Lord’s Supper. (I.)
Lord’s Supper. (I.)
LORDS SUPPER. (I.)
Introductory.
1.The Sacramental in Hebrew worship.
2.The Method and Teaching of Jesus.
3.Passover Eve.
(a)The Synoptic Gospels.
(b)The Fourth Gospel.
(c)The Apostle Paul.
4.The Institution.
(a)The common underlying Tradition.
(b)Differences in detail.
(i.)Mark-Matt.; (ii.) Luk 22:15-20; (iii.) Paul; (iv.) The Fourth Gospel.
Results.
5.The Apostolic Church.
(a)The Jewish-Christian Community.
(b)The Pauline Churches.
(c)The Agape and the Lords Supper.
6.The sub-Apostolic Church.
(a)Clement of Rome.
(b)Plinys Letter to Trajan.
(c)The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
(d)Ignatius.
(e)Justin Martyr.
7.The Lords Supper and the Pagan Mysteries.
Literature.
Introductory.The Lords Supper has been for centuries, and is to-day, a theological storm-centre; though the blasts have shifted, recent critical scholarship having occasioned a new incidence of forces. Former controversies raged round the meaning of the institution. At present the discussion is even more vital, for it is a matter not of interpretation only, but of the trustworthiness of the sources. The Gospels as they now stand are said to owe so much to the thought and practice of the growing Church, that it is necessary to read between the lines in order to detect the simple form of the Eucharist on the day of its first celebration, when it signified rather the abrogation of the old worship and the near approach of the Kingdom than the institution of a new worship. It is denied that Jesus, with His views as to the speedy consummation of His Kingdom, could have instituted the Supper as a perpetual memorial of His death; and the connexion in the Gospels between the Last Supper and the Passover is regarded as a later overlying deposit, which can be easily detached from the primitive stratum. To take an example, Jesus is supposed to have uttered the words of the Supper recorded in the Gospels on the impulse of the moment. Feeling Himself already victor over death and the world, He wishes to inspire His disciples with His own conviction, and by an act of vivid imagination conceives Himself as already dispensing the blessings of the completed Kingdom, their simple farewell meal having been transformed into the great Messianic banquet of the future, which commonly served as a figure for the joys of Messiahs sovereignty. Professor Gardner is even more drastic in his treatment of the Gospel tradition, eliminating all evidence except that of St. Paul, who, he thinks, was the real originator of the rite, having turned a pagan ceremony to Christian use in a moment of ecstasy under the influence of what he had seen of the Greek mysteries in Corinth. But the great majority of impartial scholars who have discussed the question do not adopt such a highly critical attitude towards the narratives of the institution of the Supper, or reverse so completely the ordinarily accepted views as to its origin and purpose. No sufficient treatment of the Lords Supper can pass in silence these problems which have been raised with great learning and acuteness, but they must be discussed in relation to the method of Jesus the Messiah, who brings Israel to its fulfilment.
1. The Sacramental in Hebrew worship.The term sacrament denotes an outward and visible sign of an invisible spiritual reality. By means of symbol, which is metaphor transformed into action or concreteness, truth is conveyed to the participants in a sacrament much more readily than by the bare word. Language conveys truth, but symbol does what language cannot compass. The worship of the OT was full of the symbolic, for it is almost certain that the cultus was in its essence no arbitrary prescription of meaningless forms. The sacrificial system was held to be a means of grace, of Divine appointment, whereby the worshipper could approach Jehovah. It must have been educative, so that the obedient and lealhearted Israelite became in the actual observance more receptive of moral and spiritual truth. In that sense the sacrificial system of Israel was truly sacramental. But whether the average Hebrew recognized the sacramental character is doubtful, for the great prophets constantly warn the people that the mere ritual performance of sacrifice is inefficacious. Some, especially the earlier prophets, often seem to disparage offerings entirely, as though the only worship with which Jehovah is well pleased is the spiritual service of moral character and a contrite heart. And yet the prophets employ symbolic action again and again in the service of an ideal spirituality, so that in itself symbol has been a widespread and perfectly legitimate means of grace. The transcendental element in worship, however brightly or faintly the contemporary life of Israel may have been illumined by the spiritual truth of the prophets, had all but vanished from the official Judaism of our Lords day. There was no open vision. No prophet or seer was abroad in the dull day of rationalism. Heroic faith had been displaced by a shrewd but commonplace conduct. The Law had come in alongside Temple service, and ritual was observed as an ordinance. The average Jew, having become a deist, could not feel sky, earth, and sea palpitate with the Divine Spirit, and so was impervious to sacramental conceptions (W. P. Paterson, art. Sacrifice in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv. 341; Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums, pp. 182184). It was to the poor of the land who cherished the prophetic ideal that the parabolic, the sacramental, the symbolical in the teaching of Jesus would appeal.
2. The Method and Teaching of Jesus.The Gospel narratives represent the Supper as a solemn final act in the life of the Messiah. But the Messiah of their delineation is a Person of startling originality. He penetrates through the crust of unimaginative moralism to the living prophetic stream which in His day found its way to the surface only in tiny rivulets. On His own authority He claims, while purifying and enlarging the hopes of prophecy, to fulfil all that was truest in the religion of Israel, having accepted in His Temptation the Divine ideal of a Kingdom unalloyed by any earthly aspirations. He discovers and applies to Himself the title Son of Man, and in virtue of His position inaugurates changes in religion which constitute a breach with the past, for His doctrine concerning worship, foreshadowed by the prophets, antiquates bloody sacrifices and opaque ritual. To say that Jesus could not have instituted the sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, because He looked for a speedy realization of the Kingdom, is to deny that He had the complete vision of the destiny of the Servant of the Lord whose function is assumed by the Son of Man, whereas it seems certain that He foretold a spiritual inheritance among the Gentiles in return for His faithful service even unto death (Isa 42:1 ff., Isa 52:13 ff., Isa 62:1 ff., Mar 1:11, Luk 4:16-21, Mat 12:18, Mar 10:45). Another unique prophetic ideal was the consummation of the Kingdom in the Day of the Lord. With respect to this also we must assume that Jesus was a creator of spiritual truth, for the consistency of the Synoptic portraiture of Jesus, and the purity of His own views as to His mission, demand that our interpretation of His outlook into the future of the Kingdom should not be limited by the current ideas of Jewish apocalypses, or by the literal symbolism of OT prophecy.
