THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
Matthew 26:13; Matthew 26:26 - 30; 1 Corinthians 11: 17 - 26
JT It occurred to me that the light that shone from heaven around Saul enters into everything that he treats of, and above all, the Lord’s supper. There is nothing perhaps that has occasioned more controversy among the people of God than the Lord’s supper and yet it is encircled with the greatest light, as if the divine intent was that there should be no doubt or shade of doubt as to its meaning and bearing. So that, in introducing it in this epistle, the apostle regards the saints as intelligent persons and as such they were to judge what he said. As we remarked, Matthew and Mark do not speak of the Lord’s supper as a memorial; they speak of the woman who anointed the Lord in Simon the leper’s house as to be remembered: what she did was to be spoken of as a memorial of her wherever the gospel should be preached. Luke alone speaks of the memorial of Christ, and he presents the subject evidently as supporting Paul’s presentation of it. An understanding of the memorial of what the woman did would lead to the conditions suitable for a memorial of the Lord’s supper. Perhaps we have not thought much about this memorial of the woman.
GW Not in connection with the Supper, I am sure. Perhaps you would say a little as to how what the woman did prepares us for the memorial of the Lord’s supper.
JT I was thinking the Lord’s supper has become enshrouded with the greatest darkness among the people of God generally. As we all know, it has become degraded into idolatry in some; the grossest darkness enshrouds the institution in others; and then with others, there are uncertainty and materialism. So the obvious reason is that what this woman represents [p. 224] has not been observed. The Lord enjoined here that what she did should be spoken of as a memorial of her wherever the gospel should be preached. If what she represents were announced in the ministry of the gospel, the converts would be prepared for the memorial of the Lord’s supper; because in Matthew she represents one who regards the Lord Jesus as the only One fit to govern and rule, and in Mark she would look for the levitical service as seen in Christ. I think if christians generally understood these two features the memorial of the Lord’s supper would be seen in its proper setting. The government of the church of God is in the hands of men who are in many instances perhaps not christians at all, so what can you expect but darkness and uncertainty? Then the ministry too is carried on by men who are not christians, and how can they comply with what the woman would look for? So that the government of the church and the ministry are in the hands generally of men who are not really christians, and hence the darkness. So that evidently the Lord’s injunction in regard of her has been overlooked, disregarded.
GW The moral import of it evidently has been very much overlooked. It has been more looked at as an act of devotedness.
JT It was an act of devotedness, but it was devotedness marked by intelligence. She knew what she was doing; she anointed His head.
Ques Are you connecting that with what Paul said, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, 1 Corinthians 10: 15?
JT Yes.
WFJ She was commended then and distinguished for it.
YY-L May we go back a point: would the gospel produce this kind of person?
JT I think it would, rightly presented: but it is spoken of as an addition. “Wheresoever this gospel [p. 225] shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her”. That is, if you preach the gospel and carry this out, you would speak about this woman, and you would have to make plain what she had in her mind.
YY-L I wondered if you were going back to the origin of the thing, that the kind of gospel that is preached, if it is the gospel of God concerning His Son, would produce this kind of convert, and have in view that we might be intelligent in our minds in regard to the Supper.
JT Yes, that is what I thought. The convert would be told by the evangelist something of the import of the gospel of Matthew.
Rem The evangelist would lead the convert to an intelligent appreciation of what is presented.
JT Yes. He would be saved from a human organisation. He would look for the kind of government that Matthew presents; and in Mark, he would look for the kind of ministry that Mark presents and would not recognise the clerical system as it is.
Ques Would Matthew present the thought that only Christ is to be distinguished?
JT Yes, as regards government. So that the hierarchical system would be undermined at once: it is not the idea in Matthew; nor is the clerical idea the idea in Mark.
GW Therefore the importance of the man who preaches being himself intelligent on this fine or he will only misdirect those to whom he preaches.
JT Yes. Many a preacher sends his converts to the systems; he does not think of the woman and what she did.
Ques Why does she anoint Him for His burying?
