Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 22:17
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
17. he took the cup, and gave thanks ] Literally, “ and after receiving the cup, and giving thanks.” From eucharistein comes our word Eucharist.
The main customs of the Jewish Passover are as follows: (1) Each drinks a cup of wine ‘the cup of consecration’ over which the master of the house pronounces a blessing. (2) Hands are washed, and a table carried in, on which are placed bitter herbs, cakes of unleavened bread, the Charoseth (a dish made of dates, raisins, and vinegar), the paschal lamb, and the flesh of the Chagigah or feast-offering. (3) The father dips a morsel of unleavened bread and bitter herbs, about the size of an olive, in the Charoseth, eats it with a benediction, and distributes a similar ‘sop’ to all present. (4) A second cup of wine is poured out, and the youngest present asks the meaning of the service, to which the father replies. (5) The first part of the Hallel (Psalms 107 114) is sung. (6) Grace is said, and a benediction again pronounced; after which the father distributes bitter herbs and unleavened bread dipped in the Charoseth. (7) The Paschal lamb is eaten, and a third cup of wine handed round. (8) After another thanksgiving, a fourth cup the cup of joy is drunk. (9) The rest of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118.) is sung.
The cup mentioned in this verse has been supposed to be the third cup of wine in the Jewish ceremonial; and the actual chalice of the Eucharist (the “cup of blessing,” 1Co 10:16, Cos ha-Berachah) is identified with the fourth cup. We also see in the Last Supper the benediction, and possibly the Hallel (Mat 26:30). But (1) the identifications are somewhat precarious. (2) There is no certainty that the “Sacrificial Passover” thus observed by the Jews was identical in ceremonial with the “ Memorial Passover ” which now alone they are able to observe.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And he took the cup and gave thanks – This was not the sacramental cup, for that was taken after supper, Luk 22:20. This was one of the cups which were usually taken during the celebration of the Passover, and pertained to that observance. After he had kept this in the usual manner, he instituted the supper which bears his name, using the bread and wine which had been prepared for the Passover, and thus ingrafted the Lords Supper on the Passover, or superseded the Passover by another ordinance, which was intended to be perpetual.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 17. He took the cup] This was not the sacramental cup, for that was taken after supper, Lu 22:20, but was the cup which was ordinarily taken before supper.
Divide it among yourselves] Pass the cup from one to another; thus the cup which Christ gave to the first person on his right hand continued to be handed from one to another, till it came to the last person on his left.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
17. took the cupthe first ofseveral partaken of in this service.
divide itamong, &c.that is, It is to be your last as well asMine, “until the Kingdom of God come,” or as it isbeautifully given in Mt 26:29,”until that day when I shall drink it new with you in myFather’s kingdom.” It was the point of transition between twoeconomies and their two great festivals, the one about to closefor ever, the other immediately to open and run its majestic careeruntil from earth it be transferred to heaven.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he took the cup and gave thanks,…. There were four cups of wine drank at the passover, which the poorest man in Israel was obliged to drink; and over each of which a blessing was pronounced m: and this was one of them, and seems to be the first; for the passover was begun by mixing a cup of wine, and blessing it, or giving thanks over it n; and which was usually done in the following manner o:
“blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the King of the world, who hast created “the fruit of the vine”: blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hath chosen us above all people, and hath exalted us above every tongue, and hath sanctified us by his commandments; and thou hast given unto us, O Lord our God, in love, the stated festivals for joy, and the feasts and seasons for rejoicing; this day of the feast of unleavened bread, this time of our freedom, a holy convocation, in remembrance of the going out of Egypt; for thou hast chosen us, and thou hast sanctified us, above all people; and the feasts of thine holiness with joy and rejoicing thou hast made us to inherit: blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast sanctified Israel, and the seasons: blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who hath kept us alive, and preserved us, and hast brought us to this time.”
After this every one drank of his cup, and put it on the table: accordingly it follows,
and said, take this and divide it among yourselves; that is, every one drink of it.
m Maimon. Chametz Umetzah, c. 7. sect. 9, 10. n Ib. c. 8. sect. 1. o Haggada Shel Pesach. fol. 241. 1, 2. ed. Basil. p. 3, 4. ed. Rittangel.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He received a cup ( ). This cup is a diminutive of . It seems that this is still one of the four cups passed during the passover meal, though which one is uncertain. It is apparently just before the formal introduction of the Lord’s Supper, though he gave thanks here also (). It is from this verb (see also verse 19) that our word Eucharist comes. It is a common verb for giving thanks and was used also for “saying grace” as we call it.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And he took the cup,” (kai deksamenos poterion) “And he took a cup “‘ the, “cup of the passover,” the wine or fruit of the vine, where He was reclining, after the passover supper was ended, or as it came to an end, and the true passover was about to be offered, 1Co 5:7.
