EXTRACT
THE LORD'S SUPPER AS THE
EXPRESSION OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
AND THAT WHICH LEADS TO
ASSEMBLY PRIVILEGE
Joseph Pellatt
Revelation 1: 9
But look how John speaks. He says, "I John, your brother". If a man speaks of himself as your brother, you may get close to that man; there is no distance, and more - there is no difference; it is common ground. But it is not only "I John, your brother", but it is also "and fellow partaker". That is the language of fellowship. Now I need not say to you - because it will be very obvious to every one here - that as banished to the Isle of Patmos it was not possible for John to give expression to his fellowship in the breaking of bread; you would have to have more than one saint for that; you might have the breaking of bread with two saints, or three, or more; but let me emphasise this - John brings himself before us on common ground as our "brother", and he is in fellowship. Oh! you say, could a man be in fellowship without breaking bread? Excuse me if, in reply, I ask you: How is he going to break bread according to scripture if he is not in fellowship? If I understand the breaking of bread, it does not produce fellowship; the breaking of bread is the scriptural and divinely-appointed expression of it, but fellowship must exist. What else could you make of the order of the words in Acts 2: 42: "And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers"? That is the right order. Does Paul call in question the fact of the Corinthians being Christians? Look at the very opening of his epistle to them. He addresses them. "To the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints" - not ‘called to be saints’. They were constituted such by divine calling. So far from calling in question their Christianity, he speaks of it as a matter of thanksgiving, and he does not hesitate for a moment to give expression to his assurance concerning them - assurance that not only covers the present but reaches on into the eternal future; and yet, beloved, you may have a number of Christians and they may break bread - that is, outwardly; there is the table and the bread and the wine, and things may be done in a kind of orderly way - but if the truth of fellowship is not there, if they are not in fellowship, how would that affect their outward breaking of bread? Well, in Paul's judgment it would so seriously affect it that Paul would absolutely deny that their breaking of bread was the Lord's supper. Now that may seem a kind of paradox, but that is just what he says in chapter 11: 20. Ostensibly, and possibly in outward form, there was the breaking of bread, but he says, "When ye come together therefore into one place, it is not to eat the Lord's supper". And he says why; his statement is not arbitrary, or one which is unsupported by good reasons. The first thing, then, is individuality, and we have got to be in fellowship, and the question is, How? Well, what we desire to affirm most emphatically is that everything in Christianity not only subsists in the power of the Spirit of God, but everything in Christianity must be taken up in the power of the Spirit of God. If the breaking of bread is taken up apart from the activities and power of the Spirit of God in us, it will lose its proper character. This was the case with the Corinthians; the reality of fellowship was not there; externally they were in fellowship and responsibly they were in fellowship, but fellowship was not there - they were carnal - fleshly. "For whereas there are among you emulation and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?" These are the specifications supporting and proving the apostle's charge that they were "carnal", "fleshly". It is a serious thing.
From Closing Ministry of Joseph Pellatt, volume 1