THE LORD'S SUPPER

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Acts 2:42,46; Acts 20:7 - 12; 1 Corinthians 11:17 - 25

JT It is important to keep in mind other well-known scriptures, mainly in the gospels, which could be read, for they are evidently put down in the record in view of the general truth of the Lord’s supper being wide-spread and continuing until the end of the dispensation. It is thought that Acts 2 furnishes the early understanding of the Lord’s supper without detail, and what is to be noted is, that it is said that the breaking of bread was in the house, as if it were never intended to be in the temple, never intended to be linked on with judaism as such. Acts 20 furnishes information as to how the early disciples, that is, those in Paul’s day, in fact late in his day, regarded the Lord’s supper and the principles governing it in those days. It would seem as though the Lord’s supper was not understood in Troas, and possibly not understood generally, so that Paul spoke at length as to it before the breaking of bread actually took place. It will be understood that it was a matter of meeting conditions; there was ignorance of the truth. We would, therefore, not imitate the method of speaking at length in the celebration of the Lord’s supper, because the writer says, “we being assembled to break bread”, as if that were the primary thought. There is no suggestion that it was arranged that Paul should speak at length, but, evidently, he knew what was needed.

HDT Was it under Paul’s ministry that the truth of the assembly was fully developed, and is that why the breaking of bread is detached from the house under his ministry and put in the assembly?

JT I suppose that is right. Paul had the ministry of the assembly, as we are told by himself,

and, of course, the Lord’s supper comes under that ministry. But that was not so at the beginning, because evidently the twelve carried on in some measure of understanding; it is said they “persevered in ^[p. 238] the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”, Acts 2:42.

HDT Were you emphasising the house, as over against the temple? The temple was the sphere of testimony, but the breaking of bread was never at any time celebrated there.

JT The Lord evidently intended the truth to be carried on in the temple in the general sense, so we are told that after the Lord went up, the disciples “returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God”, (Luke 24:52,53). The praising and blessing continued, but it is certainly notable that the breaking of bread was never celebrated there, according to the facts given.

GHMcK In Acts 20 the breaking of bread was evidently on the first day of the week, but in Acts 2 it refers to it being every day. Is that right?

JT That is probably so. Acts 2:46 says, “And every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house they received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart”. I think in the early days of the revival there was something of that, but according to this chapter, it gave way to the first day of the week.

HDT Does that not show that the truth does not always come out at once? We have to be prepared for fresh developments.

JT That was in mind for this time; the truth did not come out immediately, in fact many years elapsed before it all came out, and as we know, the Lord intended to make Paul a special vessel, an elect vessel.

GHG The breaking of bread in the house ^[p. 236] would be more of a tentative matter in carrying over. Would you help us practically as to the breaking of bread today in a house, if a hall is not available?

JT It is quite in order. Houses were used in several instances in the early days, but they would be regarded, I suppose, as loaned for the purpose.

Rem The gatherings in them would not be regarded as part of the household establishment, but as the assembly there generally.

JT “Have ye not then houses for eating”, (1 Corinthians 11:22). They are carefully separated from the Lord’s supper, but there are several instances in which the households of the saints were used, and, of course, it is so now, too.

AM You stressed elsewhere the Lord taking the place of house-father as being part of Luke’s ministry. Had you this in mind at all in being carried through into our day, not just a transitional state of things?

JT It would seem as if it were so. The Lord’s supper was not celebrated at Emmaus; the Lord laid down household ideas. There must have been some thought in His mind of His own household. We have been looking elsewhere at certain scriptures which indicate that the Lord carried down the household idea from the Old Testament. In Isaiah 8:18, it is said that “I and the children that Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel”. The idea of the Lord having children in that sense has to be understood. It is recorded in John several times, and elsewhere, so that we have to distinguish between His children and the children of God. For instance in John 21:5 the Lord says to the disciples who had gone fishing, “Children, have ye anything to eat?” as if He exercised household authority over them. Others too, I suppose from the standpoint of moral authority, such as John the evangelist and Paul, spoke of the saints as their children.

GPP Would the thought of children link with ^[p. 237] the wilderness setting in which we partake of the Supper, and the care we need?