2) “And gave thanks, and said,” (eucharistesas eipen) “And when he had given thanks, he said,” Deu 8:10-18; 1Ti 4:4, even facing sorrow, betrayal, and death He still gave thanks, expressed gratitude to His Father for the deliverance from bondage in Egypt, of old, 1Th 5:19; 2Co 9:15; For what the cup symbolized, Mat 20:22-23.
3) “Take this, and divide it among yourselves:” (labete touto kai diamerisate eis heautous) “You all take this (cup) and divide it among yourselves,” Or each of you drink of it, sharing an expression of oneness of fellowship and commitment, as you are to observe this passover no more, as required by law, Col 2:14-17; Luk 16:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
As Luke mentions that the cup was twice presented by Christ, we must inquire, in the first place, if it be a repetition, (as the Evangelists are wont frequently to say the same thing twice,) or if Christ, after having tasted the cup, repeated the same thing a second time. This latter conjecture appears to me to be probable; for we know that the holy fathers, during sacrifices, observed the solemn rite of tasting the cup; (188) and hence those words of the Psalmist,
I will take the cup of salvation, and will call on the name of the Lord, (Psa 116:13.)
I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ, according to the ancient custom, tasted the cup in the holy feast, which otherwise could not have been correctly observed; and Luke expressly mentions this, before coming to give an account of the new mystery, which was a totally different institution from the paschal lamb. It was in compliance also with received and ordinary custom, that he is expressly said to have given thanks, after having taken the cup. For at the commencement of the supper, I have no doubt, he prayed, as he was accustomed never to sit down at table without calling on God; but now he wished to discharge once more the same duty, that he might not leave out a ceremony which, I have just now shown, was connected with the sacred act of taking the cup and tasting it. (189)
(188) “ Que les saincts peres ont observé ceste ceremonie solennelle de prendre la coupe, et gouster un peu de ce qui estoit dedans;” — “that the holy fathers observed this ceremony of taking the cup, and tasting a little of what was within it.”
(189) “ De prende la coupe, et en gouster.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) Take this, and divide it among yourselves.The cup was probably the first of the three cups of wine, or wine mingled with water, which Jewish custom had added to the ritual of the Passover. As being a distinct act from that of Luk. 22:20, it is natural to infer that it had a distinct symbolic meaning. Looking to the fact that wine is partly the symbol, partly the antithesis, of spiritual energy in its highest form (comp. Zec. 9:17; Act. 2:13; Eph. 5:18), and to the re-appearance of the same somewhat exceptional word for divide, in the tongues parted, or divided, or distributed (cloven is a mistranslation), in Act. 2:3, we may see in this cup the symbol of the bestowal of the spiritual powers which each of the disciples was to receive, according to the gift of the self-same Spirit, who divideth to every man severally as He will (the Greek word in 1Co. 12:11 is, however, different, though expressing the same thought), just as the second was the pledge of a yet closer fellowship with His own divine life.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. And he took the cup The passover cup.
Divide it among yourselves He drank it not himself.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks (eucharistesas), he said, “Take this, and divide it (share it) among yourselves, for I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingly Rule of God shall come.”
During the Passover feast it was customary for four cups of wine to be drunk. This was therefore probably the first cup, the initial opening of the feast, although it may have been the second. And Luke probably has the saying that follows it in the right place. It may be seen as quite likely that Jesus made some poignant comment as each cup was drunk. It was after all a time of huge significance. Luke then draws on His two main emphases, the one to do with the soon coming and final certainty of the Kingly Rule of God which will not involve His eating and drinking, and the one which spoke of the giving of His body and of the new covenant sealed in blood, at which there would be eating and drinking, for He wants to bring out both stresses individually. Matthew and Mark meanwhile deliberately limit mention of the drinking of wine to one cup so as to concentrate the minds of their readers on the cup later used in Communion at the Lord’s Table. They therefore, in order to introduce these words, had to tack them rather uncomfortably onto the words of institution which are similar to those given below, because while they did not wish to omit them altogether, their emphasis was on the significance of the Lord’s Supper as continually celebrated by the church. They were combining the two aspects into one for that purpose.
