1 Cor 11: 23-29; 10: 16, 17

DCW  What we have in chapter 11 indicates the value the Lord places on the remembrance of Himself during the time of His absence.  As we know, only two of the gospel writers were present at the Supper, and of those John gives us scarcely anything.  Matthew gives us a fairly brief account of what the Lord said; Mark gives us much the same as Matthew.  Luke apparently draws on what we have here and its importance is underlined by the fact that the Lord Himself delivered this to Paul, and Paul in turn has recorded it for us in its fulness and richness.  I think I would be right in saying that, in historical terms, this was the first account, and the fullest account of what the Lord seeks from His own in this interim period.  So that we have details, and fulness and richness here that we do not have elsewhere.  I thought there might be help in speaking over these things together as something that the Lord values on the part of each one in the time when He is rejected publicly.  We should bear in mind His desires, and also that we should have our part in the showing forth of His death until He come.  It is His own coming that is to be before us.

DJH  I am sure that is right.  There is a danger - speaking for myself - that matters are so familiar to us that we tend to lose the import and the value of them.  We should always be concerned as to what we partake of week by week being maintained in its freshness.  I think it has been said that it should have the freshness of the first time, and yet the urgency that it might be the last time.  We get some fresh impression each week, do we not?  The Lord is so great that throughout this whole time of His absence He has been sufficient for something fresh on each occasion.

DCW  Yes, I am sure that is the experience of each one of us.  It is not just a ceremony, but there is something living as the Spirit would help us.  He would come in, and no doubt each one of us derives satisfaction and confirmation; and we trust that there is something special for the blessed Lord Himself.  Paul was not able to draw on his own experience, nor did he draw on the experience of others, but the Lord communicated this directly to him.  It is significant too, I suppose, that it comes into such an epistle as this, where there is so much about breakdown, so much looseness, so much deviation from the truth; and yet there is this wonderful standard which is set, which has been preserved for us right down to this time. 

DJH  I am sure of that.  I am freshly impressed with it in view of what you say.  It says here that the Lord Jesus gave it in the night in which He was delivered up: so concerned was He that it should not be given up, that He gives it again from the glory, does He not?  So there is no doubt.  We might have said that it had been given to the twelve at the time just before His death, and it was for them; but this leaves no doubt that it was for us.  That He gave it from the glory shows how dear it is to His own heart that there should be those who remember Him in this way at the present time.

DCW  This is largely a Gentile company to which Paul writes.  Paul had obviously gone over all this with them before, but he thought it necessary to reiterate it, that it should be placed on record.

DJH  Well, that confirms our going over it again, that it should be reiterated.  We should never lose the power of what it is to the heart of Christ.

HAH  As you say, he had delivered it to them verbally, but it seems perhaps in view of what we have said - the familiarity and looseness in relation to it - He brings in this emphatic “I received from the Lord”.  Do you think there is an indication there that they should realise that it really came from the Lord Himself?

DCW  I think so.  Do you think the title “Lord” is important?  He says, “the Lord Jesus” - which is appealing to us - “in the night in which He was delivered up”.  It would be good to think of that: He could speak of it Himself, could He not, “the Son of man is delivered into the hands of sinners” (Matt 26: 45); and they have done with Him what they would?

HAH  The gospels makes it clear that He was delivered up three times.  Judas delivered Him up (Matt 26:21); the High Priest delivered Him up (Matt 27: 2); and then Pilate delivered Him up to be crucified, Matt 27:26.

DCW  So we might say that he was rejected at every turn.  He went through unsullied, with determination.  “He stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem”, Luke 9: 51.

DAB  I am interested in what you say about the placing of this account in relation to the history of the church.  The writers of the books of the Bible are not particularly careful to date them, but this revelation that Paul is writing of here must have occurred before his visit to Corinth, which places it very early, as you say.  So, when he was in Corinth; he would have taken the Supper in accordance with the way he had been shown, would you say?  And the breaking of bread in Troas (Acts 20: 7), for example, where it was held on the first day of the week, that too we can assume followed the Lord’s direction to Paul, can we?

DCW  Acts 20 would be subsequent to this, would it not?

DAB  And therefore in the light of it.

DCW  In the light of it.  So the Lord had said to Paul, “I have much people in this city”, Acts 18: 10.  I suppose there is nothing that draws the Lord’s people together as His own appeal, “this do in remembrance of me”.

