The Lord's table
12.1 What is the significance of a table in Scripture?
In Scripture, a table speaks of fellowship or a sphere where fellowship is enjoyed or expressed. Different tables in Scripture stand for different types of fellowship. The fellowship in question is characterised by the person whose table it is (see Q.2).
12.2 Do we find other examples of tables in Scripture?
A number of different tables are mentioned in Scripture. Saul’s table (1. Sam 20:24-34) was one of royalty without loyalty. David’s table (2. Sam 9:7-13) was a table of kindness. Solomon’s table was one of abundance leading to marvel (1. Kings 4:27; 10:5). Nehemiah’s table was one of generosity in difficult times (Neh 5:17).
12.3 Where does the New Testament mention the Lord’s table, and in what connection?
The New Testament mentions the Lord’s table only once (1. Cor 10:21). This is in connection with the need for the Corinthians to avoid association with fellowships that were incompatible with the fellowship expressed at the Lord’s table (see Q.9).
12.4 Why is it called ‘the Lord’s table’?
It is called ‘the Lord’s table’ because it is His table. It belongs to Him. It is a sphere where His Lordship is respected. And it is called ‘table’ because it is a sphere where fellowship, or communion, is expressed. In summary, therefore, it speaks of a communion characterised by the Lordship of Christ.
12.5 Is the Lord’s table mentioned in the Old Testament?
The expression ‘table of the Lord’ occurs once in the Old Testament: ‘But ye profane it [my name], in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted …’ (Mal 1:12). Here it refers to the altar. [1] What is emphasised is the holiness that becomes this ‘table.’ Malachi had to reproach the remnant because they had not taken account of the holiness of the table of the Lord.
1 Note that the altar is called the table of the Lord, but the Lord’s table is not an altar. The Lord’s table is where He presides, not where He is sacrificed.
12.6 What is the difference between the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s table?
These are two different aspects of the same thing. The supper brings before us the meal itself and its character as a memorial. The table brings before us the fellowship expressed in taking the supper.
12.7 What is the emphasis of Paul’s teaching in 1. Corinthians 10 and 11 respectively?
In 1. Corinthians 10 Paul brings out what is expressed and implied in taking the emblems. In 1. Corinthians 11 he brings out the manner in which they should be taken, and the purpose of taking them: to remember the Lord and show His death.
In 1. Corinthians 10 Paul brings out collective responsibility (‘ye cannot’), in 1. Corinthians 11 he brings out individual responsibility (‘a man’).
12.8 How do we partake of the Lord’s table?
By drinking of the cup (of the supper) and by eating of the bread (of the supper), as stated in 1. Corinthians 10:16: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless’ and ‘The bread which we break’. There is no other way to partake of the Lord’s table (v. 21) than by partaking of the emblems (v. 16). But it must be done in accordance with the features of the Lord’s table (see Q.35).
12.9 What do we express when we partake of the Lord’s table?
We express communion (this is what a table is all about, see Q.1 and Q.2). At the Lord’s table we express communion with His body that was given for us (1. Cor 10:16), with His blood that was shed for us (v. 16) and that all believers on earth are members of His body, the church (v. 17).
12.10 What is the meaning of ‘body’ in verse 16?
The physical body of Christ given for us on the cross.
12.11 What is the meaning of ‘body’ in verse 17?
The (spiritual) body of Christ, i.e. the church in its global aspect: all believers on earth at a given point in time.
12.12 Why does verse 16 speak of the blood and body of ‘the Christ’ and not just ‘Christ’? Is there any connection with the reference to ‘the Christ’ in 1. Corinthians 12:13: ‘so also is the Christ’?
In 1. Corinthians 12:13 the expression ‘the Christ’ encompasses Christ and the church, His body. However, in most [1] New Testament passages this is not the case. As a rule,[2], when a word presents the object with which the mind is occupied, the article is used; when a word is merely characteristic, the article is omitted. Here in 1. Corinthians 10 Christ is the object before the mind: He is the Rock that was smitten (v. 4), the One who should not be tempted (v. 9), and the One whose blood was shed and whose body was given (v. 16).
1 See, for instance, Matt. 2:4; 16:16; Acts 8:5; 18:28; Rom 9:5; 15:3; 1. Cor 11:3, 15:15, 22, 23b; etc. In particular, there are two references in the chapter itself (1. Cor 10): ‘the rock was the Christ’ and ‘Neither let us tempt the Christ’ (vs. 4, 9). Surely, neither of these refers to Christ and the church.
2 See ‘On the Greek Article’ and ‘Brief hints on the Greek article’ by J N Darby, Collected Writings, Vol. 13.
12.13 What gave rise to Paul’s instructions concerning the Lord’s table?
The occasion giving rise to Paul’s instruction was a sad one: the Corinthians needed to be warned against association with idolatry. Hence Paul starts the passage with the plea to ‘flee from idolatry.’
12.14 But did the Corinthians believe in idols?
No. They were quite clear that ‘an idol is nothing' (1. Cor 10:19-20; cf. 8:4). The problem was a different one (see Q.16).
