THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
Luke 23: 1 - 71; Acts 2: 1 - 47; 1 Corinthians 11: 1 - 34
Ques Is what Paul says of the Lord’s supper in the epistle different from what we get in the gospel (Luke)?
FER No, except that in eating of the bread and drinking of the cup you announce the Lord’s death until He come. I think that is the only difference.
Ques When it says, “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2), does it mean they reached what Paul gives?
FER I think so; the doctrine was the foundation, and the fellowship, in a way, was founded on the doctrine. Then there was breaking of bread and prayers.
Ques Is “breaking bread from house to house” the same thing?
FER Yes. It is translated ‘at home’. ‘They continued daily with one accord in the temple, and broke bread at home’.
Rem They could not break bread in the synagogue.
FER No. Paul, when he writes, does not attempt to establish anything new, he simply recalls the original institution.
Ques In what way has it come to be on the Lord’s day only?
FER I think it is the rallying-point, and therefore we begin the week with it. We came back to the original institution.
Ques What do you understand by “they continued”?
FER I think it is connected specially with the mission and testimony of the apostles. In a kind of way, Paul took it up where he found it.
Ques Did they break bread because they were in fellowship?
FER Well, I do not know whether breaking of [p. 344] bread was on that ground. I suppose they broke bread on the ground of the original institution.
Ques It speaks of the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and then breaking of bread. Was that the apostles’ fellowship?
FER I think it is more the original institution.
Ques I suppose the apostles’ doctrine would be the setting aside of Judaism.
FER I think so. It was the introduction of christianity.
Rem Consequent on the death and resurrection of Christ.
Ques What ground are we on, the new covenant or reconciliation?
FER Well, I think the essential point is that you want to be in the good of both the new covenant and reconciliation, in coming together.
Ques I suppose we could hardly understand the assembly apart from the new covenant and reconciliation?
Ques What is it to be in the good of the new covenant?
FER I think God has been pleased to lay down conditions in which we are to live, and they are set forth in the new covenant. If a man makes a will everything is changed, when he dies, with regard to his family. They do not live as they did previously; they have to live according to the conditions of the testator’s will.
Rem God’s ‘will’ is His disposition towards us.
FER Yes. The disposition of a man makes a great deal of difference to his family — everything is altered. I think that illustrates in a kind of way the new covenant. The death of the testator has come in, and consequently everything is changed. The disciples could no longer be in association with Christ after the flesh. Other conditions came in, on the death of Christ, and under these conditions they lived.
Rem In 1 Corinthians 11 these conditions are [p. 345] brought in. Two things are expressed in the Supper. There is removal of man, as such, and there is the expression of the love of God.
FER Yes. Everything closes in the death of Christ.
Rem In the institution of the Supper by the Lord in Luke 22 everything is anticipative.
FER Yes. I judge that, in the institution of the Supper, it is as if His death were passed.
Ques Is there not a difference in this respect, that the disciples had had to do with the Lord before His death, whereas we start with that?
FER We must remember that the death of Christ interpreted His life. I do not think we can properly understand His life until we understand His death. I think that the principles on which the Lord acted during His life were what came out in His death. It was not that His life was on one principle and His death on another.
Rem His death was a sort of climax.
FER I think it was. All His life was really the expression of God’s love towards man. It came out more distinctly in His death, but at the same time, His life had that character. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son”. He was the expression of God’s love to man.
Rem He began the “ministry of reconciliation”.
FER As regards the assembly, I do not think it goes back in its ‘calling to mind’ of Christ in the same way as the disciples did who had walked with the Lord in the days of His flesh. In its institution, the assembly anticipates the future.
Rem It begins at the other side of death, and you cannot rightly go back.
FER The thought of the assembly brings you to the promised land. You do not get the assembly except on the other side of Jordan. Hence you do not get the assembly until you come to Colossians. Colossians is on the other side of Jordan.