DAB  I was just thinking that this may have been before any of the gospels were written; and we know that the believers began to break bread from the beginning of the Acts.  Maybe they broke bread every time they assembled - I do not know.  But the Lord gave this heavenly guidance as to it, apparently placing it on the day of His resurrection, and in this form.  I think what you say is very precious.  It was not simply something that we could take ownership of as if it was ours, but it remains - as Paul says here - “the Lord’s supper”. 

DCW  Here he had to chide them about taking their own supper.  So the Lord’s supper is wholly distinct, something unique, something peculiarly for His own heart.  We, of course, derive satisfaction and confirmation from it; but primarily it is for the Lord, and for the maintenance of His interests.  It is also for a demonstration to the world that the One that they rejected, the One that was crucified and slain, is alive and is remembered, is honoured, is respected, by those who are His own.

DAB  I had wondered recently whether the thought you have in mind may explain why John does not give us the order of the Lord’s supper.  He might not have thought it necessary to go over things that had since been established from heaven.  And, since it was so established in the heavenly light that we read about here, he does not give the earthly account of it that we have in the other gospels.

DCW  That is what I had thought.  John, as we know, was the last.  It is reputed that John’s gospel was the last of the New Testament writings.  What is here is so sufficient that he could not add anything to it; nor could he take anything from it.  Things that have come from the Lord Himself are inviolable.

DAB  If I could just add to that, it is quite interesting that there are things that John was a witness of that he does not include in his gospel, and this is one.  On the other hand, if you take his reference to the blood, it is unique.  I have had it pointed out to me that the blood is not actually mentioned in any of the preachings in the Acts, but it is in John’s gospel.  It is as if he is very much filling up what is needed for the continuance of things.

DCW  Yes.  So he is the only one who refers to the blood, and he speaks as an eye witness.  Then, of course, in his epistle, he speaks also of the witness of the blood.

PMW  You mentioned in your opening comments the showing forth the death of the Lord as distinct from remembering Him.  We are going over the witness of the fact that the Lord is alive, but the meeting for the breaking of bread is not announced.  What is happening at the breaking of bread is not all evident to the world.  Say something more for us as to how we can show forth the Lord’s death.

DCW  As to the announcement, I suppose that the Supper itself is the announcement.  We “announce the death of the Lord, until he come”.  Then we have to think of the angels, do we not?  There are certain things that they desire to look into, so that I suppose there is an angelic observance of what is taking place.  The very fact of the continuance of the remembrance is part of the showing forth.

DAB  I heard of somebody saying something about this recently, but the remembrance is the inward side; that is the private side - because I cannot tell the world what He means to me.  But I show forth His death - that is public, is it not?  I remember that my father used to say that, if anyone was enquiring, you would bring them to the Supper, because they need to see the showing forth, do they not?

DCW  It has been said that, if a person is interested, you should bring him or her to the best occasion.  That is where things are seen at their sweetest, and at their height and in their intimacy.  I suppose it is an occasion for intimacy, is it not?  The Lord manifests Himself to His own.

DJH  We are announcing His death, too.  We are not announcing that He is alive in glory, are we; but it His death?

HAH  I was going to ask a similar question.  I was wondering whether the announcement is in the fact that the loaf and the cup - that is what speaks of the body and the blood - are separate.  That in itself is an announcement that He has died.

DCW  I think that is a good way of putting it.  The fact that the cup speaks of His blood means that He Himself has died.  John draws attention to the blood.  So the life is in the blood.  But then we are not exactly remembering a dead Christ, but we are remembering a living Person - including perpetuating His memory.  We are also recalling what He has done, and where He has been, and where He now is.

DJH  So it implies that He is alive, does it not?  And He has broken the power of death.  We are announcing His death but we are remembering a living Christ.  The object is a victorious celebration, is it not?

DCW  So the emphasis is that in the beginning of the Acts he presented Himself living with many proofs.

DJH  Well, that is what we had this morning - many proofs!

DCW  Yes.

FSP  I would like to ask why, when the blood is so important - redemption hangs upon it, the whole history of man - it only appears in the gospel of John; and that was written long after it happened?

DCW  I could not exactly say why that is so but, as you say, everything depends upon the fact that the blood was shed.  It is the blood that makes atonement; the blood is what has paid the debt that we owe.  There is that which is the assurance of our salvation.

FSP  No, it just interests me - why so little is mentioned, and yet it is so important.

