THE LORD'S SUPPER (1)
THE LORD’S SUPPER (1)
JT The subject of the Lord’s supper is taken up at this time according to what it means as the inauguration or beginning of the service of God. It is Paul’s account of the Lord’s supper, of its inauguration. The worship of God did not begin with Christianity; it was inaugurated in the Old Testament; it has come down to us, in that way, and although the Lord’s supper is mentioned in the synoptic gospels and in the Acts and elsewhere, yet it is formally introduced in this chapter as the beginning of the service of God, the beginning of it. Thus brethren rightly have it on the first day of the week, for the book of Acts tells us that that was the custom in the early days, after Pentecost, that they came together on the first day of the week to break bread. The three synoptic gospels contain it, John does not; and what is seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is that the twelve were with the Lord when He inaugurated the Supper. The facts indicate that the twelve were formally there to be the Lord’s witnesses. Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention it so that there can be no question as to testimony as to it.
Much was said and written about it at the time of the Reformation, which somewhat beclouded it, especially Luther’s ministry; but since that time the truth of it has been opened up in a very peculiar and full way; and it is clear that the Lord intended that it should be established in the presence of His own witnesses, His chosen witnesses. So the synoptic gospels afford testimony from the apostles and others who wrote the account of the Lord’s ministry. It is thought, therefore, that at this time we should look into it from these points of view. And of course, one [p. 152] is hopeful that the brethren will speak freely as to it, because it has become, I might say, a burning question among the saints for many years, almost from the time of the revival, but particularly during the past twenty-five years.
PAH Has Paul the final word as to this matter from the Lord?
JT Yes; that is just what I had in mind, that we might see that it is his word. We know from his letters, besides this one, that he was the minister of the assembly peculiarly; and of course, the ministry of the assembly involves the Lord’s supper, not only because of its own value, but because of its importance as giving a lead to the service of God, and opening up the whole thought of the service of God.
RP Would Paul link on with what is historical, and give added new features in regard to the assembly position?
JT Well, I think so; we should not establish the facts properly from the synoptic gospels, or even from the Acts. They are established in these particular letters of Paul’s, the first and second epistles to Corinth; and nothing can be more important than that the saints now should understand that Paul is the minister of the assembly. Colossians especially deals with it, the brethren will remember. It is stated in the first chapter of that epistle “Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly; of which I became minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to complete the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been made manifest to his saints”, Colossians 1:24 - 26.
It is just to bring out the testimony of Paul in its varied features as to this great matter, the service of God, and that this service is in the assembly, which [p. 153] is the vessel in which God is operating. So in chapter 12 of the Corinthian epistle it says “so also is the Christ”, that is to say “the Christ”, truly the saints, as the vessel of testimony. Paul says, “Now, I rejoice in sufferings for you, and I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for his body, which is the assembly; of which I became minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me towards you to complete the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been made manifest to his saints; to whom God would make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the nations, which is Christ in you the hope of glory: whom we announce, admonishing every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, to the end that we may present every man perfect in Christ (Colossians 1:24 - 28)”. These verses fully confirm what has been said as to the ministry of Paul being conclusive and final in all matters, but particularly in matters relative to the assembly.
PAH When you speak of the inauguration of the service of God at the Supper, is it through that means that the Lord secures His place in the midst of His own, and then the service proceeds? Is that the thought?
JT I would say that is just the point, His own place in the midst; and that is what He promises to us in John, because we get from John what was intended to run down the whole dispensation. Hence we have the great fact of the Spirit coming, in John 14:18, and then He says, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”, meaning that the Lord did not intend to leave them to their own resources, but that the Spirit having come. He also would come to them. I believe that is what enters into the present time, and the peculiar way the ministry has come forward in regard to the Lord’s supper. The Lord [p. 154] comes to us, and the synoptic gospels deal with the general facts of the Lord’s ministry, but Paul deals with what is special as relating to the assembly. So that the service of God comes down to us from the Old Testament, but it comes down to us through the twelve apostles. So those who were converted through Peter’s ministry persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, and in the breaking of bread and in prayers. That is the general fact as to the twelve.