JT That is what has been thought. It opens the door for young people, helping them to come out of Christian households to obtain their places in the assembly. We are now looking at the great thought of the Lord’s supper as to its development up to Paul’s time, up to the full position of the dispensation as so set out, and it helps us to deal with error, which is very prevalent as to the Lord’s supper, especially among the sects, and even others who have separated, called brethren. Hence the Lord has greatly helped us in recent years as to the principles governing the Lord’s supper, and it is thought it may be helpful here today.

HDT Why do you think there is such absence of reference to the breaking of bread in the details given of Paul’s ministry in the various places? Assemblies were set up, and elders chosen, and various places to which epistles were written are given in a fair amount of detail. Why was the breaking of bread left almost to the end of the historical side?

JT Of course, it is found in Acts 2, as we said, and as regards 1 Corinthians, it was comparatively early in Paul’s ministry. The chronological reference would be in Acts 18; he was not even yet imprisoned, as far as I know. We cannot just give the chronological dates of the records in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but I would say they are very much earlier than John. The Lord intended that the gospel records would carry with them the truth as to His supper.

JNG Would you say something as to Acts 2:42, “the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”, the order in which that is put?

JT You have noticed that the word is “persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. I suppose the thought is to assert the authority of the apostles at that early date. There is no reference to Moses as might have been expected; the apostles take the lead in the Lord’s mind, evidently they were all included. So that they must have moved together in those days. It is very important that their authority should be asserted. The Jews would take advantage of their illiteracy, making little of them, but the Lord puts them in front as to teaching, “the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”. The word “fellowship”, of course, means that they were brought on to the same thing; they moved in the truth together. According to the first epistle of John, their fellowship was regarded as distinctive; it was not an ordinary allusion to fellowship, I would think; “the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”. 1 John 1:3 says, “and our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”.

CPP Is the same idea of authority continued in the apostle Paul in speaking of what he prescribed in 1 Corinthians 11:17, “in prescribing to you”? Is that the word for us?

JT It is a formal reference to his method of laying things down, as in the word at Thessalonica, “opening and laying down”, (Acts 17:3); it would seem as though Paul had certain ways. For instance, he made a sign in one case with his hand (Acts 13:16); and then he also indicates that in all his epistles his signature was there, as though the Lord would give him a distinction above others. Then in Acts 13:13 it speaks of “Paul and his company”, as though the Lord was allowing him certain latitude as being such a distinguished servant, and as having so many portfolios, you might call it, because he had so many services given to him. You wonder at the Lord having it that way, but it ^[p. 239] shows how He distinguishes a brother, a minister, having confidence in him.

HDT That authority seems almost to extend to the way in which he sent Timothy here and Titus there. Would that show that there was not only teaching, but authority recognised by those whom he called fellow workmen?

JT Very good. It has often been noticed that they were delegates; that is really what they were, and they had the same authority as he had to appoint. The Lord evidently saw the need for that to establish authority.

PL You have on another occasion emphasised this word ‘discourse’ in Acts 20. Is it to enforce the thought of authority?

JT There are two words as you know; one, ‘discourse’ and the other ‘speaking’. It would seem that the idea of a discourse is more what in our own times came in with the revival; there was much discourse then, and even papers written for instruction, whereas now it is almost invariably that we have Bible readings, and notes taken, and the notes are printed. The discourse was carried on quite lengthily according to Acts 20, and later they broke bread, and then they had conversation, as though the apostle had in mind that the conversation would give full opportunity to open up the details as to the truth.

AM Would that carry through perhaps to our day in 2 Timothy 2:2, where Paul says, “the things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men”? Paul’s words are carried on authoritatively to our day.

JT To succeeding generations, as has often been remarked.

HDT Would the many witnesses, which have been quoted, be a safeguard against inaccurate ^[p. 240] reports?

JT I should think so. Matthew stresses the two or three witnesses, as also 2 Corinthians. If there is a question, there ought to be authoritative witnesses.

JPsn Does that matter come in in regard to the Lord’s supper, in that the Lord, when inaugurating it, had the twelve with Him; and have you in mind that their teaching should be borne in mind by us, Paul giving the filling out of it in his discourse?