DCW  Peter speaks of the “precious blood, as of a lamb without spot and without blemish”, 1 Pet 1: 19.  God’s purpose requires that the blood should be shed.  Abel for his part had some apprehension of that, what was essential, what was pleasing, what was vital.

AAC  Following what has been asked, would you say a little more about what has been revealed after the Lord Jesus has gone into heaven?  I suppose in a sense if everything in this dispensation was only what was set on at that time, it would be somewhat stale; but there is that which is fresh, that which is living.  As you said, this was revealed after the Lord Jesus had gone into heaven.  It is set out here as revealed to Paul, and there is that in the way we take the Supper - we have been helped as to it - in quite recent times.  Is that an evidence of the way that the Lord Jesus is revealing these things to us, and the truth as to Himself?

DCW  It is a question of spiritual formation: “He shall receive of mine and reveal it to you”, John 16: 14.  “It is profitable for you that I go away”, John 16: 7.  That may seem a little difficult to understand, “profitable for you that I go away”.  “For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you”.  So we have to value increasingly the work of the Holy Spirit, taking of Christ’s things and showing them to us.

AAC  So these things are progressive, are they?  God answers the desire of a soul seeking after Himself in simplicity and faithfulness.

DCW  Yes, we come to what is basic.  This is basic; this is definitive.  We do not add to this.  We can think of what men have done, the way they have embroidered and tried to embellish this precious memorial.   We speak reverently about these things but the Lord made it extremely simple, did He not?  It is a simple matter, using elements that are readily available - bread and wine.  You think of what the great false system and others have made of it, the way in which they have surrounded it with ceremonial and liturgy and much also; all of which must be so obnoxious to Him and something the Lord could not possibly honour.

DJH  In a sense it could not be more simple outwardly, and yet it could not be more profound when you think of what is involved in it and its precious meaning to those who love Him.

DCW  Just so.  I am often impressed with that.

PFE  If we speak of simplicity, we have the breaking of bread, but it speaks of Him as well.

DCW  Yes; nothing is to obscure that.  Ceremonial obscures everything, and detracts in men’s minds from the truth - from the personality - of the Lord Himself.  When He came in He said, “it is I myself”, Luke 24: 39.  When the Lord comes into circumstances, everything becomes plain, everything becomes real, everything becomes confirmed.

DAB  And, as you have yourself proved, it can be taken by two.  That is how simple it is.  And it would not be different if it was taken by two thousand, assuming that was practical.

DCW  Yes, that is so.  The Lord has made it so available to us.  Of course, we do not overlook the fact that we have the sisters with us.  But very often we have been just literally two.

DAB  I was thinking too that, when the Lord gave this, we could not say it was corrective.  Paul puts it in this letter correctively, but we do not know that it was corrective when Paul received it from the Lord.  It is not that things always have to be adjusted; the Lord gives it in the simplicity in which those who love Him would seek to take it up.

DCW  These - if you will - are the great headlines.  This did not have to change.

HAH  You referred just now to the Holy Spirit; does His power enter into the announcement?  And into the ability to discern His presence as He makes Himself known in the breaking of bread?

DCW  I think it must be so.  After all, ”no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit” 1 Cor 12: 3.

HAH  And it is significant that the first thing a brother says when he goes to the table is normally, “Lord Jesus”.

DCW  That would not be a mere formality, would it?

DJH  So it is introduced here, “the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up”.

DCW  It is the Lord Jesus who has given us this, it is a personal touch, something that is to be cherished.

ARH  We had recently in London that sometimes the things that are the simplest are the most profound.  I was speaking to someone recently who said, ‘It is my exercise to keep things simple’.  We spoke for some time and at the end of it I said, ‘Well, what could be more simple than that the Lord has asked me to remember Him; and that is what I do’.  We have those emblems there, and it is just such a simple thing that the Lord has asked us to remember Him; and that is what I would seek to do.

DCW  I am glad that you bring that in.  It is something that even a young believer can do.  We have had some experience of that recently locally, young persons asking to remember the Lord.  They have simple, and yet real, impressions of what should be done.  One young sister said it was her desire to honour the Lord.  That should be the desire of each one.

GHH  It is interesting that the Lord links remembrance here with both the loaf and the cup - “in remembrance of me”.

DCW  Quite so.  We do not have this in Luke’s gospel.  We do not have remembrance linked with the cup in his account, but we do here.  It shows the equivalence of the two emblems.

