THE SETTING OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE SETTING OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
1 Corinthians 11: 1 - 3; Psalm 17 - Psalm 34
JT It is thought well to call attention to the verses relating to headship at the beginning of the chapter, with a view to speaking of the Lord’s supper. The local position is specially in mind in the epistle, although the universal thought is in mind too in the verse “If any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”. It implies that contention is likely to occur and to hinder the understanding of the truth. So it opens with “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”, and then certain things are spoken of in an abstract way. The abstract thought should be in mind, in view of the concrete truth set out, specially as to the Lord’s supper. Clearly the local position is stressed, and then all that goes with the local position from the divine side in an abstract way, as if everything was there from the divine side, and then the hortatory part begins in verse 10. It is as if the apostle were specially concerned to deal with local conditions, with what might appear among them to cause obstruction to the truth. So that the abstract thought is in mind, beginning at verse 4, “I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus; that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge, (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you,) so that ye come short in no gift, awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you to the end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. We are reminded, at the outset, that everything is there from the divine side in view of what might cause obstruction that might cause darkness. So that everything should be clear in relation to the great subjects to be treated of, specially the Lord’s supper.
[p. 124] Ques Is there any distinguishing thought between the expressions, the Lord’s supper, and the breaking of bread?
JT As the words indicate, the Lord’s supper is a term that covers the whole institution, the whole matter of the bread and the cup. The Lord evidently intended that there should be a designation covering the whole institution of the Lord’s supper. It would be foreseen that it would occasion much controversy, which it has, and the Lord has been pleased to give a term to cover it. It is seen in verse 20 of chapter 11, “the Lord’s supper”. That is the formal thought of the Spirit of God which evidently should cover the matter from the outset to the end. As in Judaism the Passover had a distinguishing feature, so the Lord’s supper has a distinguishing feature in regard to the present dispensation.
Ques Were you going to say something more as to headship as making way for this section dealing with the Lord’s supper?
JT It was needful that if any directions were given in regard of this great subject of headship they should be observed and not be treated lightly. Paul makes a point of the fact that they kept his directions, and then he goes on as to headship, “But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”. Clearly, if this important matter is to be understood, we have to discard contention. The Scriptures and the truth generally, are not to be understood through contention, but through subjection.
WH So would the feature of headship be the setting aside of all contention?
JT That is what I thought. How can God be Head except as we recognise that we are to be subject? How can we expect to reach the truth if we begin with the idea of contention? Some of us are very prone to be contentious and therefore the apostle says, “If any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God”. It does not say the assembly, but the assemblies; meaning that they were all set up on the principle of order. That is from the divine side, and order requires subjection, otherwise we may think as we wish, each having his own thoughts.
PL It is the Teacher and His disciples, in Mark’s gospel, as we approach the Lord’s supper, Mark 14: 14.
JT Quite so. As the subject is approached in the three synoptic gospels the twelve are always in mind, meaning the administrative company. Luke says the Lord “placed himself at table, and the twelve apostles with him”; meaning that He had with Him enough to set out what was in mind in the number, and that there would be enough to deal with any attempt to overthrow it. I believe the twelve were in mind in the sense that there would be enough to deal with any attack on the truth. So that it is said in the second chapter of the Acts, “they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”. There would be enough in those persons to overthrow any attempt at opposition.
JSE Is that why there, is peculiar emphasis in Luke on the apostles?
JT I think so. Although Luke is marked by grace, yet he is also marked by authority.
Ques Is it instructive that headship was first set aside by craftiness?
JT You mean the devil was crafty in setting aside Adam’s authority over Eve.
GCS Does Rebecca covering herself suggest the recognition of headship?
JT I would say that. Isaac is concerned about the camels first, for it says, “he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, camels were coming”, Genesis 24: 63. That would show that there was the means of carrying. Then she inquired about the man that is walking in the fields and the servant said, “That is my master”. Abraham [p. 126] is not said to be master there, but Isaac, meaning that the authority of Christ is there.
RB Do we see that in Abigail in the number of times she called David Lord?