JT Yes, and it is notable that in the synoptic gospels, you always have the reference to the fact that the twelve were with the Lord. When His Supper was inaugurated, the twelve were with Him. It looks as though He intended to have them as His authoritative witnesses. Luke says the twelve apostles were with Him; just the word “twelve” is used in Matthew and Mark, but Luke says the “twelve apostles”, as though their authority is to be recognised as meeting every difficulty about the Lord’s supper. We know from history that difficulties were great, especially at the time of the Reformation and the well-known Martin Luther. But the truth is accredited unquestionably in Matthew, Mark and Luke, the Lord foreseeing that the effort to bring forward wrong thoughts must be met by authority. In more recent times, many of us know there have been many difficulties raised, extending back to nearly fifty years ago, difficulties as to the Lord’s supper, and it took many a year to assert what was true about it, and perhaps we have not reached the end yet as to difficulties, but the hope is that there might be some help today.

WHW Does this matter of authority come before us again in what the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 11:23, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you”? Does this indicate the heavenly setting from whence he received authority from the ^[p. 241] Lord?

JT You could hardly get a more conclusive addition, to what is said in Luke than when Paul has this special word from the Lord, “that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread”, 1 Corinthians 11:23.

HDT Would the recognition of the authoritative side give greater scope for the affectionate side? Paul says, “I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you”, but he immediately speaks of “the Lord Jesus 1 Corinthians 11:23”. Would that be authority making way for affection?

JT There is always a note of affection in the words “Lord Jesus”. This was especially so when the apostle met with the elders from Ephesus.

JPsn In suggesting Acts 2, is there anything in mind as to the position in which we are found in the breaking of bread? Is it a wilderness setting in a testimonial position?

JT That is good. Some years ago, it was asserted that the breaking of bread was in the land; a well-known assertion, and many held to it. But the Lord has made it clear; in fact J.N.D.’s own note said that the breaking of bread is in the wilderness, and that helped us at that time.

HDT Did not that matter bring to the notice of the saints the importance of seeing the way the truth is set out in order in the Scriptures, for did you not say at that time that the details of the Supper were given in an epistle that viewed the saints, not in the land, but in the wilderness? Did that not call attention to an important principle?

JT I think it did. I remember it being mentioned just in that way, because John does not speak of it at all; whereas if it was to be in the land, you would have expected John to have mentioned it.

WHW In Acts 20, is the authority seen in the discourse linked up in some way with the apostle coming down and the boy being restored to life?

^[p. 242] Is life in the maintenance of the Supper, dependent upon authority being there?

JT He said, “his life is in him”, (Acts 20:10), as though the apostle had discernment, even more than Elijah had. Paul said, “his life is in him”; possibly an allusion to what is common among the sects, for whilst there is much disregard for the truth, yet life is there; by discernment we find out it is there, and hence our wisdom is to be patient.

Ques What is the bearing of prayers in Acts 2:42?

JT We know that the disciple asked the Lord to teach them to pray, according to Luke 11:1, and the Lord did so immediately. Prayer is outstanding as a feature of our dispensation, as indeed it was in the earlier dispensation.

HDT As the truth developed towards Europe, the great emphasis was on prayer at Philippi. Would that stress the need for the saints apprehending the importance of the prayer meetings on Monday evenings?

JT That is very good. The women resorted there, and it was where prayer was wont to be made. In the prison, it says Paul and Silas, “in praying, were praising God” (Acts 16:25); that is, they began in prayer, and then they praised God. So prayer is a fundamental practice among the brethren.

RMY At what point in the teaching does the Supper link on with the service of God, as we know it?

JT Does not the setting of Acts in itself indicate how the teaching is to be linked on with the Lord’s supper? Matthew would say, “Where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20. But as to the exact scripture, save Acts 2, I do not know that one can say very much, but there can be no doubt that the fact that it is mentioned so early as Acts 2:42,

^[p. 243] would, indicate that the breaking of bread would be resorted to early. They broke bread in the house, which is peculiar, as though, as yet, they had not regulated themselves by the first day of the week; it would look as if they were apt to have recourse to the breaking bread as a special thing to hold them together. In the beginning, in the early part of the revival, I believe the brethren had the same thought. I believe when the Bible was revised in France, that they had the breaking of bread, but it is a question of information.