GHH  Would we be affected by that?  He laid down His life for us and gave His body; and also that He shed His precious blood.  Each week we should be freshly affected by these two things.

DCW  Just so.

PMW  Say something about what the Lord says, “This is my body which is for you”.  Then in verse 25 it speaks of the new covenant in relation to the cup.  Would you say something about the new covenant?

DCW  The new covenant is properly that which is made - which He will make - with His earthly people.  That will be enjoyed in its fulness in the millennium.  But then, as being of the present dispensation, we are partaking of something of the joy of these things.

DAB  Yes.  I think if you look at the way the matter is presented in Jeremiah, for example, or in Hebrews, in relation to the covenant that God will make with Israel, there is no blood there.  What we have here is "in my blood".  It bears on what was being said: it is not just that the whole ground of redemption is secured but the whole entrance into part with Him where He is, all rests "in my blood".

DCW  So He has entered in.  The high priest entered in with blood not his own, but the Lord Jesus has entered in with His own blood into holy places not made with hands.

DAB  And I think it is important also to see - and this is underlined by the way He ministered this to Paul - that His sufferings are presented as over.  “This is my body which is given", He says, "my blood, which is poured out", Luke 22: 19, 20.  The work is done.  I am not saying there is not a vicarious element to His burial but the work is complete.  And we are not exactly asked to remember what He was about to pass through, but to remember Him where He is.

DCW  It is a completed matter.  The Lord left nothing undone.  It is good for us to get hold of that.  There is nothing that we can do, or could do, but this is a means by which we can express our appreciation and admiration of what He has done not only for Himself but also for us; and also, of course, for the Father.

AAC  I wonder if you would say another word about the Lord coming in at the Supper.  We look forward to the Supper on Lord’s day morning.  It is often to be with the Lord, and His coming, that strikes our hearts.  Of course we gather on other occasions.  The Lord does not bring it out here, that we will prove His company, His companionship.  That is not brought our here at all.  Can you help me as to that?

DCW  The Lord said "this do".  The Lord has made many promises.  He is not exactly putting this forward as a means by which we will be rewarded.  It is something we can do for Him.

AAC  I think that is good; it helps us as we look forward to the Supper to have that in our minds.  It is an occasion with which we are privileged to be familiar, and there is nothing wrong with that; but we need to have this simple point in our minds.

DCW  This is the special means by which we can demonstrate our affection for the Lord.  It is on account of affection; it is not because we have a commandment; or because it is something we must do, but it is drawn out from the hearts of those that love Him.

DJH  What has just been said bears on what was said earlier as to verse 20.  It speaks of the Lord’s supper: it is His Supper, is it not?  It was what we are doing for Him.  We value it, we enjoy it, but we are never to lose sight of the fact that what we are doing we are doing for Him.

AAC  That is what I was thinking, and it helps to have that a bit more in our minds.  In His faithfulness, what we enjoy is very, very precious.  But we should think of what His request to us is.

DCW  So there is no prescription as to what might follow.  I suppose there are few subjects on which we have more ministry than that pertaining to the Lord’s supper, and there is a certain pattern; but there is no prescription as to how events proceed, or how the service may develop.  The Lord may give us impressions underlining or reinforcing these things.

AAC  We may speak to some who just do simply what the Lord has asked us to do.  They do not have that privilege that we have, but the Lord still honours their faithfulness in doing what He asked them to do.

DCW  He does.

DAB  Does this link with what the apostle goes on to here?  I was thinking of the state of things in Corinth, and he says "I, brethren, have not been able to speak to you as to spiritual", 1 Cor 3: 1.  At the end of this chapter, he speaks of other things he has got to set in order.  He had not been able to go over the whole matter here.  But then he says, "concerning spiritual manifestations, brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant" (1 Cor 12: 1); as if that spiritual side that has been referred to could only be recovered as they had re-established the Lord’s supper in its true place in their gathering.

DCW  An all-important point to notice is that there is no excuse for not remembering the Lord: "let a man prove himself".  He does not say, ’do not eat’.  He does not give any grounds for a person absenting himself or herself from the Supper, does he?

DAB  I think what you say is important, that the Lord places emphasis on the "remembrance of me".  Can I have an occasion in which the Lord alone is the focus?  He speaks about Himself here in a way that could be said of no one else: "my body, which is for you": Of whom else could that be said?  These things are intended to make Him a focus in the way the Corinthians really needed to arrive at before they could enter into spiritual manifestations.