JT Very good. David said to her, “Blessed be thy discernment”, which is a great matter in regard to this point of headship. Then too, when David proposed marriage to her, the feminine thought, involving subjection, is stressed in the persons whom she took. Now the scripture continues, “Every man praying or prophesying, having anything on his head, puts his head to shame. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her own head to shame; for it is one and the same as a shaved woman. For if a woman be not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it be shameful to a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, let her be covered”. Then it goes on further, in verse 10, “Therefore ought the woman to have authority on her head, on account of the angels”. That is to say, the token of the authority under which she stands, shows that the unseen world, the angels above, are concerned about this matter, and certainly, if they are, all the sisters ought to be concerned about it too. As we read in the Scriptures, the angels have had to say to women as well as to men. Certainly the one that came to Manoah’s wife reminds us of subjection in her. He did not come to her husband; he came to her. The husband had to say to him, also, but he hardly shines in what he says to the angel. The angels are thus to be held in regard, for we are told in Hebrews, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation?”. This matter of salvation includes the idea of headship.
PHH So the thought of subjection is vital and essential to true assembly ground and any service in an assembly setting.
JT Hence, in verse 17, Paul immediately refers to the Lord’s supper, but says that what was being done [p. 127] at Corinth had not the character of the Lord’s supper; whereas in verse 23 we are told what the Lord’s supper is. “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. In like manner also the cup, after having supped”. That expression “after having supped” implies a meal, but the Lord’s supper is not an ordinary meal; it is a memorial. Paul says he could not praise them in this; “For each one in eating takes his own supper before others, and one is hungry and another drinks to excess”. Therefore he says, “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking? or do ye despise the assembly of God, and put to shame them who have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this point I do not praise”. He is not ready to commend what they are doing; indeed he condemns it.
AM Is there any suggestion in the title being changed? He says, “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”.
JT I think the title ‘Lord Jesus’ is an affectionate allusion to the Lord. It is found in other settings and usually conveys affection and regard for the Lord.
AM Would the title ‘the Lord’ suggest that what he had received was on the line of authority, whereas whenever one touches the thought of the Supper, affections come into play as suggested in the title, ‘Lord Jesus’.
JT So we have the word, “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12: 3. It is as if the Holy Spirit was needed to bring in the affection and respect that are due to the Lord in His Supper, for it is a question of His Supper.
Ques Does this feature of headship become more essential on account of the character of the day in which we are? Is the light and recognition of headship an [p. 128] element that we would preserve especially in view of our service together?
JT Quite so. What is current generally is just a travesty of the Lord’s supper; hence, in view of the near coming of the Lord, as we all believe, it is necessary that the facts of His Supper should be understood, and that it should continue in its celebration to the very moment of His coming. There is hardly any feature of the Scriptures that has been more stressed of recent times than the Lord’s supper, and the Lord has helped the brethren in it too.
Rem Would you say more as to the memorial that you have spoken of.
JT It is not an ordinary meal, and that brings up the question of our houses. Paul says, “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking?”. There may be a deficiency of houses, but certainly the thought of the house is to be retained. It is not simply the dwelling-place, but the house as a family, as if the household of a believer is a place in which divine order should be set out and family feelings prevail. There should thus be a readiness when we come together, to partake of the Lord’s supper, for we are equal to the order that belongs to it as well as to our houses.
WH Would the thought of the Supper suggest that the family in that sense would be free and able to take part in it restfully, the responsibilities of the day being over?
JT I would say that. How easily disorder is ignored when children are allowed their own way! The word to the jailor in Acts 16 is “Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house”. The pronouns used emphasise the personal side.
HB When he says, “or do ye despise the assembly of God”, is he referring to their using the assembly of God for eating and drinking?
JT He is hinting at it. In fact, they did that, for each one ate his own supper in the presence of others.
[p. 129] The occasion was not intended for an ordinary meal, and they were despising the assembly. The Supper is a memorial and it makes everything of Christ. Where everything is made of Christ, in that sense, then there is room for the whole scheme of divine purpose and the divine service.
AH Would you say a word as to the approved being made manifest? Would they be persons that had rightly used their own houses?
JT I would say that. A well-regulated house is what every head ought to keep in mind, so that the children, who come out of it and come into fellowship, are ready for it, for they are hardly uninitiated. Whereas the truth of the Lord’s supper is initial, yet it makes way for the great scheme of divine purpose, which involves a system in which headship shines. God Himself indeed is in mind as Head, as it says, “the head of Christ is God”.
Ques Do you think the Lord is exercising us in relation to detail, in view of His speedy return?
JT I think so. I think the Lord in His communications to Paul had in mind that the thing should be fully understood, because of its place in the testimony.
JSE Does it imply that in our houses there is to be the element of instruction as to what is proper behaviour in the assembly of God?
