Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:26

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it,] and broke [it,] and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

26. this is my body ] The exact Greek is “this is the body of me;” St Luke adds, “which is being given for you;” St Paul, “which is being broken for you;” the sacrifice had begun, the body of Christ was already being offered. The expression may be paraphrased: “This the bread and not the paschal lamb, represents is to the faithful the body of Me, who am even now being offered a sacrifice for you.” Without entering on the great controversy of which these four words have been the centre, we may note that; (1) the thought is not presented now for the first time to the disciples. It was the “hard saying” which had turned many from Christ, see Joh 6:51-57; Joh 6:66. (2) The special form of the controversy is due to a medival philosophy which has passed away leaving “the dispute of the sacraments” as a legacy. St Luke and St Paul have the addition, “this do in remembrance of me” now, as a memorial of Me, not of the Passover deliverance.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See also Mar 14:22-26; Luk 22:15-20; 1Co 11:23-25.

Mat 26:26

As they were eating – As they were eating the paschal supper, near the close of the meal.

Luke adds that he said, just before instituting the sacramental supper, With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. This is a Hebrew manner of expression, signifying I have greatly desired. He had desired it, doubtless:

(1)That he might institute the Lords Supper, to be a perpetual memorial of him;

(2)That he might strengthen them for their approaching trials;

(3) That he might explain to them the true nature of the Passover; and,

(4) That he might spend another season with them in the duties of religion. Every Christian, about to die will also seek opportunities of drawing specially near to God, and of holding communion with him and with his people.

Jesus took bread – That is, the unleavened bread which they used at the celebration of the Passover, made into thin cakes, easily broken and distributed.

And blessed it – Or sought a blessing on it; or gave thanks to God for it. The word rendered blessed not unfrequently means to give thanks. Compare Luk 9:16 and Joh 6:11. It is also to be remarked that some manuscripts have the word rendered gave thanks, instead of the one translated blessed. It appears from the writings of Philo and the Rabbis that the Jews were never accustomed to eat without giving thanks to God and seeking his blessing. This was especially the case in both the bread and the wine used at the Passover.

And brake it – This breaking of the bread represented the sufferings of Jesus about to take place – his body broken or wounded for sin. Hence, Paul 1Co 11:24 adds, This is my body which is broken for you; that is, which is about to be broken for you by death, or wounded, pierced, bruised, to make atonement for your sins.

This is my body – This represents my body. This broken bread shows the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not meant that his body would be literally broken as the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, Lo, my body! or, Behold my body! – that which represents my broken body to you. This could not be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them living. And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his living body there changed at once to a dead body, and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the living body of Jesus was before them.

Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the bread and wine were literally changed into the body and blood of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover Exo 12:11; It – that is, the lamb – is the Lords Passover. That is, the lamb and the feast represent the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal passing over their houses – a palpable absurdity – but that it represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to remembrance, in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. See Mat 13:37; He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man – that is, represents the Son of man. Gen 41:26; the seven good kine are seven years – that is, represent or signify seven years. See also Joh 15:1, Joh 15:5; Gen 17:10. The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain for your sins.

Mat 26:27

And he took the cup – That is, the cup of wine which was used at the feast of the Passover, called the cup of Hallel, or praise, because they commenced then repeating the Psalms with which they closed the Passover.

See Mat 26:30. This cup, Luke says, he took after supper – that is, after they had finished the ordinary celebration of eating the Passover. The bread was taken while they were eating, the cup after they had done eating.

And gave thanks – See the notes at Mat 26:26.

Drink ye all of it – That is, all of you, disciples, drink of it; not, drink all the wine.

Mat 26:28

For this is my blood – This represents my blood, as the bread does my body.

Luke and Paul vary the expression, adding what Matthew and Mark have omitted. This cup is the new testament in my blood. By this cup he meant the wine in the cup, and not the cup itself. Pointing to it, probably, he said, This – wine – represents my blood about to be, shed. The phrase new testament should have been rendered new covenant, referring to the covenant or compact that God was about to make with people through a Redeemer. The old covenant was that which was made with the Jews by the sprinkling of the blood of sacrifices. See Exo 24:8; And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you, etc. In allusion to that, Jesus says, this cup is the new covenant in my blood; that is, which is ratified, sealed, or sanctioned by my blood. In ancient times, covenants or contracts were ratified by slaying an animal; by the shedding of its blood, imprecating similar vengeance if either party failed in the compact. See the notes at Heb 9:16. So Jesus says the covenant which God is about to form with people the new covenant, or the gospel economy is sealed or ratified with my blood.

Which is shed for many for the remission of sins – In order that sins may be remitted, or forgiven. That is, this is the appointed way by which God will pardon transgressions. That blood is efficacious for the pardon of sin:

1. Because it is the life of Jesus, the blood being used by the sacred writers as representing life itself, or as containing the elements of life, Gen 9:4; Lev 17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because it contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When, therefore, Jesus says that his blood was shed for many, it is the same as saying that His life was given for many. See the notes at Rom 3:25.

2. His life was given for sinners, or he died in the place of sinners as their substitute. By his death on the cross, the death or punishment due to them in hell may be removed and their souls be saved. He endured so much suffering, bore so much agony, that God was pleased to accept it in the place of the eternal torments of all the redeemed. The interests of justice, the honor and stability of his government, would be as secure in saving them in this manner as if the suffering were inflicted on them personally in hell. God, by giving his Son to die for sinners, has shown his infinite abhorrence of sin; since, according to his view, and therefore according to truth, nothing else would show its evil nature but the awful sufferings of his own Son. That he died in the stead or place of sinners is abundantly clear from the following passages of Scripture: Joh 1:29; Eph 5:2; Heb 7:27; 1Jo 2:2; 1Jo 4:10; Isa 53:10; Rom 8:32; 2Co 5:15.

Mat 26:29

But I say unto you … – That is, the observance of the Passover, and of the rites shadowing forth future things, here end.

I am about to die. The design of all these types and shadows is about to be accomplished. This is the last time that I shall partake of them with you. Hereafter, when my Fathers kingdom is established in heaven, we will partake together of the thing represented by these types and ceremonial observances – the blessings and triumphs of redemption.

Fruit of the vine – Wine, the fruit or produce of the vine made of the grapes of the vine.

Until that day – Probably the time when they should be received to heaven. It does not mean here on earth, further than that they would partake with him in the happiness of spreading the gospel and the triumphs of his kingdom.

When I drink it new with you – Not that he would partake with them of literal wine there, but in the thing represented by it. Wine was an important part of the feast of the Passover, and of all feasts. The kingdom of heaven is often represented under the image of a feast. It means that he will partake of joy with them in heaven; that they will share together the honors and happiness of the heavenly world.

New – In a new manner, or perhaps afresh.

In my Fathers kingdom – In heaven. The place where God shall reign in a kingdom fully established and pure.

Mat 26:30

And when they had sung a hymn – The Passover was observed by the Jews by singing or chanting Ps. 113118. These they divided into two parts. They sung Ps. 113114 during the observance of the Passover, and the others at the close. There can be no doubt that our Saviour, and the apostles also, used the same psalms in their observance of the Passover. The word rendered sung a hymn is a participle, literally meaning hymning – not confined to a single hymn, but admitting many.

Mount of Olives – See the notes at Mat 20:1.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Mat 26:26-29

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it.

Relation of the Holy Communion to Christ

The bread and cup are His body and blood, because they are causes instrumental, upon the receipt whereof the participation of His body and blood ensueth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects, the cause whereof is the person of Christ; His body and blood are the true well-spring out of which this life floweth What merit, force, or virtue soever there is in His sacrificed body and blood we freely, fully, and wholly have by this sacrament; and because the sacrament itself, being but a corruptible and earthly creature, must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in men, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogether upon the strength of His glorious power, who is able and will bring to pass that the bread and cup which He giveth us shall be truly the thing He promiseth. (R. Hooker, D. D.)

The Eucharist the great feast of the Church

I. A true feast-for the nourishment of the spiritual life.

II. A sacred feast-sanctifying from all carnal enjoyment.

III. A covenant feast-sealing redemption.

IV. A love feast-uniting the redeemed.

V. A supper feastforefestival of death, of the end of all things, of the coming of Christ. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)

Sacrificial aspect of Christs death shown in the Lords Supper

This rite shows us what Christ thought, and would have us think, of His death. By it He points out the moment of His whole career which He desires that men should remember. Not His words of tenderness and wisdom; not His miracles, amazing and gracious as these were; not the flawless beauty of His character, though it touches all hearts, and wins the most rugged to love and the most degraded to hope; but the moment in which He gave His life is that which He would imprint for ever on the memory of the world. And not only so, but in the rite He distinctly tells us in what aspect He would have that death remembered. Not as the tragic end of a noble career which might be hallowed by tears such as are shed over a martyrs ashes; not as the crowning proof of love; not as the supreme act of patient forgiveness; but as a death for us, in which, as by the blood of the sacrifice, is secured the remission of sins. And not only so, but the double symbol in the Lords Supper-whilst in some respects the bread and wine speak the same truths, and certainly point to the same cross-has in each of its parts special lessons entrusted to it, and special truths to proclaim. The bread and the wine both say, Remember Me and My death. Taken in conjunction they point to the death as violent; taken separately they each suggest various aspects of it, and of the blessings that will flow to us therefrom.

I. A Divine treaty or covenant.

II. The forgiveness of sins.

III. A life infused.

IV. A festal gladness. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The New Testament

Gods covenants with His people:-Ancient Israel had lived for nearly 2000 years under the charter of their national existence, which was given on Sinai amidst thunderings and lightnings (Exo 19:5, etc.). And that covenant, or agreement, or treaty, on the part of God was ratified by a solemn act, in which the blood of the sacrifice, divided into two portions, was sprinkled, half upon the altar, and the other half, after their acceptance of the conditions and obligations of the covenant, on the people who had pledged themselves to obedience. And now here is a Galilean peasant, in a borrowed upper room, within four-and-twenty hours of His ignominious death, which might seem to blast all His work, who steps forward and says, I put away that ancient covenant which knits this nation to God. It is antiquated. I am the true offering and sacrifice, by the blood of which, sprinkled on altar and on people, a new covenant, built upon better promises, shall henceforth be. What a tremendous piece of audacity, except on the one hypothesis that He who spake was indeed the Word of God, and that He was making that which Himself had established of old to give way to that which He establishes now. The new covenant, which Christ seals in His blood, is the charter, the better charter, under the conditions of which the whole world may find a salvation which dwarfs all the deliverances of the past. Between us and the infinite Divine nature there is established a firm and unmoveable agreement. He has limited Himself by the utterance of a faithful word, and we can now come to Him with His own promise, and cast it down before Him, and say, Thou hast spoken, and Thou art bound to fulfil it. We have a covenant; God has shown us what He is going to do, and has thereby pledged Himself to the performance. (Ibid.)

The Lords Supper

I. The nature of the institution. It is a supper-strictly and essentially in its own particular nature it is nothing else. Was apparently in connection with another supper, and it seemed to be almost a part of that other supper. The supper was significant and emblematic-a representation of something else.

II. The object and design. The death of Christ is brought before us. The death of Christ as an offering for sin is brought before us. The death of Christ as the seal of the everlasting covenant between the Father and the Son is brought before us.

III. The observance of the rite. Just as simple as its nature and object. The frequency of reception is left open. The posture may he considered indifferent. The positive directions and the actual practice of our Lord. (C. Molyneux.)

The last supper

I. The time of the institution.

1. During the feast of the Passover. Christ the true Passover (Exo 12:3; Exo 12:6-7, and others; with Joh 1:29; Rev 5:6).

2. On the eve of His being offered. The meaning and purpose of the Passover lamb transferred to Jesus, and the sense widened. That for the Jews only, this for the true Israel of God, etc.

II. The method of the institution.

1. With thanksgiving.

2. The bread-broken, distributed, eaten. Christ the bread of life. Received by faith.

3. The wine. All were to drink it. The blood of Christ shed for the remission of sin.

4. They sung a hymn-left the table with joy and thankfulness.

III. The purpose of the institution.

1. To supersede the Jewish Passover.

2. A memorial feast. No less binding upon Christians than any other law of Christ. A dying command. Sacredness of last words.

3. A bond of union among Christians, and public acknowledgment of indebtedness to and faith in Christ. (J. C. Gray.)

The Passover feast

Relate the history of this feast.

I. The passover feast commemorated a great deliverance.

1. A deliverance from what? From Egyptian bondage-the destroying angel-Gods judgment upon sin.

2. How was this deliverance effected?

3. Why was this deliverance commemorated every year?

II. The passover feast pointed to a greater deliverance.

1. A deliverance from what? From a worse bondage than that of Egypt, etc. (Joh 8:34; Pe 2:19). And from a judgment more terrible than came upon the first-born (Romans if. 3, 5, 8; Mat 25:41).

2. How was this greater deliverance to be effected? Also by the blood of the Lamb (1Pe 1:18-19; Rev 5:8-9). Who is this Lamb? (Joh 1:29; Col 1:13-14; Heb 9:12; Heb 9:14). We must come to Christ and have heart sprinkled (Heb 10:19; Heb 10:22; 1Pe 1:2). Each must have his own sin put away, etc.

3. How did the yearly feast point to this greater deliverance? Would show how deliverance from death could only be by death of another (1Co 5:7).

III. Christ instituted the Lords supper to commemorate this greater deliverance. In the Lords Supper two things done-

1. We commemorate Christs death for us.

2. We feed upon Him by faith. (E. Stock.)

The Lords Supper

Nature and design.

I. A commemoration. Includes-

(1) Adoration. Adoration due to God in fashion of a man. It is this that makes Him the central point of the universe, to whom all eyes are turned.

(2) Gratitude. The benefits-deliverance from hell, power of Satan, and sin; restoration to the favour and fellowship of God; fellowship with Christ, including participation with His life and glory. The cost at which these benefits were secured-Christs humiliation and suffering.

II. A communion.

1. An act and means of participation. We participate in His body and blood, i.e., of their sacrificial virtue.

2. The effect of this makes us one with Him; one body. Illustration from the Jewish rites. In this ordinance our union with Christ and with each other is far more intimate.

III. Consecration. We cannot commemorate Christ as our Saviour without thereby acknowledging ourselves to be His-the purchase of His blood, and devoted to His service. (C. Hodge, D. D.)

The institution and observance of the Lords Supper

I. A remembrance of the atonement of Christ.

1. How much He suffered.

2. How well He suffered.

3. How patiently -He suffered.

II. A proclamation of the atonement of Christ.

III. A participation in the atonement of Christ.

1. Great facilities granted.

2. A direct communication from Christ to His people. (B. Noel, M. A.)

The new wine of the kingdom

I. The words of the saviour as they regard the act in which himself and his followers were then engaged. They were drinking of the fruit, or, more properly, the product of the vine. Not a mere ordinary social communion, but in direct connection with the Passover. Christ did not design to honour a Jewish rite as commemorating a national deliverance, but as typical, holding a relationship to Him and the economy of which He was the head.

1. That the Lord Jesus led His followers to regard the Passover as being representative of His mediatorial sufferings and death.

2. The Saviour led His followers to consider the Passover as originating an ordinance to be perpetuated for important purposes throughout all the ages of the Christian Church.

II. The words of the Saviour as they regard the events he taught his followers to anticipate,

1. An event of approaching separation-I will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine until a certain period afterwards-named; He and His disciples were bound to part.

2. An event of ultimate re-union-When I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom.

3. All the followers of the Saviour shall be brought to the Fathers kingdom.

4. The mediation of Jesus Christ, of which the Paschal rite is to be regarded as a:permanent and symbolical pledge, is of such a nature as to secure that all those who have possessed a personal interest in that mediatorial work shall be brought into a state of glorious redemption in the bright worlds which lie beyond the grave.

5. The followers of the Saviour shall possess unspeakable and everlasting joy. The drinking of wine indicates the fruition of all delight.

6. The pleasures which are to be enjoyed by the followers of the Saviour in the Fathers kingdom are especially to be regarded as associated with His presence. How pre-eminently in the New Testament is the presence of Christ set forth as constituting the happiness of the celestial world (Joh 12:26). Learn

(1) How vast and wonderful is the love of Christ to man.

(2) The vast importance of being numbered amongst the followers of Christ ourselves. (J. Parsons.)

The new covenant

I. The new covenant of forgiveness and life. On Gods side is pledged forgiveness, remission of sins, sustained acceptance. On mans side is pledged the obedience of faith. Christ, as mediator for man, receives Gods pledge; and, as mediator for God, He receives mans pledge. As representative for man, He offers to God the perfect obedience, and pledges us to a like obedience; as representative for God, He brings and gives to us forgiveness and life, pledging God therein.

II. The blood which seals the covenant. The blood represents the yielding or taking of life.

1. In surrendering His life, Christ sealed our pledge that we will give our life to God in all holy obedience.

2. In giving His blood, His life, for us, as it were, to eat, He gives us the strength to keep our pledge.

III. The wine that recalls to mind and renews the covenant. God does not need to be reminded of His pledge, but frail, forgetful, busy-minded man does. (Selected.)

Christs own account of His blood-shedding

I. Whose blood was this? My blood. It is a man, who sits at that table with others, not an angel. But He is also the living God.

II. By whom was this blood shed?

1. Himself, to speak with deepest reverence. Jesus shed His own blood-was the offerer as well as the sacrifice. He freely laid down His life.

2. In some respects the principal party in this mysterious blood-shedding, even the holy loving Father, as it is written, God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; This commandment have I received of My Father; The cup which My Father hath given Me.

3. We, believers in Jesus. Our sins were the guilty cause.

III. To what end and issue was this blood-shedding? For the remission of sins. Our Lord singles out from all the benefits of redemption the remission of sins, not only because it is that which stands most intimately related to His blood-shedding, but because it is the foundation of all, carrying the others along with it by necessary consequence (Jer 31:33-34). To what effect as well as design? A sure salvation for a great multitude whom no man can number. (C. J. Brown, D. D.)

Substitution

Let me mention here a circumstance in the last days of the distinguished Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, who, at an extreme age, but in full possession of all his rare mental powers, was brought to know the Saviour. He said, I never used to be able to understand what these good people meant when they spoke of so much blood, the blood. But I understand it now; its just substitution. Ay, that it is, in one word, substitution; My blood shed for many for the remission of sins; Christs blood instead of ours; Christs death for our eternal death; Christ made a curse, that we might be redeemed from the curse of the law. Once, in conversation, my beloved friend, Dr. Duncan, expressed it thus in his terse way, A religion of blood is Gods appointed religion for a sinner, for the wages of sin is death. (C. J. Brown, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 26. Jesus took bread] This is the first institution of what is termed the LORD’s SUPPER. To every part of this ceremony, as here mentioned, the utmost attention should be paid.

To do this, in the most effectual manner, I think it necessary to set down the text of the three evangelists who have transmitted the whole account, collated with that part of St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which speaks of the same subject, and which, he assures us, he received by Divine revelation. It may seem strange that, although John (Joh 13:1-38) mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from 14:1-31 the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters 15, 16, and 17, the discourse which followed the administration of the cup; yet he takes no notice of the Divine institution at all. This is generally accounted for on his knowledge of what the other three evangelists had written; and on his conviction that their relation was true, and needed no additional confirmation, as the matter was amply established by the conjoint testimony of three such respectable witnesses.

MATT. XXVI.

V. 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it ( and blessed God) and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.

MARK XIV.

V. 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed (, blessed God) and brake it, and to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.

LUKE XXII.

V. 19. And he took bread and gave thanks, (, i.e. to God,) and gave brake it, and gave unto them, saying:

This is my body which is given for you: This do in remembrance of me.

1 COR. XI.

V. 23. The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread;

V. 24. And when he had given thanks ( , i.e. to God) he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After giving the bread, the discourse related, Joh 14:1-31, inclusive, is supposed by Bishop Newcome to have been delivered by our Lord, for the comfort and support of his disciples under their present and approaching trials.

MATT. XXVI.

V. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks (,) and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of it.

V. 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many or the remission of sins.

V. 29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

MARK XIV.

V. 23. And he took the cup; and when he had given thanks, (,) he gave it to them; and they all drank of it.

V. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.

V. 25. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

LUKE XXII.

V. 20. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 COR XI.

V. 25. 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.

After this, our Lord resumes that discourse which is found in the 15th, 16th, and 17th chapters of John, beginning with the last verse of chap. 14, Arise, let us go hence. Then succeed the following words, which conclude the whole ceremony.

MATT XXVI.

V. 30. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.

MARK XIV.

V. 26. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.

LUKE XXII.

V. 39. And he came out, and went as he was wont to the Mount of Olives. And his disciples also followed him.

JOHN XVII.

V. 1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kedron.

From the preceding harmonized view of this important transaction, as described by three EVANGELISTS and one APOSTLE, we see the first institution, nature, and design of what has been since called THE LORD’S SUPPER. To every circumstance, as set down here, and the mode of expression by which such circumstances are described, we should pay the deepest attention.

Verse 26. As they were eating] Either an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think. See the observations at the end of this chapter.

Jesus took bread] Of what kind? Unleavened bread, certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, (Mt 26:17), i.e. the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God, (Ex 12:15-20; Ex 23:15; Ex 34:25), were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the passover, having leaven in his dwelling, was considered to be such a transgressor of the Divine law as could no longer be tolerated among the people of God; and therefore was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. Leo of Modena, who has written a very sensible treatise on the customs of the Jews, observes, “That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the precept concerning the removal of all leaven from their houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that they either provide vessels entirely new for baking, or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service of the passover, and never brought out on any other occasion.”

To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, 1Co 5:6-8. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the UNLEAVENED bread of sincerity and truth.

Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institution, in the celebration of this Divine ordinance, then, unleavened, unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign, or type, the thing signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself should either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances, as expressive as possible of the thing signified. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not only point out this, but also the disposition required in those who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of malice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the table of God with malice or ill-will against any soul of man, or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the Lord’s body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin might be destroyed; and that sincerity, , such purity as the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be diffused through the whole soul; and that truth, the law of righteousness and true holiness, might regulate and guide all the actions of life. Had the bread used on these occasions been of the common kind, it would have been perfectly unfit, or improper, to have communicated these uncommon significations; and, as it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblematical representation more deeply impressive; and the sign, and the thing signified, have their due correspondence and influence.

These circumstances considered, will it not appear that the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is highly improper? He who can say, “This is a matter of no importance,” may say with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the wine is of no importance; and a third may say, “neither the bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to spiritual references; and, the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are useless.” Thus we may, through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God; and, with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself. Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but to their ruin, by showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each Divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. The Lutheran Church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.

And blessed it] Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the word , blessed, instead of , gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. But instead of , blessed, , gave thanks, is the reading of ten MSS. in uncial characters, of the Dublin Codex rescriptus, published by Dr. Barrett, and of more than one hundred others, of the greatest respectability. This is the reading also of the Syriac and Arabic, and is confirmed by several of the primitive fathers. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by the word IT, which is improperly supplied in our version. In all the four places referred to above, whether the word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread, but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God’s creatures without rendering him thanks; and he who acted contrary to this command was considered as a person who was guilty of sacrilege.

From this custom we have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace (gratas thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of blessing, probably that which our Lord used on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here, though it has been mentioned once before. On taking the bread they say: –

Baruch atta Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, ha motse Lechem min haarets.

Blessed be thou, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!

Likewise, on taking the cup, they say: –

Baruch Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, Bore perey haggephen.

Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit it of the vine!

The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying before and after meat: –

[-Arabic-]

Bismillahi arahmani arraheemi.

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

No blessing, therefore, of the elements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed, because of the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread are merely Popish ceremonies, unauthorized either by Scripture or the practice of the pure Church of God; necessary of course to those who pretend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure the grossest in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which God in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man.

And brake it] We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing similar to our high-raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and, to divide it, there was no need of a knife.

The breaking of the bread I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony: because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross; and, as all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world, so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord’s body, while engaged in this most important and Divine of all God’s ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented, i.e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the Holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things, through the medium of earthly similitudes.

And gave it to the disciples] Not only the breaking, but also the DISTRIBUTION, of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. In the Romish Church, the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people, that THEY may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest; and it is generally understood by the communicants, that they should not masticate, but swallow it whole.

“That the breaking of this bread to be distributed,” says Dr. Whitby, “is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul and all the evangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2dly, Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body, BROKEN for you, 1Co 11:24. But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3dly, Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me: i.e. ‘Eat this bread, broken in remembrance of my body broken on the cross:’ now, where no body broken is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, The apostle, by saying, The bread which we BREAK, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? sufficiently informs us that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1Co 10:10. Hence it was that this rite, of distributing bread broken, continued for a thousand years, and was, as Humbertus testifies, observed in the Roman Church in the eleventh century.” WHITBY in loco. At present, the opposite is as boldly practised as if the real Scriptural rite had never been observed in the Church of Christ.

This is my body.] Here it must be observed that Christ had nothing in his hands, at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds,-and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. “But,” says a false and absurd creed, “Jesus meant, when he said, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, This is my body, and HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity and adorable divinity!” And, for denying this, what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, “Can any man of sense believe, that, when Christ took up that bread and broke it, it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples ate?” He who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith; for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason, as to this subject.

Let it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this point, that the paschal lamb, is called the passover, because it represented the destroying angel’s passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians; and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the passover, several times in this chapter; by which it is demonstrably evident, that they could mean no more than that the lamb sacrificed on this occasion was a memorial of, and Represented, the means used for the preservation of the Israelites from the blast of the destroying angel.

Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body), as he did not speak in the Latin tongue; though as much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate as if the original of the three evangelists had been written in the Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, following the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, Panis hic corpus meum signficat, or, Symbolum est corporis mei: – hoc poculum sanguinem meum representat, or, symbolum est sanguinis mei: – this bread signifies my body; this cup represents my blood. But let it be observed that, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, as used in the Bible, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for, it signifies. So Gen 41:26, Gen 41:27. The seven kine Are (i.e. represent) seven years. This Is (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Dan 7:24. The ten horns Are (i.e. signify) ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them, and the Rock Was (represented) Christ. 1Co 10:4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find in Rev 1:20, The seven stars Are (represent) the angels of the seven Churches: and the seven candlesticks Are (represent) the seven Churches. The same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the word. Mat 13:38, Mat 13:39. The field IS (represents) the world: the good seed Are (represent or signify) the children of the kingdom: the tares Are (signify) the children of the wicked one. The enemy Is (signifies) the devil: the harvest Is (represents) the end of the world: the reapers Are (i.e. signify) the angels. Luk 8:9. What might this parable Be? : – What does this parable Signify? Joh 7:36. : What is the Signification of this saying? Joh 10:6. They understood not what things they Were, , what was the Signification of the things he had spoken to them. Act 10:17. , what this vision Might Be; properly rendered by our translators, what this vision should Mean. Gal 4:24. For these Are the two covenants, , these Signify the two covenants. Luk 15:26. He asked, , what these things Meant. See also Luk 18:36. After such unequivocal testimony from the Sacred writings, can any person doubt that, This bread is my body, has any other meaning than, This bread Represents my body?

The Latins use the verb, sum, in all its forms, with a similar latitude of meaning. So, Esse oneri ferendo, he is Able to bear the burthen: bene Esse, to Live sumptuously: male Esse, to Live miserably: recte Esse, to Enjoy good health: Est mihi fistula, I Possess a flute: EST hodie in rebus, he now Enjoys a plentiful fortune: Est mihi namque domi pater, I Have a father at home, etc.: Esse solvendo, to be Able to pay: Fuimus Troes, Fuit Ilium; the Trojans are Extinct, Troy is No More.

In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, to be killed. , I am Dead, or a dead man. Mat 2:18 : Rachel weeping for her children, , because they Were Murdered. Gen 42:36 : Joseph is not, Yoseph einennu, , Sept., Joseph is Devoured by a Wild Beast. Rom 4:17 : Calling the things that Are not, as if they were Alive. So Plutarch in Laconicis: “This shield thy father always preserved; preserve thou it, or may thou not Be,” , may thou Perish. , Abrogated laws. , I Possess a sound understanding. , I will Perform the Part of a father to you. , I Am an Inhabitant of that city. 1Ti 1:7 : Desiring to Be teachers of the law, , desiring to be Reputed teachers of the law, i.e. Able divines. , the things that Are, i.e. Noble and Honorable men: , the things that are not, viz. the Vulgar, or those of Ignoble Birth.

Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of those words of our Lord,

Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc Est Corpus Meum dicendo, id est, Figura corporis mei.

Advers. Marc. l. v. c. 40.

“Having taken the bread, and distributed that body to his disciples, he made it his body by saying, This is my body, i.e. a Figure of my body.”

That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the providence of God, we have complete versions of the Gospels in this language, and in them it is likely we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this occasion. In Mt 26:26-27, the words in the Syriac version are, hanau pagree, This is my body, hanau demee, This is my blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a verbal translation; nor would any man, even in the present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above to express, This represents my body, and this represents my blood.

As to the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar coast, it is a fact that it never held the doctrine of transubstantiation, nor does it appear that it was ever heard of in that Church till the year 1599, when Don Alexis Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and the Jesuit Fransic Rez, invaded that Church, and by tricks, impostures, and the assistance of the heathen governors of Cochin, and other places, whom they gained over by bribes and presents, overthrew the whole of this ancient Church, and gave the oppressed people the rites, creeds, etc., of the papal Catholic Church in its place. Vid. La Croz. Hist. du Ch. des Indes.

This was done at the Synod of Diamper, which began its sessions at Agomale, June 20, 1599. The tricks of this unprincipled prelate, the tool of Pope Clement VIII., and Philip II., King of Portugal, are amply detailed by Mr. La Croze, in the work already quoted.

But this form of speech is common, even in our own language, though we have terms enow to fill up the ellipsis. Suppose a man entering into a museum, enriched with the remains of ancient Greek sculpture: his eyes are attracted by a number of curious busts; and, on inquiring what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that Plato, a third Homer; others Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Caesar, Nero, Vespasian, etc. Is he deceived by this information? Not at all: he knows well that the busts he sees are not the identical persons of those ancient philosophers, poets, orators, historians, and emperors, but only Representations of their persons in sculpture, between which and the originals there is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational vitality, and a block of marble. When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, This IS my body, who, but the most stupid of mortals, could imagine that he was, at the same time, handling and breaking his own body! Would not any person, of plain common sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus, and the piece of bread, as between the block of marble and the philosopher it represented, in the case referred to above? The truth is, there is scarcely a more common form of speech in any language than, This IS, for, This Represents or Signifies. And as our Lord refers, in the whole of this transaction, to the ordinance of the passover, we may consider him as saying: “This bread is now my body, in that sense in which the paschal lamb has been my body hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats has been my blood under the Old: Exodus 24; Hebrews 9. That is, the paschal lamb and the sprinkling of blood represented my sacrifice to the present time this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages; therefore, Do this in remembrance of me.”

St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance here which is not noticed either by St. Matthew or St. Mark. After, this is my body, the former adds, which is given for you; the latter, which is broken for you; the sense of which is: “As God has in his bountiful providence given you bread for the sustenance of your lives, so in his infinite grace he has given you my body to save your souls unto life eternal. But as this bread must be broken and masticated, in order to its becoming proper nourishment, so my body must be broken, i.e. crucified, for you, before it can be the bread of life to your souls. As, therefore, your life depends on the bread which God’s bounty has provided for your bodies, so your eternal life depends on the sacrifice of my body on the cross for your souls.” Besides, there is here an allusion to the offering of sacrifice – an innocent creature was brought to the altar of God, and its blood (the life of the beast) was poured out for, or in behalf of, the person who brought it. Thus Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, This is my body, , which Is Given in your stead, or in your behalf; a free Gift, from God’s endless mercy, for the salvation of your souls. This is my body, , (1Co 11:24), which is broken – sacrificed in your stead; as without the breaking (piercing) of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no remission.

In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word, as there is none without its appropriate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is written, Eph 5:2. Christ hath loved us, and given himself, , on our account, or in our stead, an offering and a Sacrifice () to God for a sweet-smelling savor; that, as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, Gen 8:21, (to which the apostle evidently alludes), from which it is said, The Lord smelled a sweet savor, riach hanichoach, a savor of rest, so that he became appeased towards the earth, and determined that there should no more be a flood to destroy it; in like manner, in the offering and sacrifice of Christ for us, God is appeased towards the human race, and has in consequence decreed that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Mark relates this with no considerable difference, Mar 14:22-26; only he saith, they all drank of it, and, shed for many for the remission of sins. Luke saith, our Saviour upon his giving the bread, said, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Luk 22:24-30 gives us some further discourses of our Saviour with Peter, and to his disciples; but no other evangelist mentioning them in this place, and Luke no where saying that they were spoken in the guest chamber, I shall not consider them till I come to that chapter in Luke.

And as they were eating, that is, while they were yet in the guest chamber, where they had eaten the paschal lamb, (for we must not think that our Saviour interrupted them in their very act of eating the paschal lamb, with these words, and another institution), Jesus took bread; without doubt unleavened bread, for this night there was no other to be found in the house of any Jew, nor yet for seven days which began from the sunset of this night. But it will not from hence follow, that the Lords supper must be eaten with unleavened bread. For though our Saviour be to be imitated in his actions relating to gospel worship; yet not in such of them which had a plain reference to the Jewish worship, and were there instituted for a special reason, as unleavened bread was, to put them in mind of the haste in which they came out of Egypt. Our Saviour at this time could use no other than unleavened bread, for no other was to be had.

And blessed it: he did not only give thanks to God for it, and beg his blessing upon it, which (as we have before observed) was our Saviours constant practice where he did eat bread, but he set it apart, and consecrated it for a part of his last supper. It seemeth very probable that this is to be understood here in the word blessed it. For although the Jews, and our Saviour, ordinarily used a short prayer and thanksgiving before they did eat meat, thereby showing that they owned God as the Giver of those things, and depended upon him for a blessing upon them, yet we no where read, that they did so during the same meal, as often as they put bread into their mouths. Luke (as we heard before) made a particular mention of our Saviours blessing the paschal supper. The mentioning of our Saviours blessing of this bread manifestly leadeth us to a new notion and institution; and the repeating of it again, Mat 26:27, upon his taking the cup, doth yet further confirm it: That our Saviours blessing both the one and the other signifieth to us not only his giving thanks to God, and begging of Gods blessing, as upon ordinary food, but his sanctifying the one and the other to be used as a new gospel institution, for the remembrance of his death.

And brake it, and gave it to the disciples. Whether (as some say) the master of the Jewish feasts was wont, after begging of a blessing, thus to break bread and to give it to all the guests, I cannot tell, I know no scripture we have to assure us of it; certain it is our Saviour brake it, and did give it to his disciples. That he gave it into their mouths, they not touching it with their hands, or that he gave it into every one of their particular hands, the Scripture saith not, nor is it very probable, except we will admit that he changed the posture he was in; for let any judge how probable it is that one sitting upon his legs, leaning or not leaning, (the constant posture they used in eating, whether the paschal supper or any other meals), keeping his posture, could reach it to eleven persons in the same posture, to put it into their several mouths, or give it particularly into every one of their hands; it is therefore more probable, that he put the dish or vessel in which the bread was from him to him that sat next to him, and so it was conveyed from hand to hand till all had taken it, after he had first spoke as followeth. Those who can think otherwise, must presume that our Lord changed his posture, which I am sure is not to be proved from any place of holy writ.

And said, Take, eat; this is my body; Luke adds, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Paul puts all together, 1Co 11:24, only for given he saith broken. What contests have been and yet are betwixt the papists, Lutherans, and Zuinglians (since called Calvinists) about the true sense of those words, This is my body, every one knows. The papists make the sense this; This bread, once consecrated by the priest, is presently turned into the very body and blood of Christ, which every communicant eateth. Hence are their adorations to it, their elevations of it, their carrying it about in solemn processions, &c. The Lutherans, though they see the gross absurdities of this sense, yet say, That the true and real body and blood of Christ, in its true substance, is present with the bread and wine in the sacrament, and eaten by every communicant. Both these opinions agree in this absurdity, that Christs body now must be no true human body; for we know that all true human bodies are subject to our senses, and so in one place that they cannot at the same time be in another, much less in a thousand or ten thousand places at the same time. But neither the papists nor the Lutherans will hear of any arguments from that head, but stick to the letter of our Saviours words. The Zuinglians say the meaning is; This signifieth my body. In the same sense as it is said, Christ is the way, a door, a vine, a shepherd; and as it is said of the lamb, Exo 12:11, It is the Lords passover: yet they are far from making this ordinance a bare empty sign, but do acknowledge it a sacred institution of Christ in the gospel, in the observation of which he doth vouchsafe his spiritual presence, so as every true believer worthily receiving, doth really and truly partake of the body and blood of Christ, that is, all the benefits of his blessed death and passion, which is undoubtedly all intended by our Saviour in these words: and when he saith, Take, eat, he means no more than that true believers should by the hand of their body take the bread, and with their bodily mouths eat it, and at the same time, by the hand and mouth of faith, receive and apply all the benefits of his blessed death and passion to their souls; and that they should do this in remembrance of him, that is, (as the apostle, 1Co 11:26, expounds it), showing forth the Lords death till he come.

It followeth, And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Christs taking of the cup, and giving of thanks, were actions of the same nature with those which he used with a relation to the bread, of which I spoke before. Let the papists and Lutherans say what they can, here must be two figures acknowledged in these words. The cup here is put for the wine in the cup; and the meaning of these words, this is my blood of the new testament, must be, this wine is the sign of the new covenant. Why they should not as readily acknowledge a figure in those words, This is my body, I cannot understand; the pronoun this, in the Greek, is in the neuter gender, and applicable to the term cup, or to the term blood; but it is most reasonable to interpret it, This cup, that is, the wine in this cup, is the blood of the new covenant, or testament, that is, the blood by which the new covenant is confirmed and established. Thus the blood of the covenant signifieth in several texts, Exo 24:8; Zec 9:11; Heb 9:20; 10:29.

