1892 25 The state of the church at Corinth was serious. Various disorders in doctrine and practice had crept in. Party feeling ran high in the assembly. And, amongst other vagaries, apparently not a few of the saints were publicly dishonouring the name of the Lord and virtually threatening to wreck the testimony of the church by open participation with idol-worshippers in their feasts. The apostle therefore, in 1 Cor. 10:14-22, deals with the question of the Christian's relation to outside observances of a professedly religious nature.
The apostle begins by warmly exhorting them to "flee from idolatry," adding in that almost deferential manner which he so well knew how to blend with the dignity and authority of an inspired apostle, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." Proceeding then to contrast Christian and heathen feasts, he refers first of all to that part of the Eucharist, which, though not the first in the order of observance, was the fuller of grave associations. "The cup of blessing, which we bless" (in contrast with the cup poured out as a libation to the gods) "is it not the communion of the blood of Christ"? How then could this cup be a mere matter of form when it was thus significant of the closest identification with the Christ? and that too, in the exceedingly solemn moment of laying down His life on their behalf? Therefore to degrade this cup of such profound and sacred meaning, to the level of a heathen ceremony by partaking of both, was and must be fraught with the most serious consequences to themselves as well as to the public testimony of the church of God at Corinth. In fact to attempt it showed an entire misapprehension of the true characters of both acts. Neither the solemnity of the one nor the profanity of the other was before their minds; else why equalise the cups by drinking of both? For as the apostle emphatically states, "Ye cannot (i.e. with due appreciation) drink the Lord's cup and the cup of demons."
And if the cup of blessing was thus significant, the bread did not lack hallowed import. It was nothing short of fellowship with the body of the Christ, and at the same time it set forth the intimate unity of His saints on earth. "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of the one bread." Thus, however numerous the saints, their spiritual unity was acknowledged and expressed by partaking of the one loaf. The act of communion testified that the children of God at Corinth, and indeed "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:2), were unified by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12:13), and thereby of necessity separated alike from Jews and Gentiles. What therefore could be greater inconsistency than to own this truth in the breaking of bread, and to disown the same by feasting in idol temples? It was in vain for the Corinthians to argue with a show of superior wisdom that, since idols were nonentities, to sit at their feasts was a matter of indifference and could be the source of no possible harm. True, these indecorous deities were destitute of even human power, much less divine; and the apostle implied nothing to the contrary (verse 19). But if they saw that the idols were mere puppets, he would not have them ignore those who pulled the strings. Did not the very scriptures that affirmed the nothingness of all heathen worship affirm also that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God (ver. 20, Deut. 32:17)? Satan, the prince of cheats, and his impish subordinates held these benighted souls in the delusions of idol-worship; and should saints of God be parties to such works of darkness by so much even as their presence? It was this which troubled the apostle. "I would not" says he, "that ye should have fellowship with demons." So much is this point insisted on that he does not mention the shameless excesses which so often attended the heathen orgies, but only unmasks the terribly evil principle underlying them, pressing the fact that, if the Lord presided at one table, demons presided at the other. And they could not be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of demons (ver. 21). If so, where was the Lord's glory? Where the claims of His holy person? Where the love and loyalty of His saints? Did they wish to provoke the Lord to jealousy by such flagrant contempt of His name? Were they mightier than the Lord? Did they expect to act so with impunity?
The term used by the Spirit of God in this connection — the Lord's table — is highly expressive. The cup and loaf are both pregnant with sacred meaning. But here we are reminded not of the memorials of His death or of that which is memorized thereby, but of the person Himself, not so much of what is on the table as of Him Who is at the table, not so much of the feast as of the Host. It is the table of the Lord. This at once stamps a divine and holy character upon the observance, despite its otherwise apparently barren simplicity. The Lord is there, and His name and person sanctify the whole.
The phrase — "the table of the Lord" — is not unknown to the O.T. In Ezek. 41:22; 44:16, Jehovah speaks of the altar of incense as the table that is before Him. Evidently this is to enforce the fact of its holiness, being in the sanctuary in His immediate presence as well as bearing the offerings made to His name. And in Malachi the phrase is again used, even more strikingly, in connection with the holiness of the altar. Jehovah there expostulates with the priests who offered polluted bread on His altar and profaned His name, saying that the table of Jehovah is contemptible (Mal. 1:7-12). It was the fact that the altar was before Jehovah and that it was called by His name, which made the desecration so terrible. And there was no excuse for ignorance of what was suited to the Lord; for His word of old had plainly forbidden that the blind, the lame, or the sick, should be offered in sacrifice (Lev. 20:11-22). This word however they had deliberately disobeyed (Mal. 1:8). And what they would be ashamed to bring to the governor, they brought to Jehovah. What was this but the most inexcusable levity in the most sacred things? It was despising His name; and therefore the burden of the word of the Lord was against Israel.