JT That governed the position at that time: He was going to die to establish these things. They could only become effective thus. She saw that He was going to die; it was a very great thing that she did [p. 226] discern this. A preacher is a former of assemblies really, according to Ecclesiastes, and if I have the assembly in view in my preaching I will make a good deal of this woman, for she prepares the way for it. So the assembly Paul speaks of is an assembly formed of such persons. When you come together in assembly, the first thing before you is the Lord’s supper. If we are in the light of what this woman did, we shall be fit for it.
Ques Do you think that the woman was in the full enjoyment of what she did in intelligence?
JT Evidently she was intelligent as to what she did; she anointed His head. Luke speaks about an anointing of the feet and John speaks of an anointing of the feet, whereas in these two gospels it is the head, referring to the mind of God set out in Him officially in the two relations of which we have been speaking, because it is no less than the mind of God.
Rem Although she anointed Him for His burying, she knew He was coming in glory, as you get in the previous chapter; she was in the light of that.
JT No doubt.
YY-L After the convert is delivered from the systems of men, a good deal has to be taken down before the structure can go up. Is that the work of the preacher or the teacher?
JT I suppose the teacher would come in, but I think the gospel should lay the basis in the soul for everything that is to follow. If you present Christ aright, and present this woman, what she did, I think the foundation is laid for the structure of the assembly. That is where the popular gospel comes short; it does not lay the basis for the church. Hence the Lord says, “I have not found thy works complete before my God” (Revelation 3: 2), meaning that protestantism has never laid the basis for the church in the preaching.
GW Would you say the preacher’s work really is to introduce souls consciously to the Person concerning [p. 227] whom the teacher unfolds all the moral excellencies and bearings, so as to affect him? The preacher is not satisfied until the soul is really introduced to the Person.
JT The Person, not only in regard of what He is Godward, but what He is officially. I think Matthew and Mark enlarge on those two features: what He is in government and what He is in ministry, or what He was, for we have to learn the mind of God from Christ and the four gospels give us it in its completeness, but particularly these two, because they make way for Luke.
WFJ Neither of those two speak of remembrance, do they? It is only Luke who speaks of it.
JT No.
GW You mean that until we have apprehended in some measure what is presented in Matthew and Mark, we are not free to take up what Luke presents?
JT Yes. Matthew and Mark help us to emerge from the complicated state of things at Jerusalem. The passover and the Lord’s supper merge, according to the records of these two evangelists, and you see the necessity for that. It seems a bit difficult perhaps for many to dissect, but we have to make room for the patience of God, and that is where His government comes in. The government of God required that Jerusalem should be owned even after the Spirit came down, so that the assembly is a separate entity here, as it says, the Jew, the gentile and the church of God (1 Corinthians 10: 32). The announcement of that was deferred, because the patience of God required that He should continue with Israel, that there should be the fullest opportunity given for them to accept the glad tidings, and so Matthew and Mark, I think, have to be understood before we can see how the assembly is to be regarded as a separate entity here according to 1 Corinthians, and I think the understanding of this woman’s [p. 228] act helps.
WFJ In regard to the gospels, is not the Luke mission carried on in the Acts?
JT They all have their bearing; you would not leave out any. Luke is the standpoint of the pure grace of God, but you have to take account of the government of God as well, otherwise you would not perhaps make allowance for the patience of God on the one hand, and for His retributive judgment on the other. Our dispensation is not strictly a dispensation of judgment, but judgment did enter into it in the government of God: it came on the Jew even in our own dispensation, so there is overlapping, and in order to reconcile these things you have to understand Matthew and Mark.
GW Wrath did not come upon the people fully until they rejected the testimony of His having been glorified; it was essential that should be presented to them. That was the final testimony to them.
YY-L You mean, the refusal of the Spirit, the testimony to Him as a glorified Person by the Spirit.
GW Peter said, “And he shall send Jesus Christ, ... until the times of restitution of all things”, Acts 3: 20, 21. They refused Him in His glorified condition.
JT They said, We will not have this Man to reign over us.