Which is shed for many for the remission of sins; to purchase remission of sins; and this lets us know, that by many here cannot be understood all individuals, unless we will say that Christ purchased a remission of sins for many who shall never obtain it, which how he could do, if he died in their stead, suffering the wrath of God due to them for sin, is very hard to understand.

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine. I observed before, that Luke puts these words before the institution of the supper, and some think that they properly belong to that place; but I understand no reason for it, Matthew and Mark both placing it here; nor doth it seem probable, that after these words our Saviour should presently drink of it in the institution of his supper. Some here object our Saviours drinking after his resurrection; but besides that, it cannot be proved that he drank any wine; neither did he otherwise eat or drink at all, but to show that he was indeed risen, for he hungered and thirsted no more after his resurrection. Or else by this phrase our Saviour only meant, I will no more participate in this ordinance with you.

Until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom, that is, in heaven. Some will say, Shall there then be drinking of wine in heaven?

Answer. No; neither doth the particle until signify any such thing. But the joys and pleasures of heaven are often metaphorically set out under the notion of sitting down to banquet, Mat 8:11, supping, Rev 3:20, eating and drinking, Luk 22:30. Our Saviour calls this new wine, to signify that he did not by it mean such wine as men drink here: I will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine, but both you and I, in my Fathers glory, shall be satisfied with rivers of pleasures, which shall be far sweeter, and more excellent, than that which is but the juice of the grape, and the fruit of the vine.

And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. That the Jews were wont to close their passover supper with singing a hymn I do not doubt; nor that they had some particular psalms or hymns which they used at that time to sing: but whether it were any of these that our Saviour at this time praised God with I cannot tell, much less whether he designed this praising of God with particular relation to the paschal supper, or his supper, which he had now instituted, or both. The inquiries after these things are but insignificant curiosities, fit for such as have more mind to look into the skirts of holy writ, than to find out of it what may be of profit and advantage to them. Our Saviour doubtless intended by this to instruct us, that the ordinance of his supper is a eucharistical service, wherein our souls are most highly concerned to give thanks unto God; and as singing is an external action which God hath appointed to express the inward joy and thankfulness of our hearts, so it is very proper to be used at that holy institution.

They went out into the Mount of Olives. Our Lord knew that his time was now come when he must be actually delivered into the hands of his enemies. That he might not therefore cause any disturbance either to the master of the family wherein he was, or to the city, though it was now midnight, he goeth out of the city (the gates being either open, because of the multitude of people, very late, or else easily opened to him) to the Mount of Olives; a mountain in the way betwixt Jerusalem and Bethany, so called, as is thought, from the multitude of olive trees growing upon and about it. The evangelist as yet mentions nothing of Judas, who now was gone to plot his work, and will anon return to accomplish it. In the mean time let us follow our Saviour, attending to his discourses and actions.

See Poole on “Mar 6:41“.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And as they were eating,…. The paschal lamb, and just concluding the whole solemnity, which was done by eating some of the k lamb: for

“last of all he (that kept the passover) eats of the flesh of the passover, though it be but the quantity of an olive, and he does not taste anything after it; and at the same time he eats the quantity of an olive of unleavened bread, and does not taste anything after it; so that his meal endeth, and the savour of the flesh of the passover, or of the unleavened bread, is in his mouth; for the eating of them is the precept.”

So that the paschal supper was now concluded, when Christ entered upon the institution of his own supper:

Jesus took bread; which lay by him, either on the table, or in a dish. Though this supper is distinct from the “passover”, and different from any ordinary meal, yet there are allusions to both in it, and to the customs of the Jews used in either; as in this first circumstance, of “taking” the bread: for he that asked a blessing upon bread, used to take it into his hands; and it is a rule l, that

“a man does not bless, , “until he takes the bread into his hand”, that all may see that he blesses over it.”

Thus Christ took the bread and held it up, that his disciples might observe it:

and blessed [it]; or asked a blessing over it, and upon it, or rather blessed and gave thanks to his Father or it, and for what was signified by it; and prayed that his disciples, whilst eating it, might be led to him, the bread of life, and feed upon him in a spiritual sense; whose body was going to be broken for them, as the bread was to be, in order to obtain eternal redemption for them: so it was common with the Jews, to ask a blessing on their bread: the form in which they did it was this m:

“Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, that produceth bread out of the earth.”

What form our Lord used, is not certain; no doubt it was one of his composing, and every way suitable to the design of this ordinance. It was customary also when there were many at table, that lay down there, however, as Christ and his disciples now did, for one to ask a blessing for them all; for so runs the rule n,

“if they sit to eat, everyone blesses for himself, but if they lie along, , “one blesses for them all”.”

Moreover, they always blessed, before they brake:

“Says Rabba o, he blesses, and after that he breaks:”

this rule Christ likewise carefully observes, for it follows,

and brake it. The rules concerning breaking of bread, are these p;

“The master of the house recites and finishes the blessing, and after that he breaks:–no man that breaks, is allowed to break, till they have brought the salt, and what is to be eaten with the bread, before everyone–and he does not break neither a small piece, lest he should seem to be sparing; nor a large piece, bigger than an egg, lest he should be thought to be famished;–and on the sabbath day he breaks a large piece, and he does not break, but in the place where it is well baked: it is a principal command to break a whole loaf.”

Christ broke the bread, as the symbol of his body, which was to be broken by blows, and scourges, thorns, nails, and spear, and to be separated from his soul, and die as a sacrifice for the sins of his people: and having so done, he

gave it to the disciples; which being a distinct act from breaking the bread, shows that the latter does not design the distribution of the bread, but an act preceding it, and a very significant one: and which ought not to be laid aside: according to the Jewish q usages,

“He that broke the bread, put a piece before everyone, and the other takes it in his hand; and he that breaks, does not give it into the hand of the eater, unless he is a mourner; and he that breaks, stretches out his hand first and eats, and they that sit, or lie at the table, are not allowed to taste, until he that blesses, has tasted; and he that breaks, is not allowed to taste, until the Amen is finished out of the mouth of the majority of those that sit at table.”

And said, take, eat, this is my body; in Luke it is added, “which is given for you”, Lu 22:19; that is, unto death, as a sacrifice for sin; and by the Apostle Paul, 1Co 11:24, “which is broken for you”; as that bread then was, and so expressive of his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death, for them. Now when he says, “this is my body”, he cannot mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews in the eating of their passover used to say r of the unleavened bread,

“ayned amxl ah, this is “the bread of affliction”, which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.”

Not that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and distress their fathers were in at that time: to which some think our Lord here alludes: though rather, the reference is to the passover lamb, which is frequently, in Jewish writings, called “the body” of the lamb: thus mention being made of the bringing of the herbs, the unleavened bread, and the sauce “Charoseth”, with other things to the master of the house, it is added s:

“and in the sanctuary (whilst that stood) they bring unto him, , “the body of the lamb”.”

Again, elsewhere t it is said,

“they bring a table furnished, and on it the bitter herbs and other greens, and the unleavened bread, and the sauce,

“and the body of the paschal lamb”.”

And a little further u,

“he recites the blessing, blessed art thou O Lord, c. for the eating of the passover, and he eats, , “of the body of the passover”.”

And now it is, as if Christ had said, you have had “the body” of the lamb set before you, and have eaten of it, in commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and as a type of me the true passover, quickly to be sacrificed and this rite of eating the body of the paschal lamb is now to cease; and I do here by this bread, in an emblematical way, set before you “my body”, which is to be given to obtain spiritual deliverance, and eternal redemption for you; in remembrance of which, you, and all my followers in successive generations, are to take and eat of it, till I come. The words, “take, eat”, show that Christ did not put the bread into the mouths of the disciples, but they took it in their hands, and ate it; expressive of taking and receiving Christ by the hand of faith, and feeding on him in a spiritual manner.

k Maimon. Hilch. Charnetz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 9. Vid. Bartenora in Misn. Pesach. c. 10. sect. 8. l Levush hattecheleth Num. 167. sect. 3. & Shlchan Aruch in Buxtorf. Exercit. de Coena Dominic. Thes. 45. m Haggadah Shel. Pesach. fol. 249. 2. Ed. Basil. Misn. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 1. n Ib. sect. 6. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 42. 2. & 43. 1. o T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 39. 2. p Maimon. Hilch. Beracot, c. 7. sect. 2, 3, 4. T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 47. 1. q Ib. sect. 5. r Haggadah Shel Pesach, p. 4. Ed. Rittangel. fol. 242. 2. Ed. Basil. s Misn. Pesach, c. 10. sect 3. t Maimon. Chametz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 1. u Ib. sect. 7.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Institution of the Lord’s Supper.

      26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.   27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;   28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.   29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.   30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

      We have here the institution of the great gospel ordinance of the Lord’s supper, which was received of the Lord. Observe,

      I. The time when it was instituted–as they were eating. At the latter end of the passover-supper, before the table was drawn, because, as a feast upon a sacrifice, it was to come in the room of that ordinance. Christ is to us the Passover-sacrifice by which atonement is made (1 Cor. v. 7); Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. This ordinance is to us the passover-supper, by which application is made, and commemoration celebrated, of a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. All the legal sacrifices of propitiation being summed up in the death of Christ, and so abolished, all the legal feasts of rejoicing were summed up in this sacrament, and so abolished.

      II. The institution itself. A sacrament must be instituted; it is no part of moral worship, nor is it dictated by natural light, but has both its being and significancy from the institution, from a divine institution; it is his prerogative who established the covenant, to appoint the seals of it. Hence the apostle (1 Cor. xi. 23, c.), in that discourse of his concerning this ordinance, all along calls Jesus Christ the Lord, because, as Lord, as Lord of the covenant, Lord of the church, he appointed this ordinance. In which,

      1. The body of Christ is signified and represented by bread he had said formerly (John vi. 35), I am the bread of life, upon which metaphor this sacrament is built; as the life of the body is supported by bread, which is therefore put for all bodily nourishment (Mat 4:4; Mat 6:11), so the life of the soul is supported and maintained by Christ’s mediation.

      (1.) He took bread, ton apton—the loaf; some loaf that lay ready to hand, fit for the purpose; it was, probably, unleavened bread; but, that circumstance not being taken notice of, we are not to bind ourselves to that, as some of the Greek churches do. His taking the bread was a solemn action, and was, probably, done in such a manner as to be observed by them that sat with him, that they might expect something more than ordinary to be done with it. Thus was the Lord Jesus set apart in the counsels of divine love for the working out of our redemption.

      (2.) He blessed it; set it apart for this use by prayer and thanksgiving. We do not find any set form of words used by him upon this occasion; but what he said, no doubt, was accommodated to the business in hand, that new testament which by this ordinance was to be sealed and ratified. This was like God’s blessing the seventh day (Gen. ii. 3), by which it was separated to God’s honour, and made to all that duly observe it, a blessed day: Christ could command the blessing, and we, in his name, are emboldened to beg the blessing.

      (3.) He brake it; which denotes, [1.] The breaking of Christ’s body for us, that it might be fitted for our use; He was bruised for our iniquities, as bread-corn is bruised (Isa. xxviii. 28); though a bone of him was not broken (for all his breaking did not weaken him), yet his flesh was broken with breach upon breach, and his wounds were multiplied (Job 9:17; Job 16:14), and that pained him. God complains that he is broken with the whorish heart of sinners (Ezek. vi. 9); his law broken, our covenants with him broken; now justice requires breach for breach (Lev. xxiv. 20), and Christ was broken, to satisfy that demand. [2.] The breaking of Christ’s body to us, as the father of the family breaks the bread to the children. The breaking of Christ to us, is to facilitate the application; every thing is made ready for us by the grants of God’s word and the operations of his grace.

      (4.) He gave it to his disciples, as the Master of the family, and the Master of this feast; it is not said, He gave it to the apostles, though they were so, and had been often called so before this, but to the disciples, because all the disciples of Christ have a right to this ordinance; and those shall have the benefit of it who are his disciples indeed; yet he gave it to them as he did the multiplied loaves, by them to be handed to all his other followers.

      (5.) He said, Take, eat; this is my body, v. 26. He here tells them,

      [1.] What they should do with it; “Take, eat; accept of Christ as he is offered to you, receive the atonement, approve of it, consent to it, come up to the terms on which the benefit of it is proposed to you; submit to his grace and to his government.” Believing on Christ is expressed by receiving him (John i. 12), and feeding upon him,Joh 6:57; Joh 6:58. Meat looked upon, or the dish ever so well garnished, will not nourish us; it must be fed upon: so must the doctrine of Christ.

      [2.] What they should have with it; This is my body, not outos—this bread, but touto—this eating and drinking. Believing carries all the efficacy of Christ’s death to our souls. This is my body, spiritually and sacramentally; this signifies and represents my body. He employs sacramental language, like that, Exod. xii. 11. It is the Lord’s passover. Upon a carnal and much–mistaken sense of these words, the church of Rome builds the monstrous doctrine of Transubstantiation, which makes the bread to be changed into the substance of Christ’s body, only the accidents of bread remaining; which affronts Christ, destroys the nature of a sacrament, and gives the lie to our senses. We partake of the sun, not by having the bulk and body of the sun put into our hands, but the beams of it darted down upon us; so we partake of Christ by partaking of his grace, and the blessed fruits of the breaking of his body.

      2. The blood of Christ is signified and represented by the wine; to make it a complete feast, here is not only bread to strengthen, but wine to make glad the heart (Mat 26:27; Mat 26:28); He took the cup, the grace-cup, which was set ready to be drank, after thanks returned, according to the custom of the Jews at the passover; this Christ took, and made the sacramental-cup, and so altered the property. It was intended for a cup of blessing (so the Jews called it), and therefore St. Paul studiously distinguished between the cup of blessing which we bless, and that which they bless. He gave thanks, to teach us, not only in every ordinance, but in every part of the ordinance, to have our eyes up to God.

      This cup he gave to the disciples,

      (1.) With a command; Drink ye all of it. Thus he welcomes his guests to his table, obliges them all to drink of his cup. Why should he so expressly command them all to drink, and to see that none let it pass them, and press that more expressly in this than in the other part of the ordinance? Surely it was because he foresaw how in after-ages this ordinance would be dismembered by the prohibition of the cup to the laity, with an express non obstante–notwithstanding to the command.

      (2.) With an explication; For this is my blood of the New Testament. Therefore drink it with appetite, delight, because it is so rich a cordial. Hitherto the blood of Christ had been represented by the blood of beasts, real blood: but, after it was actually shed, it was represented by the blood of grapes, metaphorical blood; so wine is called in an Old-Testament prophecy of Christ, Gen 49:10; Gen 49:11.

      Now observe what Christ saith of his blood represented in the sacrament.

      [1.] It is my blood of the New Testament. The Old Testament was confirmed by the blood of bulls and goats (Heb 9:19; Heb 9:20; Exo 24:8); but the New Testament with the blood of Christ, which is here distinguished from that; It is my blood of the New Testament. The covenant God is pleased to make with us, and all the benefits and privileges of it, are owing to the merits of Christ’s death.

      [2.] It is shed; it was not shed till next day, but it was now upon the point of being shed, it is as good as done. “Before you come to repeat this ordinance yourselves, it will be shed.” He was now ready to be offered, and his blood to be poured out, as the blood of the sacrifices which made atonement.

      [3.] It is shed for many. Christ came to confirm a covenant with many (Dan. ix. 27), and the intent of his death agreed. The blood of the Old Testament was shed for a few: it confirmed a covenant, which (saith Moses) the Lord has made with you, Exod. xxiv. 8. The atonement was made only for the children of Israel (Lev. xvi. 34): but Jesus Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John ii. 2.

      [4.] It is shed for the remission of sins, that is, to purchase remission of sins for us. The redemption which we have through his blood, is the remission of sins, Eph. i. 7. The new covenant which is procured and ratified by the blood of Christ, is a charter of pardon, an act of indemnity, in order to a reconciliation between God and man; for sin was the only thing that made the quarrel, and without shedding of blood is no remission, Heb. ix. 22. The pardon of sin is that great blessing which is, in the Lord’s supper, conferred upon all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings, and the spring of everlasting comfort, Mat 9:2; Mat 9:3. A farewell is now bidden to the fruit of the vine, v. 29. Christ and his disciples had now feasted together with a deal of comfort, in both an Old Testament and a New Testament festival, fibula utriusque Testamenti–the connecting tie of both Testaments. How amiable were these tabernacles! How good to be here! Never such a heaven upon earth as was at this table; but it was not intended for a perpetuity; he now told them (John xvi. 16), that yet a little while and they should not see him: and again a little while and they should see him, which explains this here.

      First, He takes leave of such communion; I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, that is, now that I am no more in the world (John xvii. 11); I have had enough of it, and am glad to think of leaving it, glad to think that this is the last meal. Farewell this fruit of the vine, this passover-cup, this sacramental wine. Dying saints take their leave of sacraments, and the other ordinances of communion which they enjoy in this world, with comfort, for the joy and glory they enter into supersede them all; when the sun rises, farewell the candles.

      Secondly, He assures them of a happy meeting again at last. It is a long, but not an everlasting, farewell; until that day when I drink it new with you. 1. Some understand it of the interviews he had with them after his resurrection, which was the first step of his exaltation into the kingdom of his Father; and though during those forty days he did not converse with them so constantly as he had done, yet he did eat and drink with them (Acts x. 41), which, as it confirmed their faith, so doubtless it greatly comforted their hearts, for they were overjoyed at it, Luke xxiv. 41. 2. Others understand it of the joys and glories of the future state, which the saints shall partake of in everlasting communion with the Lord Jesus, represented here by the pleasures of a banquet of wine. That will be the kingdom of his Father, for unto him shall the kingdom be then delivered up; the wine of consolation (Jer. xvi. 7) will there be always new, never flat or sour, as wine with long keeping; never nauseous or unpleasant, as wine to those that have drank much; but ever fresh. Christ will himself partake of those pleasures; it was the joy set before him, which he had in his eye, and all his faithful friends and followers shall partake with him.

      Lastly, Here is the close of the solemnity with a hymn (v. 30); They sang a hymn or psalm; whether the psalms which the Jews usually sang at the close of the passover-supper, which they called the great hallel, that is, Ps. 113 and the five that follow it, or whether some new hymn more closely adapted to the occasion, is uncertain; I rather think the former; had it been new, John would not have omitted to record it. Note, 1. Singing of psalms is a gospel-ordinance. Christ’s removing the hymn from the close of the passover to the close of the Lord’s supper, plainly intimates that he intended that ordinance should continue in his church, that, as it had not its birth with the ceremonial law, so it should not die with it. 2. It is very proper after the Lord’s supper, as an expression of our joy in God through Jesus Christ, and a thankful acknowledgment of that great love wherewith God has loved us in him. 3. It is not unseasonable, no, not in times of sorrow and suffering; the disciples were in sorrow, and Christ was entering upon his sufferings, and yet they could sing a hymn together. Our spiritual joy should not be interrupted by outward afflictions.

      When this was done, they went out into the mount of Olives. He would not stay in the house to be apprehended, lest he should bring the master of the house into trouble; nor would he stay in the city, lest it should occasion an uproar; but he retired into the adjacent country, the mount of Olives, the same mount that David in his distress went up the ascent of, weeping, 2 Sam. xv. 30. They had the benefit of moon-light for this walk, for the passover was always at the full moon. Note, After we have received the Lord’s supper, it is good for us to retire for prayer and meditation, and to be alone with God.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

And blessed and brake it ( ). Special “Grace” in the middle of the passover meal, “as they were eating,” for the institution of the Supper. Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in 1Co 11:24. The correct text there has only to without . As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not “broken” (Joh 19:33) as John expressly states.

This is my body ( ). The bread as a symbol represents the body of Jesus offered for us, “a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death” (Bruce). But some have made it “run into fetish worship” (Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Mat 26:26

. And while they were eating, Jesus took bread. I do not understand these words to mean that with the paschal supper was mixed this new and more excellent supper, but rather that an end was then put to the former banquet. This is still more clearly expressed by Luke, when he says that, Christ gave the cup after that he had supped; for it would have been absurd that one and the same mystery should be broken off by an interval of time. And therefore I have no doubt that, in immediate succession, after having distributed the bread, he added the cup; and what Luke relates particularly respecting the cup, I regard as including also the bread. While they were eating, therefore, Christ took bread, to invite them to partake of a new supper. (190) The thanksgiving was a sort of preparation and transition to consider the mystery. Thus when the supper was ended, they tasted the sacred bread and wine; because Christ had previously aroused them from their indifference, that they might be all alive to so lofty a mystery. And, indeed, the nature of the case demands that this clear testimony of the spiritual life should be distinguished from the ancient shadow.

Jesus took bread. It is uncertain if the custom which is now observed among the Jews was at that time in use: for the master of the house breaks off a portion of a common loaf, hides it under the table-cloth, and afterwards distributes a part of it to, each member of the family. But as this is a human tradition not founded on any commandment of God, we need not toil with excessive eagerness to investigate its origin; and it is possible that it may have been afterwards contrived, by a trick of Satan, for the purpose of obscuring the mystery of the Lord’s Supper. And even if this ceremony was at that time in use among the Jews, Christ followed the ordinary custom in such a manner as to draw away the minds of his followers to another object, by changing the use of the bread for a different purpose. This, at least, ought to be considered as beyond all controversy, that Christ, at this time, abolished the figures of the Law, and instituted a new Sacrament.

When he had given thanks. Matthew and Mark employ the word εὐλογήσας (191) (having blessed;) but as Luke employs, instead of it, the word εὐχαριστήσας (having given thanks,) there can be no doubt as to the meaning; and as they afterwards use the word thanksgiving in reference to the cup, they expound with sufficient clearness the former term. So much the more ridiculous is the ignorance of the Papists, who express the blessing by the sign of the cross, as if Christ had practiced some kind of exorcising. But we must recollect what I lately noticed, that this thanksgiving is connected with a spiritual mystery. While it is true that believers are commanded to give thanks to God, because he supports them in this fading life, Christ did not merely refer to ordinary eating, but directed his view to the holy action, in order to thank God for the eternal salvation of the human race. For if the food which descends into the belly ought to persuade and arouse us to praise the fatherly kindness of God, how much more powerfully does it excite and even inflame, us to this act of piety, when he feeds our souls spiritually?

Take, eat. That I may not be too tedious, I shall only explain briefly what is the nature of our Lord’s institution, and what it contains; and, next, what is its end and us so far as it may be learned from the Evangelists. And, first of all, it strikes us, that Christ instituted a supper, which the disciples partake in company with each other. Hence it follows, that it is a diabolical invention, that a man, separating himself from the rest of the company, eats his supper apart. For what two things could be more inconsistent than that the bread should be distributed among them all, and that a single individual should swallow it alone? Although then the Papists boast, that in their masses they have the substance of the Lord’s Supper, yet it is evident from the nature of the case, that whenever they celebrate private masses, they are so many trophies erected by the devil for burying the Lord’s Supper.

The same words teach us what sort of sacrifice it is that Christ recommends to us in the Supper. He bids his disciples take; and therefore it is himself alone that offers. What the Papists contrive, as to Christ’s offering himself in the Supper, proceeded from an opposite author. And certainly it is a strange inversion, ( ἀναστροφὴ,) when a mortal man, who is commanded to take the body of Christ, claims the office of offering it; and thus a priest, who has been appointed by himself, sacrifices to God his own Son. I do not at present inquire with how many acts of sacrilege their pretended offering abounds. It is sufficient for my purpose, that it is so far from approaching to Christ’s institution, that it is directly opposed to it.

This is my body. As to the opinion entertained by some, that by those words the bread was consecrated, so as to become the symbol of the flesh of Christ, I do not find fault with it, provided that the word consecrated be understood aright, and in a proper sense. So then, the bread, which had been appointed for the nourishment of the body, is chosen and sanctified by Christ to a different use, so as to begin to be spiritual food. And this is the conversion (192) which is spoken of by the ancient doctors (193) of the Church. But we must at the same time hold, that bread is not consecrated by whispering and breathing, but by the clear doctrine of faith. And certainly it is a piece of magic and sorcery, when the consecration is addressed to the dead element; for the bread is made not to itself, but to us, a symbol of the body of Christ. In short, consecration is nothing else than a solemn testimony, by which the Lord appoints to us for a spiritual use an earthly and corruptible sign; which cannot take place, unless his command and promise are distinctly heard for the edification of faith; from which again it is evident, that the low whispering and breathing of the Papists are a wicked profanation of the mystery. Now if Christ consecrates the bread, when he declares to us that it is his body, we must not suppose that there is any change of the substance, but must only believe that it is applied to a new purpose. And if the world had not been long ago so bewitched by the subtlety of the devil, that, when the monster of transubstantiation had once been introduced, it will not now admit any light of true interpretation on these words, it would be superfluous to spend any more time in investigating their meaning.

Christ declares that the bread is his body. These words relate to a sacrament; and it must be acknowledged, that a sacrament consists of a visible sign, with which is connected the thing signified, which is the reality of it. It must be well known, on the other hand, that the name of the thing signified is transferred to the sign; and therefore, no person who is tolerably well acquainted with Scripture will deny that a sacramental mode of expression ought to be taken metonymically. (194) I pass by general figures, which occur frequently in Scripture, and only say this: whenever an outward sign is said to be that which it represents, it is universally agreed to be an instance of metonymy. If baptism be called the laver of regeneration, (Titus in. 5;) if the rock, from which water flowed to the Fathers in the wilderness, be called Christ, (1Co 10:4😉 if a dove be called the Holy Spirit, (Joh 1:32😉 no man will question but the signs receive the name of the things which they represent. How comes it, then, that persons who profess to entertain a veneration for the words of the Lord will not permit us to apply to the Lord’s Supper what is common to all the sacraments?

They are delighted with the plain and literal sense. Why then shall not the same rule apply to all the sacraments? Certainly, if they do not admit that the Rock was actually Christ, the calumny with which they load us is mere affectation. If we explain that the bread is called his body, because it is the symbol of his body, they allege that the whole doctrine of Scripture is overturned. For this principle of language has not been recently forged by us, but has been handed down by Augustine on the authority of the ancients, and embraced by all, that the names of spiritual things are improperly ascribed to signs, and that all the passages of Scripture, in which the sacraments are mentioned, ought to be explained in this manner. When we bring forward a principle which has been universally admitted, what purpose does it serve to raise a loud clamor, as if it were something new and strange? But let obstinate people cry out as they please, all men of sound judgment and modesty will admit, that in these words of Christ there is a sacramental form of expression. Hence it follows, that the bread is called his body, because it is a symbol of the body of Christ.

Now there are two classes of men that rise up against us. The Papists, deceived by their transubstantiation, maintain that what we see is not bread, because it is only the appearance that remains without the reality. But their absurd fancy is refuted by Paul, who asserts that

the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ, (1Co 10:16.)

Besides, their notion is at variance with the very nature of a sacrament, which will not possess all that is essential to it, if there be not a true outward symbol. For whence shall we learn that our souls feed on the flesh of Christ, if what is placed before our eyes be not bread, but an empty form? Besides, what will they say about the other symbol? For Christ does not say, This is my blood, but, this cup is the new testament in my blood. According to their view, therefore, not only the wine, but also the materials of which the cup is composed, must be transubstantiated into blood. Again, the words related by Matthew — I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine — plainly show that what he delivered to the disciples to drink was wine; so that in every way the ignorance of the Papists is fully exposed.

But there are others who reject the figure, and, like madmen, unsay what they had just said. According to them, bread is truly and properly body; for they disapprove of transubstantiation, as wholly devoid of reason and plausibility. But when the question is put to them, if Christ be bread and wine, they reply that the bread is called body, because under it and along with it the body is received in the Lord’s Supper. But from this reply it may be readily concluded, that the word body is improperly applied to the bread, which is a sign of it. And since those men have constantly in their mouth, that Christ spoke thus in reference to a sacramental union, it is strange that they do not consider what they say. For what is the nature of a sacramental union between a thing and its sign? Is it not because the Lord, by the secret power of his Spirit, fulfills what he promises? So then those later instructions about the letter are not less absurd than the Papists.

Hitherto I have pointed out the simple exposition of the words of our Lord. But now I must add, that it is not an empty or unmeaning sign which is held out to us, but those who receive this promise by faith are actually made partakers of his flesh and blood. For in vain would the Lord command his people to eat bread, declaring that it is his body, if the effect were not truly added to the figure. Nor must it be supposed that we dispute this point, whether it is in reality, or only by signification, that Christ presents himself to be enjoyed by us in the Lord’s Supper; for, though we perceive nothing in it but bread, yet he does not disappoint or mock us, when he undertakes to nourish our souls by his flesh. The true eating of the flesh of Christ, therefore, is not only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited in reality.

But there are three mistakes against which it is here necessary to be on our guard; first, not to confound the spiritual blessing with the sign; secondly, not to seek Christ on earth, or under earthly elements; thirdly, not to imagine any other kind of eating than that which draws into us the life of Christ by the secret power of the Spirit, and which we obtain by faith alone. First, as I have said, let us always keep in view the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, if we do not wish to overturn every thing; for otherwise we shall derive no advantage from the sacrament, if it do not, according to the measure of our small capacity, lead us from the contemplation of the earthly element to the heavenly mystery. And therefore, whoever will not distinguish the body of Christ from the bread, and the blood from the wine, will never understand what is meant by the Lord’s Supper, or for what purpose believers use these symbols.

Secondly, we must attend to the proper method of seeking Christ; that is, our minds must not be fixed on the earth, but must ascend upwards to the heavenly glory in which he dwells. For the body of Christ did not, by clothing itself with an incorruptible life, lay aside its own nature; and hence it follows that it is finite. (195) But he has now ascended above the heavens, that no gross imagination may keep us occupied with earthly things. And certainly, if this mystery is heavenly, nothing could be more unreasonable than to draw down Christ to the earth, when, on the contrary, he calls us upwards to himself.

The last point which, I said, claimed our attention, is the kind of eating. We must not dream that his substance passes, in a natural manner, into our souls; but we cat his flesh, when, by means of it, we receive life. For we must attend to the analogy or resemblance between bread and flesh, which teaches us, that our souls feed on Christ’s own flesh in precisely the same manner as bread imparts vigor to our bodies. The flesh of Christ, therefore, is spiritual nourishment, because it gives life to us. Now it gives life, because the Holy Spirit pours into us the life which dwells in it. And though the act of eating the flesh of Christ is different from believing on him, yet we ought to know that it is impossible to feed on Christ in any other way than by faith, because the eating itself is a consequence of faith.

(190) “ D’un noveau souper, c’est, à scavoir de la Cene;” — “of a new supper, that is, of the Lord’s Supper.”

(191) In the Greek text, Calvin appears to have followed the ordinary reading, εὐλογήσας, instead of εὐχαριστήσας, for which there appears to be a preponderance of authorities. — Ed.

(192) “ La conversion ou changement;” — “the conversion, or change.”

(193) “ Les anciens docteurs.”

(194) “ Par une figure qui s’appele metonymie; c’est à dire, transmutation de nom;” — “by a figure which is called metonymy; that is, the putting of one name for another.”

(195) “ Dont s’ensuit qu’il n’est past infini, mais consiste en quelque certain lieu;” — “whence it follows that it is not infinite, but remains in some particular spot.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat. 26:28. New.Omitted in R.V., on the authority of the best MSS. Testament.Covenant (R.V.). The term is here of peculiar importance. It does not mean either a covenant in the sense of contract or agreement, or a testament in the sense of a will, but it has a meaning which combines ideas distinctive of both. In there are the conditional elements necessary to a covenant, and the absolute elements necessary to a testament: the first, so far as it denotes conditions, revealed and established by God, which man must accept and obey before he can stand in right relation with Him; the second, so far as it denotes these conditions as the direct and independent and absolute expressions of the Divine will. We may define the (new covenant) as the revelation of a new relation on Gods part, with the conditions necessary to the realisation of a new and correspondent relation on mans. The founding of the old had been ratified by blood (Exo. 24:6-8): the founding of the new must be the same (A. M. Fairbairn). For the remission of sins.Unto remission of sins (R.V.). I.e. with a view to remission of sins. Remission of sins is a condensed way of expressing remission of the penalty of sin (Morison).

Mat. 26:29. Until that day.In the kingdom of God, completed and perfected, He would be with them once again, and then Master and disciples would be alike sharers in that joy in the Holy Ghost, of which winenew winewas the appropriate symbol (Plumptre).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 26:26-30

Sacrifice and thanksgiving.As they were eating. The Passover meal had been interrupted before (Mat. 26:21) for the announcement of the betrayal. It is now interrupted for another announcement. Taking of the bread and wine that were then on the tablebreaking the one and pouring out the otherdeclaring them also to be identified respectively with His own body and bloodthe Saviour commanded all His disciples to partake in common of both. Much was meant by these actions and wordsmuch, on the one hand, in the way of institution and doctrine; much, on the other, in the way of prediction and hope.

I. In the way of institution and doctrine.These things were, in the first place, a symbolical rehearsal of the Saviours then imminent death. As had now been done with that bread and wine, so was to be done almost immediately with His body and blood. The way in which He had just united these things in thought, could mean nothing else. The use He had made of these elementsas the Apostle afterwards said of it (1Co. 11:26)had shewed forth His own death: its near approach, its exact manner, its inevitable certainty also. In a similar manner, in the next place, these words and actions were meant to set forth the purpose of His death. That death was intended, for example, to put away guilt. It was for the remission of sins. It was to do this, also, for many; even as many as willed. Once more, it was able to do all this, partly because of its preciousnessblood-shedding doing away with blood-guiltiness (Psa. 51:14; Genesis 4); life being given for life; and that, His life, most precious of all. And partly because it had been so agreed on, in the mercy of God, from of old: that blood being here spoken of, therefore, as the blood of the covenant (Mat. 26:28), and as having, in consequence, a power of its own. Further, these symbols set forth, in the last place, how and in what manner the immense advantage spoken of could effectually be made ours. Just, in short, as we do always with bread and wine for our natural life, so exactly must we do for our spiritual life with that which they represent here. Even bread broken and ready for eating does not sustain us of itself; even wine poured out and ready for drinking does not cheer life of itself. Both must be actually partaken of if they are to tell indeed on our lives. Just so of that priceless blessing spoken of here. We must make it ours by our faith. In other words, that bread of heaven, that wine of agony, must be eaten and drunk (Joh. 6:53, etc.). All this, in figure, but with deepest significance, did this institution proclaim.

II. In the way of prediction.There is a nearer horizon, and a farther onemuch sadness and more gladnessin the words which come next. They seem intended to teach the disciplesin connection with the Ordinance just appointedwhat to expect in the future. You are to expect, in the first placeso the Saviour seems to say to themboth separation and union; being without Me at first, being with Me at last. While we are separated you will need something to remind you of Me; something also to be a kind of pledge of our being united again. Let the repetition of this ordinance answer these ends (cf. 1 Corinthians 11., end of Mat. 26:24; Mat. 26:26, which express exactly the spirit of what our Saviour says here). You must expect, next, in consequence of things being thus, both imperfection and perfectionthe one first, the other to follow. Much as these symbols will do for you if rightly employed, they must not be supposed capable of obliterating the difference between separation and union. They will not do so to Myself. I shall be only as the master of a feast, who, because of the absence of certain much-honoured and much-beloved guests, will not permit himself to taste yet of the wine of the feast (Mat. 26:29). And you will be as those guests who cannot do so, because they are not present as yet. Not so, however, is it to be at all when the time of separation is over. The very best of the wine, theneven wine new indeed, and such as never beforeshall be our common delight: delightful most on that ground! You must expect, lastly, in the future before you, both trial and triumph. Trial, at first, and not a little of it. Triumph afterwards, and very much more. Until then, though kings and priests in reality, and proved to be such by being guests at My table, the fact will be hidden from most. After then it will be hidden from none (cf. Mat. 13:43; Rom. 8:19; 1Jn. 3:2, etc.). How, indeed, should it be when this feast of remembrance has given place to that marriage supper itself (Rev. 19:7-9), and you sit there as guests?

Our prevailing feeling, as we look back on this beginning, should be the feeling of praise. It appears from the story that this beginning itself was followed by praise (Mat. 26:30). Even in the gloom of that most solemn occasion the Saviour and His disciples joined in a hymn. As we think of the ordinance of that night of betrayal; of the love it displays; of the blessings it seals; of the hopes it predicts; of the comfort it assures; of the strength it has given; we may well do the same thing. Practically, where we observe it rightly, we do so in effect. We always sing a hymnwe always sing the hymnwhen we thus show forth the Lords death. It is the Eucharistthe giving of thanks.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat. 26:26-30. The Lords Supper.

I. The Author.Jesus took bread, etc.

II. The time of the institution. The night before He was betrayed.

III. The sacramental elements.Bread and wine.

IV. The ministerial action.The breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup.

V. The object.Do this in remembrance of Me, etc.

VI. Thanksgiving after communion.W. Burkitt.

Mat. 26:26-29. The Lords Supper.

I. The nature of the Lords Supper as seen in its reference to the past.It is a memorial or commemoration of the death of Christ. The greatness of the fact, of which it is the commemoration, invests it with unspeakable dignity.

II. The nature of the Lords Supper as seen in its reference to the present.We regard it as, perhaps, the most efficacious of all the means of grace, designed to nourish religion in our souls, and to promote brotherly love toward our fellow-believers.

III. The nature of the Lords Supper as seen in its reference to the future.

1. We are reminded of the second coming of Christ (1Co. 11:26.)

2. The Lords Supper also anticipates the eternal communion which believers will enjoy with Christ in heaven (Mat. 26:29). P. J. Gloag, D.D.

