THE LORD'S SUPPER AS THE CENTRE OF DIVINE SERVICE
THE LORD’S SUPPER AS THE CENTRE OF DIVINE SERVICE
1 Corinthians 10: 14 - 22; 1 Corinthians 11: 17 - 26
JT I was thinking today that the Lord’s supper seems to be divinely intended to be the centre of divine service. It is mentioned from the outset after the Spirit of God came down from heaven, the converts at Pentecost were said to have “persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2: 42), with other things which are also said in that chapter. In verse 46 they broke bread in the house, which implies evidently they did not break bread in the temple, and we also are to understand that whilst the house is mentioned, the house as a dwelling-place of the saints is not exactly intended to be used as the meeting place of the saints, for the houses are differentiated in that they were to eat at home if it was a question of literally eating a meal. Paul says, “Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking?” So evidently the Lord’s supper, whilst it is spoken of as being partaken of in houses as over against the temple, was intended to be partaken of in buildings such as are suitable for the saints to meet in, especially as it is said when the Lord ascended, those who saw Him go up returned and went to the upper room, not to the temple. So we have indication that the Lord’s supper stood as the centre of the service of God. Other services might be linked on, but the Acts shows that the first day of the week was the day on which the Lord’s supper was celebrated. These facts are important, and whilst not being formal, such as the ritual of the Old Testament was, there is certainly form and order connected with it and stressed, too, as this epistle shows. The subject of the Lord’s supper is [p. 84] clearly divided into external features and internal features, the inward features. So the first section read in chapter 10 points to the bearing or conduct of the saints, and walk and ways of the saints are tested by the fact of the Lord’s supper. The word ‘fellowship’ being used in chapter 10 and not in chapter 11 suggests the external bearing of the Lord’s supper, and how the walk and ways of the saints were tested by the Lord’s supper, by the effects of it. Chapter 11 commencing with the subject of headship, that is to say the head-dress of women and men, these facts, these features of public conduct of relations, are touched on there, evidently with a view of bringing out what is suitable in the way of order when we are gathered together. The idea of prophecy is stressed which belongs in itself to the service of God.
HES Is outward order the first consideration?
JT No. I would suggest rather that public conduct involving fellowship is the first consideration as in chapter 10. The order is in chapter 11.
Ques What would be included in public conduct?
JT Whatever may be public, particularly household conduct, family conduct, then business conduct and in general our relations with men, because you must be right with men. It is a question of what is public, of what affects God in a public way, and then the order that is proper to us as we are gathered. The word ‘assembly’ is the governing idea in chapter 11. It comes in as early as Acts 1. The Lord is said to have “assembled with them” in verse 4. But as to the Lord’s supper, Acts 20 says the saints were assembled. “We being assembled to break bread” (verse 7).
EuR What does that convey, the thought of “being assembled”?
JT I think God would convey to us that [p. 85] the assembly was to be the vessel of His service, the service toward Himself and toward men.
EuR Involving intelligence on the part of each one.
JT Just so. “I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”. The word would mean that we are called out, the idea of separation, but much more has become attached to it.
GCG Is the governing word ‘communion’ or ‘fellowship’?
JT Fellowship, I would say that.
JFG If we are to be right in a public position we must flee idolatry. We need to be right in every relationship.
JT Quite so. Idolatry, I should say, was the centre of paganism, and God would not ignore that, for He intended we should be separate from that and Judaism, too. So we have in this epistle, “Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God”. Those are the three centres, you might say; the first Christianity, the second Judaism, the Jew, and the third the Gentile, paganism. Idolatry is connected with it. You might get the three meeting-places in the same city, to be simple about it you might have them in the same street. And one might go into the pagan place, the idolatrous place, and might go into the synagogue, and might go into the meeting room, and he would find God there. He would not find God in either of the other places. He would find God in the assembly, and he should find God there now.
EuR There could be no fellowship between the assembly of God and the others.
JT Hence the word ‘fellowship’ has acquired such a place. It designates where we are. It is not in chapter 11, but in chapter 10 because of public relations, and the word ‘fellowship’ has acquired a great place as to how we are bound up together,
[p. 86] running along with unity in the Spirit. Fellowship is bound up with the Spirit. Persons in fellowship should have the Spirit.
Rem In chapter 1 we are called to the fellowship of God’s Son excluding idol fellowship and every other.
