THE LORD'S SUPPER (6)
THE LORD’S SUPPER (6)
1 Corinthians 10: 15 - 22; 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 34
EM Why does the apostle address the Corinthians in this way: “I speak as to intelligent persons?” Would it be that he desired to gain them by writing in a courteous way?
JT I think he addressed them in what we may call an abstract way. You take account of the saints in that way. The principle of intelligence was there, because they had the Holy Spirit; and I think there is also an appeal to them in it. So we ask ourselves the question, What have I been marked by? By intelligence? One is pulled up when addressed thus. Then what Paul was about to say depended upon their intelligence. He says, “Purge out ... the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened;” abstractly they were unleavened. I refer to this as a parallel passage.
PL He clothes them in his mind as having intelligence in the Spirit. The only alternative would be to look upon them in the flesh.
TMG Chapter 10 is really preparation for chapter 11.
PL Is not the thought of manhood very prominent in this epistle?
JT Yes; he is seeking to bring that about.
PL And is not intelligence a great feature in manhood?
JT “In your minds be grown men”, the apostle says; 1 Corinthians 14: 20. It is a question of consistency in chapter 10, and for that you require intelligence.
EM In connecting that thought with what has already been before us; that is, the encampments, it requires intelligence to take account of an encampment; and the Corinthians had apparently come short in that respect.
[p. 326] Ques Does not love for the Lord come in, in connection with spiritual intelligence?
JT Yes; it is the only intelligence that is of value. Paul deals with the subject of knowledge in chapter 8, “We all have knowledge”, he says; “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies”, 1 Corinthians 8:1. “If any one love God, he is known of Him”, 1 Corinthians 8:3. God takes account of such an one.
AA He says, “I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”.
JT It is an appeal, and does not imply that they were literally spiritually intelligent. “I speak as to intelligent persons”. But I think he also appeals to what was of God in them. The Holy Spirit was there.
JM And do you not think that what the apostle introduces here is intended to awaken exercise in our souls as to how we regard these things?
JT The question of consistency comes in, and he puts questions to them as to what they were doing; and it was for them to answer in their own souls, so that there should be consistency in their ways with what they were committing themselves to in partaking of the Lord’s supper.
JPW Is that why the cup of blessing comes in first here — to bring in consistency with the death of Christ?
JT That is what he is leading up to. He wishes to stimulate the divine instincts they had. The epistle shows that they had the Holy Spirit, and thus there was a basis on which to address them in this way. So he calls upon them to judge what he was about to say to them. Then in the next chapter we find that a man is to judge himself too. In chapter 14 the subject of understanding is fully dealt with; he says, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also”, 1 Corinthians 14:15. The Corinthians were babes in this respect. So the [p. 327] apostle is seeking to call forth the intelligence that one should have as a Christian; he wants to bring that into activity so that manhood may be developed. “In malice be babes; but in your minds be grown men”, 1 Corinthians 14:20. This chapter insists on consistency.
JM So in Christendom the supper is regarded as a formal sacrament.
PL The calling of the Lord to mind develops intelligent manhood.
JT It is remarkable that in verse 16 it is the blood of Christ that is mentioned — the anointed Man; the One who is anointed to do the will of God, to effectuate all His thoughts. In reference to the Lord’s supper, in the next chapter it is the Lord Jesus, or the Lord. Here it is Christ. One who historically, had arrived at manhood, and was anointed by God for the carrying out of His will, and the accomplishment of all His thoughts. Well, it is the blood of such an One as that you are committed to.
Ques What is meant by verse 16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?”
JT He is going to speak about the public effect of it. It is the fellowship of the death of Christ; the blood of Christ, and the body of Christ, speak of His death. An intelligent person would say, What is this? He was anointed to do the will of God. The woman in John 4 said, “Messias cometh, which is called Christ; when he is come he will tell us all things”, John 4:25. Well, it is the blood of that One, whom God gave up; the love of God is in it.
Ques What would be the effect of this upon us?
