THE LORD’S TABLE

AND

THE LORD’S SUPPER

BRIEFLY CONSIDERED.

Bv R. F. Kingscoat.

Part 1 - THE LORD’S TABLE

THE LORD’S TABLE,

I Cor. x. 14-22.

THE expressions used in these verses are very familiar to most of us here; verse 16, for instance. But often they convey very little meaning to our minds. Look at verse 21 : how often we speak of the Lord’s table, without any clear idea of the nature of the subject. We say, So-and-so has been received at the Lord’s table, or put away from the Lord’s table; some have even gone so far as to think the Lord’s table is applicable only to one particular body of Christians.

It is significant that verse 21 is the only place in the New Testament where the expression ‘the Lord’s table” occurs. It is strange, too, that the expression “partakers of the Lord’s table” is so seldom used by us. Most of us, if asked whether we were ” partakers of the Lord’s table,” would think partaking of the Lord’s supper was meant. But there are two different expressions used: in chapter x. we have the Lord’s table, and in chapter xi. the Lord’s supper, and the Spirit never uses two different expressions without some definite purpose. The table is introduced before the supper, and I think we must enter a little into what it is to be a partaker of the Lord’s table, before we can be in a fit state to eat the Lord’s supper in a scriptural way.

Now I think it can be shown that every child of God is a partaker of the Lord’s table, though he may not actually take the supper, but eating the bread and drinking the cup would be the outward expression of it. It is most important that this truth should be grasped. Let us just see, then, the connection in which the Lord’s table is brought in here.

From chapter vii. we see that the Corinthians had written to Paul about certain difficulties, and he is in the chapter before us still answering those questions. In chapter vii. he deals with the subject of marriage; in chapter viii. it is “touching things offered to idols,” and while he is dealing with this subject, the Lord’s table is introduced;—that is the reason for the reference to idolatry in chapter x. 14. The Corinthians had been converted from all the varied forms of idolatry in the Greek and Roman cults; and idolatry involved the worship of demons. When, at the first, man lost the knowledge of the true God, they began to deify their own lusts and imaginations; e.g., Bacchus was the god of wine, and the Bacchanalian festival was a scene of excesses of every kind. The Devil took advantage of all this and acquired immense power over the world. There was the Delphic oracle, for instance, which answered all questions and corresponded to the modern spiritism; so we see their idols were really representatives of demons. The Corinthians ask, “Are we to eat meats sacrificed to idols ?” Paul replies that, if they eat knowingly, they identify themselves with idols and have fellowship with demons, and says it is impossible to have fellowship with demons and with the Lord at the same time.

The expression “the Lord’s table” is, however, found in the Old Testament, and its use there helps to an understanding of its New Testament meaning. In Mai. i. 7, we read: “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar . . . in that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.” The altar and the table, as we here see, are identical, and this is further supported by another reference, Ezek. xli. 22: “The altar of wood was three cubits . . . This is the table which is before the Lord.” When we see this, we understand better the meaning of i Cor. x. 18, “Behold Israel after the flesh : are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar ? ” This verse is the key to the passage, and Paul uses it as an illustration; we might say “partakers of the table,” instead of ” partakers of the altar,” the altar and table being- identical.

The reference here is to Israel “after the flesh” and the peace offering in Lev. iii. would be a good illustration of it. The name peace offering is apt to mislead somewhat, as it conveys the idea of making peace with God, which is not the thought at all. It is rather the thought of peace and prosperity, as J. N. D. translates it in the French Bible, ” sacrifice de prosperite.” It is thanksgiving and praise, essentially a communion offering. God had his part, Aaron and his sons theirs, the priest who sprinkled the blood his, and lastly, the offerer had his share. In Lev. iii., notice the burnt offering is the foundation of the peace offering. So in verse 16, the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar.

A very beautiful expression is used here : the fat “is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour; all the fat is the Lord’s. ~* It shall be a statute . . . that ye eat neither fat or blood.” Thus the eating of the fat, as of the blood, was forbidden. The fat indicates the energy of the inward will; cf. Deut. xxxii. 15, “Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked”—the will was in opposition to God. Here the fat was not the Lord’s. In the Lord Jesus, there was perfect subjection and devotedness: ” Lo, I come to do thy will.. O God.” There the fat was all the Lord’s.

If the energy of our will does not act in accordance with God, it is sin. The definition of sin is a serious matter. In the authorized version of John iii. 4, we read, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” This is incorrect, because then there would have been no sin before the law, and we read in Rom. v. 13,” Until the law, sin was in the world.” The New Translation of 1 John iii. 4, is, ” Sin is lawlessness.” That is, when we act independently, we act without law; it is sin. For instance, there is a law of gravitation; if the earth were to break away from that law and go off at a tangent, that would be lawlessness. So, whenever our wills act independently of God, that is lawlessness, and the fat is not the Lord’s. What perfection of obedience and devotedness to God there was in Jesus, how much on which the heart of God could feed with infinite delight!

In Lev. vii. 31, we find, ” The priest shall burn the fat upon the altar, but the breast shall be Aaron’s and his sons.” The breast is the seat of the affections. Now in verse 15 we read that ” it must be eaten the same day that it is offered,” and in verse 18, if any be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, in fact, “it shall be an abomination.” Why was this ?” It was because, if it was kept, it dissociated the eating from the sacrifice on the altar. So in Lev. ii’. 5 : “Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice,” that is to say, The burnt offering is the foundation of the peace offering. This eating of the sacrifice, then, was not like ordinary eating; in eating, they were associated with all the sweet savour of the sacrifice before God, and in all the value which He set upon that sacrifice.