Mat. 26:26. The New Testament Passover.As they were eating. The Lords institution of His supper was in connection with the Passover which He kept with His disciples, before concluding it with the hallel. By this means He intimated that He would have His Supper regarded as the New Testament Passover. What, then, was the Passover?

I. The Passover was a feast, not a sacrifice.The sacrifice was presupposed in the feast. So with the Lords Supper. He offered the sacrifice: we keep the feast.

II. The Passover was the feast of a sacrifice.So with the Lords Supper. He sacrificed His body and blood. This sacrifice we receive and enjoy in the Lords Supper.

III. In the Passover Israel celebrated its present saving fellowship with Jehovah, and looked forward to its future consummation.So in the Lords Supper we celebrate not merely the memory of a past fact, but that salvation of the present in the fellowship of which we stand, and which looks forward to its future consummation.C. E. Luthardt, D.D.

Absurdities of the dogmas of transubstantiation and consubstantiation.This is My body. Almost a worldful of super-refined absurdities has, unhappily, been heaped on this simple affirmation. And if Christianity had not been really Divine, its life would have long ago been utterly crushed out of it under the immensity of the load. Rhetoric, as Selden remarks, has been mistaken for logic; and the is has been insisted upon as demonstration that the thing given by the Lord into the hands of His disciples was not bread at all, butliterallyHis own body. Hence the doctrine of transubstantiation. Others have insisted that if the thing given was really bread, it was also, at one and the same time, the literal body of the Lord. This is the doctrine of consubstantiation. The substantive verb is, it has been contended, must be taken as the copula of substantive existence. All this is sad; for it would hence follow:

1. That one substance is another.

2. That a thing is not itselfChrists body, for instance. At the time that He uttered the words of the institution, He was in His body; and therefore He did not hand it, in His hand, to His disciples. It would follow:

3. That a part of the whole is yet the whole of which it is a part.If the whole cake is the body, and the broken cake is the broken body, and if yet every morsel of the broken cake is also the body, then a part of the body is the whole of the body. It would follow:

4. That a thing which is one, and but one, is yet more than one; for if the cake be the one body, and yet each morsel of the cake be also the one body, then Christs one body is many bodies. It would follow:

5. That a thing which is, by its very essence, limited to a certain spot in space, is yet not limited to that spotChrists body, for instance, when with His own hand He gave it into the hands of His disciples, while yet it remained where it was before, at an appreciable distance from His disciples hands. It would follow:

6. That the percipiency of the soul, operating through the senses of the body, while these senses are perfectly awake, and perfectly sound, may yet be absolutely and hopelessly deceived.If the percipiency of the soul, operating through sight, touch, and taste, and equipped with all the adjuncts of scientific analysis, finds bread, and bread only, in the morsel of the sacramental cake, and if yet that morsel be physically transubstantiated into, or consubstantiated with, the living body of Christ, then all the senses appealed to must be liars, and everything that we see and hear and touch and taste, may be a lie. The culminating act of religion would thus be the copestone of universal and inseparable scepticism. But this will not do. We must take a different view of the words of the institution. The is, in the expression is My body, must be understood, not as the copula of substantive existence, but as the copula of symbolical or representative relationship. Why not? Compare, for instance, Mat. 13:38-39, The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom, etc. Parabolism, or symbolism, or representativism of some kind must be admitted (cf. Gen. 40:12; Gen. 40:18; Eze. 37:11; Dan. 2:38; Dan. 7:17; Dan. 7:24; Dan. 8:21; Mat. 13:37; Luk. 15:26; Luk. 20:17; Act. 10:17; Gal. 4:24-25; Eph. 5:9; Heb. 7:2; Rev. 1:20). Indeed, the parabolic element in the Lords Supper is the true key to its interpretation. The supper is a parable to the eye, the touch, the taste. And when our Saviour said of the morsel of bread, This is My body, He but interpreted the figurative or representative significance of one of the elements of the parable. If we would get the spiritual blessing, when we communicate, we must mentally transfigure the figure.J. Morison, D.D.

Mat. 26:29. Christ a Fellow-banqueter.

1. Our Lord, beside all other relations which He hath to the sacrament, as the Instituter thereof, the End thereof, the Thing signified thereby, the Minister in the first celebration thereof, is also a Fellow-banqueter, and communicant with us in His own way; for He did drink of the sacramental wine, as it signified communion of life and joy with us in heaven.
2. Whatsoever change is put upon the wine in the sacrament, by instituting that it should signify and seal up spiritual life and joy, yet after the sanctifying of it, and in the time of drinking of it by the communicants, it remaineth wine, in its own natural properties, without being transubstantiate.
3. The drinking of the sacramental wine is a sign and pledge of our spiritual and new communion in life and joy in the kingdom of heaven, for Christ expoundeth it, saying, Until the day that I shall drink it new, etc.
4. Christ will not be content to be without His disciples in heaven. I will drink it new with you.David Dickson.

Mat. 26:30. Spiritual song.Observe:

I. On the threshold of suffering Christ with men sings a triumphant psalm.Teaches entire consecration to God, creates calm trustfulness and fortitude in trial. To sing thus we must have unbroken fellowship with God. Illustrated in the lives of Paul, Luther, Wesley.

II. Christs kinship and sympathy with the disciples.Hymn used to cheer, strengthen, and inspire confidence in God.

III. Teaches simplicity of Christian worship.No robed choristers. No mystical chanting. This service parallel with Christs prayer-meetingtwo or three met in His name. Thus possible for all to worship (accessories not forbidden). God the Author of music. The harp and psaltery not to be broken or destroyed. Convert the player, and the music will be heavenly.

Practical lessons.Spiritual song should be used to bring men nearer to God. Kingsley says that in heaven all speech will be song.J. E. Douglas.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(26) As they were eating.Again we must represent to ourselves an interval of silence, broken by the act or words that followed. The usual grace or blessing had been spoken at the beginning of the feast. Now, taking one of the cakes of unleavened bread, He again utters a solemn formula of blessing, and gives it to them with the words, Take, eat, this is my body; or, as in St. Lukes fuller report (Luk. 22:19; comp. also 1Co. 11:24), This is My body that is given for you (literally, that is in the act of being given); do this in remembrance of Me (better, as a memorial of Me). It would be an endless and profitless task to enter into the labyrinth of subtle speculations to which these words have given rise. Did the bread which He thus gave them contain at that moment the substance of His body, taking the place of its own substance or united with it? In what way is He present when those words are repeated and the faithful receive the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ? Questions such as these, theories of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and the like, are, we may venture to say, alien to the mind of Christ, and outside the range of any true interpretation. As pointing to the true path through that labyrinth, it will be enough to remember (1) that our Lords later teaching had accustomed the disciples to language of like figurative boldness. He was the door of the sheep-fold (Joh. 10:7). What they would understand at the time and afterwards was, that He spoke of His body as being as truly given for them as that bread which He had broken was given to them. (2) That the words could scarcely fail to recall what had once seemed a hard saying which they could not hear (Joh. 6:60). They had been told that they could only enter into eternal life by eating His flesh and drinking His bloodi.e., by sharing His life, and the spirit of sacrifice which led Him to offer it up for the life of the world. Now they were taught that what had appeared impossible was to become possible, through the outward symbol of the bread thus broken. They were to do this as a memorial of Him, and so to keep fresh in their remembrance that sacrifice which He had offered. To see in these words, as some have seen, the command, Offer this as a sacrifice, is to do violence to their natural meaning by reading into them the after-thoughts of theology. (See Notes on Luk. 22:19.) But, on the other hand, the word rendered remembrance or memorial was one not without a sacrificial aspect of its own. Every sacrifice was a remembrance of mans sins (Heb. 10:3). Every Paschal Feast was a memorial of the first great Passover (Exo. 12:9; Num. 10:10). So every act such as He now commanded would be a memorial at once of the sins which made a sacrifice necessary, and of the one great sacrifice which He had offered. (3) It seems something like a descent to a lower region of thought, but it ought to be noted that the time at which the memorial was thus instituted, while they were eating, is not without its significance in the controversies which have been raised as to fasting or non-fasting communion. Rules on such a subject, so far as any Church adopts them, or any individual Christian finds them expedient, may have their authority and their value, but the facts of the original institution witness that they rest on no divine authority, and that the Church acts wisely when it leaves the question to every individual Christian to decide as he is fully persuaded in his own mind (Rom. 14:5).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

126, 128. INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, Mat 26:26-29

We come now to words which have sounded forth through the Church through all ages since our Lord’s departure, and which are to sound forth until he comes again. The nature of the Lord’s Supper is best understood when we recollect that it is, under the Christian dispensation, the continuance in a modified form of the passover of the Old Testament. As baptism is the modified ordinance of circumcision, as the Lord’s day is a modified continuance of the Sabbath, so is the Lord’s Supper a modified continuance of the paschal supper of the Old Testament Church. We may first remark that the passover was a true sacrifice; for the victim was a true substitute for the sinner, dying in his stead, and showing by his death that the sinner ought to die. Israel was as true a sinner as Egypt, and as truly deserving the stroke of the destroying angel; but God, as he passed over, accepted the blood presented by Israel’s faith, (which blood was a confession, on Israel’s part, that he deserved the death the victim suffered in his stead) as a substitute. And as this shed blood was typical of the shed blood of the Saviour, so the lamb itself was typical of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Hence it was, by anticipation, a representation of that same reality, which is set forth by the communion of the Lord’s Supper. Both are typical of the same thing, and therefore correspondent to each other. The Lord’s Supper is in a proper sense the bloodless sacrifice of the new dispensation.

And the very fact that our Lord instituted his supper on the same evening as the paschal supper, shows that it is a continuance in a modified form. It simply drops off the bloody elements; so that it is in fact true that our sacramental ordinance has been continued from the departure of Israel to the present time, and will be continued until the full redemption and departure of the spiritual Israel under the greater Moses to the full fruition of the heavenly Canaan.

We have then the following typical parallels:

The Redeemed. The Victim. The Deliverance The Result. Israel. The paschal lamb. From Egypt. Canaan. The communicant. The broken bread. From spiritual bondage. The spiritual emancipation. The believer. The crucified Jesus. From hell. Heaven. The prophecies of the Old Testament more commonly predicted a glorious and triumphant Messiah; the sacrifices predicted the Messiah as dying and atoning.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

26. As they were eating When in the course of the paschal supper they arrived at the breaking of bread, as we have above described. The bread was in the form of cakes. The breaking, under the old dispensation, represented the breaking which Israel suffered in Egypt; but in the new, the breaking is transferred to the victim, who assumes our sins and sufferings in his own body. The breaking was the customary mode of separating bread into parts; yet it was none the less a significant part of the rite. Paul clearly intimates that the breaking symbolized the violence by which our Lord’s body was put to death. 1Co 11:24. Breaking and not cutting, seems the proper mode of severing the sacramental portions. Blessed it To bless is to implore the divine blessing upon it, that is, to pray solemnly that God would graciously make it effective of its beneficent purpose. The blessing on the bread was the Redeemer’s prayer that the bread might be of a blessed effect to the partaker.

This is my body A customary mode in Scripture, as in common language, of expressing that a symbol is or stands for its original. It is perfectly natural to say that a sign IS the thing it signifies. This is usually done in explaining some symbolical representations. So Joseph in explaining a dream says: “The three branches are three days.” Gen 11:12. So at this very supper our Lord says: “This cup is the new testament.” 1Co 11:25. If the phrase “This [bread] is my body,” really means that the bread is our Lord’s literal material body then the phrase “This cup is the new testament” means that the material vessel (not the wine in it) was an actual “new testament.” Common sense ought to show that our Lord is now explaining the import of certain symbols, and in so doing he uses the ordinary phrase of saying that the symbol is the thing symbolized.

Our readers perceive that we are here refuting the strange doctrine of the Church of Rome, which affirms that the bread is transubstantiated, that is, changed in substance, into the very body of our Lord. And as it implies that the bread is Christ’s present body, it is also called the doctrine of real presence. This doctrine bears marks of dishonesty, for,

1. It doctrinally places the material person of God in the hands of a priest. It makes the salvation of the layman’s soul dependent upon the priest’s consent to give him the flesh of God. It thus places the man at the mercy of the priest. Hence the doctrine of transubstantiation is the basis of the most abject subjection of the laity to the priesthood in the Church of Rome.

2 . It is a most absurd doctrine. It makes Christ to have held his own body between his own thumb and fingers. While his body was reclining, they were holding it in their hand, chewing it with their teeth, digesting it in their stomachs. Thus were they cannibals, eating human flesh! All this is founded upon a forced interpretation of language which, according to ordinary idiom, means something else.

3 . The doctrine violates the very nature of the institution. From the time of the first paschal lamb downward, the purpose of the slain victim was to represent the body of the true victim instead of presenting the body itself. The slain lamb represented that true body until He came. The broken bread must represent it until he come again. What makes this plain, is the fact that at the old Jewish passover the master of the table was accustomed to say as he took the bread, “This is [that is, this represents ] the bread of affliction, which our fathers did eat in the land of Egypt.” But in the place of this formula our Lord substitutes, “This is [that is, represents ] my body.” From being the representative of Israel in suffering, it becomes now the representative of the suffering substitute of the sinner. To make it not a representative, but the thing itself, is, therefore, to violate the congruity of the typical system.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and he gave to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” ’

Before launching into what lies behind this symbolic gesture we should perhaps just pause for a moment in awe at these words. For centuries the Jews had broken the bread at Passover looking back to the unleavened bread eaten on the day of deliverance from the angel of death. It had occurred unchanged for year after year, and century after century. And that is what the disciples were again expecting here. But to their utter astonishment Jesus picked up the bread, broke it and instead of referring to the past said, ‘This is My body.’ It was an awe-inspiring moment. It was a clear indication that the past was behind and that a new future was beginning, and that it was a future that was associated with His death. It was an emphasis on the fact that this was a crisis moment in sacred history when everything was changing. (It was even further emphasised when He said of the cup, ‘This is My blood –’).

‘As they were eating.’ This indicates that it was somewhere in the middle of the meal, which would have proceeded something like this (mainly based on later Jewish tradition). The meal would have begun with a blessing over a cup of red wine mingled with water, which would be shared with those gathered. This was the first ‘cup of blessing’ (Luk 22:17-18). It would be followed by a washing of hands. The tables would then be arranged and bitter herbs, dipped in salt water, would be shared out and eaten, after which the dishes would be removed from the tables in order to draw attention to their significance. Then would follow the filling of the second cup of wine, and possibly at this stage (although we do not actually know for certain at which point these questions were asked) someone representing the son of the household would question the meaning of this ‘strange’ ceremony. Why these bitter herbs? Why only unleavened bread? Why these strange procedures? Why the lamb? The general explanation would be given by the ‘father of the feast’, probably utilising Deu 26:5-11, after which all the Passover dishes would be brought back to the table and each item of the feast explained, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread and the lamb. Part of the Hallel would be sung (possibly Psalms 118, 119) and then the second cup would be drunk, to be followed by a further washing of hands.

This would in turn be followed by a breaking of bread (it was normal at a Jewish meal for the bread to be broken and distributed, and that by the ‘father of the feast’) which was itself followed by a blessing. If this was the point at which Jesus broke the bread after blessing it, (and if the order in Jesus’ day was that which was followed later), He deliberately broke the order of the ceremony. He may well have done so. The original order (bread broken first followed by a blessing) kept in mind that the poor only had broken pieces of bread and it thus ensured that they were included in the blessing. Jesus may well, on the other hand, have been indicating that among His people there were no ‘poor’. All were richly blessed and had sufficiency of the ‘bread’, because it was found in Him. His was full provision. In this way He followed the same pattern as He had used when He had fed the crowds (Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36). On the other hand it could be that Jesus followed the old procedure at this stage and later introduced a totally new element which ran alongside the old and would finally replace it (the Jewish Christians would continue celebrating the Passover for years to come, and would no doubt include within it the Lord’s Supper. But they would also at other times celebrate the breaking of bread, together with the drinking of the wine, as a ceremony on its own – e.g. Act 2:42).

After this ceremony pieces of the broken bread, together with some bitter herbs, would be dipped in sauce and handed out to the company, at which point all would participate in the broken bread and bitter herbs. This being done the time had come for the eating of the lamb, and following this hands were again washed and the third cup was filled, accompanied by the giving of a blessing to God (this was the second ‘cup of blessing’). After this blessing the cup was drunk. This cup was considered by the Jews to be of great importance, as is apparent from later Rabbinic tradition. Following after the eating of the lamb it was among other things a rejoicing over the Passover and a signal that the meal was over. This was probably the cup to which Jesus gave a new meaning. It would be followed by a fourth cup and the final singing of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) and prayer, after which the whole ceremony was over.

We note from this ceremony that at least three things were queried and explained during the ceremony, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread and the Passover lamb. Thus we find that Matthew replaces the explanation concerning the bitter herbs with the bitterness of Judas’ treachery, referred to while the bitter herbs are being dipped and eaten (Mat 26:23); replaces the explanation of the unleavened bread, which is the ‘bread of affliction’ (Deu 16:3), with the explanation of the broken bread which represents Jesus’ body (Mat 26:24); and replaces explanation of the sacrificial lamb with the explanation of the cup which represents the blood of the covenant (Mat 26:25). All three are seen as preparatory to the coming of the Kingly Rule of His Father (Mat 26:26). By all this Matthew indicates that the old has been replaced by the new.

It is also significant that all three of these aspects of the meal also connect with death. Death is to be the end of Judas’ treachery (Mat 26:4). The eating of bread, when it is symbolic of the ‘eating’ of people (‘this is My body’), is in Psa 14:4; Psa 53:4 indicative of death (‘they eat up My people like they eat bread’). Compare also for a similar idea Mic 3:3 and Isa 49:26 in terms of ‘eating flesh’.

Furthermore the drinking of the wine described in terms of His blood is indicative of the ‘drinking of blood’, which is descriptive of death in Isa 49:26 (‘they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’, i.e. they will kill one another) and Zec 9:15 LXX (‘they will drink their blood like wine’). Compare also 2 Samuel 23 17 (‘shall I drink the blood of men who went in jeopardy of their lives?’). Thus to eat of His body and to drink of His blood is to contribute towards, and benefit by, His death, something that we find previously indicated in Joh 6:51-58. Compare also how Jesus can speak of the fathers of old as being ‘partakers in the blood of the prophets’, because they slew them or approved of their slaying. It is clear then that ‘eating bread’ where it represents a human being, and ‘partaking in/drinking blood’, signifies participating in someone’s death.

Thus when at some point before the drinking of the third cup Jesus took the bread and broke it, and declared, ‘Take and eat. This is My body’ (Matthew leaves ‘which is broken for you’ to be assumed from Jesus’ actions. He is seeking to give the words their full impact), Jesus no doubt intended them at this point to remember His words in Mat 26:2 in the light of the Old Testament background, and also to remember Joh 6:51-58 which followed the feeding of the five thousand. Just as they ate this bread at this Passover, bread which represented His body, so were they to participate in Him and in His coming death by constantly ‘eating and drinking’ of Him, that is, by constantly coming to Him and believing on Him (Joh 6:35). Furthermore, as we have seen, all knew that the bread at the Passover was ‘the bread of affliction’ (Deu 16:3). Thus later, even if not at this moment, they would recognise its deeper significance as signifying what He would endure for them on the cross, and that as something of which they must partake by continually ‘eating His flesh’ (Joh 6:53), that is, by continually ‘coming to Him’ (Joh 6:35).

We must stress again that this idea of ‘eating’ as being connected with death is firmly based in the Old Testament. God could say of His people’s enemies that ‘they eat up My people as they eat bread’ (Psa 14:4; Psa 53:4), while in Mic 3:3 a similar idea is in mind expressed in vivid hyperbole where the ‘eating of the flesh of His people’ is describing the disgraceful treatment of them by oppressors. This was why Jesus could say, ‘the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh’ (Joh 6:41), which He then followed up in vivid hyperbole when He spoke of the need for those who would enjoy eternal life to ‘eat His flesh’ (kill Him/partake of the benefits of His death – Joh 6:53-57). He thus already had in mind that it was through His death that eternal life could be offered to the world. So while in John 6 He initially connected Himself with the ‘bread from Heaven’ of which His people may partake and be satisfied, which they would do by coming to Him (Joh 6:41-50), in the end it results in His body being offered to men through a death wrought by them, as a result of which He can feed and sustain men and give them life.

It is especially significant that in Isa 49:26 the two ideas of eating flesh and drinking wine in this way come together, ‘I will feed those who oppress you with their own flesh, and they will be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine’, where the idea is that their enemies will destroy each other. Thus there eating flesh/body and drinking wine/blood are both symbolic of death in the same context (as indeed in John 6).

With these ideas in mind, and in view of the sacrificial content of the next verse, it should have been quite clear to the disciples precisely what Jesus was indicating by their ‘eating His body’. By eating the bread they were indicating their need to partake of the benefits of His death, and through it to enjoy eternal life.

But a further point must be borne in mind here. To partake of His body meant that His body was mingled with their bodies. They became united with His body. And that this significance was seen comes out later. ‘The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? We who are many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread’ (1Co 10:16-17). And from this came the recognition that ‘we are members of His body’. ‘For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ, for in (by) one Spirit were we all submerged into one body — and were all made to drink of one Spirit’ (1Co 12:12-13). By partaking of the bread with genuine faith we enter into the work of the Holy Spirit (Mat 3:11) and are by Him made one with Christ. Thus we become one body with His body, a position continually symbolised by partaking of the bread. But He in His body has received all authority in Heaven and earth (Mat 28:18), and the remarkable thing is that we participate with Him even in that (Eph 1:19 to Eph 2:6). That being so, as a result of His resurrection, all who are His have entered within the Kingly Rule of His Father, in which they are one with Christ, along with Him. In a very real sense the Kingly Rule of Heaven has come and is present in His body, which consists of Him and all His members. Thus wherever His body is, there is His Father’s Kingly Rule, and all men are called on to become members of that body and thus enter under His Kingly Rule (Col 1:13).

So Jesus is telling us that by receiving the bread we both acknowledge and claim our participation in His death and its benefits, and at the same time express our oneness with Him and each other, and our claim to a part in the Kingly Rule of God.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Institutes The Lord’s Supper and Establishes The New Covenant in His Blood (26:26-30).

We are so used to the Lord’s Supper that this moment can almost pass us by unmoved. It was, however, as sensational as anything within the career of Jesus. He had made many remarkable claims, as we have seen, but none more remarkable than this. For Jesus was here taking over the most precious ceremony known to the Jews, a ceremony instituted by God, centred on God and pointing to God’s great deliverance, and turning it into a remembrance of Himself and a portrayal of the salvation that would be wrought through Him. If Jesus had not been of unique heavenly status this would indeed have been blasphemy of the most supreme kind. The institution of the Lord’s Supper was the clearest of indications that Jesus saw Himself as on the divine side of reality.

Moreover central to it was the fact of His own death as a sacrifice, sealing the new covenant in His blood, in the same way as Moses had sealed the old covenant in blood so long before (Exodus 24). And it was, among other things (compare Heb 8:6-13 where it spoke of transforming men’s lives), a covenant that provided for the forgiveness and removal of sins. Here then the full significance of His death is being portrayed (compare Mat 20:28). He will save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21). Whatever else we read into the passage this must not be overlooked. It is central to Jesus’ thinking, and to Matthew’s purpose in writing the Gospel. And participation in the Lord’s Supper involves recognition that it is through Him and His death on our behalf that we receive the forgiveness of our sins.

The connection of the giving of the Lord’s Supper with the Passover is very relevant. Both were feasts of deliverance, and both would be continually repeated in remembrance of that deliverance. At the first Passover the deliverance was yet to take place. In all later Passovers the participants looked back to the first Passover and its already accomplished deliverance, and in spirit became a part of that deliverance. The first Passover consisted of a meal in which the participants by eating it were closely involved in God’s external activity. It was the earnest (guarantee) of their deliverance. And they were aware that what they were eating had been offered as a substitute for their firstborn sons. God had provided a ransom, and all were participating in it. Later participants looked back to in remembrance and ‘participation by faith’, and they too would remember that they had had to ransom their firstborn sons (Exo 13:13; Exo 34:20; Num 18:15-16).

A similar situation applies to the Lord’s Supper. This initial institution has in mind the events that will occur on that night and in the following day, while all later participation will look back to that night and its accomplished deliverance. In the original institution those who participated were being called on to recognise in it the earnest of the offering of Jesus as an offering and sacrifice. It portrayed the guarantee of their future salvation and deliverance. And they would themselves also to some extent share in the fall out from Jesus’ afflictions. But those who participated in the future would ‘participate’ in it by faith, looking back to the one sacrifice for sin for ever as it was offered at the cross, and responding to it in their hearts by faith. They would be proclaiming the Lord’s death until He comes again (1Co 11:26).

But the question may be asked as to how the institution as described by Matthew fits in with the other descriptions found in Mark, Luke and Paul? For at first sight all appear to be somewhat different. Before going on therefore we shall consider that question first.

Excursus: A Comparison Of The Accounts Of The Instituting Of The Lord’s Supper.

The question is often asked, “Why are their different versions of the words used by Jesus at the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Gospels and in Paul?” A partial answer, of course, lies in the fact that each is an interpretive translation of the original Aramaic. But in answering the question we will therefore first consider the breaking of the bread passages, putting in capitals the words which are exactly the same, and we will do the same with the offering of the wine. In doing this we must remember that none of the writers always record all Jesus’ words. Each is translating from the Aramaic, and each selects and translates keeping in mind what is particularly suitable to the point that he is getting over, aware all the time of the lack of space on his manuscript (it was a continuous roll. They could not just add on another page). It is not therefore in the main a choice between either/or but of both/and. Nevertheless basically their renderings are unquestionably similar. Let us consider them in the order in which we find them in the New Testament.

* Mat 26:26 ‘And as they were eating, Jesus TOOK BREAD, and blessed, and BROKE IT, and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take you, eat; THIS IS MY BODY.’

* Mar 14:22 ‘And as they were eating, he TOOK BREAD, and when he had blessed, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, and said, Take you, THIS IS MY BODY.’

* Luk 22:19 ‘And he TOOK BREAD, and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.’

* 1Co 11:23-24 ‘For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed TOOK BREAD, and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and said, “THIS IS MY BODY, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” ‘

It will be noted that common to all is that HE TOOK BREAD, BROKE IT AND SAID, ‘THIS IS MY BODY’, stressing the essential unity of the passages. Matthew adds to Jesus’ words, ‘Take you, eat’, Mark adds ‘Take you’. Luke and Paul omit this but it is clearly implied, for Luke adds, ‘Which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me,’ and Paul adds, ‘which is for you, Do this in remembrance of me’. Paul’s ‘which is for you’ parallels Matthew’s ‘take, eat’ and especially Mark’s ‘take you’. Luke’s ‘given for you’ simply amplifies the idea. Thus the basic idea is the same in all, with small differences of presentation in order to bring out particular points. The additional words, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ are, of course, really required in order to explain the perpetuation of the feast throughout the early church. Thus Jesus must have said it and even if we had not been told about it we would have had to assume it. Indeed, while ‘This is my body’ would certainly be impressive standing alone, it does require extra words for it to make sense to the initial hearers. It is possibly the writers and ministers, and not the original speaker, who with their liking for dramatic pauses wish it to stand out in its starkness, for they do it knowing that the readers/recipients would already know its deeper significance. Jesus, on the other hand, would want to make His teaching clear. Of course, what His exact words were in Aramaic can only be postulated, for we only have the Greek translations. But the Greek in each case does give the true and uncontradictory essential meaning of what He was saying.

Slightly more complicated are the words about the cup.

Mat 26:27-28 ‘And he took a CUP, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink you all of it, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many to remission of sins.’

Mar 14:23-24 ‘And he took a CUP, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many.’

Luk 22:20 And the CUP in like manner after supper, saying, THIS cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD, even that which is poured out for you.’

1Co 11:25 ‘In the same way also the CUP, after supper, saying, “THIS cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’

In each Jesus takes a cup and says either, ‘This is the covenant in my blood’, or alternatively the more stark equivalent in Hebrew form, ‘This is my blood of the covenant’ (which is saying the same thing). The former is interpretive of the latter for Gentile readers who would not appreciate the Hebrew idiom. The ‘new’ may have dropped out in Matthew and Mark because it was felt to be superfluous, or Luke and Paul, in interpreting, may have added that it was a ‘new’ covenant, because they wanted their Gentile readers to know that it was not just the old Jewish covenant renewed, but the new covenant which had already been promised. All would be aware that it was in fact a new covenant, partly in accordance with God’s promise in Jer 31:31, and partly because it was ‘in His blood’ and looked to the cross, and Jesus’ very words and subsequent actions thus demanded it even if He did not say it. Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that He said, ‘which is poured out for —‘. Mark simply adds, ‘for many’, Luke adds. ‘for you’ and Matthew adds ‘for many to remission of sins’. Paul omits this but adds, ‘Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’, which is actually required to be said by Jesus (or something like it) to establish the permanence of it as a symbol. As Mark’s ‘for many’ probably has Isaiah 53, 11, 12 in mind it has the same significance as Matthew’s longer phrase ‘for many to remission of sins’. ‘Luke’s ‘you’ simply personalises it, recognising that the ‘you’ is by then being spoken to the whole church who are the ‘many’ for whom Christ died. Thus the essential meaning is again the same. And as with the bread the importance of doing it in remembrance must at some time have been said by Jesus in order for the Apostles to take up the feast and perpetuate it as they did. To men who had such a sense of the sacredness of the Passover the onward movement would have been impossible, except on the most sacred authority. The slight overall differences emphasise the point each is seeking to bring out as they translate or paraphrase from the Aramaic, without altering the basic sense. Essentially therefore all are saying the same thing.

One possible interpretation of the evidence is to see Jesus as saying, ‘Take, eat, this is my body which is for you (with ‘given’ or ‘broken’ being interpretive), this do in remembrance of Me’. And, ‘this is My blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins, do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of Me’, with each writer having been selective.

End of Excursus.

There is no question about the fact that all the Gospel writers see Jesus as having taken over the Passover symbolism, making it applicable to what He was about to do. Passover retires into the background, because a greater deliverance has taken over. The bread was no longer to be the bread of the affliction of the people, symbolic of the bread eaten by the original people so long before as they waited for deliverance from all their afflictions, but was to be the bread of the affliction of this One Who represented the people, God’s Son (Mat 2:15), and indicative of all the afflictions that He bore for them in His body on the cross (Isa 53:4-5; 1Pe 2:24). It was to speak of His brokenness on that cross. The Passover lamb was replaced by the One Who was being offered up on the cross, shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins, and offering to feed His people as they came to Him and believed on Him (Joh 6:35; compare Joh 1:29; 1Co 5:7).

Behind this new portrayal the New Testament sees a number of strands:

1). He is the perfect Passover sacrifice, offered on behalf of His people as a ransom on their behalf (Mat 20:28; Joh 1:29; 1Co 5:7), in which they participate by eating the bread and drinking the wine, just as Israel of old had participated in the old deliverance, when as they ate of the feast their firstborn were redeemed from the activity of the Angel of Death through the shedding of the blood of the lamb at the original Passover and its application to their houses, and all that as a firstfruit of their own deliverance from Egypt. Thus they participated in all that was happening by eating the Passover lamb and the accompanying unleavened bread, and inevitably drinking wine. They were symbolically and yet genuinely taking part in the greater activity of God. Now in the Lord’s Supper His new people would be doing the same, protected under His blood, and receiving life from Him.

2). He is the guilt offering offered for the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26:28; Isaiah 53; see also Mat 20:28; 1Co 11:26).

3). Through it He is offering participation in His body and blood as they eat and drink of Him by coming to Him and believing on Him (Joh 6:33-58). Joh 6:35 is the key verse, which explains what ‘eating and drinking’ means. It means continually coming and believing so that they never hunger or thirst again. Connected with this was the idea of participating in the Messianic Banquet which would indicate the arrival of His Kingly Rule. And this would shortly come into fulfilment as they ate and drank with Him under His Kingly Rule, and He ‘ate and drank’ with them (Act 10:41), something which would follow His death, resurrection and enthronement (Mat 28:18). All this in anticipation of one day sharing it with Him in the everlasting Kingdom.

4). It is to be a table of fellowship, where they have fellowship one with another, and especially together with their Lord with Whom they have been made one by being united in His body (1Co 10:16-17).

5). It represents the covenant meal at which the new covenant which was sealed by the offering of His blood is continually ratified by His people in the most solemn way (Mat 26:28; compare Exodus 24).

The aspects of these which are especially brought out in Matthew’s description of the feast are the breaking of Jesus’ body and the shedding of Jesus blood as the blood of the covenant, together with an indication of their joint participation with Him in the heavenly banquet, in which they will share once His Kingly Rule is revealed in power.

Analysis.

a And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and he gave to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body” (Mat 26:26).

b And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “Drink you all of it” (Mat 26:27).

c “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” (Mat 26:28).

b “But I say to you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingly rule” (Mat 26:29).

a And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives (Mat 26:30).

Note that in ‘a’ Jesus blesses God, and in the parallel the Hallel is sung in which God is blessed. In ‘b’ His disciples are bidden to drink, and in the parallel Jesus will not drink until the Kingly Rule of Heaven comes. Centrally in ‘c’ we discover the significance to be read into the wine.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The institution of the Lord’s Supper:

v. 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body.

v. 27. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

v. 28. for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

v. 29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.

The sacrament of the Old Covenant had just been celebrated by Christ, for He did not come to change the essence of the old faith, which is the same for all times, but to bring the fulfillment of type and prophecy. But as the sacraments of the time before Christ themselves were only typical, it was necessary that they themselves be replaced by those of the New Testament, to point back to, and be based upon, Christ. While they were eating, probably immediately after Jesus had distributed the bread of affliction, He took bread, solemnly returned thanks over it, thus blessing it. The ancient Jewish prayer over the bread was: “Blessed be Thou, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!” Then, after breaking it, He gave it to His disciples and said: “Take, eat; this is My body. ” The words of command are plain. From His hand they should take and then eat what He gave them. But it was not mere bread which He gave them; for in referring to the pieces which He distributed, He uses the neuter demonstrative, while bread in the Greek is masculine. Here is a clear reference to the sacramental presence of the body of Christ in, with, and under the bread. This is brought out still more strongly in the parallel passages, especially 1Co 11:24. In the same way, after the supper proper was ended, when the cup of thanksgiving was about to be passed. He took the cup, returned thanks, thus blessing it and its contents, and gave it to them, letting it go around in the circle with the express command that they all should drink of it. For the wine which the cup contained was His blood of the New Covenant, of the new time of grace and peace with God through the efficacy of this blood, for it is shed for the forgiveness of sins unto all, and actually is given to many that receive it by faith. As for the contents of the cup, all attempts to interpret the expression “fruit of the vine” as though any product of the grapevine might be used, fresh grape-juice, unfermented grape-juice, grape-brandy, and other modern products, they cannot stand without a denial of the text. For if rules of exegesis apply at all, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the expression as it was used by Christ on the evening of the institution referred to the intoxicating wine of the Passover; for the expression “fruit of the vine” was the technical term of the Jews for the wine of the Passover.

“We Christians confess and believe that the Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. All explanations of the sects, Reformed as well as Papist, as though the bread merely represents the body, and the wine the blood of Christ, or that bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, come to naught in view of the clear text of Scriptures. Reason, indeed, must yield here; it cannot understand how Jesus at that time, while standing in visible form before His disciples, could give them His body, His blood to eat and to drink, nor how the exalted Christ, though in heaven, yet is present everywhere on earth with His body and blood, wherever this meal is celebrated according to His institution. But the word of Christ is clear and true, and we also know from Scriptures that the body of Christ, the vessel of His deity, had a higher, suprasensual form of being, even in the days of His humility, in addition to His limited form of existence, Joh 3:13, also that the exalted Christ now is not locked up in heaven, but as God and man fills all things also according to His body, Eph 1:23. Thus we take our reason captive under the obedience of Scripture and do not brood over it, but rather thank God for the great blessing of this His Sacrament. From it we gain ever anew the certainty of the forgiveness of our sins. In guaranteeing to us the grace of God, the Sacrament serves for the strengthening of our faith. As the first paschal meal strengthened the Israelites for the journey which lay before them, through the desert to Canaan, so the Lord’s Supper is for the children of the New Covenant food upon the way, for the time of their earthly journey. And it incidentally points forward, just like the Passover meal, to the end of the journey, to the meal of eternity, when the Lord will drink it with us in His Father’s kingdom.”

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 26:26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread After they had done eating, &c. Our Lord instituted the holy communion after the paschal feast. See Luk 22:20 and 1Co 11:25. This passage might otherwise be rendered, as they were yet eating. The loaves of the Jews were round, flat, thin, and consequently very easy to break. The Jews, as appears from the Talmudists and Philo, never ate bread or received wine, without having first returned their thanks and praises to God their creator. Maimonides and other rabbles tell us, that it was a rule among the Jews, at the end of the supper, to take a piece of the lamb for the last thing they ate that night. If this custom was as old as Christ’s time, it would make this action so much the more remarkable; it would plainly shew, that the bread here distributed, was a very distinct thing from the meal that they had been making together, and might be, in the first opening of the action, a kind of symbolicalintimation that the Jewish passover was to give way to another and nobler divine institution. Our Lord having taken the bread, and broken it, gave it to his disciples, Take, eat, this is my body, that is, “This is the representation of my body broken on the cross.” This is agreeable to the style of the sacred writers. See Gen 40:12; Gen 40:18; Gen 41:26-27. Dan 8:20. Gal 4:25. Rev 1:20 and lastly, Exo 12:11 where, after God had spoken of the paschal lamb, he says, It is the Lord’s passover. Now our Savour, substituting the holy communion, instead of the passover, follows the stile ofthe Old Testament, and uses the same expressions as the Jews were accustomed to use at the celebration of the passover.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 26:26 . [24] The meal having been, naturally enough, interrupted by the discussion regarding Judas would now be resumed; hence the repetition of the of Mat 26:21 with the continuative , which latter is so often used in a similar way after parentheses and other digressions, especially in cases where previous expressions are repeated; comp. on 2Co 5:8 ; Eph 2:4 .

