THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
What has chiefly occupied us during these meetings is what the assembly is to Christ. The most prominent feature is that the assembly should be the companion of Christ for eternity, as we see in Eve as a type, and then we have different features in other types, presenting the assembly as His companion in connection with the testimony. The way the truth of the assembly has been recovered means that it is the Lord’s mind that these features should be found with us, so that he still may be able to “drink of the brook in the way”. So we saw how the assembly in Philadelphia, although in weakness, corresponded to God’s original thought, and how the Lord, as a result of the decline that had come in, must clothe Himself as a judge and in this manner walk in the midst of the seven assemblies, which refers to the whole professing body. From 1 Samuel 7: 16 we saw in type how the Lord as judge examines the different features in the assembly, and yesterday we saw how the Lord in His love comes to us to receive that which He longs for. We see this especially at Bethany, and likewise in the local assemblies which were found in Tyre and Caesarea (Acts 21). We considered Caesarea, where Philip the evangelist lived. An evangelical feature came out in the assembly at Caesarea, and the Lord desires in these last days to awaken our interest in the gospel. Particular memories are linked together in this meeting in Caesarea. It was there that the gentiles were first received through Peter (Acts 10) and in chapter 21 we read that Philip had four daughters who were virgins and prophesied. Then it mentions that the prophet Agabus came there, so we find in this place two very important features of the Spirit’s operations in the assembly, namely, an evangelical spirit and a prophetic spirit. There came out in the assembly in Caesarea a very important side of the assembly’s place in the testimony down here. Last evening [p. 358] we had before us the thought of the Holy Spirit as looked at in the gospels of Luke and John, and how He operates in different localities.
Before we go on to our subject of the Lord’s supper, I would like to ask if we can say the candlestick remains, although the Lord spoke in Revelation 2: 5 about removing it out of its place. Does the Lord walk now in the midst of the seven candlesticks? I believe that what the Lord says of the candlestick in the letter to Ephesus involves that it is now taken away. It would be removed out of its place if they did not repent, but we have no further allusion to it; therefore I think that the assembly is no longer recognized as a public testimony for God. This position was lost in Thyatira. Since that time only a remnant is recognized and the testimony is thereafter linked with a remnant. Although this remnant ought to be characterized by the features which marked the assembly at the beginning, yet it cannot claim to be the assembly as originally presented.
Distinction should be made between a candlestick and the light it gives. A candlestick cannot be of any use if it does not carry a light. The assembly should be a light-bearer here for God, but it is no longer so publicly, and, as it does not in its character represent God any longer publicly, we must in all humility take the place of a remnant. We cannot claim to be the assembly as in its original position. A candlestick conveys the thought of public testimony for God here, and therefore we find that the assembly in 1 Timothy is called “the pillar and base of the truth”.
In Philippians 2: 15 it says, “among whom ye appear as lights in the world”. It is said of the saints as looked at individually, and this principle remains always. We are looked at in Philippians as the children of God in this world. There was a remnant in Thyatira which God had regard to, and since then the work of God has always been linked with a remnant. The remnant stands out clearly in the assembly in Philadelphia, because the light of the assembly had a place there. Those who seek to follow righteousness, and at the same time take the place of the [p. 359] remnant in all humility, understand what this is. They desire to be governed by the same principles that governed the assembly at its beginning. We are in the light of the heavenly city, which corresponds to Haggai 2: 9, where we read of the “latter glory of this house”. We find ourselves thus between both glories. The first come out at Pentecost and in Ephesus, and the principles that governed the assembly at the beginning are still the standard for us. We do not expect a revival like what took place at Pentecost, but we await the heavenly city, and its glory is even greater, as comes out in Revelation. All this helps to strengthen our souls in the midst of the decline which has come into the assembly publicly. Thus we see how God reaches His end and we do not need to lose courage. The light God gives us is to be as a support to our souls, and we see how God will reach His end, and it will not go wrong. He operates today with this end in view. The believer is therefore sustained and strengthened as he sees he has a place in this city, and he is concerned to be in agreement with it.
Let us now go on to our subject. I proposed that we should read Luke 22, because Luke especially supports Paul’s ministry. Matthew and Mark have more the ministry of the twelve apostles in view. Therefore we find that Luke clearly distinguishes between the passover and the Lord’s supper. The difference between them is not followed so clearly by Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels, as the truth of the assembly was first fully presented by Paul. Before this the Lord’s supper was more or less connected with Jerusalem. The apostle Paul makes a clear distinction and speaks of the Supper as something he had received direct from the Lord. In Acts 2 it says that they broke bread in the house, but in 1 Corinthians 11 the Lord’s supper is clearly distinct from the believers’ houses. “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” If anyone was hungry he would eat at home. The Lord’s supper is not to be connected with an ordinary meal at home. The Supper can surely be held in a brother’s house, but then it is not in any way connected with that brother, but depends upon no other place being available for this purpose. We read in Philemon of “the assembly which is in thine house”. When order and administration are wholly in the Lord’s hand, we can say that it is the Lord’s supper. Therefore we see in Luke that the Lord Himself inaugurated the supper. It is the Lord’s supper. In Matthew and Mark the proposal comes from the disciples, but here in Luke 22: 7 it says, “And the day of unleavened bread came, in which the passover was to be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it”. Therefore we see that the thought of the Supper has originated from the Lord Himself. “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”, verse 15. The thought is that He had them so much upon His heart. It is not just His suffering which is especially brought in here — because we know that Luke does not mention that He was abandoned by God — but the thought is more that His suffering lay before Him.
But instead of being occupied with His suffering, the Lord had the disciples in the thoughts of His heart. He said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you”.
