship divine’? (270:3)

I do not read those hymns in the letter, I do not read Scripture in the letter, I try to get the spirit of the hymn and do.

There are common thoughts and feelings that will go on for ever.

^[p. 80] The apostles communicated the truth to the saints that they might have fellowship with them, but the apostle is speaking of them as on earth. You will not want the truth in heaven as a bond of fellowship; there is no special bond there to mark some off from others.

I think you said once we shall not have the Lord in heaven?

Well, that is true, we shall not know him as Lord in heaven, we shall know Him as Head.

← Previous 8 of 43 Next →