12.15 Why does the passage in 1. Corinthians 10 mention Israel and the altar?
The apostle wants to demonstrate a principle, namely the fact that an outward participation implies inner communion (see Q.19). To this end, he gives four examples:
- Giving thanks for the cup (outward action) implies communion with Christ’s blood
- Breaking the bread (outward action) implies communion with Christ’s body
- Eating of the sacrifice (peace offering), for an Israelite who did so, implied communion with the altar
- Eating of idolatrous sacrifices (outward action) implied communion with demons.
12.16 Why does this passage mention the Gentiles and idolatrous sacrifices?
The Corinthians appear to have taken the view that — as they did not believe in idols — there was no harm in partaking of idolatrous sacrifices. But the problem was not what they believed. The problem was that the Gentiles (v. 20) believed in the idols they served, and the Corinthians were in danger of associating with that service.
12.17 What is the train of thought in the passage?
The train of thought is that the Corinthians were in danger of expressing that they were part of two different types of fellowship that were incompatible with each other:
- in partaking of the emblems, they expressed fellowship with the body and blood of Christ,
- in partaking of idolatrous sacrifices, they expressed (whether willingly or not) fellowship with demons.
They had overlooked that association with evil defiles. Paul demonstrates in this passage that it does.
12.18 Why is the cup mentioned before the bread?
The thought of the blood of Christ was most suited to make the Corinthians (and us) shrink from unholy associations. The allusion to the blood shed, the life of Christ ‘given’ and ‘laid down’, was most suitable and designed to lead the Corinthians to rethink their associations.
The blood of Christ — his sacrificial death — is also the foundation of all our blessings.
12.19 What can we learn from the two different Greek words used for fellowship in this passage?
Paul uses the words metecho (to partake) and koinonia (communion). Metecho is a verb (i.e. expressing an activity), koinonia is a noun. Metecho is used for outward participation or loose association; koinonia is used for close inner communion. Metecho, i.e. the activity of an outward action, is used in verses 17 and 21: ‘we all partake’ of that one bread, and ‘ye cannot partake’ of the Lord’s table. Koinonia is used twice in verse 16: ‘communion of the blood’ and ‘communion of the body’ of Christ, and the related word koinonos (the one who has this communion) is used in verses 18 and 20: ‘communion with the altar’ and ‘communion with demons’. This usage of metecho and koinonia/koinonos is very striking: the point that is made very powerfully in this way is that the outward action of partaking implies close inner communion (see Q.15).
12.20 Does the passage speak about partakers or about partaking?
The passage speaks of the activity of partaking and of the communion expressed (Q.19). Using a literal translation (like J N Darby’s translation) will greatly help in discerning this pattern:
|
Verse |
Activity (verb) |
Implication/expression |
|
v. 16 |
The cup … we bless |
communion of the blood of the Christ |
|
bread … we break |
communion of the body of the Christ |
|
|
v. 17 |
partake of that one loaf |
|
|
v. 18 |
they who eat the sacrifices |
communion with the altar |
|
v. 20 |
the nations sacrifice … to demons |
communion with demons |
|
v. 21 |
drink the Lord's cup/cup of demons |
|
|
partake of the Lord's table/table of demons |
|
The conclusion is that the two activities are incompatible: the partaking of the Lord’s cup (and table) on the one hand, and the partaking of the demons’ cup (and table) on the other.
But does not the King James Version speak of ‘partakers’ as opposed to ‘partaking’, and that for both the outward activity (metecho) and the inner communion (koinonia)?
Yes, that is true. The King James Version is excellent in many ways but does not offer a precise translation of this passage. There are two problems:
- It uses a noun (partakers) when, as a matter of fact, the Greek text uses a verb, describing an activity (to partake),
- It uses ‘partakers’ for both the outward activity as well as the communion expressed by the activity.
As a result, the difference between partaking (metecho) and communion (koinonia), unfortunately, is completely obscured. The following table may help to clarify:
|
Verse |
King James Version |
Literal translation |
Greek |
|
v. 16 |
communion of the blood of Christ |
communion of the blood of the Christ |
koinonia |
|
communion of the body of Christ |
communion of the body of the Christ |
koinonia |
|
|
v. 17 |
we are all partakers of that one bread. |
we all partake of that one loaf |
metecho |
|
v. 18 |
partakers of the altar |
communion with the altar |
koinonos |
|
v. 20 |
fellowship with devils |
communion with demons |
koinonos |
|
v. 21 |
ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table |
partake of the Lord's table/table of demons |
metecho |
The table shows that:
- J N Darby’s translation reflects the Greek text accurately in terms of both the distinction between nouns and verbs, and the distinction between outward partaking and inner communion,
- The King James uses the same word (partakers) to translate different Greek words,
- The King James uses three different words (partakers, communion, and fellowship) to render the same Greek word (koinonia/koinonos),
- The King James uses a noun (partakers) to render a verb (partaking, metecho).
12.21 Is it a textual question?
No, it is not a textual question. It is a question of precision in the translation.