Then with the incoming of Paul, we have these special epistles, opening up the truth as to the assembly, bringing forward himself as the minister of it, so that we have things firmly in our hands in that way. It seems to me that the brethren should be thoroughly alive to the present time, because the imminence of the Lord’s coming is apparent, and the Lord would have the truth of His supper entered into fully, so that we might be fit to take on the great service that is for us in the millennium according to Ephesians 2, in which it is said that the assembly is a habitation of God in Spirit, and increases to a holy temple in the Lord; that is, the means by which God will disclose His mind and the order of His service in the millennial day.
ENJ Does what you have referred to in relation to the saints persevering in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, and the breaking of bread and prayers, help us to see that we cannot be negligent about the Supper, but things are to be taken up in an orderly way? It is in disorder elsewhere.
JT That is just the thing, that the idea of three thousand converts in the second chapter was to show what God could bring about, the Spirit having come; and then to show that the result was characterised by the perseverance of the converts in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, meaning that the apostles were the Lord’s own authorised or chosen [p. 155] witnesses to the dispensation, to what He was going to set out in the dispensation; and hence we have the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, but not only that, the breaking of bread and prayers, as if the service of God is formally spoken of, and that it is now in the hands of the twelve. But later it is clear that it was enlarged on, and Paul was brought in as a special witness and servant of the dispensation.
ENJ So that it would be particularly painful to the apostle Paul when he heard of the disorder in Corinth.
JT Just so; it is very good to bring that up, because there is so much disorder now, and especially on this point. There has hardly been anything more controversial than the Lord’s supper, especially during the time of the Reformation, and ever since too. Christendom is divided up into a hundred fragments, it may be, and the Lord’s supper is partaken of by nearly all, but hardly any have the truth of it. I believe the Lord has reserved it for those who are subject to Him and recognise the Spirit, to open up through them the truth as to it, and He is constantly opening up fresh thoughts as to it.
RP You mentioned that the matter was greatly beclouded at the time of Luther. Does the public body still hold to the matter as set out in the time of Luther? Does not Paul’s ministry help us as to the Supper, and what follows upon the Supper being taken, in our moving from what is provisional to what is eternal?
JT I would say, not only what the reformers had, but also what Rome has. We cannot ignore what Rome has, because Rome is the continuation publicly of the original assembly so called; not that it uses the word ‘assembly’. It chooses to use the word ‘church’, and it is externally the representative of it, but its doom is clearly announced; because of the great responsibility it has taken on, its doom is [p. 156] asserted and sure to come. God may be using it to check other things, in what He is doing, but at the same time He is reserving His rights to deal with it in the most thorough way, as the book of Revelation tells us. Nothing is more drastic than the judgments that are intended to be poured out on that system.
ENJ Do you feel that we should continually give thanks to God that the light of the Supper, and the meaning the Lord had in it, has been recovered to us, and particularly that it introduces the service of God?
JT I think it is remarkable that the Lord’s day afternoons almost universally are more or less devoted to the understanding of the Lord’s supper, especially if brethren are moving about in the service as especially equipped for it. We find that they often take the opportunity to seek to open up the truth of the Lord’s supper.
WJB In view of that, should we not have our minds ready for any adjustment that the Lord may bring before us?
JT I think that is right, because you hear of questions all the time about the Lord’s supper, and perhaps it would be hard to get all to agree about everything; and the same is true negatively as to this subject which has been engaging us as to trade unions, that not all of those who are nominally in fellowship will agree on the full thought, and will agree to take action, to take an attitude up before God as to the truth relative to it, and I believe it is a great source of weakness amongst the saints. There should be unity as to the truth of the Lord’s supper, and then as to the truth of this awful thing that is current, that is to say, trade unionism.
DHB Do you think it is essential for us to judge this matter that the apostle draws attention to first of all, as to the divided state of things amongst the saints at Corinth, before we can proceed with the [p. 157] Supper?
JT And especially because this very subject is taken, up in the first chapter. I am alluding to the great damage done by the want of unity amongst the brethren now. In the first chapter of the epistle we are reading, almost immediately after the introductory remarks of the apostle, which are properly objective truth, the tenth verse begins immediately with a word of exhortation by the apostle: “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been shewn to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. But I speak of this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is the Christ divided? Has Paul been crucified for you? or have ye been baptised unto the name of Paul?” 1 Corinthians 1:10 - 13. Then in this chapter that has been read we have again an allusion to dissension: “I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it. For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you”. Not merely divisions, but sects, which is a serious matter. The apostle would bring out into the open the persons who are approved, which implies they are approved in heaven, and that is the point with us, that we should be approved of God, and that we should thus be united in the truth.