JT I think that is the idea. That is the reason for much that the apostle says in chapter 10, which we did not read. There the cup is placed before the bread, which perhaps is something that many do not notice. It is “The cup of blessing which we bless”. It is not what the Lord blesses; it is what we do; that is, what intelligent Christians do, persons who know what they are doing. Chapter 10 belongs to the earlier instruction, of course, and hence it is not a question of the order in the Lord’s supper, but it is the spirit that enters into it, and shows that the cup is well thought of. Whatever is alluded to in it, indicates feeling on the part of the brethren, for it is a feeling matter. “The cup of blessing which we bless”.
[p. 130] That is stressed so that we have the right feelings, such as belong to it. If we have these, they will enter into other things. The whole scheme of the divine mind is intended to be brought into the divine service. The millennium will not afford any such testimony as we are supposed to afford. The angels are in mind here, and they are looking on, as it says, “which angels desire to look into”, 1 Peter 1: 12. Hence the importance of everything being accurate, even with details, so that we are not loose in our handling of things. If we are reverential and holy in our thoughts, then we shall know how to bless. The cup is given the first place in chapter 10, in that light, because it is a question of feeling, and shows how much the Lord attaches to His memorial.
Ques Reference was made to the approved being made manifest; does that link up, in any way, with verse 33, “So that, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another”?
JT Exactly. I would think that would mean that there is to be right feeling toward each other. It raises the question as to how we regard each other, as sitting down at the Lord’s supper.
Ques Does the eating there convey the full thought of the Supper?
JT Yes. I would say it is a question of the whole service of the Lord’s supper. We do not want to sit down piecemeal; we want to be all together. So the Lord says, “Drink ye all of it”. It is a united thing, and we should wait for one another till all are present. Of course, we must not ignore the time, but then, we must not ignore the brethren. On the other hand, they should not ignore us, so that those that are late should be concerned about it. It is said of the Lord that the twelve were with Him; none of them would be late. All is intended to promote love for one another, so that we can say, We are all here. If there are only a few in the locality, well, let it be said, We are all here, for that is a great matter. The Lord values there being no absentees.
JSE [p. 131] Is it to clear us in our minds of any thought of what is social in connection with this great occasion? In Corinth social relations were getting the upper hand.
JT Well, I would say that. The social idea ought to be entirely left out for it is a question of what is suitable to the Lord.
PHH Is the mention of “the assembly of God” to raise our thoughts to a certain level of dignity?
JT That is what I believe. I was alluding to the first nine verses as abstract, and especially from verse 4, because they show that from the divine side everything is there; so that there is really no excuse for any discrepancy. If any one does not know, well, the thing is to inquire and to see to it that he does know, because we are addressed as persons who should know. Paul says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”. There is so much instruction as to the Lord’s supper. Why should we not know about it?
JSE Would not the expression “This is my body, which is for you” lift us all in our outlook upon one another, to the same level as we are in the Lord’s thoughts?
JT Just so. For you means that it is for us. It is not for the saints of the coming dispensation. It is the saints of the assembly that are in mind.
Ques In the words for you, did the Lord have in view the assembly?
JT I think He had the assembly in mind. Paul says to the Corinthians, “I speak as to intelligent persons”. Why should we not be intelligent? There is so much said about the Lord’s supper and so much instruction given, for the Lord intends that the saints should be instructed as to it. I do not know of any part of Scripture that has been more stressed for the last few years, it may be for a quarter of a century, than the Lord’s supper, and still something is coming up about it. If one quotes the apostle in his remark to Timothy, saying, “Let not the assembly be charged”, having [p. 132] in view that certain financial burdens should not fall on it, someone may say, Well, that is nothing; but it is not to be treated as nothing. The assembly is to be regarded in its dignity, and so we should watch things that are charged on the assembly, and see that things that really should not be charged to it are charged under some other account, so as to keep things right. Money, in the sense of its mere financial value, is really nothing in the Lord’s mind. It is a question of His valuation of it, and His valuation of the assembly, and how it should be treated and regarded, because the assembly has the first place with the Lord.
AR Would you say a word as to “This is my body, which is for you”. In the New Translation it does not say ‘which is broken for you’, nor ‘which is given for you’, but just “which is for you”. Is there anything suggested in that?