AM In Acts 2, the thought of the service of God, as it says “praising God”, seems somewhat separated from the Lord’s supper, but it would have in mind, would it not, that that was definitely the service of God there?

JT Quite so. It is said, “every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house, they received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people; and the Lord added to the assembly daily those that were to be saved”, Acts 2:46,47.

HDT Does that not show that the Supper, as we have it now, is part of the service of God in its testimonial setting? Would you think that the reference to the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7, so quickly followed by the mention of Ephesus, in verses 17 to 35, would show that if we follow Paul, we do not stay at the testimonial setting; there is something that develops out of it in relation to his other epistles?

JT And then this allusion to the adding, “having favour with all the people; and the Lord added to the assembly daily those that were to be saved”, Acts 2:47. Is there not a suggestion that the breaking of bread would be linked on with that? Certainly it is now. It has become a way with us, and I am sure it is ^[p. 244] approved of by the Lord, too, that the fellowship is linked up with the breaking of bread. 1 Corinthians 10:16, which we did not read, speaks about the fellowship, and the Lord’s supper is brought into it, the fellowship of the cup, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion” or ‘fellowship’ “of the blood of the Christ?” That is just to bring out the place the fellowship has as binding us together in everyday life, but the breaking of bread, the cup being mentioned first, is a symbol of the fellowship generally, so that the Lord’s supper is clearly used as introductory for persons coming into fellowship. We say that such and such an one is breaking bread today or next Lord’s day, and I believe it is right, it is in keeping with 1 Corinthians 10:16. The facts are used to preserve incomers from idolatry and from judaism; the word fellowship or communion implies protection, for young people too, that they are committed to something. They are committed to their brethren, not only to the Lord, but committed to their brethren every day of the week. So that the question may be raised as to the fellowship if anything is disregarded by any one of us, the fellowship is the bond; we are bound. We are violating it if we are disregarding the truth.

RRT Is it the thought that this term in verse 42, “breaking of bread”, includes the whole service; that is, both the bread and the cup?

JT I think so. “The breaking of bread” is a formula for the whole Supper.

GHG Would the teaching of the twelve, particularly in the Acts, have a bearing on the truth of the Supper, as far as they knew it at that point?

JT I think so, as far as they knew. It is quite clear that they did not know very much, but they knew enough for the Lord to approve what they were doing.

HDT Is there a certain emphasis in Paul’s ^[p. 245] ministry of the local setting in which the Supper is taken, and thus Troas represented that?

JT It would seem so. The Spirit of God stresses that, and I suppose particularly to show that Paul was concerned about having the truth. Then the seven brothers there, who accompanied him, were evidently to be witnesses. Their local positions are mentioned, as though they represented his work. All this as to facts is important. Difficulties arise, and we are short of facts that are needed to verify certain occurrences; hence the importance of going over the ground as it is here, according to what we read today.

JPsn Would you say that we need to take up the Lord’s supper in simplicity? Are we not encouraged in what we have recorded in Acts 20 that after Paul discoursed, he went down and they brought the boy away and broke bread immediately, the young being brought into it as the matter is taken up in simplicity in the testimonial position?

JT I think so. He is called a boy, showing that he was developing. There was something in that boy that had been neglected evidently, but he is now called a boy, as though he was developing in age.

HDT Is it important that Paul goes up again; he resumed his own proper level? Would spirituality show itself in the way it can adapt itself to the circumstance, but rise to its own level immediately afterwards?

JT “And there were many lights in the upper room where we were assembled. And a certain youth, by name Eutychus” (Eutychus is called a youth first), “sitting at the window-opening, overpowered by deep sleep, while Paul discoursed very much at length, having been overpowered by the sleep, fell from the third story down to the bottom, and was taken up dead. But Paul descending fell upon him, and enfolding him in his arms, said, Be not troubled, for his life is in him. And having gone up” (what you refer to, meaning that the level begun is maintained), “and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away. And they brought away the boy alive, and were no little comforted”, (Acts 20:8 - 12). So we have this vivid picture of love being active, even though things were not just right.

EAK Would you say a word as to the upper room in Acts 20 as linking on with Acts 1, and the omission of any reference in Acts 2?