. . ] According to the Rabbis, the order of the Passover meal was as follows (see Tr. Pesach . c. 10; Otho, Lex. Rabb . p. 448 ff.; Lightfoot, p. 474 ff.; Lund, Jd. Heiligth ., ed. Wolf, p. 1125 ff.; Wichelhaus, p. 248 ff.; Vaihinger in Herzog’s Encykl . XI. p. 141 ff.): (1) It began with drinking wine, before partaking of which, however, the head of the family offered up thanks for the wine and the return of that sacred day (according to the school of Sammai, for the day and for the wine). “Poculum ebibit, et postea benedicit de lotione manuum, et lavat,” Maimonides. (2) Then bitter herbs ( , intended to represent the bitter life of their forefathers in Egypt) were put upon the table, some of which being dipped in a sour or brinish liquid, were eaten amid thanksgivings. (3) The unleavened bread, the broth charoset (see on Mat 26:23 ), the lamb and the flesh of the chagiga (see on Joh 18:28 ), were now presented. (4) Thereupon the head of the family, after a “ Benedictus, qui creavit fructum terrae ,” took as much of the bitter herbs as might be equal to the size of an olive, dipped it in the broth charoset, and then ate it, all the other guests following his example. (5) The second cup of wine was now mixed, and at this stage the father, at the request of his son, or whether requested by him or not, was expected to explain to him the peculiarities of the several parts of this meal. (6) This did not take place till the Passover viands had been put a second time upon the table; then came the singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 113, 114), another short thanksgiving by the father, and the drinking of the second cup. (7) The father then washed his hands, took two pieces of bread, broke one of them, laid the broken pieces upon that which remained whole, repeated the “ Benedictus sit ille, qui producit panem e terra ,” rolled a piece of the broken bread in bitter herbs, dipped this into the broth charoset, and ate, after having given thanks; he then took some of the chagiga, after another thanksgiving, and so also with regard to the lamb. (8) The feast was now continued by the guests partaking as they felt inclined, concluding, however, with the father eating the last bit of the lamb, which was not to be less than an olive in size, after which no one was at liberty to eat anything more. The father now washed his hands, and, praise having been offered, the third cup ( ) was drunk. Then came the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) and the drinking of the fourth cup, which was, in some instances, followed by a fifth, with the final singing of Psalms 120-137 (Bartolocc. Bibl. Rabb . II. p. 736 ff.).

Seeing that, according to this order, the feasting, strictly speaking, did not begin till No. 8, for all that preceded had the character of a ceremonial introduction to it; seeing, further, that it is in itself improbable that Jesus would interrupt or alter the peculiarly ceremonial part of the feast by an act or utterance in any way foreign to it; and considering, in the last place, that when Judas retired, which he did immediately after he was announced as the betrayer, and therefore previous to the institution of the last supper, the Passover meal had already extended pretty far on into the night (Joh 13:30 ), we must assume that the of Mat 26:21 , as well as the similar expression in Mat 26:26 , should come in after No. 7, and that the eating under No. 8 is the stage at which the Lord’s supper was instituted; so that the bread which Jesus took and brake would not be that mentioned under No. 7 (Fritzsche), but the (with the article, see the critical remarks), the particular bread with which, as they all knew, He had just instituted the supper . He would have violated the Passover itself if He had proclaimed any new and peculiar symbolism in connection with the bread before conforming, in the first place, to the popular ceremonial observed at this feast, and before the less formal and peculiarly festive part of the proceedings was reached. Again, had the breaking and distributing of the bread been that referred to under No. 7, one cannot see why he should not have availed Himself of the bitter herbs as well, furnishing, as they would have done, so appropriate a symbol of the suffering inseparable from His death.

] after having repeated a blessing whether the “ Benedictus ille, qui producit panem e terra ” (comp. No. 7 above), or some other more appropriate to the particular act about to be performed, it is impossible to say. The latter, however, is the more probable, as it would be more in accordance with the very special nature of Christ’s feelings and intention on this occasion. Now that the meal was drawing to a close (before the second part of the Hallel was sung, Mat 26:30 ), He felt a desire to introduce at the end a special repast of significance so profound as never to be forgotten. The idea that His , as being the expression of His omnipotent will (Philippi, p. 467 ff.), possessed creative power, so that the body and blood became realized in the giving of bread and wine, may no doubt accord with the orthodox view of the sacrament, but can be as little justified, on exegetical grounds, as that orthodox view itself; even in 1Co 10:16 nothing more is implied than a eucharistical consecration prayer for the purpose of setting apart bread and wine to a sacred use.

It is, further, impossible to determine whether by . we are to understand the handing of the bread piece by piece, or simply the presenting of it all at once upon a plate. Considering, however, that the guests were reclining , the latter is the more probable view, and is quite in keeping with the . This denotes simply a taking with the hand, which then conveys to the mouth the thing so taken, not also a taking in a spiritual sense (Ebrard). Further, it must not be inferred from the words before us, nor from our Lord’s interpretation ( my body ) of the bread which He presents, that He Himself had not eaten of it. See on Mat 26:29 . He must, however, be regarded as having done so before handing it to the disciples, and before uttering the following words.

] There can be no doubt that is the subject, and (avoiding the Lutheran synecdoche) can only refer to the bread that was being handed to them , and not to the living body of Christ (Carlstadt), nor to the predicate which first follows (Strbel), while it is equally certain that no emphasis of any kind is to be laid upon the enclitic (in opposition to Olshausen and Stier). But seeing, moreover, that the body of Jesus was still unbroken (still living), and that, as yet, His blood had not been shed, none of the guests can have supposed what, on the occasion of the first celebration of the supper, was, accordingly, a plain impossibility, viz., that they were in reality eating and drinking the very body and blood of the Lord, [25] and seeing also that, for the reason just stated, Jesus Himself could not have intended His simple words to be understood in a sense which they did not then admit of, for to suppose any essential difference between the first and every subsequent observance of the supper (Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p. 341; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk , III. 2, p. 62; Stier; Gess, I. p. 167) is to have recourse to an expedient that is not only unwarrantable, but extremely questionable (see, on the other hand, Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit . 1869, p. 126 f.), and because, so long as the idea of the is not taken into account, any substantial partaking of the alone and by itself, without the , appears utterly inconceivable; [26] for here, again, the idea of a spiritual body, which it is supposed Jesus might even then have communicated (Olshausen; Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1843, 3, p. 56; Kahnis, Abendm . p. 453; Hofmann; Schoeberlein, b. d. heil. Abendm . 1869, p. 66), belongs entirely to the region of non-exegetical and docetic fancies, for which even the transfiguration furnishes no support whatever (see on 1Co 10:16 ), and is inconsistent with the (1Co 15:50 ; Phi 3:21 ): it follows that is neither more nor less than the copula of the symbolic statement : [27] “ This , which ye are to take and eat, this broken bread, [28] is , symbolically speaking, my body ,” the body, namely, which is on the point of being put to death as a (Mat 20:28 ). The symbolical interpretation has also been correctly adhered to by David Schulz, de Wette, Julius Mller, Bleek, Rckert, Keim, Weizscker; comp. Ewald, Morison, Weiss on Mark , and others. According to Matthew, as also according to Paul (1Co 11:24 , where is spurious), Jesus omits entirely the tertium comparationis , an omission, however, which in itself is more in keeping with the vivid symbolism of the passage and the deep emotion of our Lord. The symbolical act of breaking , which cannot possibly have anything to do with the glorified body, but which refers solely to that which was about to be put to death, was sufficient to enable us to perceive in this breaking what the point of comparison was; for the breaking of the bread and the putting to death of the body resemble each other in so far as the connection of the whole is violently destroyed, so that the bread in fragments can no longer be said to be the bread, nor the body when put to death to be any longer a living being. [29] The eating (and the drinking ), on the other hand, is a symbol of the reception and appropriation, in saving faith (Joh 6:51 ff.), of the atoning and redeeming virtue inherent in the death of the body (Paul as above: ) and in the shedding of the blood of Jesus; so that the act of receiving the elements in the consciousness of this, establishes a with the body and blood that is spiritually living and active, and therefore, in all ethical respects, genuine and real (see on 1Co 10:16 ), a fellowship in which the believing communicant realizes in his inward experience that the divine-human life of the crucified Redeemer is being imparted to him with saving efficacy, and in which he acquires a full assurance of eternal life. With regard to the divers views that have prevailed upon this point in the church, and of which the two held by Protestants do not admit of being harmonized without sacrificing their distinctive peculiarities (in opposition to Ebrard, Lange), it may be said that those of the Catholics and Lutherans are exegetically at one in so far as their interpretation of the is concerned, for they agree in regarding it as the copula of actual being ; it is only when they attempt a more precise dogmatic definition of the mode of this actual being that the divergence begins to show itself. Similarly, there is no difference of an exegetical nature (Rodatz in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr . 1843, 4, p. 11) between the interpretation of Zwingli (and Oecolampadius) and that of Calvin (“externum signum dicitur id esse, quod figurat,” Calvin). On the relation of Luther’s doctrine to that of Calvin, see Julius Mller’s dogmat. Abh . p. 404 ff. For (which, however, Jesus would not express in Aramaic, His words probably being ) as a copula of symbolical or allegorical being, comp. Mat 13:38 f.; Luk 12:1 ; Joh 10:6 ; Joh 14:6 ; Gal 4:24 ; Heb 10:20 ; Rev 1:20 .

That Jesus might also have used instead of (comp. Joh 6 ) is clear; in that case prominence would have been given to the material of which the is composed (comp. Col 1:22 ). Comp. Rckert, p. 69. But it would not have been proper to use (dead flesh, the flesh of what has been slain, Rom 14:21 ; 1Co 8:13 ; see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94).

[24] On ver. 26 ff. and the parallel passages, see Ebrard ( Dogma vom heil. Abendm . I. p. 97 ff.), who also (II. p. 751 ff.) mentions the earlier literature of the subject; see besides, the controversy between Strbel and Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1842 ff.; Rckert, d. Abendm ., Lpz. 1856, p. 58 ff.; Keim in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol . 1859, p. 63 ff.; of modern dogmatic writers, consult, in particular, Kahnis and Philippi. Comp. on Mar 14:22 f.; Luk 22:19 f.; 1Co 11:24 f.

[25] Wetstein well observes: “Non quaerebant utrum panis, quem videbant, panis esset, vel utrum aliud corpus inconspicuum in interstitiis, panis delitesceret, sed quid haec actio significaret, cujus rei esset repraesentatio aut memoriale .” Thomasius, however, as above, p. 61, finds no other way of disposing of the simple impossibility referred to, but by maintaining that this giving of Himself on the part of the Lord was of the nature of a miracle . Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 215, also Philippi, p. 433 f., who is at the same time disposed to assume that the Spirit illuminated the minds of the disciples as with lightning flash. The supposition of a miracle is certainly the last resort, and this on exegetical grounds is wholly unjustifiable in a case in which neither the narrative itself nor the thing narrated implies a miracle.

[26] In reply to the question why Jesus distributes the body and blood separately , Thomasius, p. 68, has no answer but this: “I do not know.” We are accordingly met on the one hand with the assertion of a miracle , on the other with a non liquet . This is the way difficulties are supposed to be got over, but they remain, and continue to assert themselves all the same. There ought to be no hesitation in conceding that the separate participation, namely, of the body without the blood, and then of the blood by itself , is not to be understood as an actual eating and drinking of them, but as due to the symbolism based upon the circumstance of the body being put to death and the blood shed.

[27] In the case of Luke and Paul, the necessity of adopting the symbolical interpretation of shows itself above all (1) in the words used with reference to the cup ( ). The new covenant has been made in and through the actual blood of Christ. This blood, inasmuch as it has been shed , is the essential objective causa effectiva of the covenant. It is so in virtue of the historical fact of the shedding , while it is this same fact that justifies its being designated a new covenant (Joh 11:25 ). The wine poured into the cup can be said to be the blood of Christ as it actually was after being shed on the cross, only in so far as it represents that real covenant-blood as it was previous to its being shed, and with the near prospect of its shedding fully in view; it is this blood, but only in the sense warranted by a profound vivid symbolism . (2) It is on the strength of this symbolical interpretation that Luke and Paul would appear to have added the expression . to the words of the institution. See on Luk 22:19 f. The denotes a realizing of that as present which is no longer so in bodily form.

[28] Not: that which I here hand to you in the form of bread (the Catholic view), nor: that which I here hand to you in, with, and under the covenant (the synecdoche of Lutheran orthodoxy). The doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ’s body is inconsistent with the essential idea of a body, as was pointed out as early as the time of the Fathers, especially by Augustine: “Cavendum enim est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus,” Augustine, ep . 57, ad Dardan .; they understood the body of Christ to be in heaven, where it always remained.

[29] Philippi, p. 422 ff., is wrong in refusing to admit that the point of comparison lies in the breaking. The is the circumstance above all which the whole four evangelists agree in recording, making it appear, too, from the terms they employ, that it was regarded as a special act. Moreover, the fact that at a very early period the spurious of 1Co 11:24 had come to be extensively adopted, may be regarded as affording evidence in favour of the correctness of the church’s interpretation of this symbolical act. The same view is implied in the reading ; comp. Constitt. Ap . viii. 12, 13.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XXIII

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Harmony, pages 178-179 and Mat 26:26-29 ; Mar 14:22-25 ; Luk 22:17-20 ; 1Co 11:23-26 .

The Passover furnishes the Old Testament analogue of this ordinance. As the Passover commemorated the temporal redemption of the Old Covenant, so this ordinance commemorates the spiritual redemption of the New Covenant. The proof is as follows:

Christ the antitype of the paschal lamb (1Co 5:7 ).

Christ crucified at the Passover feast (Mat 26:2 ; Joh 18:28 ).

This supper instituted at the Passover supper and of its materials.

The analogy discussed by Paul (1Co 5:6-13 ; 1Co 10:1-22 ;.

The preliminary study essential to a full understanding of this institution is the Old Testament teaching concerning the Passover. The principal classes of New Testament scripture to be studied are:

Those which tell of its institution.

Those which tell of its later observance.

Those which discuss its import, correct errors in its observance, and apply its moral and spiritual lessons.

The historians of its institution and observance are: (1) Paul, who derived his knowledge by direct revelation from the risen Lord (1Co 11:23 ); (2) Luke, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Paul, and others who were eyewitnesses (Luk 1:2 ); (3) Mark, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Peter, an eyewitness; (4) Matthew, an inspired eyewitness and participator (Mat 26:20 f).

The record of its institution is found in (1) Mat 26:26-29 ; (2) Mar 14:22-25 ; (3) Luk 22:19-20 ; (4) 1Co 11:23-26 . The three historic observances are recorded in Act 2:42 ; Act 20:7 ; and the case at Corinth, 1Co 11:20-22 . We find the discussions of its import and the application of its teachings in 1Co 5:7-8 ; 1Co 10:14-22 ; 1Co 11:17-34 .

Jesus instituted the ordinance on the night before his death, at the last Passover, in an upper room in Jerusalem. All the apostles, except Judas, were present and participating. Judas was not present because he was sent out by our Lord before its institution (see Mat 26:25 ; Joh 13:23-26 ). The apostles receive it as representing the church. The elements used were unleavened bread and unfermented wine, or grape juice, (1) “bread” meaning one loaf not yet broken; (2) “cup” meaning one vessel of wine not yet poured out. The proof of this rendering is found in 1Co 10:16-17 , the exposition of which is as follows:

The one loaf of unleavened bread represents the one mortal but sinless body of Christ yet living, but appointed and prepared as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:4-9 ). It also represents the mystical (body of Christ, the church) (1Co 10:17 ).

So the one vessel of wine represents the body of Christ yet living, the blood of which is the life and yet in the body. The first scene of the drama displayed in this ordinance then, is what we behold first of all, in each of two succeeding symbols, the loaf and the cup, the appointed and accepted Lamb of sacrifice. Whether we look at the loaf or the cup, we see the same thing, as in the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:23 ; Gen 41:32 ).

In the second scene we behold the appointed sacrifice “blessed,” or eulogized, and thus consecrated by the benediction, or set apart for the sacrifice (Mat 26:26 ; Mar 14:22 ), with thanksgiving (Luk 22:19 ; 1Co 11:24 ), that an acceptable sacrifice has been found. This second scene is repeated in both “blessing” and “thanksgiving” in the case of the “cup” (Mat 26:27 ; Mar 14:23 ; Luk 20:22 ; 1Co 11:25 ). The import is one, but the scene is double, to show that “God hath established it.”

In the third scene: (1) The consecrated loaf is broken to show the vicarious death, i.e., for them, of the substitutionary Lamb (Mat 26:26 ; Mar 14:22 ; Luk 22:19 ; 1Co 11:24 ). (2) The wine is poured out from the cup into the distributing vessels (Luk 22:20 ) to show the vicarious death of the sacrificial Lamb by the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. The scene is one, but doubled.

In the fourth scene: (1) The distribution of the broken loaf to all the communicants present and their participation, each by eating a fragment, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the vicarious body given for them. (2) The distribution of the outpoured wine to all the communicants present and their participation, each by drinking a sip, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the expiating, sin-remitting blood. The scene is one, but doubled.

This ordinance is pictorial) showing forth by pictures, or scenes, earth’s greatest tragedy. To make the “showing forth” complete, four double scenes must be exhibited, or made visible to the eye: (1) The appointed spotless Lamb; (2) The consecration to sacrifice with thanksgiving; (3) The sacrifice itself of vicarious death “broken” “poured out”; (4) Participation of the beneficiaries, by faith, in the benefits of the sacrifice. The order of the scenes must be observed. The visible consecration and thanksgiving must follow a view of the appointed and suitable substitutionary victim; the visible sacrifice must follow the view of consecration with thanksgiving; the visible participation must follow a view of the sacrifice.

The modern provision of many tiny glasses for sanitary reasons does not violate scriptural order or symbolism: (1) Certainly not in the number of distributing cups. Those cups, like the plates, are for distribution. Whether one plate, two, or a dozen; whether one cup, two, or a hundred are used for distribution is immaterial, a matter of convenience, provided only that there has been one vessel of wine “blessed,” or eulogized, before the outpouring into the distributing vessel or cups. (2) It is against the symbolism if the outpouring into the distributing vessels is private and not visible to the congregation, since the outpouring does not come in its order, the blessing and the thanksgiving coming after the outpouring and not before.

Perhaps this construction of the symbolism is too rigid, yet it is true that the order in the record of the institution best shows forth the successive scenes of the tragedy.

The name of the institution is “The Lord’s Supper”; proof is found in 1Co 11:20 . This title is further shown by the expression, “The cup of the Lord . . . The table of the Lord” (1Co 10:21 ). It follows from this title that if it be The Lord’s Supper, the Table of the Lord, the Cup of the Lord, then he alone has the right to put the table where he will, to prescribe its elements, to impose the order of its observance, to define its import, and to prescribe who shall be invited to its participation, and indeed to fix authoritatively all its rules and conditions.

The import of the word “communion,” in 1Co 10:16 , is as follows: (1) It means participation rather than communion; (2) it is a partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and not communion of the partakers with each other. They do not partake of each other, but of Christ. The design is: (1) To show forth pictorially or to proclaim the Lord’s death for the remission of the sins of his people; (2) to show forth our participation by faith, in the benefits of that death; (3) to show that our spiritual nutrition is in him alone, since he is the meat and the drink of his people; (4) to show our hope of spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; (5) to show our faith in his return to take us to that heavenly home; (6) to show that the communicants constitute one mystical body of Christ.

The nature of the ordinance: (1) It represents a new covenant between Jehovah and a new spiritual Israel (Mat 26:28 ; Mar 14:24 ; Luk 22:20 ; 1Co 11:25 ). (2) It is a memorial ordinance: “This do in remembrance of me. . . . This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1Co 11:24-25 ). (3) It is an emblematic ordinance, representing both spiritual nutrition here, and a heavenly feast with Christ (Mat 26:29 ; Mar 14:25 ). (4) It is a mystical ordinance showing that communicants, though many, constitute one body. (5) It is a church ordinance to be observed by a church assembled and not by an individual (1Co 10:17 ; 1Co 11:17-22 ; Act 20:17 ). (6) It is an exclusive ordinance: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons.”

The faculties employed in the observance of this ordinance are memory, faith, hope. We remember (1) Jesus only; (2) Jesus dying on the cross; (3) Jesus dying on the cross for the remission of our sins; (4) Samuel Rogers, an English poet, wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Memory.” Faith apprehends and appropriates Christ in the purposes of his expiatory and vicarious death, and finds in his sacrifice the meat and drink which constitute the nutrition of our spiritual life. Hope anticipates his return for his people, and the spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; the poet, Thomas Campbell, an Englishman, wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Hope.”

The appointed duration of the ordinance is “Till he come” (1Co 11:26 ). But will we not eat the bread and drink the wine anew in the kingdom of heaven? If not, what is the meaning of Mat 26:29 ; Mar 14:25 ? Is it not, “I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom,” but “when I drink it new.” Here we drink the material wine; there it will be a new thing spiritual wine. The feasting on earth, in its meat and drink, represents the everlasting joy, love, and peace of our heavenly participation of our Lord, as he himself foretold: “Many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” See the account of angels carrying the earth-starved Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Luk 16 ) and the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9 ).

How often must we observe this ordinance the record does not say. Its analogue, the Passover was once every year, but that was strictly prescribed in the law. There is no such prescription in the New Testament law of this ordinance. “But,” says one, “does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?” There is no such requirement. At Troas, indeed, the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread (Act 20:7 ), but even in that case the ordinance was not observed until the next day (Act 20:7-11 ). The other record of observance (Act 2:42 ) seems to imply that in this great Pentecostal meeting it was observed every day. Some things are not prescribed, but left to sound judgment and common sense. In a great meeting like that following Pentecost, when thousands of new converts were added every day, and all of every day was devoted to religious service, there was a propriety in and sufficient time for a daily observance of this ordinance. Under ordinary conditions the observance every Sunday, if administered with due solemnity, would shut off much needed instruction on other important matters, at the only hour at which older Christians can attend public worship, and the only hour at which many others do attend.

The main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance are: (1) They call it the sacrifice of the mass. (2) That when the priest pronounces the words, “This is my body . . . this cup is the New Testament in my blood,” the bread and the wine (though not to sight, taste, or touch) do really become the actual body and blood of Jesus, yea, Jesus in body, soul, and deity; this miraculous and creative change, not only of one material substance into another; not only of inert into living matter, but of matter into both spirit and deity, they call transubstantiation. (3) Being now God, the priest kneels to it in adoration. (4) It is then lifted up that the congregation may adore it as God; this is called “The Elevation of the Host.” (5) That so changed to God it may be carried in procession, and so carried, the people must prostrate themselves before it as God; this is called the “Procession of the Host.” (6) That the communicant does literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. (7) That the efficacy of the sacrifice is complete in each kind, and so in the exercise of its heaven-granted authority the church may and does withhold the cup from the laity. (8) That eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus is essential to eternal life. (9) That the words “eat ye” and “drink ye” are a divine appointment of the priesthood, widely distinguishing them from the laity, and making their ministration of the ordinance exclusive and essential to the ordinance itself. (10) That this is, whensoever, wheresoever, and how oftensoever performed, a real sacrifice of our Lord, who as a High Priest forever must offer continual sacrifice. (11) That it is a sacrifice for both the living and the dead, available at least for the dead who are in purgatory, hence in application, their “masses for the dead.” (12) That in another sacrament called “Extreme Unction,” this consecrated “wafer” is put on the tongue of the dying as a means to remission of sin. (13) That the church has authority to prescribe all the accompaniments of order, dress, language, or other circumstances prescribed in their ritual of observance. (14) That the belief of this teaching in whole and in every part is essential to salvation, and whoever does not so believe let him be accursed.

This Romanist teaching is the most sweeping, blasphemous, heretical perversion of New Testament teaching known to history. As a whole, and in all its parts, it subverts the faith of the New Testament and substitutes therefore the traditions of men.

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a real, but a pictorial sacrifice: (a) The sacrifice of our Lord was once for all, because real, and not often repeated, as the typical sacrifices were. (b) This error gives the officiating priest creative power to transubstantiate inert matter into living matter, both soul and deity, though not even God in creation formed man’s soul from matter, (c) The alleged transubstantiation is contrary to the senses, for the bread and wine are still bread and wine to sight, touch, and taste, unlike when Christ transmitted water into wine, for it then looked like wine, tasted like wine, and had the effect of wine. (d) Christ said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in yourself,” and is careful thus to explain, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not,” and thus he shows that to believe on him is what is meant by the figurative language “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.” (e) This error controverts philosophy, in that the body of Jesus cannot be in more places than one at the same time. (f) It controverts many scriptures that explicitly teach that the body of Jesus ascended to heaven, and must there remain until the final advent and the times of the restoration of all things. (g) It is idolatry, in that mere matter is worshiped and adored as God.

2. It violates the New Testament teaching of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, who does not continually repeat his sacrifice, but continually pleads the efficacy of the sacrifice offered once for all, and continually intercedes on the ground of the one offering. As a high priest he does indeed continue to present the spiritual sacrifices of his people, such as prayer, praise, and contribution.

3. It subverts the New Testament teaching of the mission and office of the Holy Spirit, who was sent as Christ’s vicar because he was absent, and whose office continues until Christ returns.

4. It re-establishes the Old Testament typical order of priests, abrogated by the cross, and separates by a greater distance than in the Old Covenant the priest from the laity, and thereby nullifies the New Testament teaching that all believers are priests unto God. It thus sews together again the veil of the old Temple which at Christ’s death God rent in twain from top to bottom.

5. It makes the Pope at Rome Christ’s vicar instead of the Holy Spirit.

6. It makes the church a savior instead of the Lord himself, and confers on it legislative powers instead of limiting it to judicial and executive powers. Yea, it may change or set aside Christ’s own legislation.

7. It substitutes a sacerdotal salvation, and a salvation by ordinances for the New Testament salvation.

8. It destroys the church character of the ordinance by the administration of it to individuals.

9. It withholds the cup from the people, though Christ said, “All ye drink of it.”

10. It destroys the unity of the ordinance by affirming that the bread alone is sufficient, though Christ used both symbols to express his meaning.

11. It makes the ordinance for the dead as well as the giving, thus not only extending probation after death, but giving its supposed benefits to those who did neither eat nor drink, thus contradicting their own previous teaching, as well as the words of our Lord which they misapply and pervert.

12. It bases its defense more on ecclesiastical history and tradition, than on the Word of God, and limits that Word to a Latin translation, and to the church interpretation of that translation, rather than its text.

13. It makes belief in the whole and in all parts of this complex, self-contradictory, crude mass of human teaching essential to salvation instead of simple faith in Christ.

While Luther rejected the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation, he advocated a doctrine which he called consubstantiation, by which he meant that while the bread and wine were not the real body and blood of Christ, yet there was a real presence of Christ in these elements. His illustration was this: Put a bar Of iron into the fire until it is red hot, then there is heat with that iron, though the iron itself is not heat. The trouble about Luther’s consubstantiation is, that according to his illustration, there must be some change of the elements that could be discerned by the senses. A man can see with his eye the difference between a cold iron and a red hot iron. And he can tell the difference by touching it, none of which phenomena appeared in the elements of the bread and wine.

The Genevan doctrine was that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial ordinance, this being the principal idea in it; that it exhibited or showed pictorally, not really, certain great doctrines; that the bread and wine remained bread and wine, so that they neither were the real body and blood of Jesus, nor held the presence of Jesus, as iron put into the fire contained heat.

There is a thrilling story of the vain effort by Philip of Hesse to bring Luther and the advocates of the Genevan doctrine into harmony on the Lord’s Supper. When the question came up in the Reformation as to whether Christ’s presence was really in the bread and wine, Philip of Hesse, who loved Luther, and who also loved the Genevan reformers, invited two of the strongest of each to meet at his castle and have a friendly debate. Luther contended for consubstantiation, or the presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and the Genevan reformers insisted that it was simply a memorial ordinance. So for the debate were chosen Luther and Melanchthon on one side and Zwingli and Cecolampadius, on the other side. Luther was the fire on the one side and Zwingli was the fire on the other side. Philip placed Luther against Cecolampadius, and Zwingli against Melanchthon. But after they had debated a while, Cecolampadius and Melanchthon dropped out, and the two fiery men came face to face. In the course of the discussion Luther wrote on the wall a verse from his Latin Bible: “Hoc meum est corpus,” “This is my body,” and Zwingli said, “I oppose it by this statement,” and he wrote under it, “Ascendit in coelum,” “ He ascended into heaven.” “The heavens must retain him; therefore,” said he, “Christ cannot be in his body in heaven and on earth at the same time.”

A theological seminary, a district association, a state, national, or international convention, cannot set out the Lord’s Table and observe this ordinance, because it is strictly a church ordinance. The spiritual qualifications of the participants are: (1) On the divine side, regeneration. (2) On the human side, repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The legal qualifications are justification, redemption and adoption, while the ceremonial qualifications are: A public, formal profession of faith in Christ, or, in other words, the relating of one’s Christian experience before a competent official authority; baptism by that authority in the name of the Trinity; formal reception into a particular church, which is the authority to pass upon the credibility of the profession of faith, to administer the baptism, to judge of the Christian life, and the only body that may lawfully set the Lord’s Table. Certain passages show that though one has all the qualifications enumerated above, whether spiritual, legal, or ceremonial, and yet is living an unworthy Christian life, the church of which he is a member may judge him and bar him from participation in this Supper, viz.: 1Co 5:11-13 ; 1Co 10:21 . These qualifications may all be condensed into one brief statement, thus: A baptized child of God, holding membership in a particular church and walking orderly in Christian life.

The officers of the church cannot carry the elements of this Supper to a member who, for any cause, was absent at the assembly observance, and administer them to him privately. Here are two well-known historic cases:

First case. A member of a church, who had been living far from God, attending church seldom and never remaining when the Supper was observed, was now penitent, and in his last illness, knowing death to be at hand, dictates a penitential letter to the church, avowing the faith originally professed, but confessing all the irregularities of his life, claiming to have received the divine forgiveness, and asks forgiveness of the church. The letter expressed deep regret that the writer had never once obeyed his Lord in observing this ordinance and an intense desire to obey him one time in this matter before death, carefully assuring the church that he attributed no magical value to the ordinance, being himself already at peace with God, but longing to have God’s people with him one more time, to hear them sing and pray and to partake of this Supper, so that when he passed to the heavenly feast, he could say, “Lord, though unworthy, I did obey your solemn commandment one time on earth.” Whereupon the church voted forgiveness to the penitent brother, adjourned the conference to meet in the sick man’s house that night, and there convened pursuant to adjournment, and did there observe the Lord’s Supper as the assembled church, and allowed -the sick man to participate. The members had come for miles in buggies, wagons, and on horse-back. The conference was unusually large. The house seemed to be filled with the glory of God. Others confessed their sins; alienated members were reconciled. A marvelous revival prevailed, and the dying brother passed from the earthly feast to drink the wine at the heavenly feast. I was present and officiated as pastor.

Second case. A wife, professing to be a Christian, though not a church member, appealed to a Baptist preacher to come and administer the Lord’s Supper to her dying husband, himself not a member of any church, but who desired to partake of the Lord’s Supper before death. This preacher, of his own motion and alone, carried bread and wine to the house and there administered to the dying man the elements of the Lord’s Supper. I knew this pastor and wag instrumental in his confession and recantation of his error.

If the church, according to Christ’s law, must judge as to a participant’s qualification, what then the apostle’s meaning of “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat?” The man who is commanded to examine himself is not an outsider, but a member of the church, already qualified according to church judgment, yet on whom rests the personal responsibility to determine whether by faith he now discerns the Lord’s body.

What is the meaning of 1Co 11:27 ? This passage does not say, “Whosoever is unworthy,” but who partakes “unworthily,” i.e., whose manner of partaking, like these Corinthians, was disorderly. They ate and drank to satisfy physical hunger and thirst. They feasted separately without waiting for the assembly.

What is the meaning of 1Co 11:30 : “For this cause many are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep”? This has no reference to physical weakness, sickness and sleep, as if a judgment in this form had come on them for a disorderly manner in partaking of the Supper. The meaning must be sought in the purpose of the ordinance. We have houses in which to eat ordinary’ food when we seek physical nutrition and from that, bodily strength and health. The taste of bread and the sip of wine in this ordinance cannot serve such a purpose. These represent a different kind of nutriment for the saved soul, which we appropriate and assimilate by faith. If we do not by faith discern the Lord’s body, then missing the spiritual nutrition, the soul becomes weak, or sick, or sleepy: “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.”

I here expound the Old Testament analogue in Exo 24:9-11 . This is the passage: “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: and they beheld God and did eat and drink.” This is the ratifying feast of the Old Covenant, as the Lord’s Supper is the feast of the New Covenant. In Exo 19 God proposes a covenant which they agree to accept and prepare themselves for it. God himself then states the three great stipulations of the covenant binding upon Israel: (1) The Decalogue, or God and the normal man (Exo 20:1-17 ); (2) the law of the Altar, or the way of a sinner’s approach to God; in other words, God and the sinner (Exo 20:24-26 ), with all its developments in Exodus 25-31; 35-40, and almost the whole of Leviticus; (3) the judgments, or God, the state and the citizen (Exodus. 21-23), with all developments therefrom in the Pentateuch.

These three make the covenant with national Israel. Then in Exo 24:3-8 , this covenant, so far only uttered, is reduced to writing, read to the people and solemnly ratified. Following the ratification, comes this passage, which is the Feast of the Covenant (Exo 24:9-11 ). Here Moses records the institution of this feast of the ratified Old Covenant as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul record the institution of the feast of the New Covenant, in which Jesus says, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” It is noteworthy that in the institution of both feasts (not in subsequent observances) the partakers are few, acting in a representative capacity. Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Aaron’s two sons, seventy elders, seventy-five in all, in the first case; Jesus and the eleven apostles in the other case. In both cases the communion, or participation, is with God, who is present: “They saw God and did eat and drink.” But they saw no similitude. They saw symbols. They saw him by faith. They saw the symbols of God’s presence with a natural eye, and tasted of the symbol, i.e., the Lamb of sacrifice, with the natural tongue. The symbol was not God; it represented him; nor was it changed into God. God was neither the symbol, nor in the symbol, nor with, by or under the symbol. He was there himself and with his covenant people. They saw him as propitiated through the sacrifice. Hence they saw him in the holy of holies, the paved work like sapphire stones under his feet (Exo 24:10 ), which is the sign that they saw him on his throne of grace and mercy, as appears from a comparison of kindred passages (see Eze 1:26 ; Rev 4 ). Hence it is said (Exo 24:11 ), “And on the elders of the children of Israel he laid not his hands,” i.e., to smite them. Seeing God out of the covenant the men would have died. But in the covenant they were safe, because he was propitiated.

The Lord’s Supper is not the holy of holies, but in faithful observance of the Covenant feast, we by faith approach and commune with him in the holy of holies. That is, the blood of the everlasting Covenant propitiates God, so that we may approach him and commune with him, and by faith see him and yet not die, for the blood turns away his wrath.

To further illustrate this thought, the tabernacle was God’s house, or dwelling place, whose innermost chamber was the holy of holies. There, over the mercy seat between the Cherubim, the symbol of the Divine presence appeared as a Shechinah, the sword flame (Gen 3:24 ), or pillar of cloud, or fire, and was the oracle to reveal and to answer questions; hence the most holy place is many times called the oracle, i.e., the house of the oracle. So in the Temple. But the tabernacle and the Temple fulfilled their temporary mission, and the veil was rent when Christ died. So a new house or Temple succeeded, namely, the church, a spiritual building (1Co 3:9 ; 1Co 3:17 ; Eph 2:21 , American Standard Version, 1Pe 2:5 ), and this new temple was anointed with the Holy Spirit (Dan 9:24 ; Act 2:1-4 ), as the first was (Exo 30:25-26 ), with the holy oil which symbolized the Spirit. Now, in this new temple, the church, is a most holy place, the place of the real Divine presence, in the person of the Holy Spirit, and in the Supper as a covenant feast, when faith is exercised, we approach and commune with a propitiated God. We see him and eat and drink in his presence. The hiding veil in this case was Christ’s flesh. When he died, whose death is commemorated in the Supper, the veil was removed, and the way into the most holy place is wide open to the believing communicant. But in the church in glory, which is an eternal temple, hieron , there is no naos or symbolic shrine, most holy place, or isolated, inner chamber (Rev 21:22 ), for God and the Lamb constitute the naos, and the tabernacle (Rev 21:3 ) with all the inhabitants of the Holy City, who see God directly, face to face not by faith. The days of propitiation are ended then, and the glorified ones need no intercession of the High Priest. Their salvation in body, soul, and spirit is consummated forever. But they feast with God forever. They sing indeed, but they do not “sing a hymn and go out.”

QUESTIONS 1. What is the Old Testament analogue of the Lord’s Supper?