We infer from the Gospels, (1) that before the close of His ministry in Galilee Jesus had looked forward to His death as the goal of His service (Mar 8:31); (2) that this death was to result in the redemption of the new Israel to which the prerogatives of the old would be transferred (Mar 10:45; Mar 12:1-12); (3) that He expected an earthly future for His Kingdom outlasting the earthly Jerusalem, and involving its establishment among the Gentiles (Mar 4:30-32; Mar 12:1-12; Mar 13:10; Mar 13:14 ff., Luk 13:32-35; Luk 21:20-24). No less evident, however, was the inability of the disciples to understand that the road of service even unto death was the road to the crowning glory of the Kingdom. For Him thus steadily to set His face towards Jerusalem, was, they thought, a sheer and fatal fascination (Mar 10:32-34, Luk 18:31 ff.).
Nor is the institution of the sacrament of the Supper inconsistent with the method of Jesus. The day for symbolism was not past, provided the symbolism was adequate; and this Supreme Teacher surpasses all others in the use of parable and symbol. Every meal with His disciples becomes sacramental through its prayer of thanksgiving, a symbol of the spiritual truth that in Him God was giving to the world the food that was real indeed (Joh 6:51-58). Nor would such a procedure be altogether strange to men who would remember that in the OT the common meal was the symbol of a completed covenant (Gen 26:30; Gen 31:54, Exo 24:11, 2Sa 3:20; see Knig, Symbols, Symbolical Actions in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , Ext. Vol., 171b). In order to understand the significance of this institution, it must be borne in mind that the disciples had committed all their fortunes to Jesus. Their faith had been for them a heroic venture, and the death of the Messiah meant little less than His desertion of them. That night, death like a dark shadow hovering over them was forcing their loved one within its portal. They could not see that a glorious light was shining on His back, that He was in reality an angel of blessing. They needed a pledge of love significant of the future and yet full of tender memories. This the Lords Supper becomes to them. That it was a mark of supreme wisdom thus to perpetuate the significance of His death for the completion of His Kingdom in concrete symbolism, is evident from their misinterpretation of their Lords promise as to the future of His Kingdom on earth and His own return; but we are led to expect only such words and symbolic action as would illuminate the spiritual idea of the Kingdom; not precepts and ritual ordinance for its external organization.
3. Passover Eve.Jesus came into Jerusalem on the morning of the first day of the week, and for several days escaped the plots of His enemies. But Judas entered into a conspiracy with the chief priests apparently two days before the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread (Mar 14:1; Mar 14:10-11). Ignorant of this accomplished treachery, the other disciples, observing that Jesus has as yet made no arrangement for the celebration of the feast, say unto Him on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the Passover? (Mar 14:12). Now we are embarked upon a sea of difficulties. The Gospels separate very distinctlythe Synoptics on the one side, the Fourth on the other. Did Jesus eat the regular Passover with His disciples, or did He not? At first sight the Synoptic Gospels seem to say that He did. But, according to John, Jesus died on the afternoon when the Passover lamb was slain (Joh 13:1; Joh 13:29; Joh 18:28).
(a) The Synoptic Gospels.() Evidence that the last meal was eaten at the conclusion of the regular Passover meal is offered by Mar 14:12; Mar 14:14, Mat 26:17-19, Luk 22:7-8; Luk 22:11; Luk 22:15-16, the last verses laying especial stress upon the desire of Jesus to eat this Passover with His disciples. Many features of the meal also suggest the Passover,the family group with Jesus presiding, the prayers of thanksgiving, the cups (Luk 22:17; Luk 22:20), the breaking of the bread, the solemn demeanour, the exposition, the conclusion with a hymn.
() But the Synoptics contain hints that the Supper was not a regular Passover meal. It is stated in Mar 14:1-2, that two days before the feast the priests resolved to capture Jesus, and to execute Him before any sympathizers among the populace could interfere; and, since nothing is said to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose was carried out. It would appear that, according to contemporary Jewish practice, Passover, the 14th Nisan, was spoken of as the beginning of the feast Maoth, though originally Unleavened Bread began on 15th Nisan (Wellhausen, Evangelium Marci, 115; Schrer, ThLZ [Note: hLZ Theol. Literaturzeitung.] , 1st April 1893, col. 182; as against Chwolson in Das letzte Passamahl). But only work necessary for preparing food was permitted from sunset on the 14th to sunset on the 21st, and it would have been illegal or contrary to custom to arrest Jesus that night with swords and staves, to hold a meeting of the Sanhedrin, to release a prisoner, to purchase grave-clothes, and to take the dead body down from the cross, if He ate the regular Passover meal on Thursday evening Nisan 14. Further, there is no mention in the Synoptic narrative of their eating the lamb (Jewish Encyc. x. art. Passover). Jesus died on a Friday, so that we may probably assume from Mar 14:1-2 that Passover (Nisan 14) fell on the Sabbath, which began on Friday at sunset. Nevertheless the preponderating impression of the Synoptic Gospels is certainly in favour of this meal having been related in some way to the Passover feast. It is distinctly so stated, and it is difficult to suppose that there were not good grounds in the primary sources for such united testimony.
