by Epiphany Bible Students

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Cor. 11:24-26)

It was in harmony with this type of the killing of the Passover lamb on the 14th day of the first month, the day preceding the seven days’ Feast of the Passover, celebrated by the Jews—that our Lord died, as the antitypical Passover Lamb, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” At no other time was it possible for our Lord to have finished in death the sacrifice which he began when he was thirty years of age, in his baptism unto death. Hence it was that, although the Jews many times sought to take him, no man laid hands on him, because “his hour was not yet fully come.” (John 7:8:30)

As the Jews were commanded to select the lamb of sacrifice on the tenth day of the first month, and to receive it into their houses on that date, the Lord appropriately offered himself to them on that date, when, five days before the Passover, he rode into the city on the ass, the multitude crying, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!” “He came unto his own, and his own [as a nation] received him not, but as many as received him [individually] to them gave he liberty to become sons of God.” The nation, through its representatives, the rulers, instead of receiving him, rejected him, and thus identified themselves for the time with the Adversary. Nevertheless, by God’s grace the blood of the New Covenant is efficacious for the house of Jacob also, and upon all who desire harmony with God, and they were partakers of the merits of the Lamb—yet they refused to eat of the antitypical Lamb—they lost the opportunity of becoming as a nation the first-born ones, the Royal Priesthood, the holy nation, the peculiar people of Messiah—they lost the opportunity of passing over and becoming mem­bers of the New Creation, with life more abundant in glory, honor and immortality; but we are glad to be informed elsewhere in the Scripture that they will, nevertheless, have a glorious opportunity of accepting the Lamb of God, of eating, appro-priating, his flesh, his sacrifice, and of thus escaping the bondage of sin and death, under the leadership of the Lord and of his faithful brethren, spiritual Israel, the antitypical Church of the First-born (Rom. 11:11-26).

It was at the close of our Lord’s ministry, on the 14th day of the first month, in “the same night in which he was betrayed,” and in the same day, therefore, in which he died, as the antitypical Lamb, that he celebrated with his disciples the typical Passover of the Jews—eating, with his twelve apostles, the typical lamb which represented himself, his own sacrifice for the sins of the world and the “meat indeed,” in the strength of which the life, the liberties and the blessings of the sons of God are alone obtained. The eating of this supper on the night preceding our Lord’s death, and yet the same day, was made possible by the Jewish custom, which began each day, not at midnight, but in the evening. The Lord evidently arranged all the affairs of Israel in conformity with the types which they were to express.

As Jews “born under the Law,” it was obligatory upon our Lord and his apostles to celebrate this type, and at its proper time; and it was after they had thus observed the Jewish Supper, eating the lamb with unleavened bread and herbs, and probably also, as was customary, with “fruit of the vine,” that the Lord—taking part of the unleavened bread and of the fruit of the vine remaining over from the Jewish Supper, the type—instituted amongst his disciples and for his entire Church, whom they represented (John 17:20), a new thing, that with them, as the spiritual Israel, the Church of the First-born, the New Creation, should take the place of, and supplant, the Jewish Passover Supper. Our Lord was not instituting another and a higher type of the Passover. On the contrary, the type was about to begin its fulfillment, and, hence, would be no longer appropriate to those who accepted the fulfillment. Our Lord, as the antitypical Lamb, was about to be slain, as the Apostle expresses it in the text at the head of this chapter: “Christ our Passover [Lamb] is slain.”

None accepting Christ as the Passover Lamb, and thus accepting the antitype as taking the place of the type, could any longer with propriety prepare a typical lamb and eat it in commemoration of the typical deliverance. The appropriate thing thenceforth for all believers in Jesus as the true Passover Lamb would be the sprinkling of the doorposts of the heart with his blood: “Having their hearts sprinkled from a consciousness of evil” [from present condem­nation— realizing their sins propitiated through his blood, and that through his blood they now have forgiveness of sins]. These henceforth must eat, or appropriate to themselves, the merits of their Redeemer—the merits of the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all. By faith they must partake of those merits, and realize that as their sins were laid upon the Lord, and he died for them, so his merits and righteousness are imputed to them. These things they eat, or appropriate by faith.

If, then, our Lord’s Supper took the place of the Passover Supper, yet not as a higher type—the antitype having commenced—what was it? We answer that it was a Memorial of the antitype—a remembrance for his followers of the beginning of the fulfillment of the antitypical Passover.