JT I think it takes us out of the world. You cannot build up a world that is guilty of the death of that One. The two disciples who were going to Emmaus had the idea that He would have set up His kingdom. It was a right hope; but they were not intelligent. They should have known that Christ [p. 328] ought to have suffered, and to enter into His glory. I think the gospel of Luke (which indeed always agrees with Paul’s teaching), is on that line; it produces understanding. Hence, the last chapter is full of instruction. The Lord expounds the Scriptures, and then He opens their understanding that they might understand them, and He says, “Thus it is written”, Luke 24:46. It is for us now to see the meaning of what is written. Now that corresponds with what we have here. Paul says, as it were, What are you doing with your understanding? If I have got an understanding, how am I employing it? This is to bring divinely given intelligence into exercise.
PL The god of this world blinds the eyes of them that believe not; whereas the Christian has Christ to illuminate the mind.
JT “Ye need not that any man teach you ... . The ... anointing teacheth you”, 1 John 2: 27.
PL This matter has to be settled before the conscience is set free.
JT Having part in the assembly is consequent on this. If I am not exercising my intelligence in my public relations, how can I do it when the assembly is convened. If I am inconsistent in my outward relations, it is not only that I am wrong, but, I am not using my intelligence. One idea of the assembly is that those in it are intelligent — a company of people who can confer with divinely given intelligence. It is not a congregation. The Lord’s supper does not bring in a congregation. It is an assembly, where all are intelligent and responsible, and can confer and communicate with one another.
EM What do you mean by a congregation?
JT A congregation is a company of people brought together without any special co-ordination. A number of people may be congregated to hear a speech or address. But the assembly conveys, strictly, a different thought. Each one in the assembly is a [p. 329] responsible unit; he is interested intelligently in what is going on, and has his part in it. A member of a congregation may not be interested in what is going on. In ordinary parlance the words are often interchangeable. I use the word ‘assembly’ in the sense in which it would apply to parliament.
PL The gates of hades shall not prevail against the assembly. The very fact that the gates are called into play, and are unable to prevail against it shows that the whole position is secured for the saints in assembly fellowship.
JT Fellowship is like a wall; like the wall round about Jerusalem. “Walk about Zion”, the psalmist says, “go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces”, Psalm 48. “If she be a wall, we will build upon her”, Song of Songs 8: 9. We must have the principle of the wall. If we have not got that, we know nothing of fellowship. The Bethesda movement ignored this truth.
JPW What came out in Acts 2: “They continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine”, Acts 2:42. Is that the principle we find here?
JT I think so; the apostles’ doctrine would be the regulating feature; and the fellowship is the wall. We are marked off from the religious systems around in this way.
TMG When we come together in assembly the Lord takes account of us in that way. We are not viewed as a congregation at any time.
JT What the Lord said at the institution of the Supper suggests intelligence in the disciples. “This is my body which is given for you”. And, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you”. It was for them to understand. In the understanding of it you might say intelligent affection is active. We know what controversy has raged around the words: “this is my body”, and what the [p. 330] Lutheran and Romish churches make out of them but they test our intelligence.
Ques “The bread which we break”. There is nothing said about blessing it. The blessing refers to the cup.
EM You give thanks for the loaf.
EH The word ‘we’ is used in both cases; that is carrying on the thought of mutuality.
JT It is not the ritual of the Lord’s supper in chapter 10; it is the fellowship of it. In the next chapter we have the order of it. The truth of chapter 10 would produce a joyous company. See Psalm 42: 4. There is the idea of going to the house of God together. You will not have the going to the house of God together happily, unless our outward relations are right. If I have a question about your conduct, or you about mine, we do not go happily to the house of God. “The kingdom of God is ... righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”, Romans 14: 17.
EM Why is the question raised as to idolatry in connection with the Lord’s supper?
JT Well, because of the possibility of saints, while partaking of the Lord’s table, participating in worldly things. The world has its fellowships, and to take part in these is idolatry. It may not be idolatry in the pagan sense, but the principle in the tables the world affords is the same.
RWG What is the result if we come together, but are not true to the fellowship of Christ’s death?
JT Well, we are provoking the Lord, and so we are at issue with Him. Besides, one in such a case is at issue also with the saints. We go up to the house of God a joyous company; but if we are not right in our public relations, our business relations, or our domestic relations — if the element of righteousness is not in these, the element of joy will not be there either. This chapter refers to our public relations.