2. What is the proof?

3. What preliminary study essential to an understanding of its institution?

4. What are the principal classes of New Testament scriptures to be studied?

5. Who were the historians of its institution and observance?

6. Where and what record of its institution?

7. What are the three historic observances?

8. Where do we find the discussion of its import and the application of its teachings?

9. Who instituted the ordinance and when and where?

10. Who were present and participating?

11. Why was Judas not present?

12. In what capacity did the apostles receive it?

13. What elements used?

14. What is the meaning of “bread” and “cup”?

15. What is the proof of this rendering and what the exposition?

16. What then was the first scene of the drama of this ordinance?

17. What was the second scene?

18. What was the third scene?

19. What was the fourth scene?

20. What kind of an ordinance then is this, and what is necessary to convey its full meaning?

21. Is the order of the scenes important?

22. What of the modern provision of many tiny glasses?

23. What is the name of this ordinance and what the proof?

24. How is this title further shown?

25. What follows from this title?

26. What is the import of the word “communion” in 1Co 10:16 ?

27. What is the design of this ordinance?

28. What is the nature of the ordinance?

29. What faculties do we employ in the observance of this ordinance?

30. Whom do we remember, where and why, and who wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Memory”?

31. Faith does what?

32. Hope does what, and who wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Hope”?

33. What was the appointed duration of the ordinance?

34. What was the meaning of Mat 26:29 and Mar 14:25 ?

35. How often must we observe this ordinance?

36. Does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?

37, What were the main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance?

38. What was the reply to this Romanist teaching?

39. What is Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation?

40. What is the Genevan doctrine?

41. Recite the story of Philip of Hesse?

42. May any religious organization except a church celebrate the Supper?

43. What are the spiritual qualification of the participants?

44. What are the legal qualifications?

45. What are the ceremonial qualifications?

46. What scriptures show that a man with all these qualifications may be barred from the Supper by the church?

47. Condense these qualifications into one brief statement.

48. May the officers of the church administer this ordinance to an individual in private?

49. State the two cases cited and show which was right and why?

50. What is the meaning of “Let a man examine himself, etc.”?

51. What is the meaning of 1Co 11:27 ?

52. What is the meaning of 1Co 11:30 ?

53. Expound the Old Testament analogue in Exo 24:9-11 .

54. Is the Lord’s Supper the holy of holies?

55. How further illustrate the thought?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it , and brake it , and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Ver. 26. Jesus took bread ] From bread and wine used by the Jews at the eating of the paschal lamb, without all command of Moses, but resting upon the common reason given by the Creator, Christ authorizeth a seal of his very flesh and blood. And as the householder, at the end of that solemn supper, blessed God, first, taking bread, and again, taking wine; so that we should not turn his seal into superstition, he followeth that plainness: ne miseri mortales, in istorum mysteriorum usu, in rebus terrestribus haereant et obstupescant, as Beza gives the reason. For which cause also, saith he, even in the old Liturgy they used to cry out to the people at the Lord’s table, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts; that is, Look not so much to the outward signs in the sacraments, but use them as ladders to mount you up to Christ in heaven. Ut in coelum usque ad Christum penetrarent. (Beza.)

This is my body ] “This is” referred to bread by an anomaly of the gender (the like whereof we find, Eph 5:6 ), and so the apostle interpreteth it,1Co 10:161Co 10:16 ; 1Co 11:26 . The sense then is, This bread is my true essential body, which is given for you: that is, by an ordinary metonymy, a b This bread is the sign of my body, as circumcision is called “the covenant,” that is, the sign of the covenant, and seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom 4:11 . And as Homer calls the sacrifices, covenants; c because thereby the covenants were confirmed. Virgil calleth it fallere dextras, to deceive the right hands, for to break the oath that was taken, by the taking of right hands, &c. Transubstantiation is a mere fiction; and the most learned Papists are not yet agreed whether the substance of the bread in this sacrament be turned into the substance of Christ’s body productive, as one thing is made of another; or whether the bread goes away, and Christ’s body comes into the room of it adductive, as one thing succeeds into the place of another, the first being voided. Suarez is for the first, Bellarmine for the latter sense. And yet because Luther and Calvin agree not upon the meaning of these words, “This is my body,” the Jesuits cry out, Spiritus sanctus a seipso non discordat, Hoc interpretationes discordant, Ergo: for Luther interpreteth the words synecdochically, d Calvin metonymically, after Tertullian and Augustine; “This is my body,” for this is a sign or figure of my body, a seal also to every faithful receiver, that Christ is his, with all his benefits.

a A figure of speech which consists in substituting for the name of a thing the name of an attribute of it or of something closely related. D

b refertur ad anomalia generis. Pasor.

c .

d A figure by which a more comprehensive term is used for a less comprehensive or vice versa; as whole for part or part for whole, genus for species or species for genus, etc. D

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

26 29. ] INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. Mar 14:22-25 .Luk 22:19-20Luk 22:19-20 . 1Co 11:23-25 . We may remark on this important part of our narrative, (1) That it was demonstrably our Lord’s intention to found an ordinance for those who should believe on Him; (2) that this ordinance had some analogy with that which He and the Apostles were then celebrating . The first of these assertions depends on the express word of the Apostle Paul; who in giving directions for the due celebration of the rite of the Lord’s Supper, states in relation to it that he had received from the Lord the account of its institution, which he then gives. He who can set this aside, must set aside with it all apostolic testimony whatever. The second is shewn by the fact, that what now took place was during the celebration of the Passover : that the same Paul states that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us ; thus identifying the body broken, and blood shed, of which the bread and wine here are symbolic, with the Paschal feast. (3) That the key to the right understanding of what took place must be found in our Lord’s discourse after the feeding of the five thousand in Joh 6:1-71 , since He there , and there only , besides this place, speaks of His flesh and blood in the connexion found here . (4) It is impossible to assign to this event its precise place in the meal . St. Luke inserts it before the announcement of the treason of Judas: St. Matt. and St. Mark after it. It is doubtful whether the accounts found in the Talmud and elsewhere of the ceremonies in the Paschal feast (see Lightfoot ad loc. De Wette) are to be depended on: they are exceedingly complicated. Thus much seems clear, that our Lord blessed and passed round two cups , one before, the other after the supper, and that He distributed the unleavened cake during the meal. More than this is conjecture. The dipping of the hand in the dish, and dipping and giving the sop, may also possibly correspond to parts of the Jewish ceremonial.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

26. ] While they were eating, during the meal , as distinguished from the distribution of the cup, which was after it.

No especial stress must be laid on the article before , if read; it would be the bread which lay before Him : see below. The bread would be unleavened , as the day was (see Exo 12:8 ).

and amount to the same in practice. The looking up to heaven and giving thanks was a virtual ‘blessing’ of the meal or the bread.

. must be construed transitively ( 1Co 10:16 ).

is governed by all four verbs, , , , (see also Luk 9:16 , and the reff. to the text here). It was customary in the Paschal meal for the Master, in breaking the bread, to give thanks for the fruit of the earth. But our Lord did more than this: “Non pro veteri tantum creatione, sed et pro nova, cujus ergo in hunc orbem venerat, preces fudit, gratiasque Deo egit pro redemtione humani generis quasi jam peracta.” Grotius.

From this giving of thanks for and blessing the offering, the Holy Communion has been from the earliest times also called , viz. by Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Clem. Alex [170] , Chrysostom, &c. The passages may be seen in Suicer’s Thesaurus, under the word.

[170] Alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

] It was a round cake of unleavened bread, which the Lord broke and divided: signifying thereby both the breaking of his body on the Cross, and the participation in the benefits of his death by all His. Hence the act of communion was known by the name , Act 2:42 . See 1Co 10:16 , also Isa 58:7 ; Lam 4:4 .

, imperf. He gave to each, distributed.

] Our Gospel alone has both words. is spurious in Mark: both words, in 1Co 11:24 . Here, they are undoubted: and seem to shew us (see note on Luk 22:17 ) that the Lord did not Himself partake of the bread or wine . It is thought by some however that He did : e.g. Chrysostom, Hom. lxxxii. 1, p. 783, . But the analogy of the whole, as well as these words. and below, lead us to a different conclusion. Our Lord’s non-participation is however no rule for the administrator of the rite in after times. Although in one sense he represents Christ , blessing, breaking, and distributing; in another, he is one of the disciples , examining himself, confessing, partaking. Throughout all Church ministrations this double capacity must be borne in mind. Olshausen (ii. 449) maintains the opposite view, and holds that the ministrant cannot unite in himself the two characters. But setting the inner verity of the matter for a moment aside, how, if so, should an unassisted minister ever communicate?

] , this, which I now offer to you, this bread . The form of expression is important, not being , or , but , in both cases, or , not the bread or wine itself, but the thing in each case; precluding all idea of a substantial change .

] On this much controverted word itself no stress is to be laid. In the original tongue in which our Lord spoke, it would not be expressed : and as it now stands, it is merely the logical copula between the subject, this , and the predicate, my Body . The connexion of these two will require deeper consideration. First we may observe, as above of the subject, so here of the predicate, that it is not (although that very expression is didactically used in its general sense in Joh 6:51 , as applying to the bread), but . The body is made up of flesh and blood; and although analogically the bread may represent one and the wine the other, the assertion here is not to be analogically taken merely: , this which I give you, (is) . Under this is the mystery of my Body: the assertion has a literal , and has also a spiritual or symbolic meaning. And it is the literal meaning which gives to the spiritual and symbolic meaning its fitness and fulness. In the literal meaning then, this (is) my Body , we have BREAD, ‘the staff of life,’ identified with THE BODY OF THE LORD: not that particular with that particular which at that moment constituted the Body before them, nor any particular with the present Body of the Lord in heaven : but , the food of man , with . This is strikingly set forth in Joh 6:51 , . Now the mystery of the Lord’s Body is, that in and by it is all created being upheld : , Col 1:17 ; , Joh 1:4 . And thus generally , and in the widest sense , is the Body of the Lord the sustenance and upholding of all living . Our very bodies are dependent upon his , and unless by his Body standing pure and accepted before the Father, could not exist nor be nourished . So that to all living things, in this largest sense, , . And all our nourishment and means of upholding are Christ. In this sense his Body is the Life of the world . Thus the fitness of the symbol for the thing now to be signified is shewn, not merely by analogy, but by the deep verities of Redemption. And this general and lower sense, underlying, as it does, all the spiritual and higher senses in Joh 6:1-71 , brings us to the symbolic meaning which the Lord now first and expressly attaches to this sacramental bread.

Rising into the higher region of spiritual things, in and by the same Body of the Lord , standing before the Father in accepted righteousness, is all spiritual being upheld , but by the inward and spiritual process of feeding upon Him by faith : of making that Body our own, causing it to pass into and nourish our souls, even as the substance of the bread passes into and nourishes our bodies. Of this feeding upon Christ in the spirit by faith, is the sacramental bread the symbol to us. When the faithful in the Lord’s Supper press with their teeth that sustenance, which is, even to the animal life of their bodies, the Body of Christ , whereby alone all animated being is upheld, they feed in their souls on that Body of righteousness and acceptance, by partaking of which alone the body and soul are nourished unto everlasting life . And as, in the more general and natural sense, all that nourishes the body is the Body of Christ given for all , so to them , in the inner spiritual sense , is the sacramental bread symbolic of that Body given for them , their standing in which, in the adoption of sons, is witnessed by the sending abroad of the Spirit in their hearts. This last leads us to the important addition in Luke and 1 Cor. (but omitted here and in Mark) ( , Luke, omitted in 1 Cor.), . On these words we may remark (1) that the participle is present : and, rendered with reference to the time when it was spoken, would be which is being given. The Passion had already begun; in fact the whole life on earth was this giving and breaking, consummated by His death: (2) that the commemorative part of the rite here enjoined strictly depends upon the symbolic meaning, and that, for its fitness, upon the literal meaning. The commemoration is of Him, in so far as He has come down into Time, and enacted the great acts of Redemption on this our world, and shewn himself to us as living and speaking Man , an object of our personal love and affectionate remembrance: but the other and higher parts of the Sacrament have regard to the results of those same acts of Redemption, as they are eternized in the counsels of the Father, as the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world ( Rev 13:8 ).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 26:26-29 . The Lord’s Supper (Mar 14:22-25 ; Luk 22:19-20 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Mat 26:26 . . : same phrase as in Mat 26:21 , with added to introduce another memorable incident of the paschal supper. No details are given regarding that meal, so that we do not know how far our Lord followed the usual routine, for which consult Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. , or Smith’s Dictionary , article Passover . Neither can we with certainty fix the place of the Holy Supper in the paschal meal, or in relation to the announcement of the traitor. The evangelists did not concern themselves about such subordinate matters. , etc., having taken a cake of bread and given thanks He broke it. The benediction may have been an old form put to a new use, or original. has not for its object, which would in that case have been placed after it. , etc., giving to the disciples; the cake broken into as many morsels, either in the act of giving or before the distribution began. , take, eat. only in Mk. (W. and H [138] ). probably an interpretative addition, true but unnecessary, by our evangelist. , this is my body. The is the copula of symbolic significance. Jesus at this sacred moment uses a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of His death. But this symbol has had the fate of all religious symbolism, which is to run into fetish worship; in view of which the question is raising itself in some thoughtful minds whether discontinuance, at least for a time, of the use of sacraments would not be a benefit to the religion of the spirit and more in harmony with the mind of Christ than their obligatory observance.

[138] Westcott and Hort.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:26-29

26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Mat 26:26 “While they were eating” The focus of the seder meal, to which this alludes, was the third cup of blessing after the meal itself. Jesus wanted to identify with the deliverance of the Exodus. He was the lamb of God, but He chose the bread and wine, not the Passover lamb, as the symbol for the new covenant.

Matthew often depicts Jesus as the second Moses, the new law-giver. Jesus brings the new exodus from sin.

“bread” This referred to flat, unleavened bread cakes used in the Passover meal (cf. Exodus 12).

Mat 26:26-28 “this is My body. . .this is My blood” The first recorded Lord’s supper is Paul’s account in 1Co 11:17-34.

The Synoptic Gospels were written after some of the NT letters. The exact date is uncertain but they were not the first church writings (cf. William L. Blevins’book Birth of a New Testament, personal publication, Carson-Newman College).

Mat 26:28 “this is My blood of the covenant” This may be an allusion to Exo 24:8. Some ancient uncial Greek manuscripts add “new” before covenant: MSS A, C, D, and W. This would reflect Jer 31:31-34. However, many other good ancient manuscripts (MSS P37, , B, and L) do not make this addition. It may have been assimilated from Luk 22:20. It is absent in Mar 14:24. The UBS4 gives the shorter reading a “B” rating (almost certain).

“poured out for many” This is an allusion to Isa 53:11-12. See SPECIAL TOPIC: POURED OUT at Mat 23:35. There has been much discussion about the relationship between “the many” of Isa 53:11-12 and “us all” of Isa 53:6. The parallelism of Rom 5:17-19 may answer this question. The “all men” of Mat 5:18 is the same as “the many” of Mat 5:19. Jesus died for all humans (cf. Joh 3:16); all are potentially saved in Him!

“for forgiveness of sins” This is the thrust of the New Covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34) and the significance of Jesus’ name (” YHWH saves,” cf. Mat 1:21).

Mat 26:29 “I will not drink. . .until. . .My Father’s Kingdom” This was a reference to the Messianic end-time banquet (cf. Mat 8:11; Luk 13:28-30; note Mal 1:11). This was often connected to the Wedding Feast of Jesus and the Church (cf. Eph 5:23-29; Rev 19:7). See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE KINGDOM OF GOD at Mat 4:17.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

bread = a hard biscuit, which required to be broken.

this is = this represents. See App-159and App-6, Figure of speech Metaphor.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

26-29.] INSTITUTION OF THE LORDS SUPPER. Mar 14:22-25. Luk 22:19-20. 1Co 11:23-25. We may remark on this important part of our narrative, (1) That it was demonstrably our Lords intention to found an ordinance for those who should believe on Him; (2) that this ordinance had some analogy with that which He and the Apostles were then celebrating. The first of these assertions depends on the express word of the Apostle Paul; who in giving directions for the due celebration of the rite of the Lords Supper, states in relation to it that he had received from the Lord the account of its institution, which he then gives. He who can set this aside, must set aside with it all apostolic testimony whatever. The second is shewn by the fact, that what now took place was during the celebration of the Passover: that the same Paul states that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; thus identifying the body broken, and blood shed, of which the bread and wine here are symbolic, with the Paschal feast. (3) That the key to the right understanding of what took place must be found in our Lords discourse after the feeding of the five thousand in Joh 6:1-71, since He there, and there only, besides this place, speaks of His flesh and blood in the connexion found here. (4) It is impossible to assign to this event its precise place in the meal. St. Luke inserts it before the announcement of the treason of Judas: St. Matt. and St. Mark after it. It is doubtful whether the accounts found in the Talmud and elsewhere of the ceremonies in the Paschal feast (see Lightfoot ad loc. De Wette) are to be depended on:-they are exceedingly complicated. Thus much seems clear,-that our Lord blessed and passed round two cups, one before, the other after the supper,-and that He distributed the unleavened cake during the meal. More than this is conjecture. The dipping of the hand in the dish, and dipping and giving the sop, may also possibly correspond to parts of the Jewish ceremonial.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

We will read, first, Matthews account of the institution of the Lords supper.

Mat 26:26. And as they were eating,

In the middle of the Paschal Feast our Lord instituted the sacred festival which was ever afterwards to be known as the Lords supper. The one ordinance was made to melt gradually into the other: as they were eating.

Mat 26:26. Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body.

This represents my body. He could not possibly have meant that the bread was his body; for there was his body sitting at the table, whole and entire. They would have been astonished beyond measure if they had understood him literally; but they did not do so, any more than when Christ said, I am the door, or I am the Good Shepherd.

Mat 26:27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Every one of you. Was this the Lords supper? Yes. What say the Romanists about it? Why, that the people may not drink the cup! Yet our Saviour says to his disciples, Drink ye all of it.

Mat 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

They had had sin brought to their minds; they had had a personal reminder of their own liability to sin; now they were to have a perpetual pledge of the pardon of sin, in the cup, which was the emblem of Christs blood, shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mat 26:29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.

Jesus took the Nazarite vow to drink no more, to partake no more of the fruit of the vine, till he should meet us again in his Fathers kingdom. He has pledged us once for all in that cup, and now he abstains until he meets us again. Thus he looks forward to a glorious meeting; but he bids us take the cup, and thus remember him until he come.

Mat 26:30. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

To his last great battle the Champion goes singing, attended by feeble followers, who could not protect him; but who could sing with him. I think he must have led the tune; his disciples were too sorrowful to sing until his clear voice started the Hallelujah Psalms; but they joined him in the holy exercise, for they as well as their Lord sang the hymn. When you are about to face a trial, offer a prayer; but, if you can, also sing a hymn. It will show great faith if, before you enter into the burning fiery furnace, you can sing psalms unto the Lord who redeemeth his people. Now let us read Pauls version of this same matter.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:26-30; 1Co 11:20-34

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Mat 26:26. , And as they were eating) As in Mat 26:21. Judas[1128] therefore was present;[1129] cf. the , … (all, etc.) in Mar 14:23, and , … (but, etc.) in Luk 22:21.-, taking) sc. in His hand. This implies the supreme dignity of the holy supper; cf. Joh 4:2.[1130]- , the bread) which was at hand.-, having blessed) In the next verse we find , having given thanks (corresponding to the Hebrew ). Each verb explains the other. He gave thanks to the Father, and at the same time blessed the bread and also the wine by the act of giving of thanks and by prayer; cf. Luk 9:16; Joh 6:11; 1Co 14:16-17.-, brake) after blessing it (post benedictionem): which is inconsistent with the notion of transubstantiation. For an accident, as the Romanists declare the bread to be after it has been blessed (post benedictionem, cannot be broken.- , and gave) Our Lord is not said Himself to have eaten and drunk on this occasion: since not for Himself was His body being given, nor His blood being shed.-, Take) Who could have taken (received) if the Lord had not instituted it? Cf. Joh 3:27.-, This) sc. in opposition to the shadows of the Old Dispensation; as much as to say, you have Me, My actual self; This, sc. which I command you to take: for it is immediately followed by My blood, which is of the New Testament-, Body, must be taken as literally as , blood. The separate distribution, however, of His body and blood represents the actual death[1131] of our Lord, in which His blood was drawn forth from His body. The benediction preceded and precedes the utterance of the words, This is My body. We readily allow that there is an allusion to the formula of the Jews, who, in celebrating the Passover, when asked by their children, What is this? replied, , This is the body of the Lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt.- , My body) understand here , which is given for you, words implied in Mat 26:28, and expressed in Luk 22:19.-The Evangelist describes the matter briefly, as being well known by the practice of those for whom he writes. The expression, This do in remembrance of Me (which is recorded by St Luke), is implied in Mat 26:29.

[1128] i.e. In Mat 26:21 it is said, AND AS THEY WERE EATING, He said, Verily, I say unto you that one of you (sc. of those who were then at table) shall betray Me. The repetition of the expression, And as they were eatiny, implies, in Bengels opinion, that the act was continuous, and that those spoken of in Mat 26:21, concerning whom it was said that one of them should betray our Lord, were all, including the traitor, still present.-(I. B.)

[1129] I will state, in a summary form, the arguments, independent of the one given above, on which this proposition which I maintain, rests:-

[1130] It is there said, JESUS Himself baptized NOT. It is here said, JESUS TOOK BREAD, etc.-(I. B.)

[1131] The memory of which ought to be perpetuated till His coming again.-B. G. V., Mat 26:29.

In the very moment of death Christ approached that state which is different from the life that He lived before His death and after His resurrection, and thenceforward for ever.-Harm., p. 510.

1. If Judas had departed before the singing of the hymn, he would have been doing the same as if one in the present day were to depart before the offering of the grace and prayers at the close of a banquet, and would have thereby the more disclosed his atrocious design.

2. During the continuance of our Lords supplications on the Mount of Olives, Judas had no lack of time sufficient for bringing the cohort to effect his purpose.

3. Luke, ch. Mat 22:21, immediately subjoins after the words of the Institution, these words, BUT, NEVERTHELESS (), behold the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table; and as this very complaint is placed before the Lords Supper by Matthew and Mark, these speeches [that as to Judas, and that in which the Institution took place] cannot be severed from one another.

4. To explain our Lords words (Luk 22:21) of the table, in the sense, the counting-board [of the chief priests] on which Judas hand was laid, with Jesus as the merchandize which he offered for sale, is out of place; for (1) It is not the seller that is said to be with the merchandize, but the merchandize with the seller [whereas Jesus says that Judas is with Him]; (2) Thirty pieces of silver was not so large a sum as to suggest the idea of a counting-board or banking-table; (3) The money had been already reckoned out to Judas, Mat 26:15; (4) The , Behold, Luk 22:21, implies, in fact, the presence of the traitor, as reclining at the same banqueting table with Jesus (comp. Luk 22:30; Luk 16:21), and dipping his hand in the dish.

5. The words , But, nevertheless, behold, being taken in their usual sense, are we to say that the traitor was driven away from the bread and the cup after these had been blessed? But Mark, after having made mention of the twelve, ch. Mat 14:17, immediately subjoins the statement, that they ALL drank of the cup, Mat 26:23, with which comp. Mat 26:27.

6. If you say, the traitor was known to John or even to Peter already, on the preceding day, how, then, is it that they, not till now, one by one, are represented as having said, Is it I? For, in fact, when John, in a covert way, made enquiry, it was in a secret manner that the traitor was disclosed to him: and as to his having informed Peter of the fact, it is easier to suspect than to affirm this. The remaining nine disciples did not even observe the nod of Peter [beckoning to John to ask the Lord]: therefore both the question of John and the reply of the Lord escaped their notice, Joh 13:28.

7. That the traitor should have been vouchsafed the washing of feet, is a circumstance almost as astonishing as his being admitted to the Lords Supper: nor does even the permission of the kiss, given for the purposes of treachery, move us to less astonishment. As to the rest, we are here treating only of a question of historical truth: nor is it our intention ever to uphold the cause of unfair adapters of facts to their own aims (perfidorum conomorum.)-Harm., p. 511, etc.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Mat 26:26-46

12. LORD’S SUPPER INSTITUTED;

PETER’S DENIAL FORETOLD;

GETHSEMANE

Mat 26:26-46

26-30 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread.-Parallel records are found in Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19-20; Joh 15:1-27; and 1Co 11:23-25. At the close of the meal or Passover, the final cup of wine, called the “cup of blessing,” was drunk. There were as many as “five cups” passed during the Passover Feast; the wine was kept in a large container and was passed around, and each filled his own cup with such portion as was desired; scriptures were recited and a pause made in the feast as the cups were replenished. Luke tells us that Jesus said, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” (Luk 22:15.) Jesus would leave his disciples with this most sacred memorial. He took bread, the bread and wine which were before him and which had been prepared for the Passover. He “blessed” it or gave thanks for it; some think that the word “blessed” means more than giving of thanks; that it signified a prayer for all the blessings which may properly be desired for the object which is blessed. Jesus blessed the loaves and fishes, which thereby became capable of the miraculous increase. (Mat 14:19; Mar 8:7; Luk 9:16.) After blessing and breaking it, he distributed it to his disciples; he gave to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” “This represents my body” was the meaning that Jesus gave to this bread. This was a common expression among the Jews. (Gen. 40:12; 41 26; Dan 7:23; Dan 8:21; 1Co 10:4; Gal 4:24.) Jesus did not mean that this bread was to be “transubstantiated,” that is, changed into his literal flesh. While his disciples were wondering what he meant, he took “a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” That is, let all of you drink of it. He then added, “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” He took of the “fruit of the vine” which was being used in the Passover Feast and give to it a new significance. As the bread represented his body, so the fruit of the vine represented his blood. The secret mystery of life was in the blood of animals and men. (Gen 9:4; Lev 7:26-27; Act 15:20.) Jesus here declares that his life was offered as the great means and way of salvation for men. His blood represents his life. (Joh 6:54-56; Col 1:20; Heb 9:12; Heb 9:14; Heb 9:22; 1Pe 1:2; 1Jn 1:7.) This blood was shed for the remission of sins; it was “poured out for many unto remission of sins.” This expression is similar to Act 2:38, “unto the remission of your sins.”

I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.-This is the last time that the Passover would be celebrated by his disciples with its old signification; after the death and resurrection of Jesus, an entirely new meaning would be given to the Passover; Jesus now has become the Passover for Christians. (1Co 5:7.) “The fruit of the vine” stands for the whole supper as used here; it is an example of the part used for the whole. “Until that day,” that is, not until after the resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit. We have no record that Jesus ate the Lord’s Supper with his disciples before his ascension. “In my Father’s kingdom” means the kingdom of God or the church which was established on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Jesus did not literally drink wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom of heaven. The term “drink” is used figuratively to express that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are eating the Lord’s Supper. “I drink it new” means a new method of using the wine. It is taken from its significance in the Passover Feast and given a new meaning in the Lord’s Supper. At the Passover the Jews were accustomed to chant the Psalms (112 to 119). It is probable that the Lord’s Supper was concluded with this portion of the Psalms as “they had sung a hymn” and afterwards “went out into the mount of Olives.” This was the place to which Jesus led his disciples and was about a quarter of a mile from the city. It is thought that it was about eight o’clock in the evening when the supper was concluded. Judas had left the company, and Jesus then, after the supper, continued his talk and his prayer with his disciples until much later that night.

31-35 All ye shall be offended in me this night.-Jesus now again warned his disciples, and Peter in particular, of the very near approach of the time of his betrayal. “All ye shall be offended in me this night”; it means that all will be ashamed to own me in the disgrace of the arrest and trial. Again Jesus quoted from one of the prophets and said, “I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” This quotation is from Zec 13:7; Jesus refers them to this prophecy to prevent them from despair at seeing him fall before his enemies. “I will smite” is an expression used to denote what God permitted to be done; he suffered evil and compels it to work out his purposes of good. He does not compel any man to sin, but when they do evil, he orders that evil to work out his own glory. (Psa 76:10.) He permitted the death of Christ in order to save the world. “The shepherd” is used of the Messiah very early in the scriptures. (Gen 49:24; Psa 23:1; Isa 40:11.) The word “sheep” is used to signify his disciples. “Shall be scattered” means that his disciples should flee in the darkness of night at his betrayal as sheep flee at the invasion of wild beasts and the loss of their shepherd; he means that his disciples will be as timid in their flight at his arrest as sheep are when the shepherd has been smitten.

But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.- In his deep distress and in the foreboding evils that await him, Jesus thinks tenderly of his disciples; he desires to comfort and console them; but how slow they are to believe him; they understood him not, though he had told them time and again of his death and resurrection. “I will go before you into Galilee”; Galilee had been the chief scene of his ministry among them, and there he would again appear to them afar from his enemies. (Mat 27:16; Mar 16:7.) Peter in his impetuosity said, “If all shall be offered in thee, I will never be offended.” Peter was not boasting; he thought he knew his own heart, but he did not; he meant to say that all the others might forsake him, but he would not. He thought that he would remain faithful unto the end. Very likely they had before them the example of Judas leaving his Master, and now Jesus declares that all of them would be offended in him that night; that is, the others would forsake him, but Peter boldly declares that it matters not what others may do, he would remain faithful to Jesus.

Jesus knew Peter’s heart and said, “Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” This was hardly four hours before Peter did deny his Lord; Peter’s natural courage was not the kind that he needed at this time. “Before the cock crow” means before a certain time that night; Mark and Luke add the word “twice”; Matthew omits it simply because the second was technically called “the cock crow.” The habit of this fowl is to crow at three periods of the night-at midnight, halfway between midnight and dawn, and an hour before the dawn of day. The crowing at three o’clock is properly called “the cock crow.” (Mar 13:35.) John means the same thing, that is, it shall not be the time for the cock to crow before Peter would deny his Lord. When the others saw and heard Peter’s bold declaration of fidelity to his Lord, they “likewise” declared themselves. Peter had said, “Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee.” None of them except John kept the promise; they were kept from the gross sin of Peter only by lacking the courage to follow Jesus afar off; John alone remained with him to the last, and heard his last words;and John alone of them all is thought to have died a “natural death”; tradition says that all the others suffered death for Christ. We are to think of Jesus as arising with his disciples about nine or ten o’clock in the evening from the Passover Feast and walking, followed by his accustomed disciples, with the exception of Judas, down to the gorge, and across the brook Kidron, until he came into a wood or grove called Gethsemane.

36-46 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane.-“Gethsemane” means the place of oil presses; it was a field or plot of ground surrounded by a wall, containing several olive trees, and probably some buildings. There is still at the foot of Mount of Olives a square enclosure, surrounded by an ordinary stone wall to mark the spot; no one knows definitely the exact spot. Luke tells us that Jesus was accustomed to retiring to this place for prayer; hence, Judas knew that he would find him in this enclosure at this hour. As they came to Gethsemane Jesus said to his disciples, that is, to eight of them. “Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray.” Probably he went into a more retired part of the garden in the shade of the olive trees; but he “took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee” further into the garden; and then he, leaving Peter, James and John there, went about a stone’s throw further into the garden and there prostrated himself in prayer. There are three scenes presented here; the first is the group of eight disciples near the entrance of the garden; the second, a group of three, Peter, James, and John, further in the garden; the third is Jesus still further in on his face in prayer. He is overwhelmed in sorrow “and sore troubled.” These words are a climax, the last being the more emphatic. He was sorrowful and baptized in mental anguish. Upon him God had put the sorrow and burden of all; he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, and the chastisement of our peace was upon him. (Isaiah 53.) The sea of human sin and woe was then surging about his soul and he said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful.” His mind and spirit were filled with intense grief; it bore on him inwardly and from the spiritual world, not so much from the fears of danger at things in this scene of suffering.

And he went forward a little, and fell on his face.-In this prostrate and agonized position he prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” “This cup” has reference to his sorrow; it was likened to a cup filled with horribly bitter and poison potion. His sorrow as “evil unto death”; not sorrowful in anticipation of death, but a sorrow pressed so heavily upon him that it would drown and quench the spark of life, but for the divine aid impregnating and strengthening his humanity. He came to do his Father’s will; even in his prayer it is the Father’s will that must be done , even in his death God’s will is to be done. In the face of the sufferings and under the shadow of the cross, he is perfectly resigned to the Father’s will. He prayed this prayer three times. Each time that he prayed he went to his disciples for human sympathy and encouragement, but he found them sleeping each time. With a kind rebuke he said to Peter, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour?” Luke adds that he found them asleep “for sorrow.” They had been with him all the day and now it was late at night and sleep had overcome them; again some think that after deep sorrow and grief, sleep comes upon one and it is exceedingly difficult to stay awake. Jesus knew the weakness of the flesh and said, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” No one knew better the weakness of the flesh than did Jesus. How kind was this reproof, how gentle and self-forgetting this excuse for them, and how profound a warning of his words, “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.”

Again a second time he went away, and prayed.-This time he prayed that if the cup could not pass away “except I drink it, thy will be done.” He came again to his disciples and found them sleeping. Again he went away “and prayed a third time, saying again the same words.” It is estimated that he spent about one hour in the solitude of prayer in the garden; and he had actually no witnesses but the celestial guards who came to strengthen him after his moments of agony. The writers of the gospel describe in brief terms his sufferings and agony in Gethsemane; they show us only the outline of his sufferings. His humanity quailed beneath the suffering and he sought strength in earnest prayer. Luke tells us that “his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.” This was a degree of mental anguish of which we may speak in words, but can only form a feeble conception. The last time that he came to his disciples and found them sleeping he said, “Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me.” It was no longer possible for his disciples to be of any service to him; the hour for watching and praying had passed; the enemy was at hand. “The hour is at hand,” that is, the hour for the betrayal was at hand; it was the hour so often predicted. (Joh 2:4; Joh 12:23.) An hour was used for any short space of time. The Son of man “is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” He is now ready, to give himself into the hands of wicked men such as Judas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and others.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

a Self-confident Disciple Warned

Mat 26:26-35

The Passover looked back to the dread hour of the Exodus; the Supper links Calvary with the Second Advent. In partaking of it we should not confine ourselves to either retrospect or anticipation, but should endeavor to feed our souls with the very spirit and heart of our dear Lord, so as to absorb His divine strength, sweetness and love. We need to feed on His flesh and drink of His blood after a mystical fashion, so that He may become the Life of our life. The word new is not the same as in Mat 9:17, but contrasts, with the present order of things, something entirely different. The former things will have passed away-such was our Lords anticipation!

The new covenant is further explained in Heb 8:1-13. It is good to recite its provisions when we sit at the Table. It is as though God and the believer drink of the cup in pledge of that blessed understanding between them. See how our Shepherd eagerly warns one of the sheep that was dear to Him and for which He had pleaded often, Luk 22:31.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

The Mass Versus The Lord’s Supper

By Dr. Harry Ironside

The Pastor learned late in the previous week of the possibility of holding a great Protestant Rally in the Moody Church, with Mr.H.A.Ironside as speaker, on the Sunday following the Eucharistic Congress held in Chicago. The time was much too short for extensive advertising, but through announcement in the Saturday papers, and the co-operation of a large number of city ministers, many of whom were present at the Rally, the effort became known to a great many. Pastor John O’Hair and Pastor James Gray, very kindly mentioned the meeting to their radio audiences. The former presided at the Rally. More than 3,500 people attended.

It is possible, as I speak to you to-day, that I may use the word “Catholic” as opposed to “Protestant.” If I do, it is simply a slip of the tongue, for I maintain that every true Protestant is a real Catholic, that every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a member of the one Holy Catholic Church, purchased by the precious blood of the Son of God. But I distinguish between a Catholic and a Romanist. When I was speaking, on one occasion, to a Roman Catholic priest whom I met in a train in California, he asked me what my profession was and I said, “I am a Catholic priest.”

He looked at my collar and said, “You are surely jesting with me.”

I said, “No, I never was more serious in my life. I am a priest in the Holy Catholic Church. I mean that I am a member of that holy and royal priesthood composed of all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and together forming the Holy Catholic Church.” So if I use the word “Catholic” when I mean “Romanist” you will understand me.

I am not here to say anything unkind against the Roman church. As my friend, Brother O’Hair, has reminded you, our Government guarantees to every man the right to full liberty of conscience in regard to religious privileges. As we wish to enjoy that liberty ourselves, we are glad to accord it to others. But I simply desire to examine some of the teachings of the Church of Rome and compare them with the teaching of the Word of God, particularly on the great central doctrine of that church, which is called the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, or the Sacrament of the Mass.

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

Every Roman Catholic priest will tell you that all the claims of the Church of Rome stand or fall with the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Mass. If the bread and wine used in the Sacrament of the Mass, when consecrated by the priest, are changed in some mysterious way into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ so that the communicant receiving the bread actually takes into his mouth and eats and digests the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ-if this is true, then the Church of Rome is the true church of Christ and every one of us should be members of it. But if it is false, if it is absolutely opposed to the teaching of the Word of God, then the Church of Rome is an apostate church and every faithful believer should come out of her in order that he might not be held accountable for her sins.

It was because the great reformers of the sixteenth century saw this clearly and were assured in their own hearts that the doctrine of the Church of Rome in regard to the Eucharist or the Mass was absolutely opposed to the Word of God and was not only blasphemous but idolatrous, that they came out in protest against that apostate system and they won for us at tremendous cost of Christian blood the liberty that we now possess. And yet we, unworthy children of such worthy sires, are frittering away our liberty and we are allowing our children to be ensnared again by this evil system from which our fathers escaped with such tremendous effort.