Thus to accept our Lamb, and so to commemorate his death for us, means expectancy regarding the promised deliverance of the people of God, and therefore signifies that those appreciating and memorializing intelligently while in the world shall not be of the world; but shall be as pilgrims and as strangers, who seek more desirable conditions, free from the blights and sorrows and bondage of the present time of the reign of Sin and Death. These partake of the true, the antitypical unleavened bread: they seek to have it in its purity, without the corruption (leaven) of human theory, blight, ambitions, selfishness, etc., that they may be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. They partake also of the bitter herbs of persecution, in accord with the Master’s word, that the servant is not above his Lord, and that if the Lord himself was reviled and persecuted and rejected, they must expect similar treatment, because the world knoweth them not, even as it knew him not. Yea, his testimony is that none will be acceptable to him whose faithfulness will not draw upon them the world’s disfavor. His words are, “Whosoever will live godly shall suffer persecution.” “They shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven.” (Matt. 5:11,12; 2 Tim. 3:12)

When our Lord instituted his Memorial Supper, called the Last Supper, it was, as above stated, a new symbol, built upon and related to the old Passover type, though not a part of it, being a commemoration, or memorial of the antitype. As we read, he “took bread, and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you [this represents me, the antitypical Lamb; it represents my flesh]. This do in remembrance of me.” Our Lord’s evident intention was to fix in the minds of his followers the fact that he is the antitypical Lamb to the antitypical first-borns and household of faith. The expression, “This do in remembrance of me,” implies that this new institution should take the place with his followers of the former one, which must now become obsolete by reason of fulfillment. “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament [covenant] in my blood”—the blood of the covenant—the blood which seals the New Covenant. “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” We would not understand this to imply the doing of it without respect to time and place, etc., but as signifying that when this cup and unleavened bread thenceforth were used as a celebration of the Passover, it should on every occasion be considered a celebration, not of the type but of the antitype. As it would not have been lawful, proper or typical to celebrate the Passover at any other time than that appointed of the Lord, likewise it is still not appropriate to celebrate the antitype at any other time than its anniversary (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

The Apostle adds, “For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come.” (1 Cor. 11:26) This shows us that the disciples clearly understood that thenceforth to all of the Lord’s followers the annual Passover celebration must have a new meaning: the broken loaf representing the Lord’s flesh, the cup representing his blood. Although this new institution was not laid upon his followers as a law, and although no penalties were attached for failure of its proper observance, nevertheless the Lord knew well that all trusting in him and appreciating him as the antitypical Passover Lamb would be glad to take up the Memorial which he thus suggested to them.

And so it is still. Faith in the ransom continues to find its illustration in this simple memorial, “till he come”—not only until our Lord’s parousia, or presence, in the harvest or end of this age, but until during his parousia one by one his faithful ones have been gathered to him, beyond the “Veil,” there to participate to a still fuller degree, and, as our Lord declared, partake of it “anew in the Kingdom.”


“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread [loaf]—one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16,17)

The Apostle, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, here sets before us an additional thought respecting this Memorial instituted by our Lord. He does not deny, but affirms, that primarily the bread represents our Lord’s broken body, sacrificed on our behalf; and that the cup represents his blood, which seals our pardon. But now, in addition, he shows that we, as members of the Ecclesia, members of the body of Christ, the prospective First-borns, the New Creation, become participators with our Lord in his death, sharers in his sacrifice; and, as he has elsewhere stated, it is a part of our covenant to “fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ.” (Col. 1:24) The thought here is the same as that expressed by the words, “We are baptized into his death.” (Rom. 6:3) Thus, while our Lord’s flesh was the loaf broken for the world, the believers of this Gospel Age, the faithful, the elect, the New Creation, are counted in as parts of that one loaf, “members of the body of Christ”; and hence, in the breaking of the loaf, after recognizing it as the sacrifice of our Lord on our behalf, we are to recognize it, further, as the breaking or sacrificing of the whole Church, of all those consecrated to be dead with him, to be broken with him, to share his sufferings.