YY-L How are you going to bring in the government of God in regard of the gospel of the grace of God?
JT What this woman did would help you. You see that in the government of God certain parts of humanity are in view. You see that two-thirds of the human race is left practically in the dark. You can only account for that by the government of God; you cannot explain it. Europe has been wonderfully favoured. Well now, the government of God relates to those two things. If Europe has been favoured,
[p. 229] the government of God is sure to follow the rejection of the truth.
YY-L In what way do you present the government of God as to individuals in the light you were speaking of? What a man sows he reaps.
JT Quite. The Jew is not addressed as a Jew now; you deal with him as a man. God is not recognising him as a Jew now; that is His government; whereas in Saul’s time he was dealt with as a Jew.
Ques How do you deal with the gentile?
JT As a man.
Ques Does the government of God come in in Matthew 28 where it says, “Go into Galilee”?
JT Yes, there it is again, meaning that Jerusalem is disregarded.
Ques Would you say it would be out of keeping to have a special mission to the Jews?
JT Yes, that is out of keeping with the moment.
Ques You link that with the Mediator?
JT Yes, that is the position now, “There is one God; and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”, 1 Timothy 2: 5. So that prayers are for all men and the Jews are included necessarily.
Ques Would Paul be presenting something of the government of God when he said to the Jews, “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you”, Acts 13:41?
JT Yes, the government of God was overtaking them.
YY-L You had this on your mind in connection with the coloured races?
JT You cannot ignore that: they are facts. They do not shine in the assembly much, even when they are converted.
YY-L But a thoughtful and intelligent [p. 230] christian- a coloured man-would accept the situation and be blessed accordingly.
JT Yes, exactly so. The Syro-Phoenician woman accepted the position: she had no claim on the Son of David. So the Samaritan woman accepted that salvation was of the Jews. And later the Samaritans had to accept that they did not get the Holy Spirit until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem. I wanted specially to show that what this woman did, as rightly understood, it would save us and deliver us from the darkening influences that surround the Lord’s supper, so that we should have it as it is in the light of Paul’s ministry, for he emphasises the light: the Spirit of God says, “A light from heaven”. That is the light in which we ought to understand the Lord’s supper. Paul speaks of it as “a great light”, and again as “a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun”, and that should govern the Lord’s supper. The thing is as clear as noonday, but the darkening influences that have come in hold most of the Lord’s people.
YY-L So we suffer in consequence in regard of it. What do you think was in the mind of the Lord in the confirmation of this from the glory to Paul?
JT I think that the thing should be seen in its proper setting in relation to the assembly. It is a light from heaven to govern the assembly. The position at Jerusalem tended to complicate the Lord’s supper and indeed, everything. There was a complicated state of things at Jerusalem because of the longsuffering of God: He was loath to give them up, but the light from heaven meant that all that uncertainty should disappear, and I think that is what you get in Paul’s ministry. It is a complete disentanglement of the truth and all that stood connected with it from Jewish settings, and so today from religious settings, for that is where the darkening influences are. So we have in Luke an upper room.
[p. 231] Instead of what this woman did, we have in Luke that the Lord sent Peter and John to prepare. I think that would correspond administratively with the light the woman’s act conveys. Peter would shut out all human innovations, for he had authority, having the keys of the kingdom, and John would insist on family conditions. Peter and John were sent by the Lord in Luke.
G W. How do you connect that with the woman as to John?
JT I only mean in a general way; that Peter would insist on the government as the Lord Jesus set it out-he represented the Lord; John would insist on family conditions.
YY-L Though he does not give us the Supper.
JT No, but he was sent with Peter to prepare for it, and he does prepare for it now. John 13 is most essential to the Supper, as we have often remarked. John speaks of the things without naming them. As we were remarking this morning, “Thy teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep, which go up from the washing”, Song of Songs 4: 2. That is the principle of John 13.
YY-L In that way the service of Christ leads Peter much to the same goal as the Supper. You have the thing that goes with it-the atmosphere of it.
WFJ John 13, John 14, John 15 and John 16 were all said at the Supper table.