JT I think it is as though the Lord would say, What a portion there is for you! And we might say it to ourselves, What a portion we have! Do we understand all that relates to it? The idea of appropriation, I think, would enter into the word “for”. It is for us to appropriate all that that body means. So the Lord said of the woman in Simon’s house, “In pouring out this ointment on my body, she has done it for my burying”, Matthew 26: 12. It was His head she anointed, showing how she observed the dignity of the Lord as to His body, for His head, of course, was His body. His head was anointed, but He said she anointed His body. Her act shows how we should regard the Lord’s body, and how much is before us in the Lord’s supper. The Lord said, “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. She is an example for us all and it is leading up to the Lord’s supper in Matthew 26.
JW Does the for you exclude every other family and show that the Supper is entirely for [p. 133] the assembly?
JT I would say that fully. Therefore the need of paying attention to what is said about it, and being intelligent about it, because we are addressed as intelligent persons.
Ques In giving thanks for the bread and the cup you would have what is given by Paul peculiarly in mind rather than what is given in the close of the gospels?
JT Yes. It is the last word. The ministries of Matthew and Mark specially contain instruction for the faithful remnant of Israel, and run on to the millennium; whereas Paul’s ministry is wholly for the assembly. Paul, who, as we know, had other ministries, had the ministry of the assembly, and he brings the Lord’s supper into that because it is a question of the assembly. It is a matter relating to the assembly, and not any other family.
PHH What would be the usefulness for us of the Lord’s supper as set in the gospels? Would it put certain moral features in our souls?
JT Yes. I think it is to show the full significance of the subject by itself. But in order to get the truth of it as relating to the assembly, and the assembly only, then we must consult Paul. His ministry is the last word on all matters relating to the assembly, and especially as to the Lord’s supper.
AAl Is that why the “I” is emphatic, “for I received ...” emphasising that this is fresh light on the Supper?
JT Quite so.
AH Referring again to the sufferings of Christ, how far would you think the apostle would have us to carry those in relation to the Supper?
JT It is a question of instruction. In thinking of the sufferings of Christ which stand related to the Lord’s supper we are to have in our minds what the Lord left behind in the way of sufferings when He went to heaven, for all the sufferings of His saints He feels and regards as His own, as Colossians 1: 24 and 1 Peter 1: 11 and 1 Peter 4: 13 [p. 134] show. The former passage specially shows that a measure, determined by the Lord in His love and wisdom, was left to be gone through by the assembly in order to bring her into full accord with Christ in the place of testimony here in the fulfilment of the will of God. They are therefore to be regarded as the sufferings of Christ which He endures in His suffering assembly; the “me” of Acts 9: 4. In Colossians 1: 24 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”. Paul would fill up “in his flesh” those sufferings that were behind of the tribulations of Christ. He would and did have his part with the saints in these, but further, as the special minister of Christ he suffered for the saints because he loved them. He followed the Lord in this, and in himself portrayed to the saints the sufferings of Christ as continued in the testimony here. Although the Lord was and is corporeally in heaven Paul shows in himself that the Lord would still identify Himself with the suffering position in which His saints are. Paul therefore said to Timothy “Be not therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner”, 2 Timothy 1: 8.
FI Is that not to bring to our minds the thought of His affections as the outcome of His words, “My body ... for you”? It is His love to us, so it is followed on with “in remembrance of me”. According to the note here, that is to call Him to mind. Is that not so that our minds may be filled by Christ on such an occasion?
JT Quite so. Then another thing comes in. We say it is the Lord in glory and that is quite right, but, at the same time, when the Lord is having to do with us now, in relation to His Supper, it is as in our present circumstances, and He is nearby. If He comes to us it is in our present circumstances. He does not take us up to glory in relation to His Supper; He comes down to our circumstances, and therefore He is to be known as with us in the suffering position. I mean as to the actual [p. 135] suffering that the brethren have to endure, the Lord is with them in it. Therefore, the Lord would say, as it were, ‘I am in the town too’. If anything is going on in the town that is causing sufferings to the brethren, the Lord is there too. He is not to be thought of as in heaven. He is down here with us in the place of testimony. As in the midst of suffering for the testimony Paul said, “The Lord is near”. He is at hand. Matthew never says that He goes to heaven. Matthew views Him down here where the sufferings are, so that He has part in them with us.
Ques Is that the difference between Stephen and Paul? Stephen says, “I see the heavens opened”; whereas with Paul it is rather the Lord drawing near to Him and his hearing a voice. Would that suggest nearness?