PL “The Lord watch between me and thee when we are absent one from another”, Genesis 31: 49. There is the thought of the Lord’s eye being upon us when we are away from one another.
JT Yes, so that when you come to the altar and remember that your brother has aught against you, you leave your gift there, and go back and be reconciled to him; otherwise you could not go together happily.
Rem Sometimes you may hear it said that you can have fellowship with a brother at the Lord’s supper, but you could not speak to him through the week. Is that right?
JT No, it is not right at all, unless it is done in the way of discipline, as we are taught in 2 Thessalonians 3. You then regard him as a brother, but you do not “keep company” with him. It requires one to have great wisdom to act in that way. Such an one is not to be treated as an enemy, but admonished as a brother.
WAW Is not the love in chapter 13 very important?
JT Room is made for that chapter by the instructions here. You see, the apostle is dealing with your intelligence. You bless the cup; but are you walking in the fellowship of it? If not, where is your consistency? where your intelligence?
JM-n With regard to the Thessalonians, some were apparently walking disorderly, and the saints are admonished not to keep company with such. Is that outside?
JT No, I do not think it is outside. It is discipline within — “that he may be ashamed of himself”, 2 Thessalonians 3:14.
JM-n The brother would feel ashamed if I would not walk home with him.
JT Yes, like a child in the family who has done something wrong, and a certain attitude is taken up [p. 332] so that he may judge himself. But it requires great wisdom; saints should act together in such matters.
EM You maintain the principle of grace, but grace reigning through righteousness.
Ques Would you say it does not involve the fellowship?
JT I think not in that case.
Ques Would you speak of measures of intelligence?
JT Yes; but the thing is to exercise what you have. And if you have the Holy Spirit you have some intelligence.
Ques Would you say intelligence is really formed by taking a true account of the position that is before us at the moment, and you act in the light of that? According to Acts 2 they broke bread in the house, but they were in the temple as well.
JT Well, that was admissible, as they were in a transitional period — the Jews were not yet given up. But now they have been given up, and the light of the assembly has come in; the Lord’s supper is now connected with the assembly.
PL Deborah says, “Ye that walk by the way consider, because of the voice of those who divide the spoil in the midst of the places of, drawing water”, Judges 5: 10, 11. Would that suggest spiritual intelligence in regard to the ways of the Lord?
JT Yes; she further says, “There they rehearse the righteous acts of Jehovah”. These would help us as to our public relations.
Rem The apostle says, “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ”. That should regulate us as to our relations with each other, and the way we should act in every place.
JT There are many Christians occupied in building up what is considered by them the “good side” of the world; but Messiah was cut off and had nothing; “and the people of the prince that [p. 333] shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”, Daniel 9: 26. Christ could have set up Israel. There was power there to do it; but He has been cut off. It is now the fellowship of His blood and His body. So I cannot be occupied in building up the world in any sense. The fellowship of His death has cut me off.
PSP Does the fellowship of the body of Christ go further than the communion of the blood of Christ?
JT I think it brings in the thought that His body was for the will of God. The blood brings in what God is; the love of God in giving up that life.
PSP Is there any thought in it regarding the saints as being the body of Christ?
JT It says so: “We being one loaf are one body”. The question is, how available are we to the Lord? for the thought is that the body is for the expression of Himself; hence I cannot be building up the world in any way. I am to be available for the Lord.
PL The body is inclusive, as including all the saints.
JT Yes. In this chapter it is the bearing of the Lord’s supper on our public relations. But in the next chapter it is the inward aspect of it.
EH I suppose you have the thought suggested where Jehovah instructs Moses to say to Pharaoh, “Israel is my son ... . my firstborn ... . let my son go that he may serve me”, Exodus 4:23. He is not going to improve Egypt.
JT The building of the tabernacle and the service of the people in it, form the answer to that. Jehovah wished them to serve Him.
Ques Going back to the thought of the body — what is the difference between chapters 10 and 11 in this respect? Chapter 11 speaks of “not discerning the Lord’s body”.
JT It is the Lord’s own body there. You are [p. 334] guilty in respect of that. It is conduct inside he is speaking of.
Ques What would unworthily mean?
JT It refers to the way you partake of the emblems. Christendom is guilty in that respect; in what is called “communion” in the sects around. “This is not the Lord’s supper”.