JT Quite.
GW What you are saying now is that we should be exercised that each one of us might be delivered from these principles that are going to cloud the Supper in our souls: principles which are abroad in the world and which our own hearts naturally turn to when we get down in our moral condition. Has not that been really the reason things have come back to the hierarchical and clerical system? A worldly principle [p. 232] has been taken up to make up the lack of what there should have been spiritually.
JT Neither Peter nor John mention the Lord’s supper formally, but they really prepare us. Peter’s epistles are governmental and they make for the support of Paul’s doctrine. Peter writes his letter from Babylon apparently: a very suggestive thing, for what is Babylonish is coming in, and he writes therefore with authority. I do not know who carried the post, but evidently it was carried straight across Palestine to Asia Minor. He is speaking from Babylon to the Jews of the dispersion in Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, and so on, the provinces of Asia Minor. These are the provinces in which Paul’s labours began and in which God blessed him, in which the assemblies were formed. Paul habitually went to the Jewish synagogues first but the time was passing for that, and the believing Jews of the dispersion were to learn that it was no longer a question of the Jew first; they were to learn not to look to Jerusalem any more. They themselves were living stones and had to come to Christ, not to Jerusalem. “Yourselves ... are being built up a spiritual house”, so they should not have to go to Jerusalem any more.
WFJ They got the support of the Spirit; those who remained in Jerusalem did not.
JT Just so. You can see how Peter’s epistle as it was received and understood would make way for Paul’s ministry.
WFJ It is very interesting that Peter and John should both take up things in connection with Paul’s ministry.
JT Yes, it shows how God maintained practical unity, and how Peter and John prepare for the Lord’s supper as Paul gives it to us.
EM What does the apostle Paul refer to in speaking of what “I also delivered to you”? Had he told them about these things [p. 233] beforehand He evidently delivered it to them during his ministry amongst them, and he reminds them of that now.
EM And that was all confirmed by the light from heaven and the special revelation that was given. That is an important fact for Christendom today, the revelation from heaven.
JT Yes, it ought to be seen that the Lord’s supper stands in relation to the light given from heaven, and Peter and John now prepare us for the Lord’s supper as Paul has delivered it to us. That is to say, it is no longer connected with a house. They broke bread in the house, it says in Acts 2: now it is in the assembly; it is separated from the believer’s house and connected with the assembly.
Ques Is it connected with the thought of Christ being the head of every man?
JT It comes in in that same connection.
Rem I was thinking that the light of the Supper is found in a circle where the headship of Christ is recovered to the saints.
JT There is no doubt that the first part of 1 Corinthians 11 bears on the second part.
YY-L Would you agree that the Lord, in confirming this from the glory, had in mind that it might be set up by the apostle in the Spirit’s power, that we might see there is nothing clerical about the Supper, but it is established livingly in the Spirit’s power; hence it will be ever in freshness?
JT Quite. It is kept before us continually that the Lord’s supper is connected with the assembly and the assembly only. In Matthew and Mark it is the evening, whereas Luke says, “when the hour was come”, all having in view what should ultimately take place in the gentile church. That is, we do not have the Lord’s supper in the evening: if we did not have Luke, it seems to me that spiritual sentiment would [p. 234] lead us to have it in the evening, but Luke says, “the hour”, and that leaves it open.
Y.Y-L. When is that?
JT It seems to be left open. As intelligent persons, in the government of God, we have a free day now. The first day of the week is allowed free, and we are free to use it, and it seems to me that Luke anticipates that.
Ques Would you say a word further on the thought of the Lord instituting the Supper and then of Paul receiving it, and the heavenly light connected with it?
JT I think we ought to take account of the one through whom it has come to us, that is why I ventured to refer to his conversion: the light is so dwelt upon, and it affected not only Paul but those who were with him. Those with him did not hear what was said, but they saw the light that shone round about him. I think emphasis should be laid on that in connection with everything he treats of, especially the Lord’s supper, for he received it from the Lord; he received it in that light, so you do not get it in connection with a man’s household.