JT Quite so. It is a convenient word to be applied as to where we are. If we are in fellowship, are we walking consistently? So there is the fellowship of Christ, the Son of God, which is the dignity of it, and the fellowship of Christ’s death in chapter 10, and the fellowship of the Spirit in the second epistle. I think therefore the word is a very convenient one and a very right one to designate us where we are.
Ques Would this fellowship exclude evil?
JT I should say so, and the great test of the fellowship is in chapter 5. It is a serious case of evil but it is allowed to come in as a test. The saints were to keep the feast, showing how the idea of fellowship is carried down from old times. We are to keep the feast not with leaven, “but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”, alluding to the passover. Leaven is a type of sin. It is called old leaven to be purged out — “according as ye are unleavened”. Being redeemed and made holy by the Spirit, we are unleavened, fit for the assembly, fit for fellowship. There seems a need for revival among the brethren of the whole position as to fellowship and all that goes with it, reviving the whole position of the assembly publicly and privately, too, the latter involving we are going to heaven, the former, that is fellowship, implying a condition in entire keeping with heaven, the Spirit of God being here, equal to Christ in heaven, maintaining here morally what is in heaven.
GCG I think that means when a person asks to take their place enquiry is directed as to whether they are in fellowship.
JT Just so. So that we come up before each [p. 87] other in the sense of test or re-examination as to whether we are walking in the truth.
EuR Is that the setting in which the question of associations has come so much to the fore? There are questions which call for one answer but we need to be reminded of the practical bearing of them in our movements among men.
JT And the following statements are the comment of the Spirit of God, what we are, not simply what we are in the counsels of God, “Ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”, 2 Corinthians 6: 18. We are the public family of God, and we are to come out and be separate, “Touch not what is unclean”, 2 Corinthians. 6: 17. “Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear”, 2 Corinthians 7: 1. God has brought in the thought of fear amongst the saints which I think is clearly of importance. Leadership was the great principle at the beginning, and so the word ‘care’ is applied to leadership in Timothy. “How shall he take care of the assembly of God?” (1 Timothy 3: 5). Perhaps the thought of it is weakened because of the general weakness among the saints, those who are gathered. So although God placed it amongst us especially in large cities, it became evident that the brethren ought to be all in the thing. The idea of care ought to govern the position and therefore God has blessed the principle of coming together in care. So that young men are to be there. If they have a care and love the Lord they ought to be there, not to lead, of course, but acknowledging their youthfulness, but at the same time to be there.
Ques Does this challenge every relationship and mode of contact? Does it have a bearing on “When ye come therefore together into one place”?
JT Enlarge further on that so that I shall understand you.
[p. 88] Rem It seems this matter of fellowship is a great challenge as to how we work things out in this matter of the assembly.
GCG So “Let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup”. That proving of oneself would be the full challenge of chapter 10.
JT And the question of children and baptism, household baptism is a feature of the truth that has come into prominence in the last fifty years. About that time household baptism was hardly entertained among half the brethren. Well, now you can hardly find a brother who does not believe in it. It ought to be brought up as to where parents are as to their families, and how the families stand in relation to the assembly.
FJ In those days a generation was lost.
JT The lack of household baptism was bound to weaken the position.
Rem Taking this up clarifies what the meaning of fellowship is. It tends to become hackneyed, the term ‘coming into fellowship’.
JT We should study the word. In chapter 10 it is communion but the word ‘fellowship’ is better. It brings in having part in things joyfully and it commits us to things.
Rem Does the fact that the cup of blessing is the blood of Christ have any bearing on the outward rather than the inward?
JT I think it has, the matter of blessing, we are to rise to it.
Rem It comes before the bread is mentioned.
JT It is a question of the dispensation, how Israel was held responsible and the judgment of God fell on them, and so today the judgment of God will fall if our conduct is not right. If we are blessed it is well to keep in the position. He signalises the truth by blessing. We come in on the first day of the week with what blessing there [p. 89] is.
Rem Are baptised children part of the fellowship?
JT They would be in the external sense, because it says, “Your children ... are holy”, 1 Corinthians 7: 14. That is in an external sense. That should be an incentive to maintain holiness in the houses. We get ungodliness in the Old Testament. What happened to them are types. “I speak as to intelligent persons” — that implies we understand the types. The list given of what happened is solemn and if children are allowed to take their own course, judgment will come in, for God is what He ever was, He is holy. “Be ye holy, for I am holy”.
Ques Is that why we take hold of the abstract side of things?
JT Just so. Get the abstract idea. That is another word we do well to look into as well as fellowship. For chapter 5 has that thought. First we are told to “purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened”. We could only be that in an abstract sense.
