THE LORD
[p. 86] THE LORD
It is to be noted that “the Lord” is mentioned seven times in these verses. It is a title which calls for reverence as setting forth that He is a divine Person. It is the word used in the New Testament to translate the word Jehovah from the Old.
Luke speaks of Jesus as “the Lord” more than all the other evangelists. I have no doubt it conveys that He was a divine Person. We may distinguish between “the Lord” as an official title and as a personal title. When Peter said, “God has made him, this Jesus ..., both Lord and Christ”, he was presenting the official glory with which God has invested Him in contrast to their crucifying Him. But He was personally “the Lord” in the sense that He was a divine Person in manhood. He took a prepared body that He might give it in love for the assembly so that the assembly might be enriched with all that His incarnation brought in. And the cup is the new covenant in His blood. Who could consummate the new covenant but a divine Person? So the death of the Lord is a wondrous thing; He was “the Lord of glory”. His supper can only be truly eaten in a worshipping spirit, as understanding that He is supreme because of who He is, but supreme in love when we think of what He has become, and how He has died. A living remembrance is kept up by those who love Him, but if there is not reverence and worship it is not the Lord’s [p. 87] supper at all.
SUMMARY OF A READING 1 Corinthians 11: 20 - 34 In coming together, each one should go away better than he came. We are not sufficiently exercised about coming together, especially as to the Lord’s supper. The idea of a supper is a meal. Here it is not so much the Lord’s supper as a lordly supper. It is a memorial to the world, not to the saints. I connected it with Luke 14. Lordship now is connected with blessing and grace; He is the Minister of grace and blessing. In Luke you get what has been spoken of as heavenly grace, and in the Lord’s supper you have access into all that. In the cup you have what is connected with heavenly grace. You get what is of Christ in contrast to what is of the world’s system. The way you learn the love of God is in Christ. The divine idea is that you come together in a common festivity. In coming together in assembly it is properly to enjoy what God has given us.
No one has peace who has not reached a spot in his soul where there is nothing but Christ. The only cure for a dissatisfied state of soul is the ministry of Christ personally to the heart. But there must be surrender. It may come in different ways to different individuals but there must be surrender. The Lord takes occasion in a special way to minister Himself in the Supper. The coming of the Lord to His own is what marks the present time, and particularly when we come together. I think the Lord recognises a company on earth who love Him and cherish His company — “I am coming to you”. Christ’s assembly derives from Himself; there is nothing in Christ’s assembly but what is of Christ. People in a bad state would not know the presence of the Lord. I do not think people in a bad state would want the presence of the Lord. The Lord comes to those who want Him. “Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking” (Revelation 3: 20) — He waits to be invited. If we get [p. 88] near the Lord we shall understand the character of the assembly as we could in no other way. You might get the whole meeting for a little moment into a sense of not being conscious of anyone else but the Lord. The test of everything in the meeting is, is it edifying? I think a meeting that is really in power has a distinct line, a character. I think it is a question of faith — whatever is done is in faith. It ought to be a great reality to see that the Lord is here.
Ques Should we have faith about what any brother does in the meeting?
CAC You have confidence in your soul that it will please the Lord if you take a certain course. Slowness in the meeting is [p. 89] want of liberty.
NOTES OF A READING 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 26 It may be well just to say what we had before us on a previous occasion, namely the presentations in Mark’s gospel and in Matthew’s of the Lord’s supper: the prominent feature in Mark is that the bread was to be taken, and in Matthew the prominent thought is that it was to be eaten; the thought of calling the Lord to mind does not have any place in these two gospels.
But when we come to the account in Luke of what took place in the presence of the twelve apostles, and the account given to us by Paul, which he received from the Lord that he might give it to the gentile assemblies, the thought of remembrance or calling to mind is, I suppose, the prominent thought of the service. So that we come to that particular aspect of this precious subject this afternoon.
Ques Does Luke’s account follow this?
CAC Well, I think it is very likely that this account was the first one that was given to the assembly. It is a debatable matter, but it is probable that 1 Corinthians was written before Luke’s gospel. This account distinctly places the Lord’s supper in the assembly, does it not? It is important that the Lord’s supper should not be seen as an individual privilege. Most believers perhaps regard it in this way. It is important that it should be seen as a collective matter — it requires that the saints should come together. It is that He should be called to mind in a particular way, and requires that the saints should be together in order to do it.