[p. 346] Rem It is our resurrection with Him “through the faith of the operation of God”. We are raised with Him.
Rem That is not going back.
FER The operation of God which raised Him from the dead has reference to the future. The whole of God’s ways in display are founded on resurrection.
Ques Would you say that, in thought, we go back as individuals when we partake of the Lord’s supper?
FER You may go back as individuals, but there is a great deal belonging to us as individuals which is not appropriate to the assembly. It is important to distinguish between the order for the assembly and what is right for us as individuals.
Rem We have to go back, in a certain sense, as individuals connected with the responsible life here.
FER You can dwell upon many things individually which are inappropriate to the assembly.
Rem You do not bring the assembly into the wilderness.
Rem No, nor the wilderness into the assembly.
FER For instance, there is a great deal in the Psalms for us as individuals, but you do not exactly want to bring the Psalms into the assembly.
Ques When you speak of going back in memory of His death, do not the bread and the wine carry us back to His death?
FER I think you want to take up His death in its moral and continuous import, and not simply the fact of it. You take it up in its order and import — you announce the Lord’s death until He come. The whole of this period is marked by His death. We are supposed to be in the secret of it, therefore we can announce it.
[p. 347] Rem As you have said, it is still the night of His betrayal.
FER That is our condition until He come, but you cannot announce it until it is true to you.
Rem You must be in the fellowship of His death before you can announce it.
FER Everyone ought to be there. It is not the mere fact of it, but everyone ought to be in accord with it.
Ques Is it not true that some of us take it up in a merely natural sense, as we would some past event? The idea with many is that we go back and remember certain events which have happened.
FER I think the great point is that we should understand that we come together in assembly. We do not come together exactly to eat the Supper; the point is we come as in the assembly, and therefore it is of the last moment that we should understand the assembly.
Rem The Supper leads us to that.
FER We come together and eat the Supper, and, in a certain way, it is the rallying-point — the start — but, I think, properly, we come to meet the Lord.
Rem The Lord is “on the other side”, and we reach Him.
FER The conditions should be such as suit the Lord, I think that is the point — not what suits ourselves or others, but what suits the Lord. If that were accepted, it would have a great effect upon us.
Ques How can we reach that? It is not reached by effort.
FER I think, in order to reach it, you must come under divine teaching. That is where the new covenant comes in. Some one may ask what divine teaching is. It is a difficult thing to describe it. Divine teaching is what forms you for the assembly. God did not leave His people in Egypt — He brought them to the abode of His holiness. It is there they came under divine teaching. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. God’s purpose in bringing us into salvation is that we may come under divine teaching, so that He may prepare us for the sanctuary.
Rem You have said that we do not come together to break bread.
FER The great point is to come together as in [p. 348] assembly. I think the Supper is the rallying-point of the assembly, and, in that sense, we do come together to break bread.
Ques Do we come into the light of the assembly?
FER I think you come together in the light of it, and to meet the Lord. It seems to me, in coming together to the Supper, we announce the conditions under which the Lord can be with us. It really forms a kind of test as to our minds being in accord with His death. His death sets forth the conditions on which the Lord will come in.
Ques Do we break bread in assembly?
FER Oh yes.
Rem You were saying the Supper is the rallying point.
Rem Someone has said it is introductory.
FER It is both.
Rem It is said we lose our individuality, but not our identity.
Rem In breaking of bread, we commit ourselves to death.
FER I do not think you commit yourself to it. You witness that your mind is in accord with His death.
Rem I suppose it is the witness of what you have been committed to. We announce His death as in assembly.
Rem It separates us from everything here.
Rem We are not in the assembly as individuals.
FER It is collective. “We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread”.
Rem I was thinking as to things connected with our present life, family ties and such things. When we come together in assembly, His death separates us from it all. We come into a new scene. We ought to lose ourselves in occupation with the Lord Jesus. If the sovereign were to come into the assembly gathering, he would have the same place as anybody else, but directly he leaves he is a sovereign again.