GCG I think that is helpful “according as ye are unleavened”, a blessed thing for us all to seize on that abstract truth, and then seek help and grace to be in the thing practically.
JT John’s epistle helps us greatly. All John’s writings are intended to work out an abstract idea to support the great features of Paul in the fellowship.
FI So the first chapter would be the abstract idea.
JT The whole of that first paragraph is abstract, the great idea applicable to the Corinthians, they are called “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”. The abstract is worked out in the first nine verses. Then we get the practical concrete conditions which the apostle has much to say about. There was disunity amongst the brethren.
JFG We are brought into that as we drink the [p. 90] cup?
JT We are standing in our own light if we disregard what is right and holy, because it is a system of blessing that we are connected with. “There hath Jehovah commanded the blessing, life for evermore”, Psalm 133: 3. That was in the mind of God and it is now in the mind of God.
Rem Blessing in connection with the holiness of God.
JT Just so.
EuR What you say in regard to the first nine verses is very helpful. We should approach every company of saints walking together in the light of that, however small.
JT Take, for instance, this town, compare them with what is around in the so-called churches, you can see at once there is not concern about holiness in their services in these churches. The Holy Spirit is the means of holiness and remission the basis of it. In the Old Testament blessing was commanded but it is more than that now. It is a divine Person here, “He abides with you, and shall be in you”, John 14: 17.
GCG All this enables us intelligently, and with affections fully secured, to enter into chapter 11.
JT We must touch on that now for it is the positive thing we are dealing with, namely the Lord’s supper and celebrating it. According to other passages, the suggestion is we are together by ourselves, so to speak — “We being assembled”, and the Lord comes to us. The order of it implies He would first show what we are by the work of God. He would first show that when we come together, so we meet one another, we assemble, not simply there as so many persons but on a certain principle, namely assembled. It suggests we appropriate one another, we are essential to one another, we love one another, the Lord is waiting for that. He is ready to come under those circumstances.
GCG [p. 91] So now you have the inner side which is commensurate with the position publicly. Would that be the force of remembrance being brought in in the bread and in the cup here?
JT It makes way for the Lord. The allusion in the main is to the mind in the Lord’s supper. It is for a calling of Him to mind. That is the word and it alludes to an action in our minds. The Lord coming to us is an action of His but at the same time there is an action in the mind that makes way for Him, “a calling of me to mind”. Affection will have its place, of course, but the mind is the leading thought.
Rem We are intelligent to what the Lord has in mind.
JT Just so. The Lord has gone into heaven. “This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall thus come in the manner in which ye have beheld him going into heaven”, Acts 1: 11. What happens in the interim is what is important to notice. He is free to move. Mark says He is “at the right hand of God”, Mark 16: 19. That is as Administrator, but that implies He loves His people. He will have them in heaven presently, but He comes to them now. He loves them and is active towards them.
EuR “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”, John 14: 18. He counts upon our affections in the scene of His absence.
JT Quite so and then again, “If any one love me, he will keep my word”. And again it begins with the idea of keeping His commandments which is fundamental in the service of God here below. The Holy Spirit is here, another Comforter. The Lord says, “I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter”. This is the point, in the interim between the Lord’s ascension and His coming for His own, “Ye see me” not ‘shall see me’, but “ye see me; because I live ye also shall live”. That is not a [p. 92] matter in heaven but what happens in the interim in the activity of the Lord’s love for us.
FI “In that day”, does that refer to the Spirit’s day?
JT That is just what it does refer to.
FI Having power in the Spirit we enter into what you are saying. We must have a sense of the Man in glory.
JT Then the interim is the time left open. It has lasted more than eighteen hundred years. It was meant to be a spiritual era in which the love of Christ should be shown beside many other things, the love of Christ for His own. He is not staying in heaven till He takes her there, He loves her now.
Ques The Lord coming in at the Supper, is it at the breaking of bread when the brother is serving?
JT The idea would be in the breaking of bread. “He was made known to them in the breaking of bread”, Luke 24: 35. That was not the Lord’s supper but intended to give the idea. On that occasion He was made known to them in the breaking of bread and left immediately, but with us He comes to stay, to spend a season with us, a time with us, not according to Matthew to be there the whole age but a season. The word in Acts 1: 21 is, “All the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us”. That was not said for nothing.
Ques Is He with us when we take the cup?
JT I should say so, perhaps before.