DCW  Quite so; so there has to be respect.  We should not come casually.  We should examine ourselves, as the Authorised Version says.  We should not come empty either, should we?  It is an occasion for participation on the part of those able so to do.

DJH  I am trying to link with what has been referred to that follows.  It begins with what belongs to the person of the Holy Spirit.  What follows the Supper, what we look for, is spiritual manifestations.  The Holy Spirit is essential in that regard; so it goes on in the next chapter in that respect.

DCW  I believe that is so.  Paul, of course, was uniquely fitted, “an elect vessel" (Acts 9: 15), and the Lord used him to bring these things to record, so that they would remain for our instruction, our comfort, and our edification.

DJH  So really what we have at the Supper is a spiritual manifestation.  We do not have Him with us corporeally but it is a spiritual manifestation.  You can see the way that Paul goes on to the matter of right relations with the Holy Spirit.

DCW  So it is a living matter.  It is not a dead commemoration of some common thing as in the world.  They often remember persons who are dead, who have long since departed from the scene.  Perhaps some have been quite unworthy persons.  Here we have One who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Heb 7: 26) a real, glorious, living and ascended Man.

DJH  A brother was asked how did he know that Jesus was alive at the present time and he said, ’Oh, I was speaking to Him this morning’.  It is as real as that.

DAB  If Paul had been able to go on here to speak about the order of the service, the ceremonialists would have fed on it, to establish an occasion in which neither the headship of Christ nor the leading of the Spirit were needed, because they would have had it in a book.  The Lord in His wisdom has given the Supper in a place where that was not opened up, so that we remain dependent in that respect?

DCW  As far as we know, in the established churches they have a set order for each Sunday.  They can look it up in a book, and it can be read out, and it is all there for them; and they do not need the Holy Spirit.  They read something out.  Similarly, of course, anybody can read the Scriptures, but then it is the Spirit that gives the Scriptures a present living voice, and opens up their import to us.  I suppose we will never exhaust what we have in the Scriptures.

DAA  I was only reminded of what we had in Newport yesterday, as to the sensitivity seen in relation to the type in Genesis 24; and the way that the work of God is to be formative in the saints.  I was wondering if it linked with what we have been saying in relation to the Spirit, and how we proceed in the service of God that follows on from the Supper; that we are developed in sensitivity as the Spirit is made way for with us, do you think?

DCW  Yes, I think so.  We could think of Rebecca showing that sensitivity.  The servant said, "That is my master!   Then she took the veil, and covered herself” .. “and she sprang off the camel”, indicating that she was now wholly for another.

DAA  We get the wilderness journey preceding that.  She was sustained in that whole area, so that she was in vitality when she met Isaac.  It is a challenge with us on the Lord’s day as to whether we are in vitality and energy in relation to Christ.

DCW  You made reference in your thanksgiving this morning to the Spirit as typified in Genesis 24?

HAH  Yes, and you gave out that hymn -

         The way of love how blest

                  (Hymn 106)

He says, "I being in the way, Jehovah has led me to the house of my master’s brethren", Gen 24: 27.  That suggests what the blessed Spirit has found, as we respond to the Lord.  He is the power for that, but we know that the Lord takes us on as His brethren, as I think we had this morning.  These things flow together, we might say.  As you say, it is not prescribed, but we get these touches in Genesis.

DCW  So the great point for Rebecca is, "Wilt thou go with this man?   And she said, I will go”, v 58.  That involves separation from much that she had cherished and perhaps had grown up with; because something more precious and special was opening up for her.

HAH  This is like the start of what we enjoy.

AAC  Could you say something as to eating and drinking unworthily?  He brings that in here: could you help us as to that?

DCW  I think that would raise with us the state in which we might come to the Supper.  We might be out of sorts with another brother, another sister.  We might even be out of sorts in our own family circumstances.  So, if we come along to the Supper with such burdens resting upon us, we could not fully enter into or appreciate the import of that to which are committing ourselves.  Do you think that?

AAC  I do.  He puts it very strongly here: "shall be guilty in respect of the body and the blood of the Lord".  That is something very serious, is it not?

DCW  It is a solemn occasion.  There is liberty in it, there is enjoyment in it, but there is a solemnity and a dignity in it that we should observe.

AAC  And this therefore places considerable responsibility upon me, and my relations with the Lord and my brethren.