This is the exact thought contained in the word “communion” —common-union, common participation. Hence, with every annual celebration of this Memorial we not only recognize the foundation of all our hopes as resting in the dear Redeemer’s sacrifice for our sins, but we revive and renew our own consecration to “be dead with him, that we may also live with him”—to “suffer with him, that we may also reign with him.” How grandly comprehensive is the meaning of this divinely instituted celebration! We are not putting the symbols instead of the reality; nothing surely could be further from our Lord’s intention, nor further from propriety on our part. The heart-communion with him, the heart-feeding upon him, the heart-communion with the fellow-members of the body, and the heart-realization of the meaning of our covenant of sacrifice, is the real com­munion, which, if we are faithful, we will carry out day by day throughout the year—being daily broken with our Lord, and continually feeding upon his merit, growing strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. What a blessing comes to us with the celebration of this Memorial! What a burning of heart for further appreciation and growth in  grace and  knowledge,  and  for  further participation in the privileges of the service to which we are called, not only as respects the present but also as respects the future!

It will be noticed that the Apostle includes the cup for which we praise God. “Is it not the communion, [common-union, common-participa­tion] of the blood of Christ?” Oh, what a thought—that the truly consecrated, faithful “little flock” of the New Creation throughout this Gospel Age, has been Christ in the flesh; and that the suffering and trials and ignominy and death of these whom the Lord has accepted and recognized as “members of his body” in the flesh, are all counted in as parts of his sacrifice, because associated with, and under him who is our Head, our Chief Priest! Who that understands the situation, who that appreciates the invitation of God to membership in this Ecclesia, and the consequent participation in the sacrifice unto death now, and in the glorious work of the future, does not rejoice to be accounted worthy to suffer reproaches for the name of Christ, and to lay down his life in the service of the Truth, as members of his flesh and of his bones? What matters it to these that the world knows us not, even as it knew him not? (1 John 3:1) What matters it to these, though they should suffer the loss of the choicest of earthly blessings and advantages, if they as the body of Christ may but be counted worthy of a share with the Redeemer in his future glories?

As these grow in grace and knowledge and zeal they are everyone enabled to weigh and judge the matter from the standpoint of the Apostle, when he said, respecting earthly favors and advantages, “I count all things but loss and dross.” “I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.” (Phil. 3:8; Rom. 8:18)

Another thought is in respect to the mutual love, sympathy and interest which should prevail amongst all the members of this “one body” of the Lord. As the Lord’s Spirit comes more and more to rule in our hearts it will cause us to rejoice in every occasion to do good unto all men as we have opportunity, but especially unto the household of faith. As our sympathies grow and go out toward the whole world of mankind, they must grow especially toward the Lord, and, consequently, especially also toward those whom he recognizes, who have his Spirit, and who are seeking to walk in his footsteps. The Apostle indicates that the measure of our love for the Lord will be indicated by our love for the brethren, the fellow-members of his body. If our love is to be such as will endure all things and bear all things in respect to others, how much more will this be true as respects these fellow-members of the same body, so closely united to us through our Head! No wonder the Apostle John declares that one of the prominent evidences of our having passed from death unto life is that we love the brethren (1 John 3:14). Indeed, we remember that in speaking of our filling up the measure of the afflictions of Christ, the Apostle Paul adds, “for his body’s sake, which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24)

The same thought is again expressed in the words, “We ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 John 3:16) What a brotherhood is thus implied! Where else could we hope to find such love for the brethren as would lay down life itself on their behalf? We are not now speaking of how the Lord may be pleased to apply the sacrifice of the Church, represented in the “Lord’s goat” as a part of the Atonement Day sacrifices. *(Tabernacle Shadows of the Better Sacrifices, p. 59.) We merely, with the Apostle, note the fact that, so far as we are concerned, the sacrifice, the laying down of life, is to be done in the main for the brethren—in their service; the service for the world belongs chiefly to the Age to come, the Millennium. Under present conditions, our time and talents and influence and means are, more or less, mortgaged to others (the wife or children or aged parents or others depend­ing on us), and we are obligated also to the provision of “things needful,” “decent,” and “honest in the sight of all men” for ourselves. Hence, we find comparatively little left at our disposal for sacrifice, comparatively little to lay down for the brethren, and this little the world and the flesh and the devil are continually attempting to claim from us, and to divert from the sacrificing to which we have consecrated it.

The Lord’s selection of the Church, during this time when evil prevails, is to the intent that surrounding circumstances may prove the measure of the love and loyalty of each to him and his. If our love be cool, the claims of the world, the flesh and the Adversary will be too much for us, and attract our time, our influence, our money. On the other hand, in proportion as our love for the Lord is strong and warm, in that same proportion we will delight to sacrifice these to him— not only to give our surplus of energy and influence and means, laying these down as we find opportunity in the service of the brethren, but additionally, this spirit of devotion to the Lord will prompt us to curtail within reasonable, economical limits the demands of the home and family, and especially of self, that we may have the more to sacrifice upon the Lord’s altar.