JT I suppose the upper room is to link on with what is in the gospels. You are struck with the detail the Lord gives to Peter and John, as to how they are to find the upper room, how they are to proceed to locate everything that the Lord has in His mind, and I think the thought is to maintain the authority of the gospels as entering into that fact, linking on with Acts 1. So that there is a clear indication that the records in the gospels were authentic as indicative of the dispensation, and how it was inaugurated. In Acts 1, the personnel are there, the actual names of the apostles are given, as though the Lord would have it to be so. They were staying there, it says; it would seem that it was a kind of rendezvous for them, they could come and go, I suppose, in holy liberty with one another. Then there is the place that the women had; to bring out the actual facts of the early days, that women had such a place in the position; the Lord’s own mother was there, she had a peculiar place, because the Lord had given her over to John the evangelist; He called John her son, and He called her John’s mother, so that John brought her into his own home. All that is to bring out the simplicity of the early days, and how love operated, which is a great matter.

HDT Love was operating in Paul when he enfolded this boy in his ^[p. 247] arms.

JT You can understand how the parents would never forget what a man of love Paul was.

WCB It would appear from Acts 20 that Paul broke the bread. Does gift enter into the actual breaking of the bread, and giving thanks for the emblems, today? We have in Scripture only two that I know of who broke the bread, the Lord and Paul. Would it involve anything special in the one who broke the bread and gave thanks?

JT “And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away” (verse 11). I think that would be right that Paul did it, but then the Lord did it in Emmaus. But as to ourselves now, I doubt very much if anything is to be made of the one who breaks the bread.

HDT Anyone who was free to serve the saints would be empowered of the Lord in affection to do the thing in a comely way. Does he not serve the brethren, not the Lord exactly, but he does what the saints have come together to do, on their behalf, in a certain sense?

JT In coming together, we meet one another first, the Lord is not there really. It is in the breaking of bread He is made known; it is very likely that it is there that He reveals Himself to us, but it is a prime matter that we meet the brethren, the Lord looks for that, He looks for right relations between the brethren before He comes in.

CPP Would that be involved in the thought of assembling, “we being assembled”?

JT Just so. It is, “we being assembled”, a mutual thought.

HDT Indeed, that is said twice, “we being assembled to break bread” (verse 7), and in the upper room “where we were assembled” (verse 8). Does that not emphasise it?

CHG In that connection, in what way are the ^[p. 248] saints to be particularly regarded? Is it as brethren one of another?

JT That is right; as to their attitude and conduct, all are viewed as one. It is a remarkable thing that Matthew quotes the Lord as saying, “Drink ye all of it” (Matthew 26:27). In Mark it says, “they all drank out of it” (Mark 14:23). That helps as to discipline, the all must be brought in.

TRY What place in the Supper has the Holy Spirit?

JT He is there all the time, I would think. The Lord says He is with you always, “he abides with you, and shall be in you”, (John 14:17). He is here now, and I believe that He may be traced into the households of the brethren; the children of the saints are holy, according to what Paul says, and the Spirit would promote that and give the children to understand that they are of personal account to the Holy Spirit, because He is ready to seal them as believers.

JNG Does the reference to Paul’s departure on the morrow indicate a certain note of urgency in taking in the teaching relative to the Supper?

JT Quite so. The thing ought to be done at once if we are proceeding, though we are to tarry for one another as it says in 1 Corinthians 11:33. But at the same time, there ought to be order, and time should not be wasted.

HDT Would you allow a suggestion that since it is said that Paul was “about to depart on the morrow” (Acts 20:7), and “so he went away” (verse 11), we have some warrant for what we understand now, that the Supper, whilst set in a local setting and taken there, has something further in view in its development?

JT What is the further thing?

HDT I was thinking of the service of God, as we are privileged to have part in it now. I wondered if Paul going to Miletus and calling over the elders of Ephesus, and the mention of “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), would show that whilst the Supper was specific in itself, it had in the Lord’s mind, something more in view in regard to assembly service.