In Lev. i. 4 there is a wonderfully peace-giving truth. This is seen in regard to the burnt offering. It speaks of atonement, and it is a beautiful way of setting forth the gospel. ” He shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” The placing of the hand upon the head was the identification of the offerer with all the value of the sacrifice before God. It was not a question of what he was; the question was, What value did God put upon the sacrifice ? If the offering was accepted, the offerer was accepted; if it was rejected, he was, too.

The gospel is often put thus: Have you accepted Christ as your Saviour ? This is simple enough, and yet our hearts make a difficulty even of this, and souls are in doubt as to whether they have accepted the gospel or not. But it becomes more grandly simple if we put it in this way : Has God accepted the sacrifice of Christ for you ? There can be only one answer to that, and all doubts are ended; we are accepted in all the sweet savour of the sacrifice of Christ; instead of our natural enmity there is only the devotedness of Christ even to death. “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I might take it again.” The Father must love the Son. How far have we grasped the fact that we are in the same sweet savour before God, as Christ is Himself? The whole question is settled once for all, and we are accepted. This is the foundation of the peace offering, where thanksgiving is rendered.

Now all this is connected with the Lord’s table by way of illustration, and how wonderful it would be if we entered into it.

Having looked at the Old Testament illustration, we see better the meaning of i Cor. x. 18 ; the apostle might equally well say here : Are not they which eat of the sacrifices ” partakers of the table ;” and to be partaker of the Lord’s table is to be in all the value of the sacrifice of Christ before God, and the outward expression of this is in verses 16 and 17: “The cup of blessing which we bless,” and ” The bread which we break.” It is evident that blessing and giving of thanks are the same thing. In chapter xiv. 16, ” blessing” and “giving of thanks ” are the same.

It is important to see here that there are two expressions of fellowship,-—fellowship with and fellowship of. We speak usually of fellowship with one another, more in the sense of 1 John i. 7, but here it is not communion with, but communion of. It must be remarked here that the words “communion” (verse T6), “partakers” (verse r8) and ” fellowship,” all represent the same root-word of the original, which gives the idea of sharing in common. Look at Luke v. 10: “Partners with” is the same word as ” partakers” here, i.e., sharers in common of the fish caught. But in verse 7, “partners” is a different word, meaning that they shared not the fish but the privilege of fishing in the lake. This is the word used in Heb. vi. 4, “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” where people may share in the privileges of Christianity and be lost. Our use of the word ” partner,” shows the thought. The fellowship, or communion, of the blood of Christ is the sharing in common with all God’s children in all the value of His wonderful death. There are three “fellowships of” in Corinthians :

(1.) 1 Cor. i. g : “The fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” All the true church is called to it. It is “of” and not “with,” and means that we share the blessings in common with all saints of being livingly associated with the Son of God, on the other side of death ;

(2.) 1 Cor. x. 16: “The fellowship of the blood and body of Christ; ” and

(3.) 2 Cor. xiii 14: “The fellowship of the Holy Ghost.” To many, as now used, this expression is merely a sign of the end of a service, but what does it mean ? It means that we share with all true Christians the results of the dwelling here of the Holy Ghost and of His power to make good the truth in our souls. But, of course, each one of these is a subject in itself.

In chapter x. 16, the cup precedes the bread, but in chapter xi. the order is reversed. We should think it extraordinary if one gave thanks for the cup before the bread. Why is the cup put first in chapter x. ? It is because there the the thought of the assembling of the Lord’s people is not the prominent thought, but rather our association with Christ’s death, and so the cup is put first. When we drink the wine, what thought does it bring to our minds ? The wine is appropriated and ingested into the body, but this is only an outward expression of the blessed truth, that the believer in Jesus is identified with all the value of the death of Christ before God; it is a wonderfully peacegiving thought. It means more even than that. The death of Christ opened the flood gates of God’s love to man ; it was the love of His heart that gave rise to all His purposes of grace. But the question of sin had to be settled first. “I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how am I straightened till it be accomplished.” That baptism was accomplished in His death, and now the fulness of God’s heart of love can flow out to us, and our hearts can go out in love to Him. This is what He desires.

It is to be noticed, for there is meaning in it, that, while in chapter xi. it is the Lord Jesus who gave thanks, here it is “we bless” (verse T6). In this chapter there is something of the responsibility side and we have also “the communion of the body of Christ.” The latter expression conveys the thought, in scripture, that an end has been made of man in the flesh, e.g., Rom. vii. 4 : “Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; “when we have the expression “body of Christ” it seems to convey the truth of the end of all that we are by nature in His death ; Heb. x. 10 : ” We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ Once for all,” and “the sanctifier and the sanctified are all of One, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren ; ” as also in Col. i. 22, ” Reconciled in the body of his flesh through death.” We are identified with Him.

We are always, all through the week, “partakers of the Lord’s table,” and if we were consistent with the truth of this, we should refuse—both as to ourselves and our associations —that which the death of Christ has delivered us from.

In verse 22, jealousy is brought in ; it is because it is intimately connected with idolatry (verse 14). This is shown by the first two commandments (Ex. xx. 4-5). Jealousy is cruel as the grave. It is because He loves us so much, that the Lord is jealous; He cannot bear to see our hearts divided. It has been asked whether ” flee from idolatry” applies to us now. It certainly does; the last warning in 1 John v. 21, is ” Keep yourselves from idols.” An idol is anything that usurps the place of God in the heart. We are partakers of the Lord’s table all through the week, the ” supper” on the Lord’s day being the outward expression of it. And it means that we are identified with all the value of the sacrifice of Christ before God, and we should refuse everything that is not according to Him. May God lead us on and help us to enter i^to it more fully.