As our Lord was for three and a half years breaking his body, and for three and a half years giving his blood, his life, and only finished these sacrifices at Calvary, so with us: the laying down of our lives for the brethren is in small affairs of service, either temporal or spiritual, the spiritual being the higher, and hence the more important, though he who would shut up his compassion toward a brother having temporal need would give evidence that he did not have the Spirit of the Lord ruling in his heart in any proper degree.


The original celebration of the Memorial of our dear Redeemer’s death (with the still larger meaning attached to it by the Holy Spirit through the Apostle, as including our participation or communion with him in his sacrifice) was, as we have seen, upon a particular date—the fourteenth day of the first month, Jewish reckoning.*

[The Hebrew year begins in the spring, with the first appearance of a new moon after the Spring Equinox. The 14th day is easily reckoned, but should not be confounded with Feast Week, which began on the 15th and continued for a week following it—the Jewish celebration. That week of unleavened bread, celebrated by the Jews with rejoicing, corresponds to the entire future of a Christian—especially representing the entire year until his next celebration of the Memorial Supper. With the Jew the sacrifice of the lamb was a means to the end; a start for the feast of the week, which had his special attention. Our Memorial relates to the killing of the Lamb, and hence belongs to the 14th of Nisan (the first month). Moreover, we are to remember that with the change of counting the hours of the day, the night of the 14th of Nisan would correspond to what we would now call the evening of the 13th.]

And the same date, reached by the same method of counting, is still appropriate, and will appeal to all who are inquiring for the “old paths” and desirous of walking therein. This annual commemoration of the Lord’s death, etc., as instituted by our Lord and observed by the early Church, has been revived of late amongst those coming into the light of Present Truth.

It is not surprising that, as more and more the real meaning of the Lord’s symbolical supper was lost sight of, the proprieties attaching to its annual observance were also neglected. This becomes plainer of comprehension as we come to understand the history of the matter, as follows:

After the apostles and their immediate suc­cessors had fallen asleep—somewhere about the third century—Roman Catholicism was becoming influential in the Church. One of its false doctrines was to the effect that while Christ’s death secured a cancellation of the past guilt, it could not offset personal transgressions after the believer had come into relationship with Christ—after baptism; but that a fresh sacrifice was necessary for such sins. On the basis of this error was built the doctrine of the Mass, which, as we have heretofore explained in some detail, was considered a fresh sacrifice of Christ for the particular sins of the individual for whom the Mass is offered, or sacrificed—the fresh sacrifice of Christ being made to appear reasonable by the claim that the officiating priest had the power to turn the bread and wine into the actual body and actual blood of Christ; and then, by breaking the wafer, to break or sacrifice the Lord afresh for the sins of the individual for whom the Mass is performed. We have already shown that from the Divine standpoint this teaching and practice was an abhorrence in the sight of the Lord—‘the abomination which maketh desolate.” Dan. 11:31; 12:11* [Vol. II, Chap. ix, and Vol. III, Chap. iv.]

That false doctrine did make desolate, and in its wake came the Church’s multitudinous errors, the great falling away or apostasy which constituted the Roman system—the chiefest of all anti-Christs. Century after century rolled around, with this view the predominating one, the controlling one throughout Christendom, until, in the sixteenth century, the Great Reformation movement began to stir up an opposition and, proportionately, began to find the truths which had been hidden during the Dark Ages under the false doctrines and false practices of anti-Christ. As the Reformers were granted additional light respecting the entire testimony of God’s Word, that light included clearer views of the sacrifice of Christ, and they began to see that the Papal theory and practice of the Mass was indeed the “abomination of desolation,” and they disavowed it, with varying degrees of positiveness. The Church of England revised its Prayer-book in 1552 and excluded the word Mass.