JT It is introductory to the whole service, so it should not be taken by itself. In the Church of England, they keep part of the so-called Supper for administering to the sick ones, which is all just a perversion of the truth. The Supper is part of the service of God, and that is the object in mind in the way it is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10, and then running into chapter 11, making way for headship. The truth is there, and it is only a question now of time to enter upon it. So there is to be the preparation for change, if we are to partake of the Lord’s supper, for it is from glory to glory, and there is the necessity for readiness for any change that is required in the services, because they run right on to the thought of the Father and to the thought of God. Changes are necessary, and the point is whether we are ready for any such change. John, the prophet, says, “I became in the Spirit” (Revelation 1:10); that is change.

GHG Does the Supper move every holy and spiritual impulse in the saints in response to Christ, to the Father and to God?

JT It is introductory. The Lord has the full place there, it is His supper, it is not the Father’s supper. But then there are other glories, “from glory to glory”, (2 Corinthians 3:18) and other glories will link on with other divine Persons, with God and the Father, and even a way for the Spirit has to be made.

GHG Is God Himself the great ultimate, in that way, in the service?

JT “That God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28); not ‘all and in all’, but “all in all”, that is to say, God is in us.

WHW Do you think in Acts 20 the change ^[p. 250] is seen in the boy? When he is taken up alive, they proceed with the Supper.

JT I have no doubt. The word “boy” is not to be overlooked. Eutychus is called a youth first, but I think the word “boy” means a little less development in him than the word “youth”. The word “youth” is used for priesthood in Exodus 24, but the word “boy” is a development, you might say, from childhood.

CD In connection with the boy, Paul says his life is in him, and there is a footnote to the word “life”, ‘or soul’. Does that suggest the ability to respond in affection to Paul’s embrace?

JT I suppose so. The word “soul” is a very important one; Elijah made much of it, he cried to Jehovah and said,”Jehovah, my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again!” (1 Kings 17:21), and it did return to him. Unless we have souls, we shall be wanting. The thought of the soul would imply feelings.

HDT It says of Paul at Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, that he was “establishing the souls of the disciples”, (Acts 14:22). Would he always remember that the saints were capable of taking on those feelings?

JT Quite so. We often say there is want of soul, that persons are soulless. It is really a question of right feelings.

RHG Why is the additional thought of eating brought in in Acts 20:11? “Having broken the bread, and eaten”.

JT It shows that the bread is to be eaten, it is a meal really. It is a spiritual thought, but it is actually a meal, but it is not to be treated on the level of an ordinary meal, for the apostle says, “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking?”1 Corinthians 11:22. So that whilst the Lord’s supper is a literal meal, yet it is peculiarly spiritual, and introduces what is initial in regard to the service of God. In Matthew it says, “as they were eating” Matthew 26:26; that is to say, before the Lord’s supper was introduced, they were already eating the passover, which is a very important matter. 1 Corinthians 5:7,8 says, “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed; so that let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. It is a question of eating, and that raises the whole question of what should be eaten and what should not be eaten, as we have in the typical books in connection with the use of persons or creatures; it is a question of cleanness. The saints as the one body in 1 Corinthians 10 enter into the idea of the eating, that is how we appropriate one another.

HDT May I ask a question in regard to Paul going away? If we follow Paul, do we, so to speak, arrive at Ephesus? Is it noteworthy that his prayer in Ephesians 3:19, “that ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God” is immediately preceded by “and to know the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge”? Would affection, in that sense, lead to what we speak of as the great ultimate in the service of God?

JT There is no doubt that Ephesians 3 has a wide bearing in that sense.

JS Would you say a little more as to eating, appropriating one another?

JT It is just a question of appropriation, appropriation of the brethren. Why should we not? It will be so in heaven. Our enjoyment will be largely a question of the brethren:

‘Nor what is next Thy heart
Can we forget;
Thy saints, O Lord, with Thee
In glory met’. (160:8)

That is to say, we meet the brethren there.

BBT Would eating give spiritual constitution ^[p. 252] and strength for what follows? It says, “having eaten”, and then you get the speaking. I was wondering if the eating would help us as to what follows in service Godward.

JT I think so, the appropriation of the saints to a point. We have to be careful, but there is no doubt about it that the saints have to be appropriated, for whom have we but the saints?

Ques Would it necessitate a right state involving assimilation?

JT Just so. I think the typical allusions to the clean and unclean animals help us as to that, they are just types of persons, and so we enjoy each other. Why do we visit each other? why do we seek each other’s company? and above all why do we sit down together at the Lord’s supper?