‘Divide it among yourselves.’ It was normal at the Passover for the presiding person to drink first and then for the cup to be passed round. So this probably means that Jesus had taken His first drink and was now offering it to them, so that each might drink from the cup. It may, however, signify that Jesus did not drink of it Himself, although in our view this seems unlikely in view of His statement that He had so desired to share this meal with them. Indeed it would mar the sense of oneness and unity. But the principle point here is that the wine at this feast, and possibly in this cup, would be the last wine He would taste, until the coming of the Kingly Rule of God that lay beyond it (apart from the cup of suffering – Luk 22:42). It was an indication of how close was the coming of the Kingly Rule of God, a coming which would be especially revealed by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
The description of this wine as His last taste before the coming of the Kingly Rule of God was an assertion both of His certain approaching death, and of the certainty of the coming of the Kingly Rule of God. It was also the guarantee of His resurrection in preparation for it (for without bodily resurrection He would not otherwise be able to drink of it again). So it was both an indication of His coming death and a positive guarantee of His glorious coming victory and of the ‘good times’ that would one day come. It was an assurance that in spite of what was to happen, the Kingly Rule of God would become a reality. It would begin once He was taken up and enthroned, and would then continue for ever, and they could all therefore carry with them this certainty, that they would once more ‘sup together’ and ‘drink wine’ with Him under His Father’s Kingly Rule (both on earth and in Heaven, compare Isa 25:6-8. See also Luk 12:37; Luk 14:24).
As already mentioned there are two main views about what He means here, whether He means that they will once more eat and drink with Him in spiritual fellowship around the Lord’s Table, or whether it refers to His future eating and drinking in the eternal kingdom. We favour the first, firstly because otherwise there is a sad lack of reference to the period that will come between His enthronement and His coming again, and secondly because otherwise it would indicate that He was telling them to seek humility and glory at the same time, an unlikely possibility when it was spoken to men who wrongly had their minds fixed on the highest place.
In our view we must see His not eating and drinking as a symbol of His dedicating Himself to dying on the cross (compare Num 6:3), and of His priesthood in offering Himself on it (Lev 10:8), as described more fully in Heb 9:11-14.
But those who see it as referring to the coming of the everlasting Kingdom see it as signifying that the reason why He would not drink was because His work would not be done until all was accomplished. Cessation from the drinking of wine indicated to a Jew either the intention of entering on priestly ministry (Lev 10:8) or the intention to take a sacred vow (Num 6:3). It was a symbol of those especially dedicated to a sacred task (Luk 1:15). We are reminded here that, in Hebrews, Jesus’ future time is seen as being utilised in His ever living to make intercession for us as our great High Priest (Heb 7:25). No priest entering on his ministry was to drink wine. Thus Jesus may here be stressing the total dedication of Himself to the saving task that lies ahead.
‘Eucharistesas (when He had given thanks).’ All the cups would be blessed during the Passover so that this does not identify which cup it was. The verb is also used by Luke of the bread. The use of this verb without an object is typically Jewish.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
XXIII
THE LORD’S SUPPER
Harmony, pages 178-179 and Mat 26:26-29
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
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Ver. 17. And he took the cup ] The cup of the common supper,Joh 13:2-3Joh 13:2-3 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17. ] Some (e.g. De Wette) suppose that it is here implied that our Lord did not drink of the cup Himself . But surely this cannot be so. The two members of the speech are strictly parallel: and if He desired to eat the Passover with them, He would also drink of the cup , which formed a usual part of the ceremonial. This seems to me to be implied in : is the word used by all afterwards , when He did not partake of the bread and wine. This most important addition in our narrative, amounts I believe to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite , in both its usual divisions, the eating the flesh of the lamb, and drinking the cup of thanksgiving. Henceforward, He who fulfilled the Law for man will no more eat and drink of it. I remark this, in order further to observe that this division of the cup is not only not identical with , but has no reference to , the subsequent one in Luk 22:20 . That was the institution of a new rite; this the abrogation of an old one , now fulfilled, or about to be so, in the person of the true Lamb of God.
This is generally supposed to have been the first cup in the Passover-meal, with which the whole was introduced.
On the possible connexion of this speech of our Lord with the celebration of the Passover at this particular time, see note on Mat 26:17 .
After these verses, in order of time, follows the washing of the disciples’ feet in Joh 13:1-20 , referred to in our Luk 22:27 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 22:17 . , having received from the hand of another (different from , Luk 22:19 ), handed to Him that He might drink. , this solemn act gives to the handing round of the cup here mentioned the character of a prelude to the Holy Supper: (“quaedam quasi prolusio S. Coenae,” Beng. in reference to Luk 22:15-18 ). If the reading of [184] and some Old Latin codd. which makes Luk 22:19 stop at and omits Luk 22:20 be the true text ( vide critical notes above), then Lk.’s account of the institution really begins in Luk 22:17 , and what happened according to it was this: Jesus first sent round the cup, saying: take this and divide it among yourselves, then took bread, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying: this is my body. In this version two things are to be noted: first, the inversion of the actions; second, the omission of all reference to the blood in connection with the wine. The existence of such a reading as that of D and the Old Latin version raises questions, not only as to Lk.’s text, but as to church practice in the Apostolic age and afterwards; or, assuming as a possibility that Lk. wrote as D represents, have we here another instance of editorial discretion shrinking from imputing to Jesus the idea of drinking His blood? If with D we omit all that follows , then it results that Lk. has left out all the words of our Lord setting forth the significance of His death uttered (1) at Caesarea Philippi; (2) on the occasion of the request of Zebedee’s sons; (3) the anointing at Bethany; (4) the institution of the Supper. (2) and (3) are omitted altogether, and (1) is so reported as to make the lesson non-apparent.