RP That is really a basic thought in the assembly, is it not, that we are there intelligently, and know why we are there?
JT And that we are all of one mind. That is, if Christianity is anything at all, it must be permeated by love. Love is the great thing according to chapter 13 of this book. One could do anything, give his body to be burned, and yet be nothing because he [p. 158] has no love; so it is the greatest feature amongst us.
RP Would not the Supper really promote that? There is the apostles’ doctrine and teaching, which is basic to fellowship, and then what flows out of the privilege side.
JT Just so. But then this matter of love: “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”, the Lord said (John 13:35). That is the point of testimony that the Lord makes, and we cannot get on in the truth unless there is love amongst us, and the obligation recognised to be of one mind.
ENJ Would the exercise you have placed before us lately, as to being occupied with the love side of things on the first day of the week, be conducive to our being built up in love? We do not want to be occupied all the time with warfare.
JT Just so. “Love one another”. That is the testimony of John, especially in his epistle, and also in his gospel, as the Lord Himself says, “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves (John 13:35)”. That is amongst yourselves as saints.
Ques Did it require that the apostle set things in order at Corinth so that love might work out its way properly?
JT Well, it is a fact, and chapter 13 is devoted almost entirely to the subject of love.
GWA Would that feature be seen also in the first verse of our chapter as following the close of the tenth chapter, “Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ”? 1 Corinthians 11:1 Quite so. Peter did not say that, nor did John. Paul only uses these words, showing what a place he had in the Lord’s mind as representative of the whole principle and spirit of Christianity. Paul is our leader.
RP “Yet shew I unto you a way of more surpassing excellence”, (1 Corinthians 12:31).
JT Quite so, not simply what he was teaching, but showing; it is shown to us.
CGMcC In relation to loving one another, I was thinking of the Lord’s own words: “This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you”, (John 15:12). The Lord has set the example: “As I have loved you”.
RP The Supper is supremely a love matter. There may be a formal coming together for the Supper, yet Paul has to write over it, “This is not to eat the Lord’s supper”.
JT That is so, he writes a negative over it. We began with verse 17 because it had evidently the first place in his mind, not merely that they were Christians, and had believed the gospel, but the truth of their place in partaking of the Lord’s supper, taking their place in the inaugural side of the truth in the service of God. That is a question of the service of God, and the order of it, and what is essential to it, namely love; and if that be not there, and conduct suitable to it, it is not the Lord’s supper. That is what the apostle means. They were ostensibly there to eat the Lord’s supper, but it was not really so, because of their conduct in the assembly.
WLW Is that why the apostle in commencing, says, “In prescribing to you on this which I now enter on, I do not praise”? What comes to us as to the order of the Lord’s supper, and the service of God, is by prescription, by commandment.
JT Quite so, and the things here prescribed and written to them were the commandment of the Lord, not merely the commandments, but one commandment, as if the whole thing is put under the one heading of being a commandment, making it more and more authoritative.
PRP I would like to ask a little more as [p. 160] to love in its working out. There is the matter of love to the brethren, and there is love to the Lord. Would you distinguish between these two aspects?
JT Love to the brethren, and love to the Lord? In a certain way the brethren are more of a test to us than the Lord Himself. When we sit down to partake of the Lord’s supper, the first thought is the brethren. This may be questioned in many minds, but I am certain it is so. The Lord is saying to us in effect, ‘What do you think of each other? Do not speak to Me of what you think of Me; what do you think of each other?’ Because in truth everyone of us ought to have a judgment about everyone. Not that we are critical of each other, but it is due to the Lord that we should have a right judgment; as David said to Abigail, “Blessed be thy discernment”, 1 Samuel 25:33 as if the Lord would say, ‘I want you to be discerning of each other’; not to be critical exactly, but to know and understand each other.
ENJ Would the necessary constitution for the partaking of the Lord’s supper be built up in that way, that we get on together in our exercises during the week as disciples of the Lord, and as brethren one of another?