(b) The Fourth Gospel.From Joh 18:28 we must infer that Jesus died on the afternoon before Passoverbetween the two evenings (Deu 16:6). This inference is so strongly reinforced by Joh 13:1; Joh 13:29, that Dr. Hort, with whom Dr. Sanday and Mr. C. H. Turner agree, believes that the Fourth Evangelist is silently correcting a false impression left by the Synoptists (Expos. iv. v. [1892] p. 182; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible i. 411a. On the other side see Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Bk. v. ch. x.). St. John neither here nor elsewhere refers directly to the institution of the Supper, but in Joh 6:53-59 his conception of the truth that underlies the Sacrament is set forth in the conversation of Jesus. He states that the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 took place at Passover time (Joh 6:4, so true reading), probably seeing in it a figure of the Christian Passover. Notwithstanding, therefore, his fixing of the day of our Lords death before the regular Passover, there is good ground for holding that he implicitly relates the Last Supper to the Passover (Westcott, St. John, pp. 96, 113; Holtzmann, NT Theol. ii. 503; Wendt, St. Johns Gospel, 137139). See, further, artt. Dates, vol. i. p. 413 ff., Last Supper, Passover (II.).
(c) The Apostle Paul.Though 1Co 5:7-8 is often interpreted so as to make St. Paul agree with the Fourth Evangelist, that Jesus died when the lambs for the feast were slain, it is very doubtful whether this idea was in his mind. He is comparing the Christian life with the old Passover upon which the Feast of Unleavened Bread followed (Exo 12:19; Exo 13:7). So now, since the Christian Passover has begun through the sacrifice of Christ, all impurity must be removed from their lives. Perhaps 1Co 10:1-2; 1Co 10:6; 1Co 10:15-16 have the imagery of the Passover; the cup of blessing (1Co 10:16) was one of the most sacred elements of the Paschal meal (Edersheim, op. cit. ii. 510 f.; but for opposite view, see Holtzmann, op. cit. ii. 184 f.).
The figure of 1Co 5:7-8 may refer to an actual celebration of the Christian Passover in the Corinthian Church, for we know that in the middle of the 2nd cent. Easter was the most important annual festival of the Catholic Church, and there is no evidence of its having been introduced after the Apostolic age. The great Quartodeciman controversy (c. 165 a.d.) was not concerned with doctrinal differences, but with the date on which the universal Christian feast was to be heldwhether the Jewish date, Nisan 14, or the Sunday of Easter week. No inference can be drawn from it as to the connexion between the Eucharist and the Passover, inasmuch as the Christian Passover was not a memorial of the Passover only, but of redemption in which Christs death and resurrection both were the essential factors. The Supper would be at most one element in the celebration, and possibly had little direct Paschal significance. The Church of the last half of the 2nd cent. assumed that there was agreement among the four Evangelists with regard to the time of Christs death, and apparently accepted the Synoptic chronology, Origen and Eusebius making definite attempts to bring Jn. into conformity with the other Gospels. Zahn, however, holds that the Quartodecimans interpreted the latter in accordance with the former (Gesch. NT Kan. i. 1. 191). For a fuller discussion, with older literature, see Zahn, op. cit. i. 1. 180192; J. Drummond, Character and Authorship of Fourth Gospel, 444513; Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, 173197; Preuschen in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] xiv. 725734 takes a different view.
The easiest explanation of this conflicting evidence is that Jesus did not eat the regular Passover feast with His disciples, but that He did eat a meal by anticipation on Nisan 13, the night before the regular Jewish celebration, which was in some sort a keeping of the Passover by this little group (but see Robinson, art. Eucharist in Encyc. Bibl. i. 3). The words of Jesus in Luk 22:15-16 become intelligible when we remember what the Passover meant, and also His method in promulgating His Kingdom. Passover was the greatest national feast, gathering into itself whatever was most sacred in the religious life of Israel. It was the memorial of national redemption. Through its familieseach a part of the larger wholeIsrael entered annually into renewed covenant relationship with Jehovah, who had graciously preserved and ransomed the people. It was a sacrificial feast allied with the shelamim or peace-offerings. The sprinkled blood denoted atoning efficacy (v. Orelli, Passah, in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] xiv.; art. Passover in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iii. and in Jewish Encyc.). Now Israel is on the point of being transformed. A new redemption is to be completed. Jerusalem and the Temple, with its bloody sacrifices and ritual worship, are soon to disappear. But while the Messiah is abrogating the letter of the old, He fulfils its spirit. He is supplying new wine-skins for the new wine. Just as He has provided the new Israel with a new conception of worship (Mat 6:1-18, Joh 4:21-24), a new standard of righteousness (Mat 5:17-48), and a reinterpretation of the Sabbath (Mar 2:23-26; Mar 3:1-5), so now He transfigures, while yet He preserves the identity of, the central institution of Israels national life. By a masterpiece of practical skill as a teacher Jesus enshrines, in this symbolic action, for the spiritual representatives of the new Israel, the memory of its ransom through the death of Messiah, whereby a new covenant relationship with Jehovah is possible.
4. The Institution.Mar 14:22-26, Mat 26:26-30, Luk 22:15-20, 1Co 11:23-26 :
MkAnd as they were eating He took bread and when He had blessed
MtAnd as they were eating Jesus took bread and blessed
LkAnd He took bread and when He had given thanks
1 CoIn the night in which He was betrayed the Lord Jesus took bread and when He had given thanks
MkHe brake it and gave to them and said, Take ye this is my body
MtAnd brake it and He gave to the disciples and said, Take eat this is my body
LkHe brake it and gave to them saying this is ray body which is given for you
1 CoHe brake it and said this is my body which is for you
LkThis do in remembrance of me.