BASIC TRUTH

I want to call your attention first of all to a passage in the 10th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews which may not seem at first sight to have any reference to the subject in question, but I think we shall see that it not only has reference to it but presents the basic truth in regard to it. The 10th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, beginning with verse 11:

“And every priest (the Apostle is referring to the Levitical priesthood) standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man (that is, the Lord Jesus Christ who as to the mystery of His person is both God and man in one blessed, glorious person never to be divided), after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God: from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that He had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

Now here is the crucial text that I want you to get:

“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”

CHRISTS FINISHED WORK

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the apostolic writer contrasts the ritual system of the Old Testament dispensation with the glorious work achieved by Jesus Christ when He offered Himself on Calvary’s cross for our redemption. He draws our attention to the fact that under the old economy the priest’s work was never done because the sin question was never settled. No sacrifice had been found that was of sufficient value to atone for the sins of the world and so whenever men sinned afresh they had to come with a new sacrifice. One offering followed another constantly, therefore there was not even provision made for the priest to sit down in the tabernacle or in the temple of the Lord. The priest’s work was never done for sin was never put away. But he goes on to say that in those sacrifices there was an acknowledgment again made of sin from year to year. That is, the worshiper under the Old Testament dispensation came to God in faith, confessing his sin, and brought his animal sacrifice, whether a bullock from the herd, a sheep from the flock, or two birds. He confessed his sin and these sacrifices were offered for him. They did not cancel his guilt. They did not cleanse his heart. They were rather in the nature of a note that a man gives to his creditor for a debt. A man is owing a certain sum of money. He makes out a note for that sum. He is unable to pay when it is due, so he makes out another note, and in those notes there is an acknowledgment again made of the debt from year to year. So in the sacrifices of old there was simply an acknowledgment of sin made year after year. Sometimes when a man must give a note for a debt he has a wealthy friend who is good enough to endorse that note for him. By endorsing that note his friend says, “If you are not able to pay when the note becomes due, I pledge myself to pay for you.”

THE SIN QUESTION SETTLED

When these people of old gave their notes to God by bringing their sacrifices again and again, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son still ex-carnate, endorsed every note and He said,

“Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God.”

In the fulness of time He came, made of a woman, made under the law, and He went to Calvary’s cross and there, may I say, gathered up and settled for all those notes of the past, and undertook the full responsibility for every believer to the end of time and offered Himself a sacrifice for the sins of men. By that one all-sufficient offering of Himself upon the cross, He has settled the sin question to God’s satisfaction so that now God can be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.

The sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ had both a backward and a forward aspect. It put away all the sins of the past that had only been covered by the blood of the sacrifices and made ample provision to put away all the sins of the future for every one who would believe on Him. The means by which needy sinners avail themselves of an interest in the finished work of Christ is very simple. The sinner has to take his place before God as a lost. guilty man, owning his iniquity and putting his trust in the Man who died on the cross; for

“By Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by Moses’ law.”

In this New Testament economy Christ is the only sacrificing priest. He is the one all-sufficient victim. Christ having made atonement for sins, rose from the dead and God has manifested His righteous satisfaction in the work of the cross by seating Him in heaven at His own right hand.

A FEAST OF LOVE

Our Lord Jesus before He went away, foreseeing all this, gave to His disciples that feast of love which we commonly call “The Lord’s Supper.” In the Lord’s Supper this mystery of redemption is wonderfully and beautifully pictured. I want to read to you the various scriptures in the New Testament that refer to it. I am going to read each passage that speaks of this feast of love in order that you, hearing them, may compare them in your own mind with the celebration — the idolatrous celebration — which you have either seen or of which you have been reading during recent days, and I ask you to put the questions to yourself: Is there anything here that is remotely connected with this ceremony that myriads have been so occupied with during this past week? Is there in this a sin offering? Is there a sacrificing priest? Is there any provision here for incense, any provision for worshipping the Virgin Mary, any provision for a great hierarchy with their brilliant garments? I read the other day that $200,000.00 worth of priestly garments were ruined by the rain during the celebration at Mundelein. You could put all the apostles, and the 500 who saw the Lord after His resurrection, and all the Christians in the early days, out in the rain and hail and they would not ruin $10.00 worth of priestly vestments! Is there anything that compares with the ceremony that has been enacted in this city and its environs in the last few days and which is supposed to be the continuation of that of which our Lord speaks here?

In the 26th chapter of Matthew-our Lord had just eaten the Passover with His disciples — we read, beginning at verse 26:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is My body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. And when they had sung an hymn they went out into the mount of Olives.”

How beautiful in its simplicity is this first celebration of the Lord Supper! How different to this mysterious ceremony which is the very center of the Roman Catholic system!

OTHER VERSIONS

Now turn to the Gospel of Mark and get his account of the same Supper. See if there is anything which Matthew left out which he has inserted which might give some ground, some basis, for the doctrines that have gathered round the so-called Sacrament of the Mass. St.Mar 14:22:

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

And as they did eat. I would draw your attention to that. Every Roman Catholic is instructed to take the Sacrament of the Mass fasting. Have you read that after they did eat, Jesus took bread. They were just concluding the Passover meal. And Jesus took bread. Mark you, not some special cake marked with the mystic letters I.H.S. which are supposed to mean Iesus Hominum Salvator, but that might just as wall mean the Egyptian deities Isis, Horus, Seb, as they did ages ago in a similar ceremony.

Now I turn you to the account given by our brother Luke, Doctor Luke, the beloved physician. Lukes Gospel 22:19:

And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

PAUL SPEAKS

The Apostle John does not give us any account of the institution of the Lords Supper, but after Christs ascension and after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus when he became the Apostle Paul, a special revelation was given to him, and in the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians we get the full account of it. Read from verse 20:

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord (the risen, ascended, glorified Lord) that which also I delivered unto yen, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed (the night in which He was to know experimentally the untrustworthiness of the human heart) 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 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 show the Lord’s death till He come.”

Observe how this feast links together the two great facts of Christianity, the death of Christ and His second coming. The Lord’s Supper is taken in remembrance of One who died, but as we take it we look forward and wait for His coming again.

TILL HE COME

A friend of mine, giving some lectures at a church not long ago, spoke of the second coming of the Lord and the pastor came up to him after the service and said, “I am sorry that you touched that subject. We don’t believe here in the second coming of Christ.”

“Oh, you don’t?”

“No.”

“What is that table that you have down there in front of the pulpit?”

“That is the Lord’s Table.”

“What do you do with it?”

“We use it when we take the Lord’s Supper.”

“What do you take the Lord’s Supper for?”

“Because the Word of God tell us to.”

“How long are you going to take it?”

“As long as we are here, I suppose.”

“What does the Bible say?”

“I don’t know what you mean.”

” ‘As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.’ If you don’t believe He is coming again you’d better cut that out. It is a witness that the Christ who died is coming again. He says, While you are waiting for Me, do this in remembrance of Me.”

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shah be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

Then in the 10th chapter of the same Epistle we read in verse 16:

“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?” Verse 21: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”

THE TEACHING IS CLEAR

I have read all these passages because they give you every verse in the New Testament that definitely refers to the Lord’s Supper. You can see just what they teach. Our blessed Lord was going out to die and before He left His disciples He gave them this memorial feast. There is a striking passage in the book of the prophet Jeremiah in which he is predicting dire judgments coming upon Israel and he says that so many people will die that there will be none left to break bread for them (that is the marginal reading), nor to give them the cup of consolation. It evidently referred to an old custom that when somebody died loving friends gathered together with those who were left and they sat down and ate and drank in memory of the loved one, probably talked of his virtues and tried to comfort his loved ones.

Now our Lord Jesus Christ has come to the end of His thirty-three wonderful years here upon earth. He is about to go out to die. He came for that purpose. He said, “The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Now He has His little company of disciples gathered about Him. They have kept the Pascal feast, the last Passover that God ever recognized. Actually, they kept the Passover and Christ died on the same day, because the Jewish day began in the evening and went on until the next evening. So the Lord ate the Passover with His disciples on the first evening and before the next evening — between the two evenings — He died on the cross, Christ, our Passover, sacrificed for us.

A MEMORIAL FEAST

Our Lord, with all this before Him, takes a piece of bread — just common bread, the bread they were using at the Passover — probably unleavened bread, although there is no scripture that definitely indicates that it must be that. I don’t find that the Word of God has been careful to legislate whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened, whether the wine should be fermented or unfermented. I think we may see the wisdom of God in it, for there are circumstances under which, if there were such a rule, many of God’s children could not partake. But He took bread and held that bread in His hand and said to the disciples, “This is my body which is given for you,” Observe: There He sat at the table. He is not indicating that any change takes place in the bread. He is there in His perfectly human body and He holds this bread in His hand and He says, “This is my body.” Surely any one must be blind who cannot see what He is telling them is this: This bread, I want you to understand, is to bring before you the truth that my body is to be sacrificed for sin. He had not yet been sacrificed and yet He speaks as though it had already taken place. “This do in remembrance of Me.” And He passes the bread around to them. There is no mysterious priesthood; there are no costly vestments; there are no candles burning in a ceremonial manner; no smoking incense ascending. They have partaken of one meal and then He gives them this beautiful memorial feast. He does not even appoint a clergyman to preside there. He addresses them as brethren and He saps, “This do in remembrance of Me.”

SIMPLE AND BEAUTIFUL

I think, my brethren, the simpler we can be in our thoughts of the Lord’s Supper the better. I read some time ago of a Hindu who was living in a village when a missionary came for the first time and they said to him, “Come. You must see So-and-So.”

The missionary went to this man’s house. When he saw a white man coming with a Bible he rose to greet him and bowed at his feet. The missionary said, “Stand up. I am just a man like yourself.”

“Oh,” said the Hindu, “you have come with the Book. I have waited for it for twenty years.”

“How is that?”

“Well, twenty years ago I took a long journey. I heard a man in the market place (he looked like you) read from a book. He told the story of the Great God of Love who sent His Son to die for sinners. I bought a book.” He produced a copy of Matthew’s Gospel all worn so that hardly a leaf was whole. “I took it home. I have eaten that book. I have read it over and over. I have read it to all the people in the village. I have been praying that God would send somebody to tell me more.”

He asked him to eat with him. Now the host was a little embarrassed. He had a bowl of rice and he turned to the other man and said, “Before we eat, I always do as Jesus said.”

The missionary did not understand. But he said, “Go ahead. Don’t let me interfere.”

The Hindu closed his eyes, thanked God that Christ had died for him, and then he said, “I eat this rice because the body of my Lord Jesus was nailed on the cross for me.” Then he took the common drink of the land and said, “I drink of this because my Lord Jesus died for me,” and he gave some to the missionary, as he had given the rice, and they ate and drank together.

The missionary said, “How long have you been doing this?”

“For twenty years.”

“And how often!”

“Every time I eat a meal.”

He saw nothing in the Book that would tell him how often. So I repeat, the simpler we can be the better. It is a memorial– that is all.

WHAT DOES “EUCHARIST” MEAN?

You ask, Do you not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Some may not know the meaning of the term Eucharist. It is “thanksgiving.” Oh yes, dear friends, every instructed Christian believes in the real presence in the Eucharist, but He does not believe that the bread ceases to be anything but bread and he does not believe that the wine ceases to be anything but wine. He does not believe in a strange, mysterious transformation of cereal bread and of wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. But he believes this: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name (as Jesus said) there am I in the midst.” Some of the sweetest moments of my life have been spent at the Table of the Lord, communing with the Blessed One who of old said, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” and faith’s eye could discern Him there standing in the midst, showing His wounds and spreading His hands.

A Roman Catholic layman in St.Louis who does much to put Protestants to shame because of his zeal in advertising his religion, recently put out an advertisement like this: “Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; Protestants believe in the real absence.” But that is false. Protestants do not believe that the bread and wine undergo any mystic change, but they do believe that as you eat and drink in remembrance of Christ, Christ is present in His sweet and wonderful way, manifesting Himself to the hearts of His beloved people so that by faith they are enabled to feed upon Him. We feed upon Him in remembrance. We look back and think of the sorrows He bore. We contemplate His cross and bitter passion, and as we do, we eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, and as we feast on Christ we find our love for those things for which Christ died upon the cross becoming less, and our love for those blessed things into which He would lead us through the new and living way, through the veil into the holiest, becoming greater, for we become like that upon which we feed.

NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN CHRISTIANS

In this feast Christ gives the bread and then He gives the wine. He did not separate believers into a clergy and a laity and say to the clergy, “The wine is for you: the bread is simply for the laity.” There is no such distinction made in the Bible. For two centuries and a half after Christ’s gospel began to be preached in this world you will search reputable church history in vain to find such a distinction. There were officials in the church; there were elders and there were deacons; elders who had a special oversight, but no such distinction as the dividing of Christians into the laity and the clergy, the clergy having special access to God and special authority in dispensing divine mysteries. This was unknown in the early days of Christianity, and in those early days the Lord’s Supper was observed in simplicity. We have distinct records of it.

If you care to look it up you will find that the Younger Pliny, when Governor of Bythinia, wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking what offense the Christians had committed for which they should be exterminated. He said in substance, “I have been trying to get all the information I could regarding them. I have even hired spies to profess to be Christians and become baptized in order that they might get into the Christian services without suspicion. Contrary to what I had supposed, I find that the Christians meet at dead of night or at early morn, that they sing a hymn to Christ as God, that they read from their own sacred writings and partake of a very simple meal consisting of bread and wine and water (the water added to the wine to dilute it in order that there might be enough for all). This is all that I can find out, except that they exhort each other to be subject to the Government, and pray for all men.”

Pliny could not understand why they should be persecuted. He knew nothing of a gorgeous altar, of a sacrificing priest, nothing of a special cake upon the altar which the faithful were to fall down and worship as the Incarnate God, but his spies found Christians partaking together of a very simple meal of bread and wine and water.

Justin Martyr, who wrote about the same time, gives us a very clear account of the way in which the Lord’s Supper was observed. He knew of no priesthood, no altar, no mystic change. He certainly knew of no prayers to the Virgin Mary. He knew nothing of ascending incense or anything of the kind, but he describes just such an observance of the Lord’s Supper as you would find in any evangelical company of Christians to-day. He speaks of one of the elders presiding, of the people singing together, of giving thanks for the bread and wine, of distributing these elements among the faithful and sending portions to any who were not present because of illness-beautiful in its simplicity, as is the account given in the gospel.

WHEN THE CHANCE OCCURRED

But you go down through the Christian era a few centuries and you find everything is changed. You enter a Christian church. The Lord’s table is conspicuous by its absence. Instead of a table you have an altar. An altar in a Christian church! The altar belonged to Judaism. But the altar is typical of Christ Himself whose glorious person sanctifies the offering He gives, and second, it typifies the cross upon which He was uplifted. The Christian’s altar is the cross of Christ, but in these churches of the centuries after Constantine we find an altar again and, serving there, is a priest with special vestments, not such as were used by the Jewish priesthood, but vestments which were identical with those worn by the priests of Babylon centuries before. What had brought about the change? Simply this: As long as Christianity was persecuted, as long as the Christian company was under the ban of the Roman Government, simplicity and reality prevailed. But the day came when the state become the patron of Christianity and an effort was made to unite the ancient heathen religion and the Roman Empire with the new Christianity. The result was that little by little pagan forms and ceremonies were brought in and displaced the early Christian forms which were so simple, so beautiful and so scriptural. The altar was not even taken from Judaism, for no such altar as the altars of Judaism was ever found in so-called Christian churches.

HEATHENISM

A few years ago I had a company of Indian youths in Oakland, California, that I was educating. I was teaching these young men church history, and one day, to give them a practical lesson, I took them to San Francisco through three Chinese temples and then I took them through two Roman Catholic churches. After our visits I said to these youths, “Now tell me what you saw in each place,” And they wrote it all out. They said, “In each building we found holy water at the door. Each building had an altar. Each building had priests in costly vestments bowing below the altar. Each building had candles and incense. In each building a bell rang when the worshipers were to kneel down.” The Romanist and pagan temples were practically alike.

Any one who familiarizes himself with the history of the ancient heathen cults can see where all these forms and ceremonies came in that are now linked up with what is called the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The identical customs were practised by Babylonish priests over 500 years before Christ. There was in the Babylon temples and on the altars an image of a woman with a child in her arms. This woman was said to be the Queen of Heaven. Her child was called the Seed, which was evidently Satan’s imitation of the truth involved in the words, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” To this woman was sacrificed a bloodless offering consisting of round moon-shaped cakes, and these being presented to her were put upon the altar and the faithful bowed down in reverence before them.

In the 44th chapter of Jeremiah the people had read of the same cult transferred to Palestine and observed afterwards among the dispersed Jews in Egypt:

“Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger.”

In the 44th chapter of Jeremiah the people had turned from their idolatry, but they declare that they are going back to it. In verse 15 we read:

“Then all the men which knew that their wives had burnt incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee: but we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.”

COMPROMISE

This ancient custom of offering these round cakes was taken up by the apostate church. They said,

“The best way is to get all the different religions into one and we can take this heathen rite and turn it into a Christian ceremony. This round cake we will call the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.” That is what is called the host. It must be absolutely round. It is taken into the church and the priest blesses it. If it has a piece broken off of it, anybody can eat it; it is just bread.

The Roman Catholic church will tell you that this is taught by our Lord when He said, “This is my body which is given for you.” But as He said that He was there with them. No part of it was broken for them. He handed them this bread and they partook of it, clearly giving us to understand that the bread was God’s wonderful way of illustrating the value of feeding upon Christ. We feed upon bread and we get physical strength. We feed upon Christ and we get spiritual strength.

But now they tell us that the bread is changed when the priest blesses it. We charge that to fall down and worship that piece of bread is an act of idolatry. The Roman Catholic church says that bread is actually Christ. We say, “Do you mean us to understand that – that bread is literally the body of Christ, literally the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ?”

“No, not literally, but mystically it becomes such.”

It is a well-know fact that Roman priests have been poisoned at the altar drinking wine that had been blessed and was supposed to be turned into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, when some enemy had poured poison into it. It has been known that the host has been poisoned. They understand that no such change as they declare, actually takes place. But they say that at the moment of consecration Christ comes and enters it.

Here is a man making images. You say, “Are these images actually gods?”

“No, not yet.”

“When will they become gods?”

“When the priest takes them and blesses them and consecrates them to the deity they represent. Then the deity will come and dwell within them so that when the worshiper bows down he is not worshipping the image but the soul of the divinity that dwells within.”

BLASPHEMY AGAINST CHRISTS SACRIFICE

Is there any difference between that and the Romish doctrine? None whatever. The bread was bread until the priest blessed it, and then in some mystical way Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity became identified with it. Worship in the New Testament is only given to God the Father and God the Son in the energy of the Holy Ghost. Then the Roman church tells us that this host is a continual unbloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. Christ died once on the cross, but Christ is offered daily upon the altars of the Roman church. This, we maintain, is a denial of the all-sufficiency of the one offering of our Lord Jesus Christ. As long as sacrifice had not been found that could put away sin, it was necessary for one offering to follow another, but when Christ came into the world and offered Himself without spot unto God, then the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, thus signifying that the way into the holies is made manifest and every believer is entitled to enter into the very presence of God, washed from every sin and justified from all things through the infinite value of the atoning work of the Son of God. Now, to talk of any man on earth offering a continual sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead is not only blasphemy against the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, but if is absolute nonsense, for the Word of God says, “Without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins.” It is worthless because being bloodless it has no value to atone for sin and because it isn’t needed to atone for sin for Jesus’ atonement has already been made.

PROTESTANTS NEED REVIVAL

Therefore, I say, there is a tremendous chasm between the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass and the Bible doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial feast. Christians, members of the body of Christ, come together to remember the One who died for them and who put away their sins, and do this because their sins have been put away. No instructed Christian would approach the Lord’s Table to get forgiveness. I come because my sins have been forever put away by the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus and I desire gratefully to remember the One who offered that mighty sacrifice and so fitted me for the presence of a holy God.

There can be no compromise between the two systems. While Protestant churches have been sleeping Rome has been stealing the fruits of the Reformation. While they have been quarreling about the most trifling things Rome has been getting a great many week Protestants who have looked in vain for spiritual help because they have not been hearing the precious gospel of the grace of God.

But let there be a revival of doctrinal preaching; of the proclamation of the great truths of the Reformation; of the universal priesthood of all believers, doing away with anything like a special priesthood; of the membership in the body of Christ of all who have been washed in the blood of Jesus, justified from all things, by faith in the one offering that has forever settled the sin question; of the Lord’s Supper not as a sacrament but a memorial feast. Let these great truths be re-emphasized and wherever the Word is preached in faith and dependence upon the Holy Ghost God will use it to bring joy and peace and gladness to souls as in Reformation days.

LUTHER LIT THE TORCH

Let me just remind you of Luther. When he was still a monk of the Augustinian order he went to Rome to transact business for his Order. He was delighted to go. A restless, unhappy man, having tried everything the church had to offer and yet without peace with God, he said, “If I go to Rome, the holy city, I will find all I want.” So he went, earnestly counting on meeting God. Giving his testimony afterwards he says, “Rome living would have made me an infidel, but Rome dead kept me a Christian.”

When he arrived there and saw the simony of the priests and the corruption of the church his soul was filled with horror. He said, “In Rome they sell everything for money, forgiveness, the right to commit sin– everything. In Rome they would sell the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost!”

Then at last, as he wended his way through the city, he came to the church of St.John Lateran and he learned that in it there was supposed to be the very staircase down which Christ walked from Pilate’s judgment hall. It was said that if one would go up that staircase on his hands and knees he would get great spiritual blessing by the time he reached the top. So earnest was this German monk that he was ready to do anything that might give peace, and he started up that staircase, until suddenly in the midst of it all a passage of scripture came rushing down into the depths of his soul: “The just shall live by faith.”

He sprang to his feet and said, “What a fool I am. If ‘the just shall live by faith’ what am I doing climbing this staircase?”

He went back to Germany to light that torch which for hundreds of years has been the light of all our Protestant lands and which it is Rome’s persistent and determined effort to put out if it possibly can. Rome wants religious liberty and we gladly accord the liberty we want ourselves, but let Rome become supreme again in this country or any other Protestant country and we will no longer have an open Bible, or a public school, or any of the institutions that we have learned to value. God wake us up that we may not leave to our posterity a land of bondage out of which God mercifully delivered our forefathers.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

Chapter 79

The First Communion Service

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

(Mat 26:26-35)

By Gods purpose and by his providence, the Jewish passover of the Old Testament melted into the Lords Supper as the stars of the night dissolve into the light of the rising morning sun. The ordinance could not have been established with greater simplicity. There was absolutely nothing of ceremonial pageantry about it.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body (Mat 26:26). With those simple, unpretentious words, our Master established the blessed ordinance of the Lords Supper. He knew all that was before him. He knew what he must suffer. He knew what would happen with his disciples. He knew the turmoil that was coming. Wisely and graciously, he chose this last quiet evening before his crucifixion to bestow this parting gift to his church. How precious the memory of this night must have been to those disciples every time they met around the table afterward! Yet, the misunderstanding and abuse of this blessed ordinance has been the cause of strife, controversy and division, and of much heresy throughout church history. How sad! If there is anything that ought to unite all who profess faith in Christ, the Lords Supper is it; but sinful men have so perverted the teachings of Christ regarding this ordinance that it has become a opportunity for controversy to many, rather than an ordinance of communion.

Let every saved sinner seek grace to observe this blessed ordinance as it was originally established. Indeed, if we would worship God in the observance of this ordinance, or in the observance of any other, it must be observed as it was established by our Lord.

The Elements

It is needful for us to understand the meaning of the elements our Lord used to give us the ordinance of the Lords Supper. Our Savior simply took the unleavened bread and wine of the passover supper and incorporated them into the elements to be used in the Lords Supper. He said, concerning the bread, this is my body, and concerning the wine, this is my blood. We need to understand the meaning of those words.

Error concerning the meaning of our Lords words can lead and has lead men to serious, deplorable idolatry and superstition. Papists tell us that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. In the mass the priest pronounces his mumbo-jumbo, waves his hands, and pretends to magically transform the bread and wine into Christs body and blood. Thus, the mass becomes, in the idolaters minds, a sacrifice, a recrucifixion of Christ to make atonement for sin!

Luther taught that the bread and wine were mystically and spiritually transformed into the body and blood of Christ, so that the elements themselves became holy and conveyed grace to the communicants. Many today have a view similar to Luthers. They attach a pagan, idolatrous meaning to the bread and wine of the Lords Table. I have friends who used to bury any bread and wine that was left over after communion. They had been taught that once it was consecrated, it could never be used again. Others make the ordinance (Christs established symbol of his finished work) to be a sacrament (a means by which grace is conveyed to the soul).

Without question, the meaning of our Lords words is this: This bread represents my body. This wine represents my blood. There is absolutely no indication that he meant any more than that. Frequently, in the Scriptures something is said to be what it merely represents simply because there was no term in the Hebrew language to express symbolism. Though the New Testament was written in Greek, it retains the idiom of the Hebrew. Words like signify, denote, portray, typify, or represent are not found in the Old Testament. Here are some examples of things being said to be what they, obviously, only represent.

Gen 40:12 The three branches are (represent) three days.

Gen 41:26 The seven kine are (represent) seven years.

Dan 7:24 The ten horns are (represent) ten kings.

Mat 13:18 The field is (represents) the world.

Rev 1:20 The seven stars are (represent) the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are (represent) the seven churches.

The Bible is full of expressions similar to these, which we would never think of taking in a literal sense. Good sense demands that they be interpreted allegorically. Our Savior is called the Lamb of God, the Door of the sheep, the Lion of Judah, and the Vine. No one would ever think of saying that he is literally those things! And no one, whose mind has not been perverted by religious nonsense, would ever imagine that the bread and wine of the Lords Supper are anything but representatives of our Redeemers body and his blood. All you have to do is taste the bread to know that it is bread, not flesh! All you have to do is drink the wine to know that it is wine, not blood!

The unleavened bread represents the holy human body of our Savior. We dare not use soda crackers or light bread. Our Lord used unleavened bread for a reason. Leaven represents sin; and our Savior had no sin. Therefore, he used unleavened bread to represent his body.

The wine represents his precious, sin-atoning blood. Many today have found excuses for using grape juice, kool-aid, and other things in the celebration of the Lords Supper. But no excuse will justify such perverse behavior in the house of God. Wine is used because, like the unleavened bread, it is free of corruption, and thus a proper representation of our Saviors blood. In Mat 26:28 our Lord tells us four things about his blood.

1.He says it is my blood (Act 20:8), the blood of that man who is God: infinitely meritorious blood, sin-atoning, precious blood.

2.This is the blood of the new testament, the everlasting, new covenant (Heb 13:20).

3.His blood was shed for many. It was not shed for all, but for many; the many who are the objects of his mercy, love, and grace; the many who are redeemed and saved by it.

4.His blood was shed for the remission of sins. There was no other way by which God could, in his holiness, justice, and truth, forgive the sins of his people. Only by the shedding of Christs blood can he be both a just God and a Savior, both just and the Justifier (Isa 45:20; Rom 3:24-28).

When we come together around the Lords Table, we should take great care to focus our attention on the incarnation, life, and death of Christ as our Substitute. That is what is represented to us by the unleavened bread and wine.

The Purpose

When he established the Lords Supper as a standing ordinance of divine worship, our Savior plainly stated the purpose of the ordinance. The Holy Spirit tells us in 1Co 11:24 that he said, This do in remembrance of me. The Lords Supper was established by Christ to be a memorial of him and his great sacrifice of love for us, by which he redeemed his elect, no more and no less.

Immense harm has been done by those who have taught Gods people that this is a mysterious, complex thing. The fact is, as I have already shown you, it could not have been established with greater simplicity.

The Lords Supper is not a sacrifice. Not a word is mentioned anywhere in connection with the establishment or the observance of this ordinance about a sacrifice. No mention is made of priests or altars. The fact is, once Christ was offered as a sacrifice for our sins, all sacrifices, all altars, and all priests ceased to be (Heb 10:14). We have no sacrifice but Christ. We have no altar but Christ. We have no priest but Christ. If you have any other altar, priest, or sacrifice, you do not have and cannot partake of Christ (Heb 13:10).

The Lords Supper is not a sacrament. Those who speak of the ordinances of Christ as sacraments are in error, very grave error. The bread and wine are not sacred. The table is not sacred. And the act of eating and drinking the bread and wine is not sacred. I mean by that that grace is not conferred upon us by our observance of the Lords Supper. It is not a means by which God conveys his grace to sinners. Gods grace is conveyed to us through Christ alone and by faith alone. The word sacrament implies a means of grace. By definition, a sacrament is a solemn religious ceremony enjoined by Christ, to be observed by his followers, by which their special relation to him is created, or their obligations to him are renewed and ratified. A sacrament is a piece of Roman Catholic idolatry retained by Protestant churches who yet imagine that the grace of God can be obtained by ceremonies, rituals, and works.

The Lords Supper is a symbolic memorial ordinance of public worship. It is not an ordinance to be observed privately, but publicly. It is an ordinance for redeemed sinners, for believers, for men and women who are born again by the power and grace of God the Holy Spirit. By our public observance of this ordinance, eating the bread and drinking the wine, we openly declare to all that we are sinners in need of Christ alone as our sin-atoning Savior, looking to him alone for salvation and eternal life, trusting him just as we did in our baptism when we were symbolically buried with him in the watery grave and arose with him to walk in the newness of life.

The Lords Supper is a solemn, but joyful ordinance of worship. At the end of the Supper, our Lord and his disciples sang a hymn. Every remembrance of our redemption accomplished by Christ should fill us with joy. John Trapp suggested that we ought to leave the Lords Table with shouting as a giant after his wine, singing and making melody to the Lord in our hearts. We should come from the Lords table, as Moses did from the mount, with our faces shining; as the good women did from the sepulchre, with fear and great joy; as the people went to their tents from Solomons feast, joyful and glad of heart (1Ki 8:66). If those in the wilderness were so cheered and cherished by their idolatrous feast before the golden calf that they eat and drink, and rise up to play (1Co 10:7), how much more should we by this blessed banquet?

Those Present

This passage also shows us the character of those who were present with our Savior at the first observance of the Lords Supper. Let me state emphatically that we do not and must not make the celebration of the Lords Supper a community or family service. It is not, never has been, and must never be something to which unbelievers are invited, or something they are encouraged to participate in. Anyone who does not trust the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior, as his justice satisfying Substitute before God, is disqualified from both baptism (Act 8:36-37) and the Lords Supper (1Co 11:27-29). Unbelievers are unworthy of the Lords ordinances because they do not discern (or understand the necessity of) the Lords body. However, it is not up to the pastor, the elders, the deacons, or the church to decide who shall and who shall not partake of the Lords Supper. The burden of examination and responsibility is upon the individual. Each one must examine himself (1Co 11:28). This becomes obvious when we see who first observed this blessed ordinance with our Savior.

They all professed to be believers and followers of Christ. While the Scriptures do not allow for closed communion, or even restricted communion, the Word of God does not allow anyone to forbid communion to those who profess faith in Christ; it is restricted to those who profess to be the disciples of our Lord.

Though all professed to be believers, one of them was a devil; and the Lord knew it (Mat 26:21-23; Luk 22:14). The Lord Jesus knew what Judas had done. Yet, he did not refuse him a place at the table. The reason appears obvious to me. He would give no precedent for the practice of fencing the table, which gained prominence by the legality of puritan theology.

We must never attempt to set barriers around the table to keep anyone away. The Holy Spirit makes it crystal clear that it is the responsibility of the person who eats the bread and drinks the wine to examine himself, to be certain that he or she is a believer, one who discerns the Lords body, warning all that those who eat and drink unworthily, without faith in Christ, eat and drink damnation to themselves (1Co 11:27-30). You, and you alone can determine whether you are in the faith. If you profess faith in Christ, it is the responsibility of Gods people to look upon your profession as genuine and to receive you without doubtful disputations, without suspicion (Rom 14:1). Our Lord knew that Judas was a devil, and that he was at that time looking for an opportunity to betray him. Yet, when he passed out the bread and wine, he gave it to Judas as well as to Peter, James, and John, because Judas professed to be one of his.

One of the disciples would, in a matter of hours, curse and deny the Master. Though our Lord knew that soon Peter would experience a terrible fall, yet he spread the bread and wine before him. And he knew that all the disciples who sat with him at this first communion service would soon forsake him in weakness, fear, and unbelief. Not one child of God was for any reason exempted from the Lords Supper. God never sends his erring children to bed without supper. He evens allows a devil to sit at the table, rather than encourage anyone to prevent any of his children from receiving this blessed ordinance. Let no child of God look upon the Lords Supper as an unnecessary thing. Let no believer imagine that he is unworthy to receive this ordinance. Our worthiness is Christ. He who is unfit for the ordinance of Christ is unfit for the company of Christ.

Let us never be more strict in the ordinances of Christ than Christ himself.

Immutable Grace

In Mat 26:31-35 our dear Redeemer, knowing that his disciples would soon need to be reminded of it, declares the blessed immutability of his saving grace. He assures us that because of his one great sacrifice for sin, God will never charge his people with sin (Rom 4:8). As was prophesied by Zechariah (Zec 13:7), when the Shepherd was smitten by the rod of divine justice, the sheep would all be scattered. So it came to pass.

Though everyone of them were confident that they would never be offended by him and would never forsake him, and publicly announced their confidence to one another and to the Savior, they were all offended by their Savior. They all forsook him. How deceitful are our hearts!

But Zechariahs prophecy included something more. The Lord declared, Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellowSmite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. That much of the prophecy we often quote and hear quoted. But Gods word by Zechariah continues. The first part of Zec 13:7 announced the death of Christ as our sin-atoning Substitute, the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep. Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellowSmite the Shepherd! The next line announced the weakness, sin and unbelief of the smitten Shepherds poor, depraved sheep. And the sheep shall be scattered. But the last line of Zec 13:7 gives a blessed word of grace, assuring us of the immutability of Gods grace to us in Christ, though we are but weak, sinful, straying sheep. And I will turn mine hand upon the little ones!

Those precious, sweet words of grace were in the heart and mind of our blessed Savior as he anticipated the shameful, sinful behavior of his beloved disciples. In Mat 26:32 he assures them, and us, that his grace is unaltered even by our sin. He says, I will turn mine hand upon the little ones! After I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. Though they knew it not, the Lord Jesus was saying to his people, I will go before you in grace to recover you, wherever you may in your weakness and sin stray from me (See Mar 16:7; Joh 21:15-19). If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself (2Ti 2:13). Blessed is the man to whom God will not impute sin (Rom 4:8). That which we celebrate in the Lords Supper is absolute, perfect, immutable salvation by the grace of God in Christ, our crucified Redeemer, by whom our sins have been put away forever!

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

as: Mar 14:22, Luk 22:19

Jesus: Luk 24:30, 1Co 11:23-25

blessed it: “Many Greek copies have gave thanks.” Mar 6:41

and brake: Act 2:46, Act 20:7, 1Co 10:16, 1Co 10:17

Take: Joh 6:33-35, Joh 6:47-58, 1Co 11:26-29

this: Eze 5:4, Eze 5:5, Luk 22:20, 1Co 10:4, 1Co 10:16, Gal 4:24, Gal 4:25

Reciprocal: Gen 9:12 – General Gen 14:18 – bread Gen 40:12 – The three Gen 47:7 – And Jacob Exo 12:8 – eat the 1Sa 9:13 – he doth bless Pro 9:5 – General Son 1:2 – thy love Son 1:12 – sitteth Eze 31:18 – This is Eze 45:22 – the prince Mat 14:19 – he blessed Mat 15:36 – and gave thanks Mar 8:6 – gave thanks Joh 6:53 – eat Rom 7:4 – the body 1Jo 5:8 – the spirit

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6:26

Blessed is from EULOGEO and Thayer defines it in this passage, “To praise, celebrate with praises.” We should understand, therefore, that it does not mean to bestow some miraculous quality upon the bread. The conclusion is strengthened by the giving of thanks for the cup, and we know that the cup is as important as the bread. If the bread required some miraculous quality to be given to it to produce the desired effect on the communicants, then surely the cup would have also required something more than the simple act of thanksgiving. Brake is from KLAO which is defined by Thayer, “To break,” and he then adds the comment, “used in the New Testament of the breaking of bread.” He also cites Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36, and other places where we know it refers to the act of dividing a loaf so that more than one person could properly partake of it. Thus we see the word has no religious significance, but states what is a physical necessity in order that the communicants could eat of it which is the only religious phase about the handling of the bread. This is my body. The Ro-manists insist that this statement must be taken literally and not to be understood in the sense of the bread as only a representation of his body. That reasoning would make nonsense of the other passages where the language is just as direct. For instance, in 1Co 10:4 where Paul is speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness and of their drinking of a rock, he says “that rock was Christ.” The record of that event is in Exo 17:6 where Moses literally smote a literal rock and thus provided drinking water for the congregation. We know that rock was only a piece of material, so that the statement of Paul means it was a type or representation of Christ who furnishes water of spiritual life. On the same principle, the bread represents the body of Christ because his body had to be given to provide spiritual food for mankind.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it; and brake it; and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

[Jesus took bread, etc.] Bread at supper, the cup after supper: “After supper he took the cup,” saith Luk 22:20; and Paul, 1Co 11:25; but not so of the bread.

That we may more clearly perceive the history of this supper in the evangelists, it may not be amiss to transcribe the rubric of the paschal supper, with what brevity we can, out of the Talmudists; that we may compare the things here related with the custom of the nation.