[p. 349] Ques Were they as intelligent in Acts 2 as in 1 Corinthians 11 with reference to the breaking of bread?
FER I should think more so. I mean in Acts they were more immediately under the influence of the Spirit.
Rem The Corinthians were not in a good condition.
FER But in Acts, they were directly under the power of the Spirit. That, I believe, gives character to the Acts.
Ques Would the “apostles’ doctrine” include the new covenant and reconciliation?
FER Well, I do not know. It came out more fully afterwards.
Rem It is not exactly the teaching of Paul in Acts 2. He had not come upon the scene; but, being under the power of the Spirit, they were in the good of things which we sometimes are not.
Ques Was ‘fellowship’ the enjoyment of that which was outside judaism?
FER I think so. They had not outwardly broken with judaism — they were continuing in the temple, but evidently the doctrine of the apostles had bound them together in some special way.
Ques Would the Lord’s desire to eat the passover with them have special reference to the Supper?
FER I think it was in connection with the kingdom. The Lord says, “I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God”. Of course, we know that not one thing God has established will fail — the feast of weeks, the feast of tabernacles, all must have its fulfilment in the kingdom. I think it is the kingdom of the future.
Rem More for the Jews than for us.
FER Quite so. Then I think there is a kind of transition in the chapter — the Lord passes away from the passover to the Supper. I see more and more the suitability of announcing the Lord’s death until He come, if we believe in Christ at all.
Ques What is the force of announcing His death?
FER [p. 350] Well, I think you announce the import of it. You announce the conditions on which the Lord came into the world. We begin with this, that God will not endure one single thing that belongs to the flesh. “This is my body ... given for you”. That is the end of the glory of man; that is one condition. Then, on the other hand, we must acknowledge that He has made known the love of God. This is the point of the new covenant. I think it is a mistake to limit the new covenant to the Jew. I admit the covenant is established with the Jew, but, at the same time, I believe the principle of it is for everyone.
Rem It is “all shall know me”.
FER I think it is established with a particular people, but it is for the good of man universally.
Rem The new covenant has been brought to pass in Christ. He would have us in the good of it now, while we wait for its full accomplishment.
FER Yes, I think so.
Rem He is not limited in His goodness to the Jew. The new covenant is according to the nature of God, and it cannot be limited.
Ques The words in 2 Corinthians, “if one died for all, then were all dead”, and “henceforth know we no man after the flesh” — do they involve the same principle?
FER I think so. I think that is what the Lord sets forth in “This is my body ... given for you”. “The kingdom of God is ... righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. You cannot imagine such a thing as the Lord putting any sanction on man in the flesh, or on man’s glory. Principalities and powers — everything — will have to take their character from Christ. He “is the head of all principality and power”.
Rem Ezekiel 21 shews it. “I will overturn, overturn, overturn”. Everything of man’s glory comes to an end.
FER The pride of man shall be humbled, and [p. 351] the haughtiness of man brought low.
Rem We have to apply that to ourselves now.
FER Meanwhile it is written, “now light in the Lord; walk as children of light”.
Rem That excludes the flesh.
FER If it excludes the flesh, it brings in the Lord. If it excludes the old covenant, it brings in the new. Nothing of man can live there. Man in the flesh rejects it, repels it. Talk to an unconverted man of the love and mercy of God, he does not understand it. These are not the conditions under which man lives. He is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Ques Would you say that, in taking the bread and wine, we accept these conditions, and enter the assembly?
FER You witness that your mind is in accord with them,
Rem You are in accord with what you are committed to in baptism.
Rem The history of the flesh is closed in death.
FER I think the great point in coming into the assembly is to be entirely done with ourselves. That is the effect of the teaching of the new covenant.
Ques Would you say a little more about being in accord with the Lord’s death?