DCW  Just so.  It requires me to prove myself.

PMW  What is being referred to is in chapter 10: 17 where you read, "we, being many, are one loaf, one body", bearing on the fact that we are linked together in the one body.

DCW  Quite so; so are we together?  Are we all one?  Is there unity, all thinking the same thing, thinking one thing?  It raises challenges with us.  Each of us is presented with a very special privilege, and an occasion when we can make a fresh start.

FSP  The body and blood, as was said, both have remembrance attached to them.  Here in chapter 10 the body and the blood both have the word "communion" attached to them.  I wondered if, as we are all together remembering and contemplating, that brings about a communion between ourselves. 

DCW  I think so.  The word means a common sharing.  We are referred back by the footnote to Acts 2: 42 where they were all together and they had everything in common; there was an entire identity between them.  Of course, that state changed soon afterwards but it shows what was - and is - possible.  There is a common object before each one, and that object is the Lord Himself.  So we have this touch in chapter 10, "the cup of blessing which we bless".  It may make us think of the cup that the Lord had to partake of (John 18: 11), that bitter cup; but the blessing remains for us and it is something that we would honour as observing what the Lord would have us to do.

DJH  I think, in that reference to the bitter cup, we have it in the hymn:

         That bitter cup - love drank it up;

         Left but the love for me.

                   (Hymn 415)

That is what we prove at the Supper?

DCW  So it is a love feast.

DAB  I wonder if there is a testimony in verse 17 to what we have been saying about what is living.  The loaf before us on the table speaks immediately uniquely of Christ.  We cannot put ourselves into what was "given for you".  But then, in the company, there is a representation of His body, which is living.  There are other ways of viewing His own which encompass those who are with Christ already, but the body is specifically a reference to the expression of Himself among the living.

DCW  I think that is helpful; so the bread itself is an inanimate object.  The body is a living organism.  The body has various parts and each part is essential to the functioning of the body.

DAB  I was thinking of what was being said, that to partake - not only to put my hands to the loaf, but to appear to be part of that unity - is a solemn thing, is it not?

DCW  The word ’partake’ is something we do. 

JSH  I was just contemplating the matter of responsibility; our relationships with our brethren and all that are His.  It puts a responsibility on me throughout the week, does it not, about how I am doing my daily duties here?  How am I amongst my brethren, that I might be in the right spirit as we come to the Supper?  But there is the responsibility too actually to be there to remember Him, because He said it was until He come.  There might not be another opportunity.  I was affected by that as we came to the Supper, that there might never be another opportunity when we come together.

DCW  I am glad you bring that in, because time is short.  We cannot say when the Lord’s return will take place.  There is every indication that the time is short.  We see around us the manifestation of things of which the Lord spoke, and the opportunity is passing.  I appeal to the younger brethren particularly that these things may not slip away.  They should not keep themselves apart from the privileges that are connected with remembering the Lord.  There is a responsibility, as we have been speaking about.  There is a great privilege too, in the remembrance.  We need to take account of how people regard us; they take note of our conduct and actions and expressions.  It is a challenge as to whether we are worthy of that which we profess to be.

DJH  It strikes me - I had not seen it that way before - but does that all enter into the  proving of ourselves?  There is the side as we approach the Supper, that we would be before the Lord as to our readiness, and anything which may have come in; but proving ourselves in a sense would relate to our pathway during the week, as to whether everything is in accord with what we are to do?

DCW  I believe that to be so.  So something should enter into our constitution.  We cannot take high ground.  We are all human, with the same feelings and emotions as the rest of mankind, but then there is what is imposed - not in any arbitrary way - upon believers to confess to belonging to the Lord Himself.

DJH  I think we have been told that Mr Raven was asked on a Monday morning where he was going, and he said he was going to the Supper.  In that sense, he would be concerned all the way to be proving himself.

HAH  I notice that, at the end of the second epistle, we get the thought, "prove your own selves” (2 Cor 13: 5), and it seems to be the evidence that Jesus Christ is in you.  So it is a question of the manifestation of Christ in some way, is it not?

DCW  I think so.  So Paul starts the first epistle by saying early on that they were to be "perfectly united", 1 Cor 1: 10.  The footnote tells us that it is related to the mending of a net.  Then, towards the end of the second epistle, he brings out the same thing.  We might say then these two epistles are enshrined between those two desires on the part of the beloved apostle.


4th October 2009