1 CoThis do in remembrance of me. And He said [unto them]
MkAnd He took a cup and when He had given thanks He gave to them and they all drank of it.
MtAnd He took a cup and gave thanks and gave to them saying drink ye all of it.
LkAnd the cup in like manner after supper saying
1 CoAnd the cup in like manner after supper
MkThis (covenant) my blood of the covenant
MtFor this (covenant) my blood of the covenant
LkThis cup is the new covenant in my blood
1 CoThis cup is the new covenant in my blood
Mkwhich is shed for many
Mtwhich is shed for many unto remission of sins
Lkwhich is shed for you
1 Co This do as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me
MkVerily I say unto you I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine
MtBut I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine
Lk (Luk 22:18)For I say unto you I will not from heneeforth drink of the fruit of the vine
MkUntil that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God
MtUntil that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom
LkUntil the Kingdom of God shall come
1 Co adds:For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye proclaim the Lords death till He come.
We read in Matthew and Mark that, during a meal, Jesus took bread and brake it. Possibly it was one of the unleavened cakes used at the Feast, though the foregoing discussion renders unnecessary any attempt to fix this action into the order of the regular Passover. The procedure was peculiarly solemn, with an added gravity, because for the first time, a few moments before, Jesus had announced that one of the little group was a traitor (Luk 22:21-23, which puts this after the narrative of the Supper, is probably a displacement). Ruin without, treachery within, the disintegration of the brotherhood may well have seemed to have already begun, and collapse was staring them in the face. Nothing but the serene assurance of Jesus could brace them against such disaster. Like a father presiding at a family meal, He rallies them, in full view of His own death, by such a thanksgiving as they had often heard from Him before (Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36, Joh 6:11). There is no suggestion here of exaltation or ecstasy. His demeanour is that of confidence, subdued by sorrow for His betrayal and the hatred of His enemies. The presumption from the order of Mar 14:18-21 and Joh 13:21-30 is against the traitor having remained throughout the Supper.
(a) The common underlying Tradition.The action of Jesus in solemnly breaking bread and handing it to His disciples must mean that His body is likewise to be broken, destroyed by men; but, when assimilated by His disciples, He in His complete Person will become their spiritual food. It is parabolic, or rather, it may be illustrated by the allegories of the Fourth Gospel, as e.g. Joh 15:1, where Jesus claims to be most really and yet not materially the true vine (Westcott). Quite apart from the question of its historical value, the discourse of Jesus in Joh 6:47-59 may be used to illuminate this procedure, because the same truth is expressed in Jn. in words as in the Lords Supper by words and symbol.
The second part of the Supper is another solemnly acted allegory. Old is passing over into new. At Sinai sprinkled blood had ratified a covenant (Exo 24:4-8). Jeremiah, all but submerged in the flood which was carrying on its surface the fragments of the old system, sees like a rainbow of hope the new covenant which, with its promise of forgiveness of sins, was to he established on a perfect knowledge of God; and later came the profound truth that this new covenant between God and man could be inaugurated only by the death of the Servant of the Lord, whose sufferings would bring salvation to the whole world (Isa 42:6; Isa 49:8; Isa 52:13-15; Isa 53:11-12; see Kautzsch, Religion of Israel, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , Extra Vol. 708).
The new covenant is about to be ratified by Messiahs blood. The many are to be ransomed (Mar 10:45), these representatives of the true Israel being but the first to appropriate the benefits of the new covenant. Parabolic or symbolic this meal was, but both parts do not convey the same truth. The first action is a vehicle for the truth that Jesus Himself will continue to be for His disciples their heavenly food unto eternal life; the second that, in virtue of Messiahs death, salvation from sin is possible through the covenant grace of God. To attribute the conception of the second half of the institution, as it is recorded in Mk., to the influence of Pauline thought, is to do injustice to the fact that its roots are deeply imbedded in OT prophecy, although, like many other ideas, its flower first appears in the teaching of Jesus.
His closing words have a future outlook. Death will end in victory, and when the Day of the Lord shall usher in the Kingdom, He will again hold fellowship with His disciples at the eternal Messianic banquet. That Day began to come with power as the Spirit-filled Church received the Gentiles for her inheritance, and the eagles gathered upon the carcase of official Judaism.
(b) Differences in detail.The records, as preserved in the Textus Receptus , divide into two typesMark-Matthew and Luke-Paul. In the shorter recension of Luke, to be referred to later, there is an independent narrative. We begin with the Markan tradition, reproduced mainly in Matthew, as the earliest source.
(i.) Mark-Matthew.The words take (eat) may perhaps be intended to emphasize the representative action of the disciples. As those who are to sit on twelve thrones, they are not eating a common meal but accepting this blessing for Israel. Some justification of this view may be found in the fact that in Luke and Paul the addition which is (given or shed) on your behalf is qualified by the words do this in remembrance of me, whereas in Mk.-Mt., which omit this injunction altogether, the words run which is shed for many, as though the meal had a wider reach than an ordinary supper. The omission from Mk.-Mt. of the command to repeat the meal as a memorial is the most remarkable difference between the two sources for the Supper. Mt. differs from Mk. in minor points, the most important being the addition of the words unto remission of sins, which may have been a current or ritual interpretation, but in any case merely render explicit the idea of the new covenant (Jer 31:34).