The custom of the Mass practically took the place of the annual celebrations of the Lord’s Memorial Supper; for the Masses were said at frequent intervals, with a view to cleansing the people repeatedly from sin. As the Reformers saw the error of this, they attempted to come back to the original simplicity of the first institution, and disowned the Romish Mass as being an improper celebration of the Lord’s Memorial Supper. However, not seeing the close relationship between the type of the Passover and the antitype of our Lord’s death, and the Supper as a memorial of the antitype, they did not grasp the thought of the propriety of its observance on its annual recur­rence. Hence, we find that amongst Protes­tants some celebrate monthly, others every three months, and some every four months—each denom­­ination using its own judgment—the “Disciples” celebrating weekly, through a misun­der­standing of the Scriptures somewhat similar to their misunderstanding respecting bap­tism. They base their weekly celebration of the supper on the statements of the Acts of the Apostles to the effect that the early Church came together on the first day of the week, and at such meetings had “breaking of bread.” (Acts 2:42,46; 20:7)

We have already observed [See previous Chapter] that these weekly celebrations were not commemorations of the Lord’s death; but, on the contrary, were love-feasts, commemorative of his resurrection, and of the number of breakings of bread which they enjoyed with him on several first-days during the forty days before his ascension. The remembrance of these breakings of bread, in which their eyes were opened and they knew him, probably led them to meet on each first day of the week thereafter, and, not improperly, led them to have together a social meal, a breaking of bread. As we have already noticed, the cup is never mentioned in connection with these, while in every mention of the Lord’s Memorial Supper it occupies fully as important a place as does the loaf.


First of all, that none should commune who do not trust in the precious blood of Christ as the sacrifice for sins. None should commune except by faith he have on the doorposts and lintel of his earthly tabernacle the blood of sprinkling that speaketh peace for us, instead of calling for vengeance, as did the blood of Abel (Heb. 12:24). None should celebrate the symbolical feast unless in his heart he [See previous chapter.] has the true feast, and has accepted Christ as his Life-giver. Further, none should commune unless he is a member of the one body, the one loaf, and unless he has reckoned his life, his blood, sacrificed with the Lord’s in the same chalice, or cup. There is here a clearly drawn line of distinction, not only between the believers and unbelievers, but also between the consecrated and the unconsecrated. However, the line is to be drawn by each individual for himself—so long as his professions are good and reasonably attested by his outward conduct. It is not for one member to be the judge of another, nor even for the Church to judge, unless, as already pointed out, the matter has come before it in some definite form, according to the prescribed regulations.

Otherwise the elders, or representatives of the Church, should set before those who assemble themselves these terms and conditions:

(1) faith in the blood; and (2) consecration to the Lord and his service, even unto death. They should then invite all who are thus minded and thus consecrated to join in celebrating the Lord’s death and their own. This, and all invitations connected with this celebration, should be so comprehensively stated as to leave no thought of sectar­­­ianism. All should be welcomed to par­ticipate, regardless of their faith and harmony on other subjects, if they are in full accord in respect to these foundation truths—the redemption through the precious blood, and a full consecration unto death, giving them justification.

It is appropriate here to consider the words of the Apostle:

Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condem­nation to himself, if he discern not the Lord’s body.” (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

The Apostle’s warning here seems to be against a careless celebration of this Memorial, which would make of it a feast, and against inviting persons to it in a promiscuous manner. It is not such a feast. It is a solemn Memorial, intended only for the members of the Lord’s “body”; and whoever does not discern this, whoever does not discern that the loaf represents the flesh of Jesus, and that the cup represents his blood, would, in partaking of it, properly come under condemnation—not “damnation” as in the common version, but a condemnation in the Lord’s sight, and a condemnation also in his own conscience. Before partaking of these emblems each individual, therefore, should decide for himself whether or not he believes and trusts in the broken body and shed blood of our Lord as being his ransom price; and secondly, whether or not he has made the consecration of his all that he may thus be counted in as a member of that “one body.”

Having noted who are excluded, and who properly have access to the Lord’s table, we see that every true member of the Ecclesia has the right to participate, unless that right has been debarred by a public action of the whole Church, according to the rule therefore laid down by the Lord (Mat 18:15-17). All such may celebrate - will surely desire to celebrate and surely desire to conform to the Master’s dying admon­ition, “Eat ye all of it; drink ye all of it.” They will realize that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, we have no life in us; and that if they have in heart and mind partaken of the merits of the Lord’s sacrifice really, and of his life, that it is both a privilege and a pleasure to memorialize and to confess it before each other and the Lord.