Ques This coming in of the Lord, is it preceded by the mind entering intelligently into what the apostle said, “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”? Is that the mind entering into and [p. 93] going back to that night? I should like help in relation to the mind.
JT The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was delivered up, that shows how the heart is touched, the fact that He was betrayed. He took bread and broke it and said, “This do for the calling of me to mind”. He said also, “This is ... for you”. The bread is for us.
GCG We had an expression on Lord’s day morning in regard of the bread, that the bread was there, and then you thanked the Lord that the bread is here. We felt it was most affectionate by way of giving us contact with what is implied.
JT So that the feelings — we were speaking of the mind, but the feelings are intended to be touched, too. “I received from the Lord ... the Lord Jesus ... took bread, and having given thanks broke it” — He did not eat it — “and said, This is my body, which is for you”. It is somewhat different from what Luke says, showing this message which Paul had is evidently the last one and has additions to what we get in the gospels, and some eliminations from what we get in the gospels. Now he said, “Having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you”, which would mean it is for the assembly and only for the assembly. “This do for the calling of me to mind”. After that “In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”. As the note says, “after having supped” there means having a meal — evidently the passover supper (see the Darby Translation note to “supped” in 1 Corinthians 11:25) . So that it is clear if He says, “This do in remembrance of me” as to the bread, He is there from that time; although the cup must be an additional thought, it is only that. The breaking of bread implies He is coming.
Ques Is it a remembrance of the Lord where He went or where He is now, it is not a historical matter in that [p. 94] sense?
JT It is where He is, wherever it happens.
Ques Are vessels thus secured for God? The whole vessel filled with delight and joy in Christ.
JT I do not know why you bring in vessels.
Rem Each of us forming part of the assembly that the Lord is able to control us completely by His love.
JT Well, quite so.
EuR Does that involve worship?
JT Yes, as the Lord’s supper is partaken of, He being there, there is room for His relations with the assembly according to the order of it; according to the type, Isaac loved Rebecca and was dallying with her; Genesis 26: 8. There is a time of waiting, mutual relations, after the Lord’s supper. But I should say He is there from the outset of the breaking of bread, for it is a great formula of words.
FI When we were assembled.
JT The term ‘the Lord’s supper’ — there is a dual thought in the Lord’s supper implying intensification of the thing. But the breaking of bread is enough, it is the term usually used.
HES There is the privilege side and the responsible side. The breaking of bread would be the privilege side.
JT I would say that.
JFG Is it important that we keep Paul’s presentation before us in the breaking of bread? It was given him “to complete the word of God”, Colossians 1: 25. We come together to remember a Person in glory.
JT He completed the word of God and that would include what we have here.
Rem The announcing of the Lord’s death till He come — how does the announcing work out today?
JT It goes with the public position of the testimony. There was an idea forty years ago that denied that the Lord’s supper was taken in the wilderness, but [p. 95] it is, it is a public idea. The Lord’s death is shown.
Rem Would you link it with chapter 10?
JT I would in relation to its being public. Chapter 10 generally alludes to our ordinary circumstances, where we are exposed to paganism.
Rem Would it be orderly to give out a hymn as soon as the emblems are passed round or to wait on the Lord?
JT I think the assembly is viewed by the Lord — as has been remarked it is His — as intelligent, it knows what to do, but as He comes in the idea of headship comes in. They know what to do. The question would be, Is the hymn suitable? Very often a hymn involves remarkable joy and touches the hearts of the brethren.
GCG There is a verse in the Song of Songs which has a bearing on this, “I charge you, daughters of Jerusalem, ... that ye stir not up nor awaken love till it please”, (see the Darby Translation note to Song of Songs 2: 7). If we are, as we would be, moving rightly as partaking of the Supper, it means we are entirely absorbed with Christ and shall know when to move and how to move.
JT The question is whether you should confine love to the saints there, whether it is love in Christ or in the saints.
GCG I had before me the way He is before us. It is a question of His love and Himself. “Nor awaken love till it please”.
JT It would be love then not Christ, whether it be in Him or in the assembly. It is the time of love. Love in the assembly might be quite ready to do something because they are capable of it. That is the constitution of it, they are capable. The Lord would accentuate it, but it is there.
EuR Is it like Isaac lifting up his eyes, and Rebecca lifting up her eyes?
JT What Isaac saw was the camels, the power by which the assembly is carried. The Lord knows [p. 96] how the assembly is constituted. She is His. It is a time of love, the Lord knows it is there and comes because it is there, and He would add to what is there.