(ii.) Luk 22:15-20.The difficulties of the text are such that so far no final decision has been reached with regard to them, some scholars indeed thinking that the textual problem is involved in the Synoptic problem. The evidence is as follows: (1) The Textus Receptus is supported by ABCL. (2) Old Latin be (k defective) have the order Luk 22:16; Luk 22:19 a, ( . ) Luk 22:17-18, and omit Luk 22:19 b, Luk 22:20. Old Syriac (Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin and Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] cur) agree in the main with old Latt., though with interpolations. Their order is Luk 22:16; Luk 22:19; Luk 22:17-18; Luk 22:21. And he took bread and gave thanks for it and brake it and gave and said: This is my body which is for you (Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin + is given): do this in remembrance of me. And (Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin after they had supped) he took a cup and gave thanks over it and said: Take this and share it among yourselves (Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin + this is my blood of the new covenant). I say to you that from this time on I shall not drink of this growth of the vine (Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin fruit) until the kingdom of God comes. The Pesh. omits Luk 22:17-18; Egyp. [Note: Egyptian.] omits Luk 22:16-18; Marcion omits Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18-19 b, and after Luk 22:19 a comes the cup, but there is only one. (3) D [Note: Deuteronomist.] a ff2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i I omit Luk 22:19 b and Luk 22:20. Hort, with whom Nestle agrees, is strongly of opinion that Luk 22:19 b, Luk 22:20 were not part of the original text of Luke. Weiss, Schrer, Zahn, and others also believe in a shorter text, but Zahn looks to the oldest versions rather than to D [Note: Deuteronomist.] a, etc., for the proper order. Their testimony is uniform for the order of Mk.-Mt.-Paul (for 1Co 10:16 even with the Didache can hardly, in the face of 1Co 11:24, be cited for primitive practice) and for only one cup. However, Mark and Paul seem to have influenced the oldest Syriac directly, in its additions this is my blood, etc., and the command for repetition. If the longer text be accepted, as it is by many scholars, the mention of the two cups may be due to the recapitulatory propensity of Luke (Thayer), or the first cup may signify the close of the Old Covenant in the last Passover ( Luk 22:16-18), while the second cup belongs to the New Covenant ( Luk 22:19 a, 20). In favour of the latter view it may be observed that a cup occurs in Luk 22:17, but in Luk 22:20 the cup, as though well known in the Church (Holtzmann). There is, however, other evidence in this chapter of unsuitable order if not disarrangement, as e.g. Luk 22:18; Luk 22:21-23, where a change of position would fit the narrative better: and if Joh 13:1-30 may be taken as a guide, it would seem that Luk 22:24-27 should come before the institution of the Supper. Hence Horts excision of Luk 22:19 b, Luk 22:20 is as yet the simplest solution of the difficulty. In that case Luke did not intend to give the detailed account of the institution of the Supper, but rather its meaning. Whatever the original order may have been, there can be no doubt that he desires to lay stress on the Paschal character of the meal. The old dispensation is closing. For the last time Jesus hands His disciples the Passover cup: in the coming Kingdom He will provide for them a heavenly vintage (cf. Joh 15:1). (See Hort, Notes on Select Readings, p. 63 f.; Nestle, Textual Crit. of Gr. Test. p. 276 f.; Zahn, Einl. in d. NT, ii. 357 ff.; Sanday, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 636; Plummer, St. Luke, 496).
(iii.) Paul.1Co 11:23-26 is evidently drawn upon by the author of the longer account of the Supper in Luke. The Apostle gives unimpeachable authority for his view of the Supper, claiming that he had a revelation from the Lord, though it is highly probable that he derived it indirectly through the Apostles ( seems to involve a remote source; see Schmiedel, Hand-Com. ii. 162). Of the variations from Mk.-Mt. the most important are the repetition of Do this in remembrance of me, and the change of This is my blood of the covenant into This cup is the new covenant in my blood: while the common Synoptic prophecy of Jesus that He will drink the new fruit of the vine in the Kingdom with His disciples, gives way to a Pauline interpretation of the forward aspect of the Supperye proclaim the Lords death till he come.
In 1 Cor. the subject is introduced incidentally. There is no formal description of the first Supper, with full historical detail. The narrative is intended to correct abuses among light-hearted Greeks, who seem to have degraded the Supper to the level of their former heathen club-banquets (, ). They had few such sacred associations as the Jews, whose annual Passover was a valuable discipline in reverence for Jehovah their Redeemer. These Corinthians had poor ideas of the awful cost of their redemption, when they failed to recognize the meaning of this memorial of Christs redeeming death, and by their selfish party-spirit profaned the Lords Supper, instituted as it was at such a time as the night on which preparations for His betrayal were being matured (). The rite as described here is essentially the same as in the Gospels; but in the Gospels we have the historical account of its creation; while 1 Cor. describes an ideal celebration for the Christian brotherhood.
According to 1Co 11:23-26, the ruling idea of the Supper is the symbolical display of redemption through the death of our Lord, and the same conception, under the figure of the Christian Passover, is involved in 1Co 5:7. Another truth also underlying 1Co 11:23-26, but especially taught in 1Co 10:16-22, is that all those who partake of the spiritual food and drink in this Sacrament are brought into fellowship with Christ Himself, and are thus united into one body (1Co 10:3-4; 1Co 10:16-17).