JT Quite so.
LH Is that why Paul mentions the circumstances here? He says, “The night in which he was delivered up”?
JT Quite so. We might say the Lord is out of all these things, and He is in heaven; but He is down here where we are. He is going through the things with us.
PL Did not Paul get an understanding of that in the vision at Corinth, the Lord saying to him, “I am with thee”, Acts 18: 10?
JT Quite so. The Lord said to Paul, “Fear not”. He was pressing on Paul that he was not to fear. The fear was there, for the actual circumstances to cause fear were there, but the Lord was with him in them. So that the Lord is in the suffering position, and He is to be called to mind thus, for the suffering position in which we are, He was in personally for the will of God. It is not that He is to be called to mind in His place up there, but in the place of sufferings. The sufferings in mind are those in which we have part as now ourselves here for the will of [p. 136] God.
AS Would the verse in John 14 “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you” confirm what you are saying?
JT It does confirm it. He is coming to us. He is not taking us up there but He is coming to us. Matthew never says that He has ascended.
PHH That would make the Lord’s supper a very feeling matter to us in our day.
JT Well, that is what I think it should be too, and some of us, perhaps, feel it more than others, because in our localities we have to go through certain things, but the Lord is with us in them.
JSE Does it help to bear in mind that, in addition to Matthew, 1 Corinthians rarely touches anything that is off the earth?
JT It is the circumstances down here, and the local position is in mind in Corinth. “The assembly of God which is in Corinth”. It is not in heaven, but in Corinth.
RM Would you say a word as to verse 28, “let a man prove himself, and thus eat”. Why does Paul bring us down to the individual?
JT The eating is contingent on his proving himself, which is an important matter.
EM Does the unworthily enter into what you have been pointing out? It has often been connected with persons, but is it not in connection with the manner?
JT It is a question of the way we do things; the attitude we assume and whether we are there in a holy, reverential way. The Lord has that in mind.
Ques Returning to the thought of nearness and the assembly as the place where the Lord is known to be near, would it not preclude references to the Lord on the throne and such like references after the Supper?
JT I think so. I think it is important to keep that in mind. I do not know that we have had it much in our minds, but the Lord Himself is to be regarded as being yet in the place of sufferings with His own. Though He [p. 137] is not here bodily, yet He is in spirit in the place of sufferings, and He knows that we are in them too. (See Revelation 2: 10, 13).
Ques He is linking Himself on with the saints, with the assembly, which is in the place where He was?
JT That is right.
HB Would the reference to His blood in the verse, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” suggest His love feelings?
JT It does. It is “my blood”.
WH Would all this lead on in assembly service to His circumstances? You have been speaking about Him coming into our circumstances in sympathy and support, but would that be in view of our entering into His, as in John 20?
JT I think so. The Lord is speaking about His own circumstances, and so, in the beginning of Revelation, you see Christ in relation to the assembly. It is a symbolical reference, but it is in relation to the assembly as down here; “the seven assemblies which are in Asia”. The Lord is seen there in the midst of them. He is not in heaven but in the midst of them. When we come to the end of the book, the assembly is seen coming down out of heaven, which is another matter altogether, but, in the first section, it is a question of the circumstances the assembly is in, and that the Lord is in those circumstances.
JM So He says to Paul, “Why persecutest thou me?”.
JT Quite so. That is a very good scripture and confirms what we are saying. Paul was persecuting at that time and the Lord felt things. The Lord’s supper is only for us; for the assembly only, because it is a question of His body and of the nearness in which she is to the Lord; the nearness in which we are to the Lord.
LES Would the expression “After having supped” indicate the distinctive place that the cup has in relation to the assembly, in contrast to Judaism?
JT Quite so. “After having supped”. It is carefully distinguished from anything else. It is just the thing by itself, and it is mentioned, I believe, lest the full thought should be overlooked in the second feature of the Lord’s supper. The full thought should be carried through the whole service.
Ques Do you mean the full thought of remembrance?
JT Yes. Quite so.
Rem So that fills up the whole time of the Lord’s absence until He comes.
AMcG I want to be clear regarding the remembrance of the Lord Jesus as absent from the earth. Are we thinking of Him as absent and in glory, or here as feeling with us here?