[184] Codex Bezae
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
cup. Put by Figure of speech Metonymy (of the Subject), App-6, for the wine in it.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17.] Some (e.g. De Wette) suppose that it is here implied that our Lord did not drink of the cup Himself. But surely this cannot be so. The two members of the speech are strictly parallel: and if He desired to eat the Passover with them, He would also drink of the cup, which formed a usual part of the ceremonial. This seems to me to be implied in : is the word used by all afterwards, when He did not partake of the bread and wine. This most important addition in our narrative, amounts I believe to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of the Passover rite, in both its usual divisions,-the eating the flesh of the lamb, and drinking the cup of thanksgiving. Henceforward, He who fulfilled the Law for man will no more eat and drink of it. I remark this, in order further to observe that this division of the cup is not only not identical with, but has no reference to, the subsequent one in Luk 22:20. That was the institution of a new rite;-this the abrogation of an old one, now fulfilled, or about to be so, in the person of the true Lamb of God.
This is generally supposed to have been the first cup in the Passover-meal, with which the whole was introduced.
On the possible connexion of this speech of our Lord with the celebration of the Passover at this particular time, see note on Mat 26:17.
After these verses, in order of time, follows the washing of the disciples feet in Joh 13:1-20, referred to in our Luk 22:27.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 22:17. ) is said of that which is afforded or presented to another. Jesus acted, as the Head of the family: He caused the cup to be presented (held out) to Him.-, yourselves) He seems to have Himself drunk first. Comp. the preceding verses, but not also, Luk 22:20. Comp. Mat 26:26, note. [Jesus, when giving the bread and wine, is not said to have Himself eaten and drunk, for it was not for Himself that His body and blood were to be offered.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
took: Psa 23:5, Psa 116:13, Jer 16:7
gave: Luk 22:19, Luk 9:16, Deu 8:10, 1Sa 9:13, Rom 14:6, 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5
Reciprocal: Mar 14:23 – when Luk 22:42 – cup
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Took the cup. According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and Funk and Wagnalls’ Standard Bible Dictionary, the Jews added the drinking of wine to the celebration of the Passover. It was this cup that Jesus took in this verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 22:17. Took, or received, as the leader in the Passover feast.
A cup. The first cup, of the Passover.
And when he had given thanks. This was usual with the first cup (see on Mat 26:17, etc.). The form of the blessing was: Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, who hast created the fruit of the vine. Of this form there seems to be an echo in Luk 22:18.
Take this and divide it among yourselves. Our Lord Himself seems to have partaken of this cup. As He had eaten before He uttered the words of Luk 22:15-16, so He had drunk before saying this. This was a part of the regular Passover celebration; the institution of the Lords Supper was distinct from the act here mentioned.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The drinking of the cup 22:17-18
There were four times that participants in the Passover meal drank together, commonly referred to as four cups. The Passover opened with a prayer of thanksgiving followed by the drinking of the first cup. Then the celebrants ate the bitter herbs and sang Psalms 113-114. Next they drank the second cup and began eating the lamb and unleavened bread. Then they drank the third cup and sang Psalms 115-118. Finally they drank the fourth cup. The cup in view in this verse may have been the first of the four. If it was, Jesus evidently did not participate in the drinking of the following three cups (Luk 22:18). [Note: Jeremias, The Eucharistic . . ., pp. 211-12.] The other Gospel writers did not refer to the first cup, so this may have been the third cup, the so-called cup of redemption. This view assumes that Jesus did participate in the drinking of the first and second cups, which would have been normal. "From now on" or "again" (Luk 22:18) could mean either after this cup or after this Passover. I favor the view that Jesus was referring to the cup, not the Passover, and that this was the third cup. Luke rearranged the order of events in the upper room considerably, as comparison with the other Gospels seems to indicate. Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying what Luke recorded in these verses just after what Luke recorded in Luk 22:20.
Jesus continued to lead by giving thanks to God and then encouraging the apostles to partake. His action was similar to making a toast. However, His announcement that He would not drink the fruit of the vine again until He did so with His guests in the kingdom was not customary. It reinforced His previous statement that the kingdom would come. Jesus was stressing the certainty of the kingdom’s coming. This was necessary since His impending arrest and death would cause the apostles to question whether it would come.