There are comings together mentioned here. It was evidently possible, we find, to come together for the worse, but the proper object to be before the saints in coming together in assembly is to eat the Lord’s supper.
Ques Does it belong exclusively to the assembly?
CAC Yes, we have no reason to think otherwise,
[p. 90] and the moral significance of the one loaf and the one body would confirm that thought.
Rem Other families will take up other things, but not this.
CAC I think that is so. It was for the collective calling of the Lord to mind, so that no amount of individual exercise or desire, prayer or study of the Scripture could take the place of it. There was evidently a custom in Israel of breaking bread for those who had died. We are all familiar with the scripture (Jeremiah 16: 7). That scripture shows us it was customary to break bread and drink a cup in reference to those who had died. Now the Lord takes up that custom and glorifies it by giving it an entirely new setting. He gave it a new thought altogether, because the thought was that it was done in mourning. There is no such thing in the Lord’s supper. When the Lord instituted it, He set aside all thought of mourning; it is a eucharist — it is thanksgiving.
It is the Lord’s desire to bring about a particular condition of mind in His saints collectively; that is the Lord’s intent, and it is brought about by the breaking of bread and nothing else. If anything else would have done it the Lord would have used other means. Love is infinitely wise, and there is no better means than the Lord’s supper to bring this about.
Ques Is there not the thought of His sufferings?
CAC The Lord did not mourn. No, the sufferings are not absent, but they are past. When the Lord instituted the Supper He was in mind beyond His sufferings and death. He spoke of His body given and his blood poured out, so they were all past in His mind.
Rem To remember the Lord in His death is not a right expression.
CAC No, I do not think that it is right, though it is often used and affectionately meant. But it cannot be established by Scripture.
[p. 91] Rem The emblems represent a dead Christ, it has been said. We cannot dissociate them from His death.
CAC Yes, His body is given and His blood poured out, that is clearly in death; but it is for a remembrance — the calling of Me to mind.
Rem His death is included.
CAC Quite so. It is not Christ after the flesh that we call to mind, it is a living Christ known in love which has been expressed in death.
Rem We are apt to be too historical. Mr Raven called attention to its being a remembrance, not a reminiscence.
CAC Yes. No one will understand the Supper until he sees the Lord was anticipatively beyond His sufferings and death, and is now actually so, so that nothing remains but thanksgiving. In breaking the bread and drinking the cup there was nothing of mourning, it was an occasion of unmixed thanksgiving. The Lord says, ‘Now, I want you to call Me to mind in that relation of things’. It was intended to bring about an attitude of mind in the saints of the assembly, so that they are positively unified in one mind, so that there is not a divergent thought. Is not that a wonderful thing?
We have been saying that there needs to be a constitution built up, so that assimilation precedes this. The eating and the drinking, I think, really preceded the calling of Him to mind.
Rem It is remembrance of Himself.
CAC It is “in remembrance of me” in relation to this particular act of breaking bread and giving thanks for the cup. The Lord says “This do” — you do it, but do it for the calling of Me to mind. It is not a dead Christ; it is Christ beyond death. If we miss that, we miss it altogether. It has an active sense of calling to mind. He would have the assembly united in this wonderful way, all having Him in mind. The functioning of the assembly depends on this unity of mind.
[p. 92] Ques What is the significance of when He was “delivered up”? It is not when He died.
CAC I think the great moment of crisis had come. That was the thought: the great moment of crisis. He was just about to be actually delivered up and to go through suffering and death, but He anticipated it, having in mind that the saints were going to continue in the place where He was absent. In doing it the Lord regarded His own body as given and His blood poured out: He was anticipatively beyond His sufferings and death. He says, ‘Now I want the saints of the assembly to call Me to mind in that manner’; we come into the apprehension of the love of the Christ that we know. As Christ is now, He has given His body for the assembly, and His blood has been poured out — that is how we know Him. So the calling of the Lord to mind is not our individual thinking of Him in what He has done for us; we can do that all the week. There is this peculiar privilege of doing it collectively, so that all are unified, so that this blessed Me fills every mind.
That is the starting point of assembly privilege. We cannot move at all until we are all of one mind. It should have a pervading influence all the week, but there is a remembrance at the beginning of the week when the saints together experience this peculiar unity of mind, which brings all together, so that we merge. It is not like so many individuals. We are so intensely individual. I was looking last week through the epistles to find something of individual privilege or blessing and I found it very difficult to find any! It is so beautiful that the Lord unifies us in the calling to mind of something of which there cannot be a divergent thought. The Supper properly taken would absolutely abolish every bit of discord.