JT Just so. In any company of the saints in any town, when we sit down together, leaving our houses and sitting down together to partake of the Lord’s supper, the first thing normally and rightly would be “each other”. Whether we are a dozen, or fifty, or one hundred, do we really love each other? because the Lord is saying to us, ‘I am coming to you, but I am not coming to a divided company; I am coming for My own pleasure and My own joy’; because the point was the joy that was set before Him. That joy ought to enter into the assembly service. The Lord is active from early morning every Lord’s day. He is active as it says in Psalm 19:5, “He rejoiceth as a strong man to run the race”. And the [p. 161] race, of course, would have in mind (if you apply it to the assembly) that He should reach the assembly. And whom does He reach? Is it a company who love one another, that He can admire as having love amongst themselves? I believe that is really what tests our whole position.
GWA Is that why the challenge is raised in verse 22, “Or do ye despise the assembly of God ... ?”
JT Quite so, showing it is not merely a place of meeting, where the brethren meet, but where the saints are, as in John 20, “where the disciples were”. There is no question of a room or a building, but where they are, and what the Lord finds if He comes to us.
Ques In our houses we would hold the assembly as a very elevated thought. “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking?” Would that not test us as to how we regard the saints in our homes?
JT Of course, house room is difficult just now. There is a great scarcity of houses in all countries. At the same time the Lord is saying to us here, “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” That does not mean that every married couple has a house, but it implies that there should be a house for every family. And then the test here is as to how we carry on in the assembly, whether we behave properly. Take the children of the saints coming to the place of meeting, old and young, and those perhaps who are not breaking bread, what does the Lord’s eye meet in coming in among us? Can He approve of everything? Hence the word here is “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?”and so forth. So that He is writing over the whole matter of this first part of the chapter, ‘This is not to eat the Lord’s supper, because your conduct is unsuitable’.
ENJ I was wondering if they were making too much of eating, and if there is a danger of our making too much of any feature of the Supper. We should be balanced and intelligent.
JM Would what you have drawn attention to in chapter 12 be important, “So also is the Christ”? 1 Corinthians 12:12 Christ characteristically in the saints.
JT That is the point. It is a remarkable passage, because as you say it is Christ characteristically: “So also is the Christ”, meaning that the Spirit of God is applying the thought of “the Christ” to the saints, to the assembly as the anointed vessel.
JM So that we cannot overlook even the weakest, and there is to be no disunity in the body.
JT That is the idea, so we value one another and love one another; that is the point. Then we have here another thing which we have already touched on, the matter of sects, sectarianism. That is to say, those who think to come, as you might say, in an ecclesiastical sense, not in a business sense, not as business people, but in an ecclesiastical sense. They have an ecclesiastical distinction of their own; they have what belongs to the assembly, and yet they are keeping to themselves, and making divisions.
J.M. Schools of opinion?
JT Just so. I think you can see the point I am trying to make — that we may be together in an ecclesiastical sense, having importance in our own minds in that sense, not because we are well educated people, or even having social distinction, but because we have an ecclesiastical character, and on that ground are important to each other. That is exactly what they were doing, and it was displacing love. Anything of that kind which makes us important in each other’s eyes, whatever it be, tends to sectarianism, to divide us, and shut out love.
CWA “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Corinthians 10:17)”. Is that the divine thought?
JT Quite so. We are expressing it in our [p. 163] partaking of the loaf and of the cup, and there is to be no effort to make ourselves distinctive.
JSP Do we get the great example of love in the Lord? Hebrews 12:2 says, “Who ... endured the cross, despising the shame”. He sets aside everything for the joy that was set before Him.
JT How touching it is, and I believe He had the assembly in mind. Although the full thought of His joy may be in that passage, it certainly involved the joy He has now as He comes into the assembly.
JSP I was thinking of our side of it. We take it on. Would it mark us characteristically?
JT Well, that is what we are endeavouring to say to each other now, that we might help and instruct each other as to the reality of Christianity, the dispensation we are in; and so the thing to be noted in this section is the place the word “body” has. In this chapter it is said, “I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood”. That is to say, the Lord’s own body, His personal body is in mind here, and He says, It is for you. It is intended to be very touching. The Lord says, It is for you, therefore it is a question now of how we regard the Lord’s own body. And then in chapter 10, we have another word about the body, that is to say, the apostle says, “I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say 1 Corinthians 10:15”. That is what I was endeavouring to say a moment ago. We have a judgment of everything; we are not to be critical of each other, but have a judgment of each one, a true judgment; so, “do ye judge what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood [p. 164] of the Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion, of the body of the Christ? Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body 1 Corinthians 10:15 - 17”. The word “body” here in chapter 10 refers to ourselves, that is to the saints, whereas the word in chapter 11 refers to Christ’s body. It is a question of the holy feelings that are intended to affect us as to the Lord’s own body, as having been into death; and it comes before us in the Supper, in the bread and in the cup.