JT The word “remembrance”, of course, alludes to Himself, but has in mind the conditions in which the assembly is now, with which He is identified. That is what I would understand. There is really no need to introduce the thought of sufferings as regards His present place, but the remembrance carries with it the idea of what is here, where the sufferings are; and the assembly sharing in it, and the Lord sharing with us in it too. As instituting the Supper the Lord was then suffering, for the whole atmosphere around was rife with murderous feelings against Him and His own, as Matthew 26: 1 - 5 shows, but these were not atoning sufferings. The sufferings indicated in Matthew 26 and elsewhere are those in which we have part, as the Lord said to His own in Luke 22: 28, “ye are they who have persevered with me in my temptations”. These sufferings continue and as the saints are in them the Lord is with us, feelingly with us, because we are in the position in which He Himself suffered. “I will not leave you comfortless”, He said, so that He manifests Himself and is known “in the breaking of bread”, Luke 24: 35.
PL So that depth of feelings are assured as thus in concert with Christ in rejection, for all that will [p. 139] follow, in spiritual feeling, in praise, in relation to the upward trend.
JT Quite so. The upward trend will come in the order of the service, for Ephesians contemplates that we are already seated up there, but Corinthians does not imply that nor do the gospels. It is a question of the Lord’s own circumstances in the testimony and the remembrance has those circumstances in mind.
PHH Does Joseph’s word in the prison about remembrance bear that out?
JT Yes. Joseph’s circumstances had not changed. He was in the prison, and the butler says, “I remember mine offences this day”, Genesis 41: 9. Well, that is the position; the sufferings are still present. So that as we have already remarked, the Lord says to Paul, “Why persecutest thou me?”. The Lord in His body, the assembly, is going through the persecution.
AM The “priests of God and of the Christ” in Revelation 20: 6, are a suffering company, are they not? They precede the coming out of the assembly.
JT Well, regarding them as the assembly now, that is important. I do not know that brethren usually attach priesthood to the saints as belonging to Christ, yet it says there that “they shall be priests of God and of the Christ”. So that, at His Supper, the Lord has the priesthood. It is Christ’s matter, and He has His own priesthood.
Ques You mean in relation to Himself?
JT Quite so. He has His priests, and that ought to exercise us all as to whether as breaking bread we are really “priests of God and of the Christ”.
WW Is the Lord looking for those priestly feelings when He joins us in the Supper?
JT I would think so. I think He is having in mind what He has personally. “This is my body, which is for you”. He has the you for Himself.
PL Would His universal heirship as suggested in the reference to Him being the Head of every man, but emphasise, in the Lord’s supper that follows, what He has been bereft of here, and the resulting expectation of sympathy which He counts upon from the assembly?
JT Quite so. I think it is a very lovely thought that the Lord has His own priests. I mean to say He carries on Himself and the Father would make full allowance for that. The Lord would make full provision for the Father, but the Father makes provision for Him.
Ques Is there power to move on to the other side unless we are well established in that which is for Christ personally?
JT Well, I think that is good. I was thinking, at the beginning of our meeting today, that there are a good many young here, as there are usually in these meetings, and one thanks God peculiarly for it, but perhaps they are wanting in what relates to the sense of order and the priestly state. The Lord has His own system of things that He carries on, with a view to proceeding to the Father’s things.
JM Is it your thought that certain references to the sufferings of Christ are in order in the Lord’s supper?
JT Yes. I would say that. He said to Paul, “Why persecutest thou me?”. Well, He meant something that Paul was doing, and Paul understood that. He told the Lord later, “When the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by”, Acts 22: 20. He spoke about His martyr.
PL Would the expression, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations”, have some bearing upon that?
JT Quite so. Hence He says, “I will see you again and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one takes from you”, John 16: 22.
HKR Would the believer’s household, seeking to be held in the gain of headship, know something of suffering, and, as coming together in assembly, would that suffering find its expression in a proper and intelligent way?
[p. 141] JT Yes. If the household is with Him they go through the sufferings of the testimony. Onesiphorus is commended because he sought out Paul diligently and found him, and Paul desires that he should find mercy for his house in that day, because of the way Paul regarded his service.
Ques Is it significant, in relation to the feelings, that a brother died before Paul was secured for the assembly? I was thinking of Stephen.
JT Well, that would bring into prominence the distinction that Stephen has.
PHH I suppose the very thought of priesthood suggests a setting of suffering. There will be no priesthood, as such, in the setting of glory, will there? Does it not suggest the opposition and unholiness of what is outside and therefore, the sufferings which relate to the testimony?
JT Quite so.