12.22 But why is all this relevant, practically?
Because the King James Version, using ‘partakers’, could give the impression that it is a question of position, a question of who or what we are, as opposed to a question what we do. Further, unless the two Greek words are distinguished, the conclusion is lost on the reader, namely that outward partaking implies, and expresses, inner communion.
12.23 What is meant by ‘table of demons’?
A table is where fellowship is expressed (see Q.1). The table of demons is the sphere where people have, and express communion with demons (through idolatry).
12.24 Are there other tables in Christendom than the table of demons and the Lord’s table?
Yes, there are many. This was not so at the time the epistle to the Corinthians was written. Then the Christians were not separated through denominations and organisations as is the case today. So, today, there is 1) the Lord’s table, there are 2) human tables, and 3) the table of demons.
12.25 Is this passage only relevant to idolatry then?
No — it has a far wider application. Let us be very clear: man-made Christian fellowships are not in keeping with God’s mind, but they are in no way part of the ‘table of demons’ (unless clearly idolatrous). However, the passage establishes a general principle: outward actions imply close inward communion (Q.17, Q.19, Q.20). Association with evil defiles. We ‘cannot’ (see Q.34) express communion with two sets of incompatible principles. By implication, it would be contradictory to express on one Lord’s day the unity of His body and, on another Lord’s day, agreement with sectarian principles.
12.26 But are not all Christians at the Lord’s table?
No. Scripture never speaks about ‘being at’ the Lord’s table at all. It speaks about the activity of ‘partaking’ of the Lord’s table. The Lord’s table is characterised by the Lord’s authority (it is His table), where the unity of the body of Christ is expressed. We desire that all Christians would seek and come to it. In principle all Christians have their place there. But sadly, some are disqualified, and some choose incompatible fellowships, e.g. denominational fellowships.
12.27 But does this mean that some Christians can claim they have the Lord’s table?
No. No Christian, and no group of Christians, has a claim to the Lord’s table. The Lord’s table is His table. For anyone, or any group, the claim to ‘have’ the Lord’s table would be pretentious.
12.28 In which case no one knows where the Lord’s table can be found?
Scripture gives us no physical location or address. But it provides the features, the characteristics, of the Lord’s table and we should come together where these characteristics are seen (Q.35). I should give no ‘sleep to mine eyes, slumber to mine eyelids’ until I have found this place (Ps 132:4).
12.29 But are not all Christians part of the body of Christ?
Yes, they are indeed. All are members of His body. But it is not all who ‘eat’, ‘bless’ and ‘partake’.
12.30 But are not all Christians called to the fellowship of God’s Son?
Yes, they are (1. Cor 1:9). This is the sphere all are called to but, unfortunately, not all give expression to this (see Q.29).
12.31 But are not all members of the body embraced in 1. Corinthians 10 verse 17?
Yes, all believers are ‘embraced’ in the sense that they are all seen in the one loaf. This loaf stands for the body of Christ of which all believers form part. This is what is being expressed by the one loaf used for the supper. But not all Christians give expression to this unity. We need to distinguish between the unity expressed and those expressing it.
12.32 But was not all Israel in communion with the altar?
No. The text is very clear: ‘they who eat’ were in fellowship with the altar (1. Cor 10:18). In principle, the eating of the peace offering was open to any Israelite. This was not limited to one family (e.g. the sons of Aaron) or to any one particular tribe. However, only those who were clean were allowed to eat (Lev 7:19b). Should any defilement occur they would lose the privilege of eating the peace offering until they were clean again (v. 21).
12.33 What is meant by ‘you cannot’?
The ‘cannot’ expresses a moral impossibility. As a matter of fact, they could very well do both (and some of them probably did, hence the warning). The next verse provides the proof: if they were to engage in both fellowships they would ‘provoke the Lord to jealousy.’ Hence the ‘cannot’ expresses, in the strongest terms, the apostle’s ‘must not.’
12.34 In summary: what are the characteristics of the Lord’s table?
There are at least three key characteristics of the Lord’s table shown explicitly in 1. Corinthians 10:
- The unity of the body of Christ is expressed (v. 17). This is where Christians come together and break bread on a non-sectarian basis, on the ground of the body of Christ. No other membership is required, or even desirable. They partake of the emblems simply as members of the body of Christ.
- Separation from evil, including evil associations: the fellowship expressed at the Lord’s table is not compatible with that which dishonours the Lord. The divine ‘cannot’ forbids any association with principles that are incompatible with those of His table.
- The Lord’s authority is respected: it is, after all, the Lord’s table. It is where He presides. The Lord is central and gives character to the fellowship. His will as disclosed in the New Testament is respected and His authority gladly owned.
The last point has a number of implications: the gathering will be unto His name (Matt. 18:20) and the instructions in the remainder of this epistle (and indeed others) will be heeded. There may be (great) weakness, but there is the upright desire to honour the Lord Jesus and to keep His Word.
12.35 In conclusion: where is the Lord’s table to be found today?
Again, we will not make any claim. We will not provide a street address. But we would point out the characteristics of the Lord’s table as shown to us in Scripture (see Q.34) and encourage everyone to ask the Lord to lead him or her to this place to taste the communion of His table in His presence.