RP Would you say that is peculiarly for the saints in this dispensation — “My body, which is for you”?
JT Well, that is what I was thinking. It is for you. How do I take that? How do I understand it? I can more readily understand, perhaps, the saints as called the body, but how do I understand the Lord’s body for me? “This is my body, which is for you”. When the Lord says “for you”, He means for ourselves, for the saints. What a portion we have in His body!
JAA This is the body in which He suffered as on earth, is it?
JT I think so.. The body that Mary anointed He says, “She has beforehand anointed my body for the burial”, (Mark 14:8).
RP Do we think of Him being in that body historically, or in the body that He is in now?
JT The latter. The body in which He was historically has been placed in the grave, and we speak now in a holy sense, a reverential sense, of the Lord, but His body has become changed. He is the same Person, and you might say it is the same body, but it is not just the same, because it is His body of glory; we have to understand what that means, and His body of glory is not His body in which He died. Paul says, “His body of glory (Philippians 3:21)”. We are to be conformed to His body [p. 165] of glory.
PAH And in calling the Lord to mind, we are thinking of Him as He is.
JT That is right, but we are brought in too. I think that He is considering us in speaking to Paul, which, of course, peculiarly enters into what we are saying. In speaking to Paul the Lord said, “Why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4) It is the Lord now risen that is there. At the same time He is to be understood in the place of suffering, that He is suffering in His saints, not in His own body, but in His saints’ bodies.
Ques And is the Lord thinking of us in love as He would come to us, the saints perhaps in the suffering position, He is speaking to us there?
JT I think so; that is just the way we should take it on, because it would call Him to mind; surely in that spirit and sense we do that, not as He is glorified. He is not actually suffering as in glory, but He is as identified with His saints, and in His saints He is suffering; and hence when He asks to be remembered, to be recalled and borne in mind, I would say it is that He is going through the scene of sufferings with us; He is actually in it, in the sense that He comes to us.
CTMcC “The night in which he was delivered up” is tonight for the saints?
JT That is a good way to put it. So the Lord says to Paul, “Why dost thou persecute me?” (Acts 9:4) Literally Paul might say, ‘I have never seen You, Lord, I am not persecuting You’, but the Lord would say, ‘You are doing it in My saints’.
Rem The Supper is really in that setting. But then there is a new and spiritual interest that Paul has in mind, the body of Christ.
JT I would say that fully, so we may ask, ‘What do they think about Christ?’People express what they think about Christ in their treatment of the saints. That is the way to look at things. The [p. 166] Lord comes into a suffering position as identified with us. He is not here corporeally, He is in heaven, but He comes to us; we have to understand that spiritually.
ENJ “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”, (Matthew 25:40). Is that in principle the same?
JT Very good.
Rem You spoke on another occasion of the matter of appropriation, in drawing attention to chapter 10. Is it your thought that we appropriate one another first, and then we appropriate the matter of the Lord’s body for us?
JT I think that is how it comes out. We value each other, for instance. If you take the types of the clean and unclean animals, it is a question of how we regard each other, how we appropriate each other. The saints are clean, and so are fit to be appropriated. The word ‘eating’ is just appropriation. That is what is meant in the type. Eating is just appropriation of the thing.
Rem One feels that we cannot get that matter too clearly. Coming up from our houses we are appropriating one another with a view to the Lord coming in.
JT So that the Lord comes into an approved company that He can take account of with pleasure; we are not irksome to each other. I believe the Lord would keep on at that amongst us, so that we might be fit for translation, because translation is the great thing in mind, and the Lord intends that we should be fit for it, and we can only be fit for it actually as we appropriate what we are to each other, as He does. Our appropriation of each other should synchronise with His.
CP I was thinking that as we assemble together in the truth of being the body, when [p. 167] the Lord comes we have already been instructed in relation to the truth.
JT A very good suggestion. And the Lord is stressing upon us the value of His own to Him, but at the same time to each other. He is not going to have things unequal but wants things balanced, and the balance is as between His appropriation of ourselves, and our appropriation of each other. It is a perfect balance, that is what the Lord is aiming at; so we go up to Him where He is and as He is, as John says, “When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”, 1 John 3:2.