Now, we understand that it’s not a piece of furniture that the Lord is referring to, but He’s using “table” in a figurative sense here, to represent what is ON the table, and the significance of that.

Another term that we find in that same 10^th chapter of first Corinthians in reference to the Lord’s supper is verse 16: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?”The word “communion” here is actually translated from the word that’s most frequently translated “fellowship” in our New Testaments. It has to do with the fellowship that we have with God and Christ through the Lord’s supper, and with one another, as children of God, as we partake of the Lord’s supper.

A third term that’s used twice in the New Testament, referring to the Lord’s supper, is “the breaking of bread.” The very first description we have of any activity of the church of the Lord from its day of beginning in Acts, chapter 2, includes the breaking of bread. In Acts 2:42, Luke says, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostle’s teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

Luke used similar terminology in Acts 20, and verse 7, when he said, “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.” (Now that’s the part of that verse that John [Phillis] and I especially like—he preached till midnight.) So, we have “the breaking of bread” in reference to the Lord’s supper.

Then we have the term—maybe the most frequently applied term—the “Lord’s supper” itself. In 1 Corinthians 11:20, Paul said to the Corinthians who were abusing and misusing the Lord’s supper, “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper….” Now, he was not forbidding them to partake of that which the Lord had enjoined. He was simply saying, if you keep on doing what you’re doing, you can call it the Lord’s supper, but it’s not the Lord’s supper.

So, there we have four terms: “the Lord’s table,” “the communion,” “the breaking of bread,” and “the Lord’s supper.” Inspired men never called this institution by any other terms. Only uninspired men, in their corruptions of the supper through the centuries, have called it by such terms as “the Sacrament,” a term which never appears in our Bibles, “the Eucharist,” or “the Mass.”

Let’s emphasize the fact that it is the Lord’s supper, and not “man’s supper” to do with what he will. The Lord established the supper. He alone has the right to dictate every particular concerning it, including its designations, which we just reviewed in Scripture, but also the elements involved in it. The purpose of partaking of the Lord’s supper, the time and the frequency of its partaking, even the duration and location of the supper, are stipulated by Him, and we dare not tamper with any of those.

But emphasize the fact that it’s the Lord’s supper from another standpoint. It’s the LORD’S, that is, the Lord Jesus. It’s not the Father’s supper—it’s never so designated. It’s not the Spirit’s supper, though, of course, as the other members of the Godhead, they are in full accord with its Scriptural observance. But it peculiarly belongs to the Second Person of the Godhead—to the Son of God. It has to do with what HE did in HIS physical body upon this earth. It has to do with what is to go on in HIS church, which, again, relates to earthly activity.

I have not heard anyone call it, “the Father’s supper,” or “the Spirit’s supper.” Maybe some have just not thought about it. Maybe if they think about it, they’ll start calling it that. They seem to want to corrupt everything else about the Lord’s supper. But by implication, sometimes brethren, even we refer to it as “the Father’s supper.” We do not realize it. We do not intend to do this, but we do it, nonetheless.

When a brother stands at the table and says, “Father, we thank Thee for this Thy table,” what has he just done? He’s called it “the Father’s table,” hasn’t he? Again, he did not intend to do that. That conscious process did not go through his mind, but that’s what he has done. He’s addressing the Father in calling it “THY table.” Or when a brother speaks of “this, Thy body,” in addressing the Father, or, “this Thy blood,” in addressing the Father, he’s doing the same thing, though inadvertently, though without intention of offending God in any way.

But these things are clearly defined in the New Testament, that it is the body and blood of the Son of God. You see, the Father never had a body that He could yield up in sacrifice. The Father never had any blood. It was the SON, Who had the body and the blood, that He sacrificed on the cross, and to which the Lord’s supper directly pertains.

While we’re speaking of the prayers at the table, the better way, the definitive way, to express thanks for that bread, is to say, “Father, we thank Thee for this bread, which represents the body of Thy SON,” instead of saying “Thy body.” And the same with the fruit of the vine as it pertains to the blood of Christ, not of the Father.