(iv.) The Fourth Gospel.Though the institution of the Supper is not found in Jn., the final discourses of Jesus (1317) are coloured with the thought of it and of the love-feast, like brilliant clouds irradiated by the sun which they hide. It is in a measure true to say that, while the Synoptists are concerned with the Supper, St. John lingers upon the memory of the love-feast, for the conversations have the one great theme fittingly introduced by the deed of humility on the part of Him who having loved His own, loved them unto the end. He had exhibited the new law of love of which His death would be the crowning expression, and He becomes at once their example and their Sanctifier (see esp. ch. 17). The Evangelist, as we have seen, seems to correct the Synoptists as to the day of Christs death, but he relates the discourse of ch. 6 to the Passover, and in the theme he agrees substantially with them, for the words this is my body this is my blood, with their symbolic accompaniments, find an excellent interpretation in Joh 6:41-58, which can hardly be dissociated from the later institution of the Supper (see Westcott, St. John, 113; Holtzmann, NT Theol. ii. 501503; Loisy, Quatrime Evangile, 702722, 760, 811).
Results.(a) The Lords Supper was instituted by Jesus as a perpetual memorial of His death. It is true that the words Do this in remembrance of me do not occur in the oldest tradition, and may, perhaps, in their present form be traceable to St. Paul; but it is incredible that he should have originated this sacrament, and that it should have been adopted from him by the Jewish Christians. The ordinance was in existence among the Jerusalem Churches before his conversion, and the symbolism and narrative which he received must have been invested with a peculiar sacredness, for, as preserved in the written Petrine source (Mark) at least twenty years later, while different and distinctly more original, they are essentially the same. It is difficult to see how the early Christians would have turned every meal into a commemoration of their Lords death without His command, for even after the death they failed for a while to understand its full significance. After Pentecost they might have found their meals to be symbols of His perpetual presence to nourish them, but that they should have combined with this the necessity of His death, which remained a solemn mystery, would be inexplicable except under the example and instruction of their Lord.
(b) The Evangelical records relate the Supper to the Passover either directly or indirectly, but no such transformation of the original feast as we find in the Supper would have been made by the primitive Church, which remained thoroughly Jewish, except under the guidance of Jesus.
(c) Like all other teaching of Jesus, this does not prescribe new ritual dependent for its validity upon a set of fixed terms. Possibly freedom was allowed even with regard to the order of the action (see shorter text of Luke, 1Co 10:16 and Didaehe): certainly the spirit was not to be enslaved by an inerrant repetition of sacred words. Complete verbal accord is not to be found in the records, nor even in St. Paul is there a fixed liturgical formula such as might be repeated by a presiding officer; but the import of the Supper was preserved and conveyed mainly by a generally uniform Christian practice.
(d) The Lords Supper was a visible word conveying the truth of the awful mystery of Redemption. Until He came, however long or short might be the interval, His followers, Jew and Gentile, would in this acted parable read their Masters mind in regard to His death, the culmination of His service of love on their behalf. The Passion of Christ was itself a sacrament or mystery of an eternal truth: it was the supreme sacrament of human history: the outward and visible sign of a great supra-temporal fact (W. R. Inge, Contentio Veritatis, p. 298; see also art. Fellowship, ii.).
5. The Apostolic Church
(a) The Jewish-Christian Community.To break (or the breaking of) bread ( ) is almost a formula in the NT (Mar 8:6 ||, Mat 26:26, Luk 24:35, Act 2:42; Act 2:46; Act 20:7; Act 20:11, 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:24). The term does not seem to have been employed for the ordinary meals of the Jews or their sects in any formal way (see Jer 16:7-8, Lam 4:4). Undoubtedly sacrificial feasts shared in by fellow-worshippers were common not only in heathen circles but among the Jews; they were consecrated by thanksgivings and other religious ritual (Schrer, ThLZ [Note: hLZ Theol. Literaturzeitung.] , 1891, 32), and it would have been quite natural for the Christians thus to associate themselves together; but a widespread religious custom is not sufficient to account for the usage, and its nomenclature among the early disciples. Why was it distinguished from the fellowship () and singled out by a different terminology? Partly because of the memory of their Lords constant table-fellowship, to which His thanksgivings, with their intense reality, had given religious significance, but much more because of the Last Supper carrying His command. That Supper made every common meal more sacred. Enshrining the love of their Master in the symbolism of its closing scene, it gave new meaning to the communion of brethren at their common board. It became the source of a renewed joy, and the daily inspiration of a richer hope. So the term breaking of bread covers more than the observance of the Eucharist. It designates the meals of which this ordinance formed an integral part, the action of breaking bread, which was the largest factor of their meal, being used to denote the whole feast. We may assume that the disciples followed their Lords example, celebrating a love-feast, which would be enriched with memories of their Master and teaching from His nearest disciples, and closing with the more solemn thanksgiving for the broken body and the cup of blessing which Jesus had consecrated.
(b) The Pauline Churches.There are signs in the letters of St. Paul that there was a widespread doctrine and practice to which his own churches would conform (Rom 6:17), so that his influence over any churches but those of his foundation must not be exaggerated, especially in matters so vital as the sacred observances on which the personal disciples of Jesus would be regarded as primary authorities (cf. 1Co 1:12). Nevertheless the Church underwent a profound change when it passed from Jerusalem and the village churches of Judaea to the large cities of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. All ranks now contributed their share to the brotherhood. Thus of necessity the disciples could no longer meet daily, and their regular gatherings were held on the first day of the week (Act 20:7, 1Co 16:2, Rev 1:10). Probably the conduct of the service at Troas (Act 20:7-11) was that of the average Gentile congregation, but little can be gathered from it except that there was a weekly meeting of the church on Sunday night, followed by a common meal, at which, in this case, St. Paul presided, and protracted the discourse till daybreak. The Lords Supper may have been observed at some time during the common meal.