Accordingly we find that the Spirit of God to the Corinthians uses this phrase* in a similar way to invest the simple supper with dignity and sanctity. When the holy character of the feast of remembrance was impugned, and the blessed institution placed on a level with an idol feast, the saints were at once reminded that the table was the Lord's table. The divine claims were revived, showing that the retrogression was owing to a want of consideration of what was due to His name. **
{*This in no sense affords one tittle of evidence for the chimera that the Lord's supper is a sacrifice or His table an altar. As it has been said before, Coena convivium est, non sacrificium; in mensa, non in altari. The altars of incense and burnt offering were referred to in this typical way for a particular purpose, as has been seen. Besides, Israelitish altars are plainly distinguished (ver. 18). "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" Indeed to suppose that the Lord's table implies a Christian altar is to assume that Christianity is but a form of Judaism — an assumption which it is the especial purpose of the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians to demolish.
** Hence the suitability of the term in the disciplinary phrase, "having left the Lord's table."}
It may be profitable here to briefly distinguish the term employed in 11:20 — the Lord's supper — from the one before us, the Lord's table. While the same blessed memorial feast is referred to in both cases, it must, at the same time, be admitted by all who believe in the inspiration of the word that there can be no distinction made in scripture without a real difference. The Lord's supper must, of necessity, be the phrase most in harmony with the subject of the Holy Ghost in the eleventh chapter as the Lord's table is in chapter 10; and the subjects of the two portions are by no means difficult to distinguish. A cursory examination shows that in chap. 11 internal matter, and in chap. 10 external relationships, are discussed. In 11 the error of the Corinthian saints was as to the manner of eating the feast, but in 10 as to the character of the fellowship involved in breaking bread. The contrast in 11 is between the Lord's supper and their own, and in 10 between the Lord's table and that of demons. Eating unworthily in 11 is followed by judgment, while unholy association in 10 resulted in a ruined testimony before the heathen world. In 11 we have no word of the unity of the body which is pressed in chapter 10, but rather a concentrated enumeration of those affecting circumstances which speak so eloquently to the heart of the believer. The Lord's request on earth reiterated from the glory — His betrayal — His last wish — His death — His coming again — all these are shown as associated with the Lord's supper. The Corinthians however (11:17–22) had allowed a social meal, the agape or love-feast, to efface all these touching reminders from the feast; and, by allowing pride and envy to work amongst them, had made it a supper of their own and not the Lord's. In fact they were eating and drinking unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body, but displacing His death by petty notions of dignity and real shame. And on this account the apostle gives them a most serious call to self-examination, in order that these affronts to the Lord might not continue.
The above short consideration of these terms in their context, which is the only reliable criterion of any interpretation of scripture, shows a warranty, it is believed, for the two following conclusions: (1) that fellowship with the Lord's table and with what is opposed to His name cannot co-exist, being mutually destructive; and (2) that the Lord's supper cannot be eaten without a spiritual apprehension of what the emblems convey. Moreover, both are essential to a proper and godly participation in this incomparable feast. So that the important point to be weighed is not the possibility of having either without the other, but rather the necessity of having both, in order that this divine institution may be maintained in all its pristine sweetness and sanctity. Therefore without here entering on the question whether one can eat the Lord's supper and yet not be at the Lord's table, or, on the other hand, be at the Lord's table and yet not eat the Lord's supper — neither of which can be at all a desirable position — let it rather be pressed on each saint to judge his own heart and his association in reference to this ordinance in the holy light of divine truth.
How grievous to call that the Lord's table which is based on man's will and not God's! Can it be right to shield an express denial of His word by the sacredness of His name, making the Lord nominally untrue to His own cause? If the presidency of the Lord is supplanted by that of a man, howsoever grave or pious, if the agency of the Holy Spirit in the assembly (1 Cor. 12:11) be forbidden save in one stereotyped direction, if godly men are excluded who cannot say shibboleth, if traitors to the Lord are allowed to mingle with the true, if, in short, the, plain truths of scripture are disowned in a given assembly, are the Lord's representatives on earth justified in describing such a fellowship as the Lord's table?* While fully allowing for individual faith and piety, it is surely a contradiction in terms to say that a congregation of people not maintaining the honour of the Lord's name is nevertheless sitting at His table. Are you at His table? God's word, and not your own judgment, can alone be the basis of a true answer.
{*The indiscriminate application of the phrase "table of demons," to sectarian assemblies in general betokens a crass ignorance savouring of bigotry and malice. In 1 Cor. 10 it is used in reference to idol-feasts and to them alone.}
And, on the other hand, to partake of the emblems, when the person of the Lord in His suffering and death is crowded out from the vision of the soul, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. And surely every saint knows by experience what little things, intruding at those holy seasons, are sufficient to shatter the precious memories of His love. Not to speak of a gaudy and impressive ritual, an unintelligent legalism, or a cold formal indifferentism, the slovenly soul will be easily overcome by vague wanderings, vagrant thoughts and even worse, so that all sense of the sweet solemnity of the occasion will be utterly lost. Shame it is that our affections should be so sluggish. For how dead must we be if the remembrance of His woe for us fails to revive us to an earnest review of His grace? May the apostle's exhortation be ever before the saints of God: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11:28).