It was not just that it was usual for a Jew to eat the passover at this time, as the Lord said this, but because the Lord wished to eat this passover supper with them. I believe that the Holy Spirit in Luke’s gospel emphasises the great place the saints had in the Lord’s heart as He gave them the Supper. Therefore He says, “This is my body which is given for you”. In Matthew He says only, “This is my body”. He does not add there, “which is given for you”, neither do we get there the thought of remembrance; thus I believe that Luke in his gospel especially has Paul’s ministry in view. Paul says that he had received the Supper from the Lord. His ministry was not for the Jewish remnant, but for the assembly, and so we have the inauguration of the Lord’s supper in Luke’s gospel, and the Lord’s own feelings in connection with it mentioned.
Ques Has the passover any connection with the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians 10:21?
We have the passover in 1 Corinthians 5. Chapter 10 speaks of the Jewish altar: “are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?” But one wishes that all [p. 361] should tarry over this wonderful matter, that the Lord on this occasion gave expression to His feelings, so that we might see how the Supper promotes love in the assembly. The high priests sought how they might kill him, and the Lord knew their murderous schemes. Then we read of Judas that Satan entered into him and “he went away”. The high priests and the captains are mentioned here, and Judas entered into agreement with them. How well the Lord knew all this, but, instead of being hindered, He sent Peter and John with instructions to prepare the passover “that we may eat it”. The Lord set aside the outward conditions and occupied Himself wholly with the disciples in order, as He said, “that we may eat”, and, when he placed Himself at table with them, He said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”. Thereafter He says of the bread, “This is my body”, and of the cup, “This cup is the new covenant”. These features are specially connected with Luke’s gospel, and they are suited to awakening a response in love to the Lord, as we come together to partake of His supper. And the Lord adds, “This do in remembrance of me”, thereby referring to what He had done. He had given thanks for the bread and broken it, and therein lay the remembrance of what He had done. Eating speaks of fellowship. We have no allusion to the Lord Himself eating the bread, but what He ate and drank stood connected with the passover. He broke the bread, and it is in the breaking of bread that remembrance chiefly lies. To break bread involves a mutual fellowship; we commit ourselves wholly to this fellowship. Therefore it says, “For as often as ye shall eat this bread and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until He come”. We have previously thought of the breaking of bread in connection with the first day of the week. That brings in the Lord in such a way that we remember Him and He becomes known amongst us as Head, and as we do so He leads us into that which is eternal. The first day of the week means that nothing has preceded; it is a completely new beginning. The first three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all refer to the sabbath, which speaks of Christ in resurrection [p. 362] connected with the preceding testimony in the Old Testament, whereas John takes us to a completely new sphere. He speaks of resurrection as a new sphere, where no one before had entered. In Eve we have a type of the assembly as in the thoughts of God before sin had come in, and it is this side John has in view. He therefore begins his gospel thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God”. It was thus before creation. The first evangelists speak of the resurrection in connection with the prophetic and historical side, whereas John is occupied with it as that which is eternal.
The first day of the week is mentioned twice in John 20, and it is between those two times that the Lord sent His message to His brethren, “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. Through this we are brought into family relationships with God as linked with Him who should ascend. It is in this connection that we enter upon our privileges which belong to us according to God’s eternal purpose. I wish to link this with the thought of Eve in Genesis 2, while the first three evangelists more take up other types, for example, Rebecca. It is, however, good to be able to distinguish between the breaking of bread and the Lord’s supper. In John the Lord is occupied with the inward side and not with that which is public. We do not once have the expression “assembly” in John’s gospel, nor the title “apostles”. The Lord says in this gospel to Mary, “Touch me not”, as He would have her understand that His position was completely heavenly. The breaking of bread gives us the thought that we come into what is eternal. It is perhaps difficult for all to understand this thought, but it is important to distinguish between the breaking of bread and the Lord’s supper. It is, naturally, one and the same thing, but in Acts the breaking of bread is linked with the first day of the week, and chapter 20 shows us the proper position of the assembly in accordance with Paul’s ministry. He said to the elders in Ephesus that he had not shrunk from announcing to them all the [p. 363] counsel of God. Acts 20 and John 20 go together. The breaking of bread provides us with the opportunity of calling the Lord to mind, and as the Lord in this way gets His place amongst us, He will lead us into our assembly privileges. But it is the Lord’s supper which is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11, and, while the breaking of bread is certainly recognized there, yet we get mainly this thought: “As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”, which has in view the public testimony.
Ques Can one break bread without eating the Lord’s supper?
In that case we have stopped only at the outward literal side. “As often as ye shall eat this bread” — it is not any bread, but this bread, which is blessed and broken, and with which is connected the thought of “my body”. It refers therefore to the body and blood of the Lord. Misuse of this is linked with the body of the Lord and comes under judgment, 1 Corinthians 11: 27. I do not believe any of the systems around us have the Lord’s supper. One cannot recognize the state necessary for the Lord’s supper as being less than the recognition of the Lord’s rights. As we call the Lord to mind by the breaking of bread, He comes to us in the assembly and we get the power proper to the sphere He will lead us into.
Ques Is it not possible that it could be said of us that we do not eat the Lord’s supper?
Suited conditions are required for eating the Lord’s supper, and therefore it speaks of the upper room being “furnished”, and of “the master of the house”, all of which have to do with the conditions that are necessary.
It is serious to think that we could break bread without eating the Lord’s supper, because it would seem the Lord had left us.
The apostle says, “it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11: 20), for the rich ate by themselves and left out the poor, and it was not the Lord’s supper, and he therefore continues to show them what it was, and it would [p. 364] be difficult to have a love-feast first. It emphasizes that it is the Lord’s supper, and when it really is so, it becomes a love-feast, as it shows how the Lord had the disciples in His affections, and if we respond, love to Him will flow.