Thanksgiving was such an outstanding feature of the meal that already in 1Co 10:16 there is mention of the cup of blessing which we bless (some think it is so called in distinction from the cups at heathen banquets), and afterwards the meal is called the Eucharist (Ignat. Philad. 4, Smyr. 6; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 6466, Trypho, 116, 117). This Supper, originated and presided over by the Lord ( ), did not owe its validity to any official president or to any Apostolic blessing. It was a celebration of the brotherhood as a whole; indeed, the sacrilege of the Corinthians consisted partly in destroying the bond of love which united into one body the brethren who ate one bread (1Co 10:16 f., 1Co 11:20 ff.,). Only brethren seem to have been admitted to the Supper, though unbelievers and strangers attended other gatherings of a hortatory or didactic nature (1Co 14:23). It is noteworthy that the direct references to the Lords Supper in the epistolary writings of the NT are confined to 1 Cor., so that we may possibly attach a larger importance to the function of the Lords Supper in the Christian life than the Apostle Paul (see 1Co 1:14-17), though he did undoubtedly regard it as a powerful means of grace (1Co 10:16-21).
(c) The Agape and the Lords Supper.While the word Agape occurs only once in the NT (Jud 1:12, for the reading of 2Pe 2:13 is almost certainly ), there can be no doubt that the common meals of the primitive Christians, and the table-fellowship which the Corinthians abused, answer to the later Agape. A new name was given to what was really a new thing, for there is nothing elsewhere like the spirit of love which called into existence and pervaded the common intercourse of the brotherhood. The occasion for the origin of the name may be found in John 13-16, though the technical term probably did not come into use till long after the brethren had been enjoying the reality.
What did the Lords Supper ( , 1Co 11:20) precisely mean? Was it the concluding part of the Agape, later called the Eucharist, or did it include both the Agape and the Eucharist? Or was the Lords Supper a distinct Eucharistic meal separate from the Agape? The decision turns partly on the interpretation of 1Co 11:20. Jlicher is of the opinion that the Lords Supper was quite unlike all other congregational gatherings, and holds that St. Paul found fault with the Corinthians because by their greed they turned a meal, which was meant to serve the brotherly unity of the Church, into a means of satisfying their appetites (see Stewart, Expos. July 1898, and also Drews, PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] v. 562 f.). But there are two decisive objections to this view. () The Apostle says that the ordinance was instituted after supper ( , 1Co 11:25). () Bread and wine would not occasion the gluttony which he rebukes. It is much more difficult to decide between the other views. Those who hold that the Agape culminated in the Eucharist, and that the whole was called the Lords Supper, explain that the selfish conduct of the Corinthian cliques rendered impossible any table-fellowship like that of the first Lords Supper, when the feast of love culminated in the Eucharist. (Keating, Agape and Eucharist, Appendix B; Robertson in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible i. 490b). Perhaps this agrees with the term breaking of bread, and the practice as outlined in Acts, but the words of St. Paul seem to separate this part of the feast from the rest. It is a Lords meal because of the institution by the Lord which he proceeds to relate. It is impossible for you to eat a real Lords Supper when you have acted so disgracefully in the Agape. Further, the institution after supper, and the subsequent history of the ordinance, seem to be most easily explained on this view. (Weizscker, Apost. Age, English translation vol. ii. 283 ff.; Zahn, Agapen, in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i. 236 f.). The abuses which led eventually to a separation of the Agape from the Eucharist were abundant in Corinth, though the process of dissociation proved to be slow, and varied in different localities.
6. The sub-postolic Church
(a) Clement of Rome.To counteract the disturbances resulting from the Corinthian rivalries, Clement urges the necessity of order and reverence in the service, which will be effected by every one abiding in his own part (41). The bishops must offer the gifts blamelessly and holily (44), i.e. the prayers and thanksgivings, the alms, the Eucharistic elements, the contributions to the Agape, and so forth (Lightfoot). His stately prayers and insistence upon orderliness may point to a developing liturgical service, but the epistle sheds no real light upon the place or meaning of the Eucharist in the worship of the Church.
(b) Plinys Letter to Trajan (a.d. 112).This letter is of importance, but raises vexed questions. How far the practice described extended beyond the Church of Bithynia, and the trustworthiness and interpretation of evidence which he drew from apostate Christians, are doubtful. He says: Essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem, seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium (Ep. 96. 7).
Just what is involved in the word sacramentum has divided scholars. Lightfoot (Ign. i. 50 ff.) and Ramsay (Ch. in Rom. [Note: Roman.] Empire3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 219 f.) believe that the Eucharist and the Agape were separated at this time, and that the social meal, which was held in the evening, had been repressed in accordance with the Roman Imperial policy against associations (Keating, 54 ff.). Weizscker is not very clear (op. cit. ii. 249, 285), but Zahn (PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i. 236, art. Agapen) and J. A. Robinson (Encyc. Bibl., Eucharist, 17) are unwilling to draw such a conclusion. Possibly the abolition of the Agape was local and temporary (Mayor, Clem. of Alexandria, Strom. vii. 376 ff.). In any case, undue emphasis should not be placed upon the Imperial policy as a uniform influence, for there were other contributory local forces at work, introducing changes into worship; and when Ignatius wrote, the Eucharist and the Agape were still united in some parts of Asia Minor, and probably at Antioch (Light-foot).