FI Calling Him to mind would show we are under the mind of the Spirit, having our minds in control.
JT Just so, we are ready. The whole position is living. The Lord is not stirring up something that is dead, but it is living and He would join in with it. The Holy Spirit is there, continually there ready to act at any time.
EuR “Ye see me; because I live ye also shall live”. Living affection.
JT Quite so. The difficulty at Troas was that whilst there was life there, Eutychus fell from the third story and was taken up dead, but Paul enfolded him and said, “His life is in him”, hence he was a living boy henceforth. Life is there. The assembly is not simply a living boy, but the saints are there in the spirit of life, and the Spirit is there. The Spirit was active in the Middle Ages, however few there may have been. The Lord took up what was there. And the truth would make the assembly what it is, a living system.
EuR It will go on to an eternal day.
JT I think we ought to stress that it is living. The Lord is coming to that.
Rem The Lord’s supper relates to what is public, but we move into the inward.
JT It is always public, for the emblems are still there. Sometimes they used to cover them over but they are to be there.
Rem Sometimes there is lack of joy.
JT A word of ministry serves for that purpose, it is used for liberation under the Lord and under the Spirit, too, to stir up the affections. It is a delicate time. We are dealing with delicacy, the instruments involved can easily be touched.
[p. 97] Ques Could you help us as to each taking his own supper?
JT That means he was doing what he should not do. Paul said, “It is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. It is your own supper. You hardly get anything so gross today as that. But no doubt it was intended to bring out the truth as we have it. Then Paul brings in the idea of your houses. You might say the meeting is in a house, but the idea is it is a place to meet and the saints are meeting in an orderly way such as the Lord may appraise and He comes to that. It is beautiful in His eyes and He comes to it. The Holy Spirit being there, that is the underlying basic position of the assembly, and it is living.
EuR “This cup is the new covenant”.
JT It brings out the thought of a drinking vessel. Hence it is used in connection with the cup and not the bread. That brings up the idea of a vessel working out in the assembly herself, for she is a vessel and we have the idea of vessels to pour out with, and vessels that can be hung on something, that is the Lord Himself, and each one may be included in that. But it is to bring out the thought of drinking.
Eu.R. Including joy?
JT Drinking has that in mind.
Rem “Drink ye all of it”, Matthew 26: 27.
JT If we are all Christians here we should all drink of it. The Lord would say, It is for all of you, and they all drank out of it.
Ques Being carried in the joy of the morning meeting, is not the thought we are each to drink it?
JT Drinking is a satisfying thing.
Rem The question of it not being historical rather disturbs me. Many of us regard it as historical. What have you in mind in it being a present matter?
JT It can only be historical in the way it says [p. 98] they broke bread in the house, and “We being assembled to break bread”, that is the only way I would use the word ‘historical’. The thing is what we do now.
GCG We need help, because often what we do express both in regard of the bread and the cup is very much on the historical line. But if we are together in the conditions we are considering there would be a definite and fresh touch on every occasion.
JT Quite so. The saints are supposed to have the Spirit and cut in a straight line the word of truth. So the simple Christian would say, Paul is our apostle and if we are going to break bread — and we are accustomed to breaking bread — we want to see what Paul says about that. You would like to know what Paul says about it. The intelligent Christian knows Paul has the last word as to it. We should be governed by it.
EuR He received it from the Lord.
JT He received it after the Lord went up to heaven.
EuR It is for “calling of me to mind” — that Person.
JT The idea is He is absent. We often refer to what is said in Exodus 32: 1: “For this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt, — we do not know what is become of him”. We know what has become of the Lord, He has gone up to heaven, He is staying there, but He may come if He pleases. Paul said, “He appeared to me also”, 1 Corinthians 15: 8. We cannot say He appears in that way now, but He does come to us. It is the One Who is away Who comes to us. How glad we are to see Him. It is intended to accentuate our joy.
EuR It is the gladness of His heart in a spiritual way.
JT Quite so.
[p. 99] Ques Why do we drink if He is already made known to us in the breaking of bread?
JT It is an additional thought. It is a dual matter. The cup is mentioned first in chapter 10 and the bread in chapter 11, that is the order of the celebration of it. So we have the cup mentioned several times as distinct from the Lord’s table. But the Lord is there in the breaking of bread, because it says He was made known to them in the breaking of bread.
EuR Would it cause His glory to shine before us in an enhancing way — the cup?
JT Quite. The dual thought is very often to emphasise.