We see the importance of this matter to the Lord. He had given it officially in the presence of the twelve apostles, who represented the assembly administratively; but when He gives it from heaven it is almost a personal matter. It [p. 93] is a personal communication to Paul. He cherished the thought of it and wanted it to be set amongst the assemblies, such as ourselves. We need to cherish the thought of the assembly, for it is the assembly that eats the Supper. A young person says, ‘I should like to remember the Lord’, but that is not quite the divine thought, there should be the thought of being identified with a certain company of persons.
We have been noticing that it is not until chapter 11 of this epistle that he speaks of the Supper, and morally we have to travel over the previous ten chapters, we cannot jump into the matter. He speaks of many and various matters before He comes to the Supper.
Rem The Supper is introductory to what is coming.
CAC I think the Lord had a good deal in view that He did not unfold to the Corinthians, because they were not ready for it. The apostle suggests that he has many things to add later on, but he brings in this great unifying power by the calling of the Lord to mind in this precious and distinctive way.
Ques “The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up” — would it be suggestive of intense affection?
CAC Yes. And yet the Supper was being brought in correctively. There was great disorder in Corinth, they were making it applicable to saints in whatever state they may be. They made it available to the most carnal believer on the face of the earth. The apostle speaks of their eating and drinking in a carnal way and even bringing judgment on themselves. It does not enter into the Supper at all.
Rem I should like to be clearer as to the difference between blessing the loaf and giving thanks for it.
CAC When the Lord blessed the loaf He gave it a new and spiritual import which never attached to any loaf before; but in giving thanks the Lord places Himself on ground where there was nothing to do but to give thanks — it is not a mournful occasion. Tears shed over the Lord’s [p. 94] sufferings at the Supper are not pleasing to the Lord. It is not the right time and place. You can do that in your room, but do not bring tears into the assembly. It is a moment of thanksgiving, a joyful occasion.
It is important to notice that the whole service has the character of calling to mind from the giving thanks for the loaf, which is the beginning of the service, to the drinking of the cup, which is the end of the service of calling Him to mind. The Supper so gone through spiritually leaves the Lord filling every mind. That is the sort of material for the service of the assembly.
Ques We have spoken of the Lord giving His body for the will of God, here it is “for you”. Is it included in the thought of the will of God?
CAC I think all that was accomplished for God in the giving of His body is conferred on the assembly — the whole value of it. The whole value of the incarnation and the giving of His body in death is for the assembly, and we come to it afresh each Lord’s Day. It is not that we do this Lord’s Day what we did last, we come afresh. So you can understand how the assembly becomes suitable to the Lord.
It seems to me that a company of persons, fifty or so, who actually come together, find things become so unified that there is no divergent thought. And with all unified in thoughts of this wondrous Person, what is there to hinder the Lord coming to us? There is everything to attract Him! He may not come to us if we are not attractive to Him. I think that is sound doctrine. He fills every mind. The effect of the Supper has failed of its object if it does not fill every mind with Himself. Then, there is a clear course for the Lord, He does not keep away from those who attract Him. The spouse says, “The voice of my beloved! Behold, he cometh Leaping upon the mountains, Skipping upon the hills” (Song of Songs 2: 8). He will come with the utmost speed if the conditions are there. The calling of Him to mind is with this in view. It is not for our comfort or ‘a means of grace’ [p. 95] for us, though we shall assuredly get that. But the object is so to unify us that we are attractive, and the Lord says, I cannot keep away from that company. He will not keep away if these conditions are there. He comes as an Object of worship; He comes in all the greatness and wonderfulness of what He is as having given His body. Then the assembly’s relation to Christ, and Christ’s relation to the assembly can be developed affectionately.
Rem Everything up to that point is prescribed, and nothing after.
CAC Yes, quite so! We have no divine authority to do anything else before we break bread, not to carry on a little service before it, which has been done. The Lord has expressed His mind: This do for the calling of Me to mind. It is not an open matter, if our affections are right, we shall carry out His mind.
Rem Sometimes we try to work up to it as an object.
CAC In christendom they have what they call ‘the Lord’s supper’ at the end of the service. That is not the divine thought, it is at the beginning (Acts 20: 7)!
With this remembrance in view, I wish we might have this before us, that the Lord’s thought is that it is for the calling of Him to mind (not a state of heart exactly, but a state of mind), which has a unifying effect. I wish we could pray about it and consider it.