A clear distinction must be kept between the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s table. These terms are often used interchangeably. It is not altogether wrong to do so, so long as we understand the biblical distinction. The Supper is contained within the table but it is not the same. There are, in fact, eight distinctions between the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. The Lord’s table is not limited to New Testament usage only. The Lord’s Supper is strictly a New Testament institution. Note:
1. The form of the language differs: In chapter 11 it is literal, in chapter 10 it is representative. The table is not a literal table, but is that which represents a fellowship. The Lord’s table is that to which all His people are brought. It is the provision of the Lord for the need of His own, and from which resources may be drawn. David could speak of it in Psalm 23, He prepareth a table before me in the presence of mine enemies. The Supper is a literal “meal” to be actually partaken of.
2. The action of the participants differs: In 10:17 they are “partakers.” In 11:24 they are remembrancers.
3. The order of the elements differs: In 10:16 the cup comes before the bread. This is the order of human experience. The believer enters into the oneness of the body through the value and efficacy of the shed blood. In 11:24 the bread comes before the cup. This is the order of divine expediency. The Lord’s body was given before the precious blood was shed.
4. The figure of the bread differs: In chapter 10, it is a figure of the mystical body of Christ, “for we being many are one bread and one body.” In chapter 11, the bread is a figure primarily of the physical body of Christ, given for us.
5. The function differs: In chapter 10, the believer praises the value of the blood by a life of communion, enjoying the provisions of the Lord at the table. The word translated “bless” is really to “eulogize” or to speak well of. In chapter 11 the believer proclaims, or shows forth, the meaning of the death of Christ, by a regular remembrance at the Supper.
6. There is a danger that differs: In 10:21 the danger is an evil system, the table of demons, figurative of that which is in fellowship with what is opposed to fellowship with the Lord. The contrast is drawn between the table of demons and the Lord’s table. In 11:28, the danger is an evil principle, “self,” and the contrast is between the Lord’s Supper and our own supper (v. 21).
7. The emphasis differs: In chapter 10, it is a continuous experience of fellowship, in chapter 11 it has to do with a weekly remembrance.
8. There are two impossibilities that differ: In 10:21 it is impossible to have fellowship with the Lord and with the system of evil at the same time. In chapter 11, we cannot discern the Lord’s body without first discerning ourselves (vv. 29-30).
The solemnity of the judgments can be seen when we compare these two chapters. Why such severe judgments as “weakness,” “sickness” and even death? Because of the oneness of the body as taught in chapter 10. Each one brings to the Lord’s Supper a spirit that will either be an aid to the spiritual exercise of the body, as locally gathered, or one that will be a hindrance to the spirit of worship. If this hindrance continues and one is repeatedly the cause of the Lord being robbed of the worship due to Him, then He will intervene and deal with the hindrance, temporarily or in an extreme case, permanently.