Table Manners

Once upon a time, there was a tabernacle constructed in accordance with the will of God revealed on Mount Sinai. In that tabernacle, outside the veil on the north side, was a table of acacia wood covered with gold, atop which were plates and dishes for drink offerings and the bread of the Presence, twelve loaves in two piles. The high priest was to replace the bread regularly and arrange it before the Lord every Sabbath, after which he and his sons were to eat it in a holy place.

When we talk about the “table of the Lord”, we are not talking about that sort of physical, literal table. Not at all.

Likewise, when Christians speak today about the “Lord’s table” — which, sadly, we do less and less — we are not talking about a nicely finished piece of maple or oak furniture at the front of the church auditorium engraved with the words “In Remembrance of Me”, atop which bread and wine — and, in some churches, a collection plate, heaven forfend! — are neatly and reverently displayed to the congregation for a few minutes every week while we worship. That is certainly a table, and we certainly use it to help us celebrate the Lord’s Supper, Communion, or whatever we happen to call it, but it is not the “Lord’s table” in any biblical sense. It’s our table, our idea, and it came from out of our own heads or from copying what we had seen done elsewhere.

Malachi and the Table

In fact, the expression “Lord’s table” first appears in Malachi, the very last book of the Old Testament in most of our Bibles. Even the most cursory glance at the text makes it evident the table of the Lord is not a literal table:

“But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the Lord’s table may be despised. When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil?”

and again:

“But you profane it [my name] when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised.”

Malachi is not talking about showbread or the table on which it sat. The showbread was offered to the Lord, but ended up as dinner for the priests. Rather, the prophet is using “the Lord’s table” figuratively, as a blanket expression encompassing the entire Israelite sacrificial system, in which fire consumed God’s memorial portion of the offerings (usually the fat or organs) on the brazen altar Malachi mentions, and the smoke of those offerings ascended upward as a pleasing aroma, a food offering to the Lord. It was the Lord’s table in the sense that he metaphorically sat down to dinner when the priests began their service, and the sacrifices were his spiritual food. They gave him satisfaction in the same way a good meal would satisfy you or me, because they spoke to him of the impending sacrifice of his perfect Lamb, who would take away the sin of the world. Naturally, there was also a benefit for the worshiper or the priests who offered the sacrifices, but this was very much a secondary consideration, a mere wave on the way out the door.

The Altar and the Table

If there is any doubt about this interpretation, observe what Malachi says about the priests despising the Lord’s table. How did they do it? By offering inferior animals: the blind, lame and sick. Where were they offered? On an altar, not a table.

Here we need to be clear about the purpose of the altar for burnt offering, also called the brazen altar. Anything offered on that altar belonged entirely to God. Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers specify which portion of the offering was for YHWH and which was for the priests, their families or the worshiper to enjoy. Fire consumed the portion belonging to God in its entirety. The portion belonging to man was waved before the Lord raw, acknowledging that it was being received back as a gift, then taken away, cooked and eaten elsewhere, usually by boiling it. Nobody in Israel ate from the food offered on the altar of burnt offering. It was a cooking surface only for that which belonged to God. The words “pleasing aroma” are never associated with the portion of the sacrifices designated for the priests, though in consuming their portion, devout priests by faith enjoyed fellowship with God. No, those words are specifically associated with the smoke that ascended to God from the portion of the sacrifice wholly consumed on the altar of burnt offering. That altar was the Lord’s table, and only the Lord “ate” from it.

Symbolism and Reality

God is spirit. A spirit does not have an olfactory system to process smells, and there is nothing about the odor of seared fat, blackened organs or other carbonized animal parts that we should imagine is especially delightful to one so high and holy, so completely set apart from sinful man, so entirely non-physical. In and of themselves, the sensory experiences that accompanied sacrifice did nothing for God. Still, they were evidence of a worshipful heart desiring fellowship with God and they symbolized his perfect Son in all manner of different ways. Still less should we imagine God “eating” the sacrificial portions. As he says through Isaiah, “I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.” Their sole value to the Lord was in the state of heart of the devout as they performed their ritualized acts of worship. When a man’s heart was not right with God, no mechanical, routine incineration of endless quantities of animal flesh could make up for the absence of genuine desire for fellowship with God.

So then, the Lord’s table is not a physical place at which we attend. It is not something that happens only in church. It is a metaphor for a state of fellowship between God and man, in which attitude of heart is more important than the exterior formalities observed.

Partaking of the Table

This is the way Paul uses the expression in Corinthians, the only time it appears in the New Testament. He writes, “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons”, then goes on to describe a scenario in which conflict might occur that is not religious but entirely domestic. An unbelieving neighbor has invited a Christian to dinner, then casually informs him the meat he is about to enjoy came from the temple services of a false god. Paul’s remedy is not to partake, and his reasoning implies the Lord’s table is a state of mind that, when we are thinking rightly, travels with us wherever we go, within church meetings and throughout the entire week. In an ideal world, fellowship with God and the worship of our hearts would be a continuous thing. We would sit down to fellowship and never leave.

A brief summary of the implications may help:

• The Lord’s table is first and foremost for the Lord. Whatever blessings and benefits we receive from it are a by-product rather than its primary purpose.
• The Lord is looking for more than external conformity to religious rules once a week. He is looking for continuous fellowship with us.
• Observing the Lord’s Supper is not equivalent to experiencing the Lord’s table unless one is in the right state of heart and mind.
• To speak inaccurately or irreverently of Christ is the modern equivalent of bringing a blind, lame or sick animal to the altar. What delights God’s heart is our appreciation of the revealed glories of his Son, not our idle speculations or free associations.

When we speak of a “communion” service, it is not primarily our communion with one another that is biblically in view. It is indeed necessary to recognize our brothers and sisters as fellow members of Christ’s body, but we can only have fellowship with one another as we have fellowship first with the Father through him. When we are in fellowship with the Father, we are in a fit state to fellowship with one another to mutual profit. Out of fellowship with God, we have nothing to offer one another. Consider Christ’s appeal in Revelation to anyone who hears his voice and invites him in. Personal communion with the risen and glorified Christ is available to the individual even if he attends a local church so pitiable and lukewarm that the Lord is about to spew it out of his mouth.

The Lord’s table is where his blood-bought children ought to be most truly at home. And it only requires the desire to be there.