JS We really cannot do without one another. That is the sense, is it?

JT Just so. We cannot do without each other in eternity, and we certainly are not supposed to be without each other now.

AHS Is it suggested in 1 Corinthians 10:17, “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”?

JT That is it; “we, being many, are one loaf, one body”. The “we” refers to the body.

RHG Would appropriating one another preserve us from the snare into which the Corinthians fell, each one eating his own supper before others?

JT Quite so. There they were selfish, they were formed into coteries of partisans, they were partisan. 1 Corinthians 11:19 says, “For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you”. There were sects and that broke up the Lord’s supper. Paul said, “When ye come therefore together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20), because they were eating their ^[p. 253] own supper.

FRH Would appropriating one another prepare us for change? I was thinking of John in Revelation speaking of himself as “your brother and fellow-partaker” (Revelation 1:9), and then it says, “I became in the Spirit Revelation 1:10”.

JT I think so. He was ready, too, for the vision; he says, “and I heard behind me a great voice Revelation 1:10”.

GHG Is it to be understood that the word in 1 Corinthians 11:24, “This is my body”, refers to the Lord exclusively, or does it in some way include the saints?

JT I would say that the allusion, “not distinguishing the body” (1 Corinthians 11:29), would be the Lord’s own body. 1 Corinthians 10:17 says, “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. That is to say, they are partakers of the loaf; the saints are viewed as the body, it is not the Lord’s personal body, it is the saints as His body, as He said to Paul, “Why dost thou persecute me?” (Acts 9:4); the “me” were the saints.

CPP In verse 24, is “this do” a matter of giving thanks and breaking, rather than eating?

JT I think so. “For 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”, 1 Corinthians 11:23,24.

JNG Is the memorial, therefore, connected with what the Lord Jesus did?

JT I think so, for it says elsewhere, “after the Lord had given thanks”. The giving of thanks is in mind here, “in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks”. That “giving thanks” is the same as blessing it. Then it says, “broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you”. The “for you” would mean it was for their appropriation. “This do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup”; the “like manner”refers to giving thanks.

HDT Would it be right to say that the fellowship side of the Supper stands directly in relation to the testimonial position, whereas the memorial side makes way for what is not observed in the testimonial setting, that is, the nearness of Christ and His love?

JT Yes. “This is my body, which is for you”. What are you going to do with it? How do you regard it? Luke, of course, gives another word, “given”, but I think it is well to take Paul as final, and I suppose it would mean how you appropriate it.

GHG What is to be understood in the act of the breaking of bread?

JT It is just what He did, and it is given as the title for the whole memorial, it is called “the breaking of bread”. “He was made known to them in the breaking of bread” (Luke 24:35), so the thing has a meaning, and the meaning is in the breaking. It is not that we take a piece of it and eat it; it is the Lord’s action that is in mind. The loaf broken, in one sense, is an allusion to the Lord’s death.

GHG That is what I was really inquiring about, as to what special significance there is in that, as relating to the Lord’s death.

JT It is a question of what He did, the familiarity of it. How touching it is that He has come down to all these details in leaving it with us as His supper! These details enter into it, and we are obliged, if we are faithful, to follow them out, just to do what He did.

HDT I recall that J.N.D. wrote in one of his letters that the breaking of bread is absolutely necessary as a figure. It would preclude our thinking that we break when we partake, would it not? We partake of a ^[p. 255] broken loaf.

JT Quite so. The loaf is broken, by the brother who gives thanks for it, as the Lord did here, “having given thanks broke it” (1 Corinthians 11:24); it is part of the service.

EK At what time would the Lord vouchsafe His presence to us?

JT I would think when we call Him to mind; it says in the footnote to 1 Corinthians 11:24 that the word “remembrance” means ‘calling to mind’. It is not simply a remembrance, but an act of mind, that you call Him into it, as it were, showing the place the mind has in the memorial. He is valuing the place He has in your mind, and I think His coming in would synchronise with that. That is to say, He comes in; your mind is open for Him. The word ‘mind’ is of very great importance on this point, it is not the affections, but the mind.

AHS We call Him to mind as living.

JT We do, we call Himself to mind.