I. The paschal supper began with a cup of wine: “They mingle the first cup for him. The school of Shammai saith, He gives thanks, first for the day, and then for the wine: but the school of Hillel saith, He first gives thanks for the wine, and then for the day.” The Shammeans confirm their opinion, Because the day is the cause of their having wine; that is, as the Gloss explains it, that they have it before meat. “They first mingle a cup for every one, and [the master of the family] blesseth it; ‘Blessed be he that created the fruit of the vine’: and then he repeats the consecration of the day, [that is, he gives thanks in the plural number for all the company, saying, ‘Let us give thanks,’] and drinks up the cup. And afterward he blesseth concerning the washing of hands, and washeth.” Compare this cup with that, Luk 22:17.

II. Then the bitter herbs are set on: “They bring in a table ready covered, upon which there is sour sauce and other herbs.” Let the Glossers give the interpretation: “They do not set the table till after the consecration of the day: and upon the table they set lettuce. After he hath blessed over the wine, they set herbs, and he eats lettuce dipped, but not in the sour sauce; for that is not yet brought: and this is not meant simply of lettuce, unless when there be other herbs.” His meaning is this, before he comes to those bitter herbs which he eats after the unleavened bread, when he also gives thanks for the eating of the bitter herbs, “as it is written,” Ye shall eat (it) with unleavened bread and bitter herbs: “First unleavened bread, and then bitter herbs. And this first dipping is used only for that reason, that children may observe and inquire; for it is unusual for men to eat herbs before meat.”

III. “Afterward there is set on unleavened bread, and the sauce…and the lamb, and the flesh also of the Chagigah of the fourteenth day.” Maimonides doth not take notice of any interposition between the setting on the bitter herbs, and the setting on the unleavened bread: but the Talmudic Misna notes it in these words; They set unleavened bread before him. Where the Gloss, “This is said, because they have moved the table from before him who performed the duty of the Passover: now that removal of the table was for this end, that the son might ask the father, and the father answered him, ‘Let them bring the table again, that we may make the second dipping’; then the son would ask, ‘Why do we dip twice?’ Therefore they bring back the table with unleavened bread upon it, and bitter herbs,” etc.

IV. He begins, and blesseth, “‘Blessed be He that created the fruits of the earth’: and he takes the herbs and dips them in the sauce Charoseth; and eats as much as an olive, he, and all that lie down with him; but less than the quantity of an olive he must not eat: then they remove the table from before the master of the family.” Whether this removal of the table be the same with the former is not much worth our inquiry.

V. “Now they mingle the second cup for him; and the son asks the father; or if the son doth not ask him, he tells him himself, how much this night differs from all other nights. ‘On other nights (saith he) we dip but once, but this night twice. On other nights we eat either leavened or unleavened bread; on this, only unleavened, etc. On other nights we eat either sitting or lying; on this, all lying.’ ”

VI. “The table is set before them again; and then he saith, ‘This is the passover, which we therefore eat, because God passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt.’ Then he lifts up the bitter herbs in his hand and saith, ‘We therefore eat these bitter herbs, because the Egyptians made the lives of our fathers bitter in Egypt.’ He takes up the unleavened bread in his hand, and saith, ‘We eat this unleavened bread, because our fathers had not time to sprinkle their meal to be leavened before God revealed himself and redeemed them. We ought therefore to praise, celebrate, honour, magnify, etc. Him, who wrought all these wonderful things for our fathers and for us, and brought us out of bondage into liberty, out of sorrow into joy, out of darkness into great light; let us therefore say, Hallelujah: Praise the Lord, praise him, O ye servants of the Lord, etc. to; And the flint-stone into foundations of waters’ [that is, from the beginning of Psalms_113 to the end of Psalms_114]. And he concludes, ‘Blessed be thou, O Lord God, our King eternal, redeeming us, and redeeming our fathers out of Egypt, and bringing us to this night; that we may eat unleavened bread and bitter herbs’: and then he drinks off the second cup.”

VII. “Then washing his hands, and taking two loaves, he breaks one, and lays the broken upon the whole one, and blesseth it; ‘Blessed be he who causeth bread to grow out of the earth’: and putting some bread and bitter herbs together, he dips them in the sauce Charoseth; — and blessing, ‘Blessed be thou, O Lord God, our eternal King, he who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to eat,’ he eats the unleavened bread and bitter herbs together; but if he eats the unleavened bread and bitter herbs by themselves, he gives thanks severally for each. And afterward, giving thanks after the same manner over the flesh of the Chagigah of the fourteenth day, he eats also of it, and in like manner giving thanks over the lamb, he eats of it.”

VIII. “From thenceforward he lengthens out the supper, eating this or that as he hath a mind, and last of all he eats of the flesh of the passover, at least as much as an olive; but after this he tastes not at all of any food.” Thus far Maimonides in the place quoted, as also the Talmudists in several places in the last chapter in the tract Pesachin.

And now was the time when Christ, taking bread, instituted the eucharist: but whether was it after the eating of those farewell morsels; as I may call them, of the lamb, or instead of them? It seems to be in their stead, because it is said by our evangelist and Mark, As they were eating, Jesus took bread. Now, without doubt, they speak according to the known and common custom of that supper, that they might be understood by their own people. But all Jews know well enough, that after the eating of those morsels of the lamb it cannot be said, As they were eating; for the eating was ended with those morsels. It seems therefore more likely that Christ, when they were now ready to take those morsels, changed the custom, and gave about morsels of bread in their stead, and instituted the sacrament. Some are of opinion, that it was the custom to taste the unleavened bread last of all, and to close up the supper with it; of which opinion, I confess, I also sometimes was. And it is so much the more easy to fall into this opinion, because there is such a thing mentioned in some of the rubrics about the passover; and with good reason, because they took up this custom after the destruction of the Temple.

[Blessed and brake it.] First he blessed, then he brake it. Thus it always used to be done, except in the paschal bread. One of the two loaves was first divided into two parts, or, perhaps, into more, before it was blessed. One of them is divided; they are the words of Maimonides, who also adds, “But why doth he not bless both the loaves after the same manner as in other feasts? Because this is called the bread of poverty. Now poor people deal in morsels, and here likewise are morsels.”

Let not him that is to break the bread, break it before Amen be pronounced from the mouths of the answerers.

[This is my body.] These words, being applied to the Passover now newly eaten, will be more clear: “This now is my body, in that sense, in which the paschal lamb hath been my body hitherto.” And in the twenty-eighth verse, “This is my blood of the new testament, in the same sense, as the blood of bulls and goats hath been my blood under the Old.” Exodus_24, Hebrews_9.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

THESE verses describe the appointment of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Our Lord knew well the things that were before Him, and graciously chose the last quiet evening that he could have before his crucifixion, as an occasion for bestowing a parting gift on his church. How precious must this ordinance have afterwards appeared to His disciples, when they remembered the events of that night. How mournful is the thought, that no ordinance has led to such fierce controversy, and been so grievously misunderstood, as the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. It ought to have united the church, but our sins have made it a cause of division. The thing which should have been for our welfare, has been too often made an occasion of falling.

The first thing that demands our notice in these verses, is the right meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.”

It is needless to say, that this question has divided the visible church of Christ. It has caused volumes of controversial theology to be written. But we must not shrink from having decided opinions upon it, because theologians have disputed and differed. Unsoundness on this point has given rise to many deplorable superstitions.

The plain meaning of our Lord’s words appears to be this,-“This bread represents my body. This wine represents my blood.” He did not mean that the bread He gave to His disciples was really and literally His body. He did not mean that the wine He gave to His disciples was really and literally His blood. Let us lay firm hold on this interpretation. It may be supported by several grave reasons. [Footnote: “Bishop Law has remarked that there is no term in the Hebrew language, which expresses to signify or denote; and that the Greek here naturally takes the impress of the Hebrew or Syriac idiom, it is being used for it signifies. Hence the similar use of the verb in various passages; “The three branches are three days.” Gen 40:12. “The seven kine are seven years.” Gen 41:26. “The ten horns are ten kings.” Dan 7:24. “The field is the world.” Mat 13:38. “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” Rev 1:20.” Watson on Matthew. p. 386.]

The conduct of the disciples at the Lord’s Supper forbids us to believe that the bread they received was Christ’s body, and the wine they received was Christ’s blood. They were all Jews, taught from their infancy to believe that it was sinful to eat flesh with the blood. (Deu 12:23-25.) Yet there is nothing in the narrative to show that they were startled by our Lord’s words. They evidently perceived no change in the bread and wine.

Our own senses at the present day forbid us to believe that there is any change in the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Our own taste tells us that they are really and literally what they appear to be. Things above our reason the Bible requires us to believe. But we are never bid to believe that which contradicts our senses.

The true doctrine about our Lord’s human nature forbids us to believe that the bread in the Lord’s Supper can be His body, or the wine His blood. The natural body of Christ cannot be at one time in more places than one.-If our Lord’s body could sit at table, and at the same time be eaten by the disciples, it is perfectly clear that it was not a human body like our own. But this we must never allow for one moment. It is the glory of Christianity that our Redeemer is perfect man as well as perfect God.

Finally, the genius of the language in which our Lord spoke at the Lord’s Supper, makes it entirely unnecessary to interpret His words literally. The Bible is full of expressions of a similar kind, to which no one thinks of giving any but a figurative meaning. Our Lord speaks of Himself as the “door” and the “vine,” and we know that He is using emblems and figures, when He so speaks. There is therefore no inconsistency in supposing that He used figurative language when He appointed the Lord’s Supper; and we have the more right to say so, when we remember the grave objections which stand in the way of a literal view of His words.

Let us lay up these things in our minds, and not forget them. In a day of abounding heresy, it is good to be well armed. Ignorant and confused views of the meaning of Scripture language, are one great cause of religious error.

The second thing which demands our notice in these verses, is the purpose and object for which the Lord’s Supper was appointed.

This is a subject again on which great darkness prevails. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper has been regarded as something mysterious and past understanding. Immense harm has been done to Christianity by the vague and high-flown language, in which many writers have indulged in treating of the sacrament. There is certainly nothing to warrant such language in the account of its original institution. The more simple our views of its purpose, the more Scriptural they are likely to be.

The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice. There is no oblation in it,-no offering up of anything but our prayers, praises, and thanksgivings. From the day that Jesus died there needed no more offering for sin. By one offering He perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Heb 10:14.) Priests, altars, and sacrifices, all ceased to be necessary, when the Lamb of God offered up Himself. Their office came to an end. Their work was done.

The Lord’s Supper has no power to confer benefit on those who come to it, if they do not come to it with faith. The mere formal act of eating the bread and drinking the wine is utterly unprofitable, unless it is done with a right heart. It is eminently an ordinance for the living soul, not for the dead,-for the converted, not for the unconverted.

The Lord’s Supper was ordained for a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ’s death, until He comes again. The benefits it confers, are spiritual, not physical. Its effects must be looked for in our inward man. It was intended to remind us, by the visible, tangible emblems of bread and wine, that the offering of Christ’s body and blood for us on the cross, is the only atonement for sin, and the life of a believer’s soul. It was meant to help our poor weak faith to closer fellowship with our crucified Saviour, and to assist us in spiritually feeding on Christ’s body and blood. It is an ordinance for redeemed sinners, and not for unfallen angels. By receiving it we publicly declare our sense of guilt, and need of a Saviour,-our trust in Jesus, and our love to Him,-our desire to live upon Him, and our hope to live with Him. Using it in this spirit, we shall find our repentance deepened, our faith increased, our hope brightened, and our love enlarged,-our besetting sins weakened, and our graces strengthened. It will draw us nearer to Christ.

Let us bear these things in mind. They need to be remembered in these latter days. There is nothing in our religion which we are so ready to pervert and misunderstand as those parts which approach our senses. Whatever we can touch with our hand, and see with our eyes, we are apt to exalt into an idol, or to expect good from it as a mere charm. Let us specially beware of this tendency in the matter of the Lord’s Supper. Above all, “let us take heed,” in the words of the Homily, “lest of the memory it be made a sacrifice.”

The last thing which deserves a brief notice in this passage, is the character of the first communicants. It is a point full of comfort and instruction.

The little company to which the bread and wine were first administered by our Lord, was composed of the apostles, whom He had chosen to accompany Him during His earthly ministry. They were poor and unlearned men, who loved Christ, but were weak alike in faith and knowledge. They knew but little of the full meaning of their Master’s sayings and doings. They knew but little of the frailty of their own hearts. They thought they were ready to die with Jesus, and yet that very night they all forsook Him and fled. All this our Lord knew perfectly well. The state of their hearts was not hid from Him. And yet He did not keep back from them the Lord’s Supper.

There is something very teaching in this circumstance. It shows us plainly that we must not make great knowledge, and great strength of grace, an indispensable qualification for communicants. A man may know but little, and be no better than a child in spiritual strength, but he is not on that account to be excluded from the Lord’s table.-Does he really feel his sins? Does he really love Christ? Does he really desire to serve Him? If this be so, we ought to encourage and receive him. Doubtless we must do all we can to exclude unworthy communicants. No graceless person ought to come to the Lord’s Supper. But we must take heed that we do not reject those whom Christ has not rejected. There is no wisdom in being more strict than our Lord and His apostles.

Let us leave the passage with serious self-inquiry as to our own conduct with respect to the Lord’s Supper. Do we turn away from it, when it is administered? If so, how can we justify our conduct?-It will not do to say it is not a necessary ordinance. To say so is to pour contempt on Christ Himself, and declare that we do not obey Him.-It will not do to say that we feel unworthy to come to the Lord’s table. To say so is to declare that we are unfit to die, and unprepared to meet God. These are solemn considerations. All non-communicants should ponder them well.

Are we in the habit of coming to the Lord’s table? If so, in what frame of mind do we come? Do we draw near intelligently, humbly, and with faith? Do we understand what we are about? Do we really feel our sinfulness and need of Christ? Do we really desire to live a Christian life, as well as profess the Christian faith? Happy is that soul who can give a satisfactory answer to these questions. Let him go forward, and persevere.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Mat 26:26. As they were eating. During the paschal feast, hence this was probably not the usual breaking of the Passover cakes.

Took bread. The unleavened cakes, used on these occasions, easily broken.

And blessed. As was the custom. Luke and Paul say: gave thanks, which is the same thing. The word Eucharist (thanksgiving ) is a common name of the Lords Supper, as a feast of thanksgiving. Our Lord probably did not Himself partake.

Take, eat; this is my body. (See note above.)

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Immediately after the celebration of the passover, follows the institution of the Lord’s supper.

In which observe, 1. The Author of this new sacrament, Jesus took bread.

Note thence, That to institute a sacrament is Christ’s sole prerogative; it is the church’s duty to celebrate the sacraments, but she has power to make none. This belongs only to Christ.

Observe, 2. The time of the institution, the night before his passion. The night before he was betrayed, Jesus took bread.

Learn thence, That it is very necessary, when sufferings are approaching, to have recourse to the table of the Lord, which affords both an antidote against fear, and is restorative to faith.

Observe here, 3. The sacramental elements, bread and wine: bread representing his body; and wine his blood.

Observe, 4. The ministerial actions, the breaking of the bread, and the blessing of the cup. As to the bread, Jesus took it; that is, set it apart from common use, and separated it for holy ends and purposes. He blessed it; that is, prayed for a blessing upon it; and brake it, thereby shadowing forth his body broken upon the cross. And he gave it to is disciples, saying, “This broken bread signifies my body suddenly to be broken upon the cross for your redemption and salvation; do this in remembrance of me, and of my death.”

Thus the Scriptures constantly speak in sacramental matters. So circumcision is called the covenant, and the lamb the passover. In like manner, here, the bread is called Christ’s body, because instituted to represent to all future ages his body broken.

Moreover, how could the disciples think they had eaten Christ’s body, when they saw his body whole before them? And besides, to eat human flesh, and drink blood, was not only against the express letter of the law, but abhorred by all mankind. True it is, that the heathens laid it to the Christians’ charge, that they ate human flesh; but falsely, as it appears by the apology made for the primitive Christians; which apology had been false, had they daily eaten the flesh of Christ in sacrament. The very heathens owned it a thing more detestable than death to eat human flesh, and more to eat the God they worship, and to devour him whom they adore.

Again, as to the cup; Christ having set it apart by prayer and thanksgiving, he commands his disciples to drink all of it; and subjoins a reasons for it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for the remission of sins; that is, the wine in this cup represents the shedding of my blood, by which the new covenant betwixt God and man was ratified and confirmed.

Whence we learn, That every communicant has as undoubted a right to the cup as to the bread, in the Lord’s supper; Drink ye all of it, says Christ; therefore to deny the cup to the laity is contrary to the institution of Christ. After the celebration was over, our Saviour and his disciples sang an hymn, as the Jews were wont to do at the passover the six eucharistical psalms, from the 113th to the 119th psalm.

Learn hence, How fit it is that God be glorified in his church, by singing of psalms, and in particular, when the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is celebrated. When they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 26:26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread The bread, or cake, which the master of the family used to divide among them, after they had eaten the passover. This custom our Lord now transferred to a nobler use. This bread is, that is, signifies or represents, my body, according to the style of the sacred writers. Thus Gen 40:12, The three branches are three days. Thus Gal 4:24, St. Paul, speaking of Sarah and Hagar, says, These are the two covenants. Thus in the grand type of our Lord, Exo 12:11, God says of the paschal lamb, This is the Lords passover. Now Christ, substituting the holy communion for the passover, follows the style of the Old Testament, and uses the same expressions the Jews were wont to use in celebrating the passover. When I consider, says Dr. Doddridge, that, on the same foundation on which the Papists argue for transubstantiation from these words, they might prove from Eze 5:1-5, that the prophets hair was the city of Jerusalem; from Joh 10:9; Joh 15:1, that Christ was literally a door and a vine; from Mat 26:27-28, and 1Co 11:25, that the cup was his blood, and that Christ commanded his disciples to drink and swallow the cup; I cannot but be astonished at the inference they would deduce from hence. Had Irenus or Epiphanius reported such a thing of any sect of ancient heretics, now extinct, one would have been so candid to human nature as to suppose the historian misinformed. As it is, one is almost tempted to suspect it to be the effect of arrogance rather than error; and to consider it as a mere insolent attempt to show the world, in the strongest instance they could invent, what monstrous things the clergy should dare to say, which the wretched laity should not dare to contradict; nay, which they should be forced to pretend they believed. In this view the thought is admirable, and worthy the most malicious wit that ever lorded it over the heritage of God. But it may deserve some serious reflection, whether it be not an instance of infatuation to which God has given them up, that it may be a plain mark to all, that will use common sense, of the grossest error in a church which claims infallibility; and may not be intended by Providence as a kind of antidote against the rest of its poison.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

CXX.

THE LORD’S SUPPER INSTITUTED.

(Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.)

aMATT. XXVI. 26-29; bMARK XIV. 22-25; cLUKE XXII. 19, 20; fI. COR. XI. 23-26.

a26 And as they were eating, fthe Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, {bblessed,} fhe brake it, aand he [657] gave to the disciples, and said, bTake ye: aTake, eat; this is my body. fwhich is cgiven ffor you: this do in remembrance of me. [As only unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, that kind of bread must have been used by our Lord, and it is fitting that it should still be used by us in keeping the Lord’s Supper, not only for propriety’s sake, but because that bread which is emblematic of purity is most suitable to represent the body of the sinless Christ. The Catholics and some few others take our Lord’s words literally when he says, “This is my body.” On this they found the doctrine of transubstantiation, i. e., that the bread and the wine become literal body and blood when blessed by the priest. There are many weighty arguments against such a doctrine, but the main one for it is found in the words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the Jer 31:31-34. It was the practice of Eastern [658] peoples to use blood in making any pact or covenant ( Exo 24:6-8). Christ represents himself as the victim from whence the blood was to be taken to ratify or seal the new covenant, and he makes the cup the symbol of that blood. A full discussion of the old and new covenants will be found in the Book of Hebrews. We may, however, sum them up by saying that the old covenant promised the land of Canaan and Christ in the flesh to the Israelites, while the new covenant promises heaven and Christ in glory to the Christian], bwhich is poured out for many. [It is explicitly stated elsewhere that Christ died for all ( Heb 2:9, 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15), and the word “many” is used, not to contradict, but to emphasize the fact. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.] aunto remission of sins. ceven that which is poured out for you. [The prime object of Christ’s death is here declared. It was to accomplish the forgiveness of sins. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which it secures are consequent upon this– Joh 1:29, Eph 5:2, Heb 7:27, 1Jo 2:2, 1Jo 4:10, Isa 53:10, Rom 8:2, 1Co 15:3.] fthis do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [The word “remembrance” comes as a refrain after both the loaf and the cup. The central purpose of the supper is to bring the sacrifice of Christ and all its blessed results vividly to mind.] 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come. [This verse is a comment of Paul’s upon the nature of the supper. In keeping the Lord’s Supper we proclaim to our own souls and to the world our trust in the death of Christ, and our hope that he will return and fulfill the expectations begotten in us by it.] a29 But b25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink {ashall not drink henceforth} bof the {athis} fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in bthe kingdom of [659] God. amy Father’s kingdom. band they all drank of it. [In speaking of this future drinking of the fruit of the vine Jesus does not mean literal wine, for he does not drink literal wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term “drink,” therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord’s Supper. The term new is most naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, we think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just described.]

[FFG 657-660]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

THE LORDS SUPPER

Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19-20; 1Co 11:23-25; Mat 26:26-29. And while they were eating, Jesus taking bread and blessing it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, This is My body; i. e., our Lords body in symbol, there being no argument here either for the Romish transubstantiation or the Lutheran consubstantiation. Joseph said, in the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaohs chief baker and chief butler, The three vines are three days, The three baskets are three days, simply signifying that they represent three days. And taking the cup, and blessing it, He gave to them, saying, Drink you all from this; for this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins. And I say unto you, that I shall no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I may drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father. Here you see that the Eucharist, on this occasion instituted by our Lord, was prospective as well as retrospective, looking forward to our Lords return in His glorious kingdom, when it will actually be celebrated through all the millennial centuries down to the end of time, our glorified Lord being here with us. Hence you see the deep and thrilling interest of this institution, which our Savior established at this memorable epoch, the very night of His betrayal and arrest; not only retrospecting the tragical scene of Calvary, when He gave His body and His blood a vicarious offering to redeem the whole world, and sustain the spiritual life of the saints by faith drinking His blood i. e., appropriating perpetually its cleansing and sanctifying efficacy, and feeding on His body each fleeting moment and by faith apprehending and appropriating the wonderful promises of the resurrection, translation, transfiguration, and assimilation of our mortal bodies to His glorious body; but sweeping on beyond His second advent into the happy centuries of the glorious Millennial Theocracy, when our Lord will again abide with His saints on the earth, enveloping the globe with the glory of His kingdom, Satan having been ejected and imprisoned, and will, as He here says, again celebrate this wonderful Eucharist with His disciples, this memorial institution running on down to the end of time. Now, you must not confound the Passover meal, which they all ate while Judas was with them, with the Eucharist, which our Lord instituted after the supper, Judas having gone away and joined His enemies, the former being the closing out of the memorable Passover, which they had celebrated fifteen hundred years, now normally evanescing, as all the emblematic lambs are verified in the great Antitype the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world; the latter being a new institution, vividly commemorative of bloody Calvary, and equally and lucidly pointing down to our Lords glorious return to this world, when, as He here says, He will again join with His saints in the celebration of this institution, a perpetual and vivid reminder of the stupendous redemption of the whole human race.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 26:26-29. The Bread and the Wine (Mar 14:22-25*: Luk 22:17-20 has a different arrangement).Mt. is practically identical with Mk., but adds (Mat 26:28) that the blood of the covenant which is shed for many is unto remission of sins (cf. Mar 10:45, Heb 9:22), and that when Jesus drinks the new wine in His Fathers Kingdom (Mt. kingdom of heaven, Lk. kingdom of God) it will be with the disciples.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

This is My Body. From hence it is plain that the Eucharist is not the figure of the Body of Christ, as the Innovators perversely say, but the true and proper Body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified on Calvary, as the Church has believed in all ages, and defined in many Councils. This I have shown on 1Co 11:24. There Paul, in the same words, repeats and relates the institution of the Eucharist. We must add, that some have been torn away from this faith, because they are not able to comprehend how the Body of Christ, so lofty and so great, can be contained whole in (sub) a very little host. But these persons ought to remember that God is Almighty; and that as He constituted nature, so also He often works, as He wills, contrary to nature, in a supernatural manner, that He may show Himself to be the Lord and God of nature and of all things. Wherefore, whatsoever there is peculiar in nature may be inverted and altogether changed (everti). Consequently, God is able to effect that a great quantity may be contained in a little space, yea, in a point. This is the theological reason. But in order to give full satisfaction to some weak minds, I will subjoin two evidential arguments for this mystery to show that it is possible-arguments which derive their force from analogy. Take, therefore, the following demonstration, drawn from a physical analogy-from the eye and a mirror. For both a looking-glass and a small eye receive into themselves the whole quantity of the very greatest things, not only men, but houses, temples, trees, mountains, &c., and clearly reproduce and represent them whole. Why then should not a small host, by God’s power, set forth (exhibeat) whole Christ? You will say that in the eye and in the mirror what takes place is done in a spiritual manner, by means of optical or visual appearances. I reply, in like manner the Body of Christ in the Eucharist assumes a spiritual mode of existence, so that, as a spirit, it should be spiritually in the very small portion of the host. Let us add this, that the objective appearances themselves are not spiritual in such a sense as that they are not really natural and physical, yes, corporeal, entities. For they are inseparable from corporeal entities, such as the atmosphere. And of these things we see that very many, and as it were an infinite number, are received and comprehended in a mirror and in the eye. If all this constantly takes place in a natural manner, with respect to the appearances received by the eye, much more can the omnipotence of God do the same thing supernaturally in respect to the Body of Christ, miraculously in the Eucharist.

(Here follows in the original what the Author calls an analogical mathematical demonstration. This is omitted, both because it would involve the printing of two intricate mathematical diagrams, as also because such a species of argument seems less likely to convince now than it did when Lapide wrote.)

You may add here a third proof drawn from condensation and rarefaction, which I have brought forward on 1Co 11:25. Water in a vessel, made dense by means of cold, occupies only half of the vessel, but when it is made hot and rarefied by means of fire, it bubbles up and fills the whole vessel. And yet the water continues the same as regards matter, volume (molem), and, as many celebrated philosophers are of opinion, as regards intrinsic bulk; for nothing is added to the water by rarefaction except extension in space. If, then, this takes place according to natural laws, why should God be unable to do the same thing supernaturally, as respects the body of Christ?

Luke adds (Luk 22:19), This is My Body which is given for you, i.e., which is about to be given. S. Paul (1Cor 11:24-25) has, which shall be delivered (Vulg.); Gr. , broken.

Luke also adds, This do ye for a commemoration of Me. By these words Christ gave to the Apostles, and to the Priests who were to be ordained by them, power, as well as commandments, to consecrate and transubstantiate bread into His Body, and wine into His Blood. Wherefore by these words Christ constituted and ordained His Apostles Priests and Bishops, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. 22, cap. 1). For by these words He commanded His Apostles, as Bishops, to ordain Priests to celebrate as well the Sacrament as the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, continuously and perpetually throughout all ages. And this He did both for the perpetual praise and worship of God, and also for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, that they might, by this means, ask and obtain of God every grace for the Church. And this is the doctrine and faith of the whole Church. This do, therefore, is as though He said, “Do what I do, i.e., consecrate, sacrifice, transubstantiate bread and wine, and eat them, as I have consecrated, sacrificed, transubstantiated, eaten the same. Moreover, also, ordain Priests and Bishops, who, by a perpetual succession, may do the same, even unto the end of the world.”

For a commemoration of Me. “That, namely, by the consecration and receiving of the Eucharist, ye may commemorate, and, as S. Paul says (1Cor 11:26), may announce (Vulg.), My death.” For consecrating Priests are here bidden not only to remember the Death of Christ, but to recall the same to memory with Christian people, that they may be always mindful of so great a benefit, and of Christ’s great condescension and redemption, and thankful for it, and so by it ask and obtain all grace from God.

Ver. 27. And taking the chalice, &c. Bellarmine (lib. iv. de Eucharist. c. 27) is of opinion that Christ did not consecrate the chalice immediately after the consecration of the bread, but that many actions and words of His intervened. He endeavours to prove this from the fact that S. Matthew says, whilst they were at supper; but Luke and Paul say concerning the chalice, likewise also the cup after supper.

But it is far more probable that Christ, after the consecration of the bread, proceeded immediately with the consecration of the chalice. For Matthew, Mark, and Luke so relate. Moreover, the rationale of the Sacrament and the Eucharistic Sacrifice so required that there should not be any division or interruption, but that the whole matter should be accomplished at one and the same time. And we know that to the rationale of the Sacrifice pertains the consecration of the wine as well as the bread. For Christ instituted this Sacrifice after the manner of a feast, for which wine is required for drink, as well as bread for food. Thus likewise in the Old Testament, in the sacrifice of the mincha, that is, of fine flour, equally as in the sacrifice of animals, there was added a drink-offering, i.e., a pouring forth of wine and oil. For sacrifice is offered to God that it should be a refection of God. But for a refection, drink is required as well as food, that is to say, both wine and bread.

Drink ye all of this. Christ said this before the consecration of the chalice. Wherefore, in Mar 14:23 there is an hysterologia when it is said, and they all drank of it. And presently he relates that Christ consecrated it, saying, This is My Blood of the New Testament. But it is certain from Matthew and Luke that Christ first consecrated the chalice, and then gave it to His Apostles to drink. For otherwise they would have drunk mere wine, and not the Blood of Christ.

Observe, that Christ divided the bread into thirteen parts, one of which He took first Himself, and then gave the remaining parts to the Apostles, one by one. But with the contents of the chalice, being liquid, He could not do this. Wherefore, after it was consecrated, Christ first drank of it Himself, and then gave it to his next neighbour, whether John or Peter, bidding him pass it to his nearest neighbour, and thus the chalice passed round the company, and all the Apostles drank of it. Wherefore it does not follow, as the Hussites and Luther say, that the chalice ought to be given to the laity, and that they ought to communicate in both kinds, because Christ and the Apostles communicated in both kinds, and that the same is Christ’s command. For this precept of drinking, where He said, Drink ye all of this (as the Church has always understood), pertained only to the Apostles, who alone were then present. For Christ at that time was consecrating them Priests, and He bade them consecrate the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist under both kinds, and bade them receive both kinds, that they might complete a perfect Sacrifice. But He did not command this to the laity, to whom, inasmuch as they do not sacrifice, but only receive the Eucharist as a Sacrament, it is sufficient that they take it under one kind, because in one kind they receive the whole effect and fruit of the Sacrament. And it is especially to be considered that in so great a number of lay people communicating, the chalice might easily be overturned, and the Blood of Christ contained in it spilt upon the ground, which would be an act of great irreverence. Similarly the command of Christ, This do ye for a commemoration of Me, in what refers to consecration, pertains only to Priests; but to the laity pertains only the receiving of the consecrated Bread, as is plain. For when several precepts are mingled together, their variety may be limited and distributed, according to the condition of the persons intended, and the intention of the legislator, who in this place is Christ, and His interpreter the Church.

S. Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the treatise (de Cna Dom.), observes that formerly it was forbidden to the Hebrews to drink the blood of animals, as, is plain from Heb 9:22, Lev 4:6, &c., but that now the Blood of Christ is drunk by His Priests. First, because the Blood of Christ is life-giving. 2nd Because by It we have been redeemed. 3rd Because by It, being made spiritual, we shudder at the sins of a carnal life, as at impure blood.

For this is My Blood of the New Testament. Syr. Covenant, &c. The Ethiopic has, This is My very Blood. He means, “in this chalice, by this My consecration, wine is turned into My Blood. Wherefore, after this consecration, there is no longer wine there, but My Blood, by which the new Covenant and Testament are confirmed and rectified, by means of My mediation between God and man.” For Christ by His Blood, shortly to be shed, merited and confirmed for us the hope and the right of eternal inheritance in Heaven, which was the chief and the last will of Christ the Testator. And the Sacraments afford this right to us, especially the Eucharist, in the same way that a testament consigns in writing to the heir a right to the testator’s goods.

Observe: Matthew and Mark have, My Blood of the New Testament. But Luke and Paul have, This chalice is the New Testament in My Blood. The meaning in both is the same, but Christ would seem to have actually uttered what Matthew and Mark relate. For this is an expression of clearer meaning. Christ, by instituting the Eucharist at His last supper, rather than upon the Cross, ratified His testament and covenant with the Church. For all the Apostles were here present. And they personified and represented the Church.

Observe, secondly: In the form of consecrating the chalice which we now use in the Sacrifice of the Mass, there are added these words, The eternal testament, the mystery of the faith. Tradition says they have been handed down from S. Peter, who is the author of our Liturgy. So teach Leo IX. (Epist. ad. Michael imp. c. 9) and S. Thomas (3 p. q. 78, art. 2, ad. 4). For although they do not concern the essence of the form (and yet S. Thomas in 1 Cor. xi. seems to say they do), wherefore they are not found in the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, and S. Clement, yet they pertain to its complete integrity. And this is the common opinion of the whole Latin Church, which, in the form of consecrating the chalice in the Mass, writes and pronounces these words as spoken by Christ, and enjoined by the Apostles, equally with the rest.

Where observe: The mystery of the faith signifies-1st That the Blood of Christ veiled beneath the species is a hidden (arcanam) thing, which can be recognised and believed by faith alone. 2nd That the very Blood of Christ, as it was shed in His Passion, is the object of faith whereby we are justified. For we believe that we are justified and cleansed from our sins by the merits of the Passion and Death of Christ.

For many, i.e., for all men, who are very many.

Shall be shed (Vulg.). But the Greek of Matthew, Mark, and Luke has , is shed, in the present, i.e., is offered in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist under the species of wine, and which shall be presently shed upon the Cross in its own species and natural form of blood. For the blood of the victim was wont to be shed in the sacrifice itself, and so was a libation made to God. Whence the shedding itself is called a libation, a drink-offering. Wherefore this chalice of the Blood of Christ, as it was the drink-offering of the Sacrifice of Christ, was poured into the mouth of Christ and His Apostles, and for this reason the reception of the species, both of bread and wine, pertains to the object and the perfection of the Sacrifice.

Hence, then, it is plain that the Eucharist is not only a Sacrament, but a Sacrifice, in truth, the only Sacrifice of the New Law, which has succeeded to all the ancient sacrifices, and which contains them all in their completeness in Itself. Therefore Christ is called “a Priest after the order of Melchizedek,” not of Aaron. For Aaron offered sheep, but Melchizedek bread and wine, even as Christ did, and transubstantiated them into His Body and Blood (see Ps 110:4 and Heb 5:6-7). The Eucharist is, therefore-1st A burnt-offering; 2nd A sin-offering; 3rd A peace-offering; 4th A mincha, or meat-offering (Lev. i., &c.).

That this is so is plain-1st Because Christ did not say of His Blood, “which is poured upon many,” as a Sacrament, but which is shed for many,” as a sacrifice and drink-offering.

2nd Because the Greek of all three Evangelists is , which is shed, in the present tense, that is to say, now, in this Supper and consecration of the Eucharist. Therefore He speaks of the present Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and not only of that which was about to take place upon the Cross. And so S. Ambrose understands (in Ps. 38). But the Vulgate translates, shall be shed, because it has respect to the Sacrifice of the Cross, which was just about to take place, in which the Blood of Christ was most evidently and most perfectly shed for the salvation of sinners, of which this sacramental shedding of His Blood in the Eucharist was a type and figure, and therefore was, typically, one and the same with It.

3rd Because Luke and Paul, to the words of consecration, This is My Body, add, which is given, that is, is offered, for you in sacrifice. Paul has, which is broken for you, that is to say, under the species of bread in the Eucharist, and actually by the nails and lance upon the Cross. Wherefore Paul calls the Eucharist, the bread which we break, viz., in the Sacrament, because we break and eat the species of bread, as offering this in sacrifice to God, by receiving and consuming them, none of which things were done upon the cross. Therefore to break bread signifies the Sacrifice, not of the Cross, but of the Eucharist.

4th Because Luke has expressly, , i.e., this cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which, i.e., the cup, shall be poured forth for you. For the word which must be referred to the cup, not to the Blood; since is in the dative case, in the nom. Therefore the chalice of the Blood of Christ is poured out for us; but it is poured out in the Eucharist, not on the Cross, for then there was no chalice. Therefore the pouring out of the Blood is a drink-offering and a sacrifice.

The Sacrifice of the Eucharist, then, is a whole burnt-offering, because in consecrating and eating we offer whole Christ to God. The same is a peace-offering, because by It we ask and obtain peace, that is, all good things from God. The same also is a sin-offering, because it is offered to God, and obtains from Him remission of venial sins and temporal punishments. But It obtains remission of mortal sins indirectly, because It obtains from God prevenient grace and contrition, by which they are blotted out. (See Council of Trent, Sess. 22. q. 2. See also S. Thomas and the Scholastics on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.)

Lastly, to the Blood of Christ rather than to His Body is ascribed remission of sins, although it pertains to both. The reason is, that in the Old Testament expiation is attributed to blood, and in the sin-offering the victim’s blood was poured out. Also by the shedding of His Blood the Death of Christ is signified, which was the all-worthy price, expiation and satisfaction for our sins.

The first reason, then, which moved Christ to institute the Eucharist, was to ordain a most excellent and Divine Sacrament in the New Law, by means of which He might feed the faithful with Divine Food. And that the Church might worthily, by It, as well unceasingly honour and worship God. For the victim which is offered to God in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is of infinite value. It is commensurate and co-equal with God Himself. For the victim is Christ Himself, who is both God and man. God Himself therefore is offered to God. Wherefore, since all our other worship, inasmuch as it is but that of creatures, is poor and worthless, therefore Christ made Himself to be the Victim in the Eucharist, that by It, as being God’s equal, we might render due and equal worship to God, even such as He of right requires. Moreover, this Sacrifice chiefly consists in the consecration. For by it Christ is mystically slain, when His Body and His Blood are severally apportioned (seorsim allocantur) under the species of bread and wine, as Suarez and Lessius (lib. 12, de Perfect. Div. c. 13, n. 94) teach from SS. Gregory, Irenus, Nyssen, &c. By the word “severally” (seorsim), “by themselves,” understand only as regards the effect (vis) of consecration. For by concomitance, where there is the Body of Christ, there also Is His Blood, and vice vers.