TMG They sit down to eat and drink, and rise up to play.
Rem Unworthily would not mean exactly moral failure here, but rather indifference to the Lord’s body.
JT The apostle says, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry and another is drunken”. That was what he was dealing with. They were bringing in human distinctions.
Ques Is the unity of the saints seen in the partaking of the one loaf; all do not partake?
JT Well, unity is there, but what is in view here is fellowship. We are committed in what we do to the fellowship of Christ’s death and to each other as well. The one body is introduced here in this connection, we all partake of the one loaf.
EH I suppose the fellowship is connected with responsibility in chapter 10, whereas we come into privilege in chapter 11, and chapter 5 prepares for both, although it would perhaps lie more individual responsibility there.
JT Chapter 10 is the public bearing of the Lord’s supper.
Rem In chapter 11 it is seen more locally, as we come together.
Ques In James 3 the writer, speaking of the tongue, says, “Therewith bless we the Lord and Father, and therewith curse we men made after the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth goes forth blessing and cursing. It is not right my brethren”, James 3:10.
[p. 335] That is, I understand, if we use the tongue to bless God, then that tongue should not be used in any way inconsistent with that act. Would that correspond with what we have here?
JT Very much! James raises the same question of consistency; “My brethren”, he says, “these things ought not so to be”.
Ques Would not the Spirit of God always raise that point?
JT 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 act and react on each other. In the former chapter it is a question of my public relations, whereas in the latter it is a question of my relationship with the saints; that is, “in assembly”, how I am there.
RWG Why does it seem difficult for us to discern as to what is inconsistent with the breaking of bread?
JT That raises the question as to our state of soul — as to whether our conscience is in accord with the truth. We are to walk in the light as God is in the light. Thus we have fellowship one with another. That verse in John’s epistle corresponds with this chapter.
Rem If we are subject to the Lord, and walk in the light of the position, our discernment will be quickened.
Rem You take account of everything around you according to that light.
JT The question of consistency is most important. I have to see to it that my ways are in keeping with the fellowship I am committed to. I may have to go far afield, but I am a stranger in a strange land, as was said in regard of Gershom in Exodus 28: 3. I maintain that I am different from the world. You may do things that others do, but you are different; there is that about you that people take note of; they may not be able to explain it, but there it is. You are not like other men.
TMG [p. 336] You are converted; you are a Christian.
JT And then you are obligated to every one in the company; to every Christian. It takes away from the thought of independency. You may say, ‘I will do as I like in my own affairs; it is my business’. No; the principle of the fellowship pursues you even into your closet.
Rem The friendship of the world is enmity with God.
JT I am obligated to the most insignificant in the company, as well as to the most prominent; and so I say, ‘How does this or that matter affect the Lord? and how does it affect the saints?’ Indeed the Lord and the saints are bound up together, and if I ignore them, I ignore Him. In provoking Him we have to consider as to whether we are stronger than He.
In the types the law is to govern everything; well, this chapter is really the law governing our public relations. “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 14: 37. The epistle is a standing statute, governing our relations here. So that the saints can enquire into my affairs. They require wisdom in such matters, of course, but the fellowship involves it; and if you seek to evade it you are wanting in intelligence and consistency. We cannot escape the Lord in these things. The apostle says, “Many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep”. And in chapter 6: 4, “If then ye have judgments as to things of this life, set those to judge who are little esteemed in the assembly”. We may say that the very least in the assembly has more wisdom than the Lord Chief Justice in dealing with such matters.
TMG So that no case can arise in the assembly to necessitate calling in outside help.
Ques What is the thought in the altar?
JT Well, the apostle refers to it as the centre of communion: that is, Israel’s altar. The apostle was saying that they that attend at the altar partake with the altar; and he brings that in to enforce what he said about the Lord’s supper. If one partook of things offered to idols he had fellowship with the idol.
Rem We read in Hebrews 13: 10, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle”.
JT “We have”, that is a characteristic expression in Hebrews — what Christians have as their distinct privilege. It is an exclusive altar.
PL Christians have very distinctive privileges. The fact that Paul associates Sosthenes with him in this epistle, would go to show the moral claims of the brethren.
JT We should value our brethren. A brother is born for adversity, and Sosthenes was a brother.