The false doctrine of the Mass, and the creation of a class in the Church called the clergy, to administer this and similar services, has created so deep an impression upon the public mind that Protestants even to this day generally hold that the presence of “an ordained minister,” to ask a blessing and to officiate in such a memorial service, is of absolute necessity, and that any other procedure would be sacrilegious. How utterly wrong this whole theory is will be very readily recognized when we remember that all who have the privilege of partaking of this Memorial are consecrated members of the “Royal Priesthood”—each fully commissioned of the Lord to preach his Word according to their talents and opportunities, and fully ordained also to perform any service or ministry of which they are capable to him and the members of his body, and, in his name, to others. “All ye are brethren,” is the Lord’s standard, and is not to be forgotten when we hold communion with him, and celebrate his redemptive work, and our common-union with him and with each other as members of his body.

Nevertheless, in every little group of the Lord’s people, in every little Ecclesia, or body of Christ, as we have already pointed out, the Scriptures indicate that there should be order, and that a part of that order is that there should be “elders in every Church.” While each member of the Ecclesia, the New Creation, has a sufficient ordination of the Lord to permit him to take any part in connection with the Memorial Supper, yet the Church, in electing elders, indicates that they should be representatives of the entire Ecclesia in respect to such matters as this. Therefore, the duty of arranging and ministering this Memorial would devolve upon them as a service to which they have already been selected by the Church.

Our Lord’s declaration, “Where two or three of you are met together in my name, there am I in the midst”—shows us conclusively that, wherever it is possible, this memorial should be celebrated in company with fellow-members of the body. The blessing attached was intended to draw the mem­bers one toward the other, not only in this annual gathering, but whenever possible. Wherever even two or three may meet to claim this promise, it being impossible or inconvenient to meet with a larger group, they are privileged to celebrate as a Church, as an Ecclesia, complete; and even where an individual may be so circumstanced that he cannot possibly meet with others, we suggest that his faith go out with sufficient strength to the Lord to claim the promise—regarding the Lord and himself as the two. We advise that such unavoidable isolation be not permitted to hinder any from the annual celebration of the great sacrifice for sin, and of our participation in it with our Lord; that the solitary individual provide bread— (un-leavened bread, if obtainable—such as soda biscuit or water cracker) and fruit of the vine (raisin juice or grape juice or wine*) and that he celebrate in communion of spirit with the Lord and with the fellow-members of the body, from whom he is of necessity separated.

*[So far as we are able to judge, the Lord used fermented wine when he instituted this Memorial. Nevertheless, in view of his not specify­ing wine, but simply “fruit of the vine,” and in view also of the fact that the alcoholic habit has obtained so great and so evil a power in our day, we believe we have the Lord’s approval in the use of unfermented grape juice, or raisin juice, to which, if convenient, a few drops of fermented wine may be added, so as to satisfy the con­sciences of any who might be inclined to consider that obedience to the Lord’s example would require the use of fermented wine. In this manner there will be no danger to any of the Lord’s brethren, even the weakest in the flesh.]

This entire paper was taken from Study XI, “The New Creation, Volume 6, Studies in the Scriptures. We know that Pastor Russell was That Servant, primarily to The Little Flock, the 144,000 Bride of Christ and the door to that High Calling closed a few years after his death. However, we know that he was aware of Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17 “...your old men shall dream dreams and young men shall see visions.” He knew that the “old men” consisted of the prophets and some others from Abel to Abraham, Job and later to John the Immerser, who was the last of the Ancient Worthies.

   The Saints are invited to eat the bread of justification and drink the wine as participating with Christ in His suffering. To be broken with Him.

But the Youthful Worthies partake of the bread as their tentative justification. And the wine as their participation in following in the footsteps of our Savior - for His sake. They make the same kind of consecration that the Saints made, although they are not on trial for their lives - only for faith and obedience. They are typed by the strangers in Leviticus 24 verse 22 which says,

“Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.”

This is one commandment of our Lord that we should keep annually, just as the type of the Jews deliverance from Egypt were to keep annually on the proper date - the 14th of Nisan. So we are to keep this annually just as the Jews kept it, as the Lord's Supper is the antitype of their Passover.


Dear Sister Marjorie: Col. 1:2,3

            Enclosed is a few dollars to help you all. I don’t want to MISS one issue of the magazine, not one.

            I heard that the LHMM, Bible House has come out with a new idea. Not in line with the line with the truth as we know it.

            I send my Christian love to each of you.                                            Sincerely in Christ, ___  (TEXAS)

The Epiphany Bible Students will celebrate the Memorial on April 5, 2012.