The second reason was, that He might leave unto us a perpetual exhibition (ideam) of His Life and Passion, to continually stir up in every one the memory of so great a redemption. For in the Eucharist the Blood is consecrated by Itself, and the Body of Christ is consecrated by Itself, that His Passion may thereby be set forth, in which His Blood was shed, and separated from His Body. The species therefore of wine shows forth (representat) the Blood of Christ shed. The species of bread exhibits the lifeless Body of Christ. This is what He said, Do this, &c. And S. Paul, 1Co 11:26, says, As oft as ye shall eat, &c., ye shall announce the Lord’s Death until He come.

The third reason was, the greatness of the love of Christ towards His faithful people, by which, as He united our flesh, hypostatically, in the Incarnation, to His Deity, so in the Eucharist, sacramentally, He unites the same together with His Godhead, to each faithful communicant, and as it were incorporates them, that each may become Divine, and in a certain sense a Christ and God. For this is what S. John says of Christ when He was about to institute the Eucharist, before He washed the Disciples’ feet. Joh 13:1: Jesus, knowing that His hour was come, and that He was about to Pass out of this world to the Father, having loved His own that were in hie world, He loved them to the end.

To the end, to the extremity both of life and love. That is, He loved them with extremest and highest love, when He left Himself to them in the Eucharist, that they might always have Him present with them, that they might associate and converse with Him, consult Him, open to Him all their difficulties, troubles, and temptations, ask and obtain His assistance. For as He Himself says in Pro 8:31), “My delights are with the sons of men.”

Hence, as the Church sings, with S. Thomas:

“Himself as born for brotherhood,

Feasting He gives His brethren food:

Their price He gives Himself to die,

Their guerdon when they reign on high.”

That by this extremity of love He may entice, yea, compel us, ardently to love Him back. For a “magnet is the love of love.” It was this love which, as a sharp goad, drove S. Laurence to the flames, S. Vincent to the “wooden horse,” S. Sebastian to the arrows, S. Ignatius to the lions, and all the other martyrs bravely to endure and overcome all manner of pains and torments, that they might pay back love for love, life for life death for Christ’s death. This was why they were ambitious of martyrdom, and rejoiced and triumphed in it. And these things were the effect of the Eucharist. This supplied them with strength and gladness in all temptations and sufferings. Wherefore, of old time, the Christians in days of persecution used to communicate daily, that they might strengthen themselves for martyrdom. Indeed, they took the Eucharist home with them, and received It with their own hands (as Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, when she was kept captive in England, and had no Priest with her). Christ before His Passion instituted the Eucharist, that by means of It He might arm the Apostles to meet temptation.

A fourth reason was, that in the Eucharist Christ might give us the opportunity of exercising every virtue. For in it our faith is exercised, when we believe that He who is true God and man is invisibly, but really and truly, contained in a small host. Hope is exercised, because when we believe that Christ giveth Himself unto us, we hope that He will give us all other things, which are far less than Himself. Charity is exercised, because the Eucharist is a furnace of love, which Christ exhales, and breathes upon us, that we may love Him again. Religion is exercised, because we worship and invoke God with the highest form of worship, and sacrifice to Him Christ Himself. Humility is exercised, because we ignore our eyes and senses and natural judgment, which suggests to us that there is only bread and wine in the Eucharist, and humbly submit ourselves to the words of Christ, who says, This is My Body: This is My Blood. Gratitude is exercised, because by it we render highest thanks to God for all His benefits, which is why it is called Eucharist. Abstinence is exercised, because it is not right to communicate otherwise than fasting. Patience and mortification are exercised, because it is a lively mirror of Christ’s sufferings and crucifixion, and so on.

The tropological reason is, that by feeding us with His Divine Flesh, He may call us away from earthly flesh, and its pleasures and concupiscences, that we may live a life that is not carnal, but spiritual and divine, and may say with S. Paul, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” A Christian ought therefore so to live, speak, work, as though it were not he himself, but Christ who is living, speaking, working in him. Let him live, therefore, like an angel, “For man did eat angels’ food.” And S. Cyril of Jerusalem says (Cateches. 4, Myst.), “In the Eucharist we are made concorporate, and of the same blood with Christ.”

Moreover, S. Chrysostom says (Hom. 36, in 1 Cor.), “Where Christ is eucharistically, there is not wanting the frequent presence of angels. Where there is such a King and such a Prince, there is the celestial palace, yea, there is Heaven itself.” Wherefore we read concerning S. Ammon in the Lives of the Fathers, that when he was celebrating, an angel was seen to stand at the altar, sign the communicants with the sign of the cross, and write their names in a book. And S. Chrysostom (lib. 3, de Sacerdotio) relates that choirs of angels have been seen round about the altar, who, with bowed heads, showed deepest reverence to Christ their King, and uttered awe-inspiring voices. When, therefore, we communicate, or say or hear Mass, let us think that we are sitting by the side of Christ at the Last Supper. Let us think that Christ is speaking by the mouth of the Priest, is celebrating, is transubstantiating bread and wine into His Body and Blood, and is feeding us therewith. For it is Christ who is the chief Agent, and works the Eucharistic miracle, as the Council of Trent teaches (Sess. 22). Wherefore S. Ambrose (lib. 8, in Luc.) says, “It is this Body of which it is said, My Flesh is meat indeed. About this Body are the true eagles, which fly round about It with spiritual wings.” And (lib. 4 de Sac.) “well may the eagles be about the altar where the Body is.” Wherefore S. Francis says, in his epistle to Priests, “It is a great misery, and a miserable infirmity, when you have Him Himself present, and care for anything else in the world.”

The anagogical reason is, that Christ, in the Eucharist, gave us a pledge, a prelibation and a foretaste of the celestial inheritance. Wherefore the Church sings, with S. Thomas, in the Office of the Adorable Sacrament, “0 sacred Feast, in which Christ is received, in which the memory of His Passion is recalled, the soul is filled with grace, and to us is given a pledge of future glory.”

S. Thomas says, “In the Eucharist spiritual sweetness is tasted at the very fountain.” This was what S. Francis, S. Monica, S. Catherine of Sienna, and many others were wont to feel at the Holy Eucharist, who were inebriated with heavenly delights, and kept jubilee, exulted, and were rapt in ecstasy, saying with the Psalmist, “My heart and my flesh exult in the living God. For whom have I in Heaven but Thee, and who is there upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee? God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.”

“My Jesus, my Love, my God, and my all.”

Again, the Eucharist is the Food of immortality, because by virtue of It our bodies rise to the life immortal, according to that saying of Christ (John vi.), “Whoso eateth of this Bread shall live for ever.” The Eucharist therefore stamps upon our bodies a certain force, not physical, but moral, which is the seed of immortality, that by means of it we may rise again. Whence S. Chrysostom rightly concludes (Hom. 83, in Matth.), “How, then, does it not behove that he should be purer who enjoys such a sacrifice? Should not the hand which divides this Flesh be more resplendent than a solar ray? Should not the mouth be filled with spiritual fire; and the tongue, which is ruddy, with that tremendous Blood?”

And our Thomas, taught of God, says in the 4th Book of the Imitation, chap. 2, “It ought to seem as great, as new, and as pleasant to thee, when thou celebratest or hearest Mass, as though Christ on that self-same day descended into the Virgin’s womb, and became man; or was hanging upon the Cross, suffering and dying for man’s salvation.” Whence he gathers (chap. v.), “that when a Priest celebrates devoutly, he honours God, makes glad the angels, builds up the Church, assists the living, affords rest to the departed, and makes himself to have a share in all these good things.” “For what is His goodness, and what is His beauty, unless it be the wheat of the elect, and the wine that bringeth forth virgins?” (Zech 9:17) Vulgate.

Ver. 29. I say unto you . . . fruit of the vine; Arab., juice of the vine, &c. S. Austin (lib. de Consens. Evang. iii. 1), and from him Jansen and others, are of opinion that Matthew intimates that Christ spake these words after the Eucharistic Supper. Let us here consider the following objection. “The fruit of the vine is wine produced from it, pressed from its grapes; therefore in the Eucharistic Chalice there is not the Blood of Christ, but only wine sprung from a vine.” I answer, the pronoun this in this fruit, &c., does not signify exactly that wine which was in the consecrated Chalice, but in general the wine upon the table, from which the cup was filled, which was used both at the Passover and at the consecration of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Blood of Christ may be called wine, as the Body of Christ is called bread by S. Paul, on account, indeed, of the substance of bread and wine, as it was before consecration, and because of the species of bread and wine which remain after consecration. In truth, the species themselves, or the accidents of the wine, are rightly called the fruit of the vine, because they are produced by the vine. Thirdly, as all kinds of food, both by Scriptural and common usage, are often called bread, because it is the staple of all food, so in like manner is any kind of drink called wine, especially by the Italians, Syrians, and others.

But it is far more probable that Christ spake these words before the institution of the Eucharist, concerning the supper and the chalice of the paschal lamb. For at that supper a cup of wine was carried round, which the father of the family tasted first, and then sent round about to all who partook of the lamb, as the Jewish tradition is. This second view is proved, because Luke expressly asserts as much. He distinctly gives an account of the two suppers of Christ,-that upon the lamb, and the Eucharistic Supper,-which Matthew, for the sake of brevity, condensed into one. And he says that these words concerning the chalice were spoken before the Eucharist at the paschal supper. We may see that the same conclusion must be drawn from what Christ said previously concerning the eating of the lamb (Luke 22:15-16). “And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then immediately afterwards He subjoins what is said concerning the cup of the paschal lamb, “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.” Then, immediately afterwards, he relates the institution of the Eucharist, and of the Eucharistic cup, which Christ consecrated, saying, “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” Where there is no mention made of the fruit of the vine, nor of drinking new wine in the kingdom of God.

Christ intended, therefore, by these words only to signify that He, from henceforth, would not sup with His disciples after the accustomed manner; but that this was His last supper, after which He was about to be taken and put to death. Wherefore here, as proceeding to die, He bids the Apostles His last farewell. Wherefore these words do not refer to the Eucharistic Chalice, which does not contain the fruit of the vine, in the sense of wine, but the Blood of Christ, into which it has been changed by consecration. This is the opinion of Jerome, Bede, and many others.

When I will drink it new with you, &c. New, i.e., of a new and different kind. For in Heaven the Blessed drink no earthly wine, but heavenly, even the wine and nectar of everlasting glory and joy; according to the words of Psalm xxxvi. 9, “They shall be inebriated with the fatness of Thy house: Thou shalt give them to drink of the torrent of Thy pleasure.” So Origen on this passage, and Nazianzen (Orat. de Pascha.). For Scripture is wont to express the spiritual joys of the Blessed by means of corporeal pleasures, such as food and drink.

You will say that Christ after His Resurrection, in order to prove it to His Apostles, ate with them, and, as it would appear, also drank wine with them. How, then, does He here say that He will no more drink wine with them? I answer, that Christ did indeed both eat and drink with His Apostles after the Resurrection, but only by the way as it were, and to prove to them that He had risen, but not to satisfy the requirements of nature, as He had done before His death. Wherefore, speaking after the manner of men, that reception of food after the Resurrection cannot be counted eating.

And when they had sung an hymn, &c. Vulg. said an hymn, but meaning sung. Greek , i.e., said or sung a hymn, by way of giving thanks and praise to God. The Arabic has they gave praise. Some think from the books of the Hebrew ritual that this was the hymn customarily sung by the Jews at the Passover, to give thanks after eating the lamb. But indeed, as Paul Burgensis observes, and from him Franc. Lucas, Baronius, and others, this hymn consisted of seven psalms of Hallelujah, beginning with the 113th, “When Israel came out of Egypt,” and ending with the 119th, “Blessed are the undefiled in the way.” From hence S. Chrysostom concludes that no one ought to depart from Mass before the thanksgivings, which are contained in the collects after communion. You may gather the same principle from an ordinary dinner or supper, from which people ought not to depart before returning thanks to God. Hence, also, the Fourth Council of Toledo asserts that this hymn of Christ’s affords us an example of singing hymns. Hence, also, the practice of singing at Mass is of the highest antiquity, as is plain from the ancient Liturgies.

This, then, was the custom of the ancient Hebrews, to sing hymns at the Paschal Supper, which the Christians afterwards followed, in that after the Eucharist and the Agape, a common feast of charity for all the faithful, they sung hymns and psalms by way of giving thanks to God. This is gathered from S. Paul (Eph. v. 19), and Tertullian eloquently shows the same (Apol. c. 39), and S. Cyprian (Epist. ad Donat.).

The ancient heathen had a similar practice at their feasts, in honour of their gods.

Lastly, S. Augustine (Epist. 253) says that this hymn of Christ was in circulation in his time, but he himself regarded it as spurious, and intimates that it was forged by the Priscillianists.

They went out to the Mount of Olives. Christ was wont, especially in these last days of His life, to go daily to Jerusalem, and teach in the Temple; and then about evening to return to Bethany, and there sup, and soon after supper return to the Mount, of Olives, and there spend the night in prayer, as Luke intimates (xxi. 37). But upon this occasion He did not go to Bethany, as He had supped in Jerusalem. He went, therefore, direct to the Mount of Olives, as it were to a wrestling-ground, that there He might offer Himself to be seized by Judas and the Jews. Thus Victor of Antioch asks, “Why did He go out to the mountain? why does He despise a lurking-place, and manifest Himself to those who came to apprehend Him? He made haste to occupy the spot where aforetime He was wont to pray, the spot which His betrayer knew so well” (John xviii. 2).

Ver. 31. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of Me this night; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. Be offended and fall into sin, first the sin of weakness and cowardice in forsaking Me, your Master and Lord, in My Passion. “The terror of the disciples,” says S. Leo, “was then excusable, nor did their sorrow sink into distrust.” And further on, speaking of S. Peter’s denial, “The Lord saw not in thee a feigned faith, nor estranged love, but shaken resolution.” It was thus that Marcellinus and many others, when asked whether they were Christians, and denied it through fear of tortures, sinned not directly against the faith, but merely against its open profession, in not daring openly to confess it.

But the Apostles seem to have stumbled in the faith, because, when they saw Christ seized by the Jews without defending Himself, they thought He was suffering either unwillingly or by compulsion, and as He could not deliver Himself and them, He consequently was not God, and that as He would die and never rise again, they had nothing further to hope for from Him. They consequently forgot and disbelieved all His promises and predictions. The Church accordingly seems to think that the Blessed Virgin alone remained then steadfast in the faith. For in the Office for Good Friday the Church puts out all the lights one by one, leaving only one burning; though others confine this more strictly to faith in the resurrection, as if she alone believed that He would rise again from the dead. This is clear, too, from the Apostles, who hardly believed Christ when He appeared to them after His resurrection, and said that He was alive. Christ accordingly reproved their unbelief (Mark xvi. 14). And so S. Hilary explains it, “Ye shall be troubled with fear and want of faith.” And Euthymius, “The faith ye now have in Me will be driven out of you, because ye will believe that I can no longer help you.” Indeed our Lord foretold this. See Joh 16:31-32, “The hour cometh when ye shall be scattered, every one to his own, and shall leave Me alone. Ye believe in Me now, but very soon ye will not believe, when ye see Me a captive and suffering.” For not only “did they forsake Him hastily, but” (says S. Augustine, Tract. ciii.) “in their hearts forsook the faith. For they were reduced to as great despair, and extinction (as it were) of their faith, as appeared in Cleophas when he said he trusted that He would have redeemed Israel. But see how they forsook Him, in abandoning the very faith wherewith they believed in Him.” Many commentators follow S. Augustine in considering that the Apostles fell away from the faith. And S. Ambrose also maintains that S. Peter lost his faith, and Turrecremata also (de Eccl 1:30, 3:61). But many theologians teach at the present day that he did not lose his faith, but merely sinned in not openly professing it. This, they urge, is all that the Evangelists say; why invent a heavier charge, and urge it against him? S. Augustine says (in John, Tract. cxiii.,) he merely denied that he was a Christian, as people did in Japan, though still retaining the faith in their hearts. S. Cyril (lib. xi. 41, in John) maintains that he denied Christ not through fear, but through love; for that if he confessed himself His disciple he could not have remained by Him, as he wished to do. S. Ambrose (in Luc. xxii.) says that he did not deny God, but man. “I know not the man, because I know Him to be God.” And when he says (Serm. xlvii.) that Peter gave up the faith, he means the profession of the faith. So, too, S. Hilary (cap. xxxii. in Matt.) and S. Leo (as above), “His tears abounded where his love failed not, and the fount of charity washed away the words of fear.” Peter then sinned mortally against the profession of the faith, and consequently lost charity, though not faith. Maldonatus, Toletus (in John xviii.), Bellarmine (de Eccl 3:17) distinctly maintain this; Suarez (de Fide Disp. ix. sect. 6) thinks it was probably the case with all the Apostles that they fled through fear, and not as denying Christ.

God allowed this for various reasons. 1. To suggest to Christ further grounds for patience, and to exercise Him in every kind of suffering. For the defection of the Apostles was a great affliction to Christ; not merely on their own account, but because He saw that all the fruit of His preaching had been lost upon them. 2. To humble the Apostles with a sense of their own weakness, when they saw that all their courage and resolution had melted away. “Like lions before the battle, like deer when in it.” 3. To show the power of persecution and fear which bereft them of their faith, their memory, and senses; and that consequently this fear could not be overcome by their natural reason or strength, but only by Divine grace, which they should constantly implore. “We learn thence,” says S. Chrysostom, “a great lesson, that the will of man is powerless unless strengthened by help from above.” And S. Victor of Antioch, “Man’s promptitude is worthless for withstanding graver temptations, if heavenly aid be wanting.”

I will smite. The Heb. and Sept. read “smite” in the imperative. The meaning is, however, the same. The Prophets frequently use the imperative for the future by way of apostrophe. “Smite, 0 sword,” that is, “I God will smite Christ, will suffer Him,” i.e., to be smitten. Comp. Isa 6:10 with S. Paul, Act 28:26.

The shepherd. Christ the Shepherd and the Bishop of our souls (1Pe 2:25).

And the sheep shall be scattered, i.e., the Apostles. But God soon brought them together again, that Christ might find them joined in one body, and restore them their faith and courage. For having no homes of their own, they naturally betook themselves to the upper chamber, where they had kept the Passover, that He the master of that house might be again their host and friend, and where, in fact, He soon after appeared to them, and restored their faith. This was Christ’s special favour. He bestowed it on Peter after his threefold denial, when by a look He made him weep bitterly; and on S. John, whom He brought back and placed by His mother near the cross, and commended him to His mother as her son. There can then be no question that they both returned into favour with Christ and were sanctified. Christ foretold this to show that He was God, and that He suffered for man’s redemption, not compulsorily, but willingly; and that when suffering thus “they might not despair,” says S. Hilary, “but might exercise repentance and be saved.”

Ver. 32. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee, “where I will meet you,” says Euthymius. “He mentioned Galilee,” says S. Chrysostom, “to deliver them from fear of the Jews, and induce them the more readily to listen to Him.” It was to keep them from despair.

Ver. 33. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all should be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. This was from his vehement love for Christ. “For faith is the ardent affection towards God,” says S. Jerome, “which makes him speak thus.” “For he thinks” (says S. Augustine, de Grat. de lib. Arb. cap. xvii.) “that he can really do that which he feels he wishes.” And yet his sin was threefold-first, in boldly and vehemently contradicting Christ; next, in arrogantly preferring himself to others; thirdly, in too great presumption and reliance on his own strength. He ought to have said, “I believe it can be, nay, that from my weakness it will be so. But do Thou, 0 Lord, strengthen my weakness by Thy grace; support and sustain me, that I fall not into sin.” And our experience is the same. We think that we are strong in faith, in chastity, in patience; but when tribulation assails us we stumble, we are afraid, and speedily fall. The remedy for temptation is the acknowledgment of our own weakness and the imploring Divine strength.

Ver. 34. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. In Greek , abjure Me. Thou wilt do much worse than the others. Thy presumption deserves it. They only fled, thou shalt abjure Me.-The cock crows more loudly in the morning than at midnight. This time, then, is properly the cock-crowing. It was before this cock-crowing that Peter thrice denied Christ. As S. Mark says, “Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny Me thrice.” Thou who art now so eager to confess Me, wilt be more frequent and eager in thy denials this very night than the cock in his crowing. And yet the cock awakes the sleepers to praise God, whilst thou, by thy denial, wilt excite others to revile Me.

Peter, says S. Jerome, made professions from the warmth of his faith, and the Saviour foretold, as God, what would be. And He gives the cock-crowing as a sign to Peter, in order that whenever he hears it he may remember Christ’s prophecy, may penitently acknowledge his sin of denial and presumption, and seek for pardon; as indeed he did. “As God” (so Bede observes), “He foretells the mode, time, moment, and extent of his denial.”

Ver. 35. Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yea will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said they all. To testify their faith, affection, and love towards Him; but in their presumption they sinned in a twofold manner. Thou wilt say, The Apostles believed Christ to be the Son of God, why then did they not believe (nay, clamoured against) Him when He predicted their fall? Why, because they did not attend to Christ’s prediction, but looked rather to their then purpose of heart, which they felt to be so strong that it would be impossible for them to fall away. And consequently regarding Christ’s words not so much a prediction as a test and trial of their purpose and love, they thought that in this time of trial their affection towards Him should be boldly and resolutely manifested. “Peter,” says S. Hilary, “was so carried forward by his affection and love for Christ, as to take no account of his own natural weakness, nor the belief he should have in the Lord’s words.” But even though they believed Christ’s prediction, yet they were free to deny Him, because neither did the prediction itself nor their belief in it take away their liberty, but rather presupposed it. For Christ predicted their defection because they would certainly forsake Him; but they did not forsake Him because He foretold they would do so. Objectively their future defection was prior to Christ’s foreknowledge and prediction, for Christ only foresaw that which they would do as free agents, and accordingly imposed not on them any necessity of denying Him, since His prediction was objectively subsequent.

But thou wilt maintain, If Peter, believing Christ’s words, had persuaded himself that he would certainly deny Christ that very night, he could not have but done it; because this persuasion and belief would have determined his mind, and bound him to do so. For no one can effectually strive against that which he knows will certainly happen by his own agency. The attempt would be vain. He regards and shrinks from it as impossible; for he knows that this and nothing else would happen, whatever his efforts. But, I reply, this persuasion would have inclined and in some measure have determined Peter to deny Christ, but yet only in a general way, that he would deny Him some time in the night, but not at that particular moment or occasion, or before such and such people. All his particular acts then would have been free. And in like manner that knowledge, that we cannot avoid all venial sins, obliges us to fall into them at some time or another. But yet only generally, and in a confused way. For as often as we commit this or that venial sin, we sin of free choice. Theologians, and Suarez in his treatise on Hope, teach us that if a man’s damnation were revealed to him, he could not possibly effectually hope for eternal life, as already apprehending it to be impossible (for no one can attempt what he thinks impossible). But yet he both ought and can observe God’s commands, and that as often as he transgresses he would do so freely and sinfully, even though he is generally aware that he would fall into, and die in, some mortal sin. This fall of Peter and the rest made them more humble and cautious. See Joh 21:15, Joh 21:21, Joh 21:22.

Ver. 36. Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, &c. Gethsemane is the valley of oil or fatness, or more precisely, the oil-press, for pressing the oil from the olives which grew on Mount Olivet. It was somewhat more than half an (Italian) mile from the cnaculum (upper chamber). Christ withdrew there-(1) for retirement and prayer, and to be free from distraction; (2) to show that He did not fly from death, but rather sought for it, for the place was well known to the traitor; and (3) to show that He suffered out of pure love and compassion for men. For oil is the type of compassion; and as oil was in that spot pressed from the olives, so in His agony was the Blood of Christ pressed forth, with which we are refreshed as with oil, are anointed and are fed. See Cant1:3.

Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. That is, in the garden, about a stone’s throw distant. See Joh 8:1; Luk 22:41. Adrichomius describes the hut of S. Pelagia the penitent and the tomb of the Blessed Virgin as close by, and above it Mount Olivet, the place of the ascension; humility and exaltation being fitly associated together, as is oft the case with God’s elect. To speak accurately, Christ neither prayed nor suffered His agony in Gethsemane, but in the garden close by; and He began His Passion in a garden as expiating the sin of Adam, which was committed in a garden. For he ruined therein himself and all his descendants, and subjected them to sin, death, and hell. And all these did Christ expiate in a garden by the agony He there endured. As in the Canticle, “I raised thee up under the apple tree: there was thy mother defiled: there was she violated that bare thee” (Son 8:5). Christ therefore in the garden restored us to Paradise, from which we had been expelled by Adam, and planted there the garden of His Church, verdant with the anguish of mortification, the saffron of charity, the spikenard of humility, the lilies of virgins, the roses of martyrs, the chaplets of doctors; for “a garden enclosed is my sister, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed. Thy sendings forth (shoots) are of Paradise” (Son 4:12-13).

Ver. 37. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, &c. He took only these three to be witnesses of His sorrow and agony, lest the other Apostles should be troubled and scandalised thereby. Moreover, Christ most relied on these three as His special intimates, and also because it was but fitting that they who had seen the glory of His transfiguration should contemplate His agony, and learn that the way to glory is through agony and suffering, and that the way of Calvary and the Cross leads to the Mount and glory of Tabor.

And began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Of His own free will, and not by compulsion. He began to be so sore distressed as to be almost lifeless and beside Himself. “My soul is exceeding sorrowful,” He says, “even unto death.” S. Luke calls it “an agony,” like those who are at the last struggle with death. Vulg. in Mark reads “fdet,” for sorrow makes a man weary of life. S. Mark adds, to be stupefied (), for excessive fear has this effect, as a lion stupefies other animals with its roar. Note, first, that Christ had true sorrow. For though from the moment of His conception He enjoyed the vision of God, as hypostatically united to Him, and thus enjoyed the highest happiness, He was yet supremely sorrowful, God supernaturally enlarging the capacity of His soul, that it might experience the highest joy and the deepest sorrow at the same time. This is the general opinion of theologians, though Melchior Canus (de Locis xii. 14) says that the joy naturally arising from the sight of God was suspended while He was but a sojourner, in order that He might feel sorrow. (See S. Thomas, p. iii. q. 46, art. 8, and Suarez, p. 111, q. 18, Disp. 38, sect. 8.) Christ was both on His journey and had reached the end (viator et comprehensor). In the one character He was full of sorrow, in the other full of joy. But even when on the way He had both the greatest joy and the greatest sorrow in His Passion. He was sorrowful in His lower nature, since it was painful; He rejoiced in His higher nature, since it was the will of God, and ordained for man’s salvation.

2. This sorrow was not only “in His feelings, but also in His will (at least in its lower part), which naturally regards that which is for itself good as life and death, and hates the contrary. This is clear from His own prayer, “Father, not what I will, but what Thou wilt.” He naturally wished to he saved from death. As in Luke, “Not my will, but Thine be done.”

3. The primary cause of His sorrow was not the flight of His Apostles, which He foresaw, but the vivid apprehension of His approaching Passion and death, as is plain from His prayer, “Let this cup pass from Me.” For Christ foresaw all the torments, one by one, which the Jews would inflict on Him, and fully entered into and weighed the magnitude and bitterness of His several sorrows, so as to seem to be already suffering them, even to the shedding of His blood. For Christ doubtless wished to atone by His sorrow for the pleasure which Adam had in eating the forbidden fruit, and which sinners now experience in their sins.

There were, moreover, other grounds of sorrow, which He experienced in the highest degree from the very moment of His conception to His death. First, the sins of all men, which He undertook to atone for, and thus make satisfaction for the injury done to His Father. For the soul of Christ saw them all in God, and manifested for them the greatest sorrow and compunction, as though they had been His own. For He saw how great was their gravity, how the majesty of God was offended, and consequently what wrong had been done to Him. All which elicited condign and commensurate sorrow. So He says Ps. xxii. 1.

2. The second was His foreseeing all the pains which martyrs, confessors, virgins, married people also would suffer in their several ways. Prelates too and pastors in governing the faithful; the faithful in withstanding the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil. All which sorrows Christ generally and severally mentally took upon Him, that by His sorrow He might obtain for them from God the Father grace and strength to bear and overcome them all. For He loves His children as Himself, and feels for their affliction. See Mat 25:35, Mat 25:40.

3. The third was the ingratitude of men. For He foresaw that His Passion would be of use to but very few, and that the many would be lost through their own negligence and ingratitude. As the poet sings,-

“‘Tis not my grief, ’tis love; my only pain

Is that to thousands ’twill be all in vain.”

4. The fourth was the affliction of His mother; for the sorrows of the Son pierced, as a sword, the soul of the mother, and from her were reflected on Christ. For His greatest sorrow was that His mother suffered so grievously on His account. All other sorrows Christ suppressed and overcame, manifesting this only to His disciples. Now, observe this sorrow of Christ was not by compulsion, or involuntary, so as to prevent the exercise of reason, but was freely undergone by Christ. Whence theologians say that in Christ were not passions, but their first suggestions (propassiones); for all His affections resulted from the ordering of His reason and His own free choice. For to this all the inferior powers were perfectly subjected, both in Adam and in Christ. For original righteousness, which was in Christ as in Adam before his fall, required this. See S. Augustine, de Civ. xiv. 9, and Damascene (de Fid. iii. 23). Nothing was compulsory in Christ, for of His own will He hungered, was fearful, and was sad.

5. S. Luke adds, that He sweated blood, and was comforted by an angel; while Isaiah (liii. 3) calls Him a man of sorrows.

But the final and moral grounds of this were manifold. S. Chrysostom gives as the 1st: “To show that He took on Himself true flesh, He endures human sufferings.” So Jerome and Origen; and S. Leo (Serm. vii. de Pass.) says, He was despised in our humility, made sad with our sadness, and crucified with our pain.” 2nd S. Gregory (Mor. xxiv. 17), “As His death was approaching, He set forth in His own person our struggles of mind, for we fear greatly the approach of death.” The 3rd S. Ambrose sets forth (in Luke xxii. 44), “In no point do I more admire the tenderness and Majesty of Christ than in this, which most men dread. He would have done much less for me had He not taken on Himself my feelings; He took on Him my sorrow, that He might now give me joy. I confidently make mention of His sorrow, for I preach the Cross. He was obliged to endure pain, that He might conquer. Insensibility wins not the praise of fortitude. But He wished to instruct us to overcome the sorrow of coming death, and perhaps He was sad because, after the fall of Adam, death was a necessity, and again because He knew that His persecutors would have to pay the penalty of their monstrous sacrilege.” And again, “Thou smartest not for Thine own wounds, but for ours; not for Thine own death, but for our infirmity.” S. Athanasius (de Cruce) writes thus elegantly, “Christ descended to win for us our ascension; was born that we might be reconciled to the unborn Father; was made weak for our sakes, that we might be raised up by His strength, and say with S. Paul, I can do all things through Jesus Christ that strengtheneth me. He assumed a corruptible body, that the corruptible might put on incorruption; a mortal body, that mortality might put on immortality. Lastly, He became man, and died, that we men might by dying become gods, and no longer have death reigning over us.” 4th The fourth was to mitigate the dread of death, which was inflicted as a punishment for Adam’s sin, and turn it into joy and the hope of attaining a better life. Christ then obtained for the martyrs exemption from pain and fear in their grievous torments, and caused them to undergo them willingy, and even to rejoice in them. “Christ came,” says S. Chrysostom, “to bear our infirmities, and to give us His strength. And again, Christ by His agony enabled His faithful ones not to fear death, but patiently and even joyfully to meet it from their hope in the resurrection, saying with Hosea and S. Paul, as triumphing over death, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory'” (1Co 15:55).

5th The fifth was to cure by His sorrow our sloth, weakness, fear, &c. As Isaiah (Isa 53:4) says, “Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” And accordingly our best remedy in all these trials is to look at Christ in His agony, that by the pattern and merits of the agony He endured in the garden He may heal our sorrow. As S. Leo (Serm. iv. de Pass.) says, “He healed our weaknesses by partaking them, and drove away the fear of suffering punishment by undergoing it Himself: our Lord trembled with our fear, that He might take on Himself our weakness, and robe our weakness with His strength.” It was, again, to remove the dread of difficulty, which occurs in every virtuous act. For this dread keeps many back from virtue and holiness. Whenever, therefore, any difficulty or temptation assails, let us strengthen ourselves by meditating on the agony of Christ; for if He overcame His by the struggle and bloody sweat, we ought also to overcome ours by manly resistance. See Heb 12:1.

Christ then taught us to fight against our passions with reason and judgment, especially our sloth, sadness, and anxiety. Calvin and Beza here impiously and unlearnedly accuse Christ of timidity, inconstancy, and vacillation, as being indeed more cowardly than the martyrs; rather He not only willingly underwent these sufferings, but brought them of His own accord on Himself, that He might by His bold struggle overcome them in Himself, and subdue them also in us. For, as S. Augustine says, “Christ was troubled when exercising His power, and not in His weakness” [Joh 11:33]

Ver. 38. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with Me. I am as sorrowful from the lively apprehension of My sufferings and death, as if I were now dying; I seem to be lifeless with sorrow and dread. My pain well-nigh takes away My life and breath. It is not My flesh, but My soul, which is so very sad, for sorrow penetrates the inmost parts of My soul, and cuts it in sunder as a

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

26:26 {7} And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and {l} blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; {m} this is my body.

(7) Christ who will without delay fulfil the promises of the old covenant, institutes a new covenant with new signs.

(l) Mark says, “Had given thanks”: and therefore blessing is not a consecrating with a conjuring type of murmuring and power of words: and yet the bread and the wine are changed, not in nature but in quality, for without doubt they become tokens of the body and blood of Christ, not of their own nature or force of words, but by Christ his institution, which must be recited and laid forth, that faith may find what to lay hold on, both in the word and in the elements.

(m) This is a figure of speech which is called metonymy: that is to say, the giving of one name for another: so he calls the bread his body, which is the sign and sacrament of his body: and yet nonetheless, it is a figurative and changed kind of speech meaning that the faithful do indeed receive Christ with all his gifts (though by a spiritual means) and become one with him.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper 26:26-30 (cf. Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:17-20; 1Co 11:23-26)

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

"And" introduces the second thing Matthew recorded that happened as Jesus and His disciples were eating the Passover meal, the first being Jesus’ announcement about His betrayer (Mat 26:21). Jesus took bread (Gr. artos, Mat 4:4; Mat 6:11; Mat 15:2; Mat 15:26), specifically the unleavened bread on the table before Him (cf. Exo 12:15; Exo 13:3; Exo 13:7; Deu 16:3), and then gave thanks to God. A traditional prayer that many Jews used when thanking God for food was, "Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth." Perhaps Jesus said some such words. He then broke the bread into parts, distributed it among the disciples, and instructed them to eat it with the words, "This is my body."

The words "this is my body" were not part of the Passover ritual. Jesus’ actions of breaking the bread and then distributing it were both significant. His body, like the bread, would be broken, though His bones were not, and His disciples would need to partake of Him personally. Jesus was linking His sacrifice with redemption history when He instituted this rite during the Passover meal. The Israelites associated their redemption from Egypt with eating the Passover meal. Now Jesus’ disciples were to associate their redemption with Jesus’ death symbolized in this similar meal.

There have been various interpretations of what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body." There are four main views. Roman Catholics take it as a literal statement meaning the bread really becomes the body of Christ and the contents of the cup become the blood of Christ. This is true when duly authorized representatives of the church conduct the service properly. This is the transubstantiation view. Adherents believe God transfers the body and blood of Christ into the substance of the elements. The bread and wine really become the physical body and blood of Christ.

A second view is not quite so literal. It is the consubstantiation view and, as the word implies, its advocates see the body and blood of Christ as present "in, with, and under" the elements. Christ is really present, though not physically present, according to this Lutheran view. [Note: Lenski, pp. 1026-31.]

The third major view is the spiritual presence view that Presbyterians and other followers of Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper hold. For them the spiritual presence of Christ is in the elements and, as in the former views, God ministers grace to the communicant in a concrete way through participation. [Note: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:641-711.]

The fourth view is the memorial view. Advocates believe that when Jesus said, "This is my body," he meant, "This represents my body." In other words they understand His statement as completely metaphorical (cf. Mat 13:19-23; Mat 13:36-39; Joh 15:1). A metaphor is a comparison in which one thing is likened to a different thing by being spoken of as if it were that other thing (e.g., "All the world is a stage."). Advocates view the elements as pictures or emblems of the body and blood of Christ. In contrast to the preceding views this one does not see Christ present in any special sense in the elements. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, promoted this view. Today most of the churches from the Anabaptist branch of Protestantism (i.e., Baptists, Methodists, Mennonites, independent Bible churches, Evangelical Free churches, et al.) hold this interpretation. [Note: See Albert H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, 2:312-13. For more information on these views, see articles on the Lord’s Supper and synonymous terms in Bible encyclopaedias.] I believe this view best represents the total revelation concerning the Lord’s Supper in Scripture.

Some Christian groups refer to the Lord’s Supper as one of the "sacraments." They mean the elements minister grace to the participant in a more direct and physical way than those who speak of it as an "ordinance," assuming they are using these terms properly. An ordinance or sacrament is a rite the Lord commanded His followers to observe.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)