Rem If we imbibe the spirit of this woman we will bow to what the apostle says he received of the Lord.
JT Yes, quite.
Ques Is there any feature in Matthew’s and Mark’s presentations that applies to us at the present time or do they both refer to the transitional period?
JT There are features: one especially, it was “as they were eating”; Luke does not say anything about that, it is “This do”, what the Lord did, but Matthew and Mark emphasise the eating. I think that feature has a great bearing on us because 1 Corinthians treats of the passover or the feast of unleavened bread before you have the Lord’s supper, and we are enjoined to keep that feast and to keep that feast means you have to eat-that is what comes in chapter [p. 235] 10. Eating is the thought of communion or fellowship, and the Corinthians were eating in relation to idolatry. What they were eating in Matthew and Mark was the unleavened bread; if we are not eating that, we may be sure the Lord’s supper is a dead letter to us.
GW It is God’s solemn judgment on the whole principle that actuates this scene and actuates our own souls in lawlessness.
WP It says in Matthew too, “Take, eat; this is my body”.
JT That bears out what we were saying: they were eating the unleavened bread, for how can you come to eat what represents the Lord’s body in a spiritual way unless you are eating the unleavened bread? In the systems they know nothing of this how could the Pope eat unleavened bread?
Ques What is eating the unleavened bread?
JT It is reduction.
Ques Is it feeding on Christ as the One who would not allow any leaven?
JT Quite. But that system is symbolised by what the Lord said, “Leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened”, Matthew 13:33. The systems around us are the very opposite to unleavened bread.
YY-L It is called a feast, and the exclusion of evil can hardly be a feast, can it?
JT Well, there are the two things: there is the passover, “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”, that is there always; but apart from that, you must supply the unleavened bread. God supplies the passover, but to have part in that, we must bring the unleavened bread ourselves. That was symbolised in Matthew and Mark: while they were eating, He takes what symbolises Himself and His love and gives it to them.
Ques Is 1 Peter 2: 1, “Wherefore laying aside all malice ...”, the enforcement of this?
JT Yes, that goes with it exactly. Think how precious it is to eat the Supper, but who will value it save one who eats the unleavened bread?
Rem Yes. I suppose every true Christian has unleavened bread in his house in some sense. Lot had it, but the thing is to eat it in relation to Christ.
Ques Does not the unleavened bread represent Christ as a Man here of an entirely different order to anything before? The feeding on that would prepare one to partake of the Supper in a worshipful spirit, that such a One as that has gone down into death.
JT So it is a continuous thing. Sincerity and truth would be within the reach of the youngest.
Ques How do we supply the unleavened bread?
JT It is a question of the state of our souls-one is sincere in what one is doing too.
Ques In 1 Corinthians the apostle seems to connect the thought of the memorial with what we do, whereas the eating is connected with the announcement, is it not?
JT That is how it stands. In chapter 10 it is what we bless and what we break; in chapter 11, the memorial: he brings in what the Lord did. In chapter 10 it is the cup which we bless and the bread which we break; that is to bring out what these things are. Chapter 11 is to bring out the memorial, what the Lord did.
Ques Would you say that Paul adds anything to Luke’s presentation of the Supper or are they parallel?
JT I think Luke rather supports what we have here; but this word, “As often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”, is additional. In verse 24 J.N.D. leaves out “Take, eat”, but in connection with the cup it does say, “This do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”.
[p. 237] Rem The disciples would not have understood the Supper, but the woman seems to be intelligent. The disciples say, ‘Why this waste?’.
JT The disciples were not so far on as she; if they had been, she would not have been singled out in this way. The Lord loves to single out special devotedness.
Ques Would keeping the feast make us intelligent?
YY-L Intelligence really works by affection.
JT Just so, but you feel, if we are not eating, when we come together to the Lord’s supper it becomes a dead letter to us. It was “as they were eating” in Matthew and Mark.
Ques Do you link that up with 1 Corinthians 5?
JT Yes.
Rem A woman first announces the Lord’s death then a woman announces His resurrection.
JT Yes indeed.