FER It involves that I take the place of being in the Spirit. I do not eat the bread as in the flesh, but as in the Spirit. The bread signifies something to me, and that something I understand in the Spirit. I have proof within myself that in the death of Christ, man, as such, is set aside. It is not that I get the Spirit by the truth, but I get the truth because I have the Spirit. The proof of it to me is that I have the Spirit. It is not that you have to learn the disposition of God towards you; it is that you are in the good of it. You can take the Supper very happily in that way.
Rem In entering into the new covenant, your mind is in fellowship with the death of Christ.
FER I do not think people generally come very [p. 352] much under divine teaching. They know doctrine, and that kind of thing, but they have not come, to any extent, under divine teaching. A man may be well informed, without being a man divinely taught. The latter does not necessarily follow. I do not think you know God by understanding scripture; it is rather that you understand scripture by knowing God.
Rem It is important to bear in mind that the Lord was about to leave the world.
FER He had come to the end of His ministry, and was about to suffer. He institutes the Supper to bring before the minds of the disciples the conditions under which He could come to them during His absence.
Ques The words, “I will come to you” — do they involve that the disciples were to be in accord with Him?
Ques How does the Lord come in in connection with the Supper?
FER I think the love of the Lord comes in in connection with the assembly.
Ques Not as regards our individual salvation?
FER The very things you partake of witness to His love. It was His pleasure to give His body; it was His pleasure to give His blood. As I said before, what a great thing it would be if we could lose sight of ourselves, and have the Lord before us.
Ques Why does the cup come before the bread in 1 Corinthians 10?
FER It is more God’s side in that chapter.
Rem There was joy.
FER Yes. “Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord”. When you come together, the Lord brings before you the record of His death, and you greatly rejoice because your mind is in accord with it. I believe those are the conditions under which the Lord will come in.
Rem You do not rejoice merely because your sins are put away, but you enter into His love.
Rem The announcing His death [p. 353] is not going back.
FER I do not think it is going back. I believe the great announcing of His death will be when He comes.
Ques “This do in remembrance of me” — is there any going back there?
FER Well, I think there was in the case of the disciples. They had known Him in life. In His death, I think the Lord gives them the way to His life.
Ques Do we not know His life by His death? It is that which speaks to us.
FER “This is my body ... given for you” — that is the expression of His love, but it is a love that abides. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Love had its expression then, but it is continuous. You come into the presence of that love in the Supper.
Ques Supposing some child, or some young believer, says, ‘Is it necessary I should learn all this?’ You would not discourage him?
FER No, I would not, although, at the same time, I do not at all agree with young people taking up things lightly. We have to remember that, when they come into the assembly, they put themselves under the responsibility of the assembly. Aaron and his sons were charged with the iniquity of the assembly. It is all right for young people if they have faith for it, but they have to remember what it brings them under. I would not hinder them — far from it — but they must remember that they become identified, in a way, with the Supper. You become identified with the priesthood.
Ques Is it in breaking of bread they get the good of it?
FER I think they get the good of it in the congregation, but do not always appreciate the responsibility. Mr. Darby used to say a person breaking bread casually was as much amenable to assembly discipline as anyone.
Rem You never get in scripture the question of sin raised in connection with the assembly. If it is raised, it must be in connection with the individual.
[p. 354] FER Exactly.
Ques I was going to ask a question — suppose a young soul, a young believer, has a real sense of the Lord’s love to him in giving Himself; and has before him the Lord’s words, do this “in remembrance of me”, and desires to do it, would not that be sufficient?
FER It is not remembering it materially. I think it is a mistake to take it up in that way. Sometimes it is taken up sentimentally. I do not think sentiment has a place in divine things.
Ques Do you not think love responds to love in that way? That is, affection for Him would respond to His love for them.
FER I think affection for Christ would wish to be identified with Him.
Rem The eunuch was prepared for the assembly.
Rem You mean that when he saw that “his life is taken from the earth” he went and buried himself.