(c) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.The uncertainty of the date and local origin of the Didache renders its witness doubtful. Quite different in tone from Paul, and not influenced directly, it would appear, by John, it may be taken as a type of widespread Jewish Christian life within the limits of Palestine, and possibly Egypt, about the end of the 1st century. The Supper, called the Eucharist, and associated with the breaking of bread, is mentioned in chapters 9, 10, and 14. The Eucharist is not yet separated from the Agape, if, indeed, they are not identical, for the latter is not mentioned, though some take ch. 9 to contain the closing prayers of the Agape, and ch. 10 those of the Eucharist (Zahn, Weizscker, Weiss, Loofs). It is held on the Lords Day, and is preceded by confession, for only pure hearts make praise and thanksgiving possible. The order, as in the shorter form of Luke, is cup and bread; but nothing is said as to the method of celebration, except that, while a set form of prayers is given for ordinary use, prophets are allowed freedom. There is no sign of a priest, and the celebration is the common act of the whole Church. Only the baptized are to partake of the Eucharist, which is that holy thing that cannot be given to the dogs, though not because the Eucharistic elements are regarded as conveying some mysterious power, or are, in any sense, sacrificial; for there is not much advance on Rom 12:1.* [Note: in Christian usage has two concrete senses besides the abstract sense: (1) a thanksgiving in words, and (2) a thanksgiving in offerings; and in early times it appears to denote always the offering or thing offered itself, not the ceremony or service, or the institution (Hort, JThSt, vol. iii. 595).]
The Didache is mystical, like the Fourth Gospel. Life and knowledge come through the appropriation of Jesus Christ as Messiah, but no reference is made to redemption through His blood. A unique figurethat of the grains of wheat being brought together to form one loafis applied to the sanctification of the Church in a unity. Thanks are given for knowledge of God, for faith and immortality brought through Jesus the Servant, and for daily food, but especially for the spiritual food through Jesus. After the stress of the present evil age, which may soon close with the advent of the Lord, will come the peace of perfect mystical union in the Church of the completed Kingdom (Bartlet, Didache, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , Extra Vol. 439 ff.; Drews in Neutest. Apokryphen, 182188).
(d) Ignatius.The Lords Supper assumes large importance. By a transference of the name for the prayer of thanksgiving to the whole meal it is called the Eucharist (Eph. 13, Phil. [Note: Philistine.] 4, Smyr. 6, 8). It is still associated with the Agape (Smyr. 8. 1, 2), and the term breaking of bread seems to include both (Eph. 20). His utterances often stand out untoned in the atmosphere of controversy with the Docetists, against whom he is never wearied of insisting upon the reality of the human nature of Jesus Christ which is essential to salvation. Only in the one Church is this full truth preserved, and the Eucharist is the symbol of unity, for there the gifts of salvation which are the full fellowship of life with Christ find fleshly expression. So, to be valid, it must be celebrated by the bishop, who, as opposed to all heretics, performs the sacrament as an act of the Church as a whole. For Ignatius the spiritual supersensible world is intensely real, but it becomes illusory without an earthly or material form, and only through the appropriation of the flesh and blood of Christ do believers enter into mystical union with God. This is most fully realized in the breaking of bread, an action efficacious as an antidote to spiritual deatha medicine for immortality ( , Eph. 20). Some hold that Ignatius regards the elements of the Supper as purely symbolic, for in Phil. [Note: Philistine.] 5. 1, the gospel is called the flesh of Jesus; in Trall. 8. 1, faith is the flesh of the Lord, and love is the blood of Jesus Christ; and in Rom. [Note: Roman.] 7, Ephesians 5, the bread of God is an image of the blessings of salvation without any reference to the Lords Supper (v. d. Goltz, Ignatius von Antiochien, pp. 72, 73; Lightfoot, Ign. ad Rom. [Note: Roman.] 7; Loofs, PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i. 40). Harnacks most recent view is that in Ignatius, sixty years after St. Paul, the whilom clear theology has become fouled by the Mysteries and their lore (Expansion of Christianity, i. 289). Apparently Ignatius does not think of magical powers as being inherent in material elements, but, influenced by Johannine mysticism, holds that the material forms must be interpreted by a spirit of faith, love, and thanksgiving in order to convey spiritual gifts. Yet he is ambiguous, and his realistic language, partly due to a mind more imaginative than penetrating, opens the door for the cruder conceptions which follow. Perhaps we may go further, and see in his use of the term medicine for immortality the first evidence of the later view of Greek theology, which laid the chief stress of redemption rather on the annihilation of physical corruption by the infusion of the Divine Nature of the Son of God, than on spiritual regeneration through the eternal Divine Person. (Lightfoot, Ign. ii. 45, 171, 258; Inge, Christian Mysticism, 257, and Appendix C; Swete in JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] , iii. 168; Sanday, The Fourth Gospel, 241245).
(e) Justin Martyr.The ecclesiastical term for the Supper is henceforth the Eucharist. Justin makes no mention of the Agape. The Eucharist ceases to be a meal of the congregation and becomes a regular part of the Sunday service, and seems to require the presence of a bishop or some other official for its valid celebration (Apol. i. 6567). Under the growing tendency towards ritual it began to gather to itself some of the Jewish, or perhaps heathen, sacrificial ideas centring in a special priesthood. Indeed Justin sees in the mysteries of Mithras a demonic imitation of Christian symbolism (Apol. i. 54, 62, 6567; Dial. c. Trypho, 70, 78). The ideas of Ignatius are in Justin losing their purity. He continues to speak of the Supper as a spiritual life-giving food, but holds that a material change passes upon the elements of the sacrament, so that they nourish our bodies and make them incorruptible, the Logos becoming united by the Encharistic prayer with the bread, as He took flesh and blood when He became incarnate in Jesus (Apol. i. 66; Loofs, PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i. 40, 41, 45, 46; Swete, JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] , iii. 169 f.). Harnack put forward a theory that bread and water were the usual elements in the Eucharist at the time of Justin, but it has received little approval, for the most that can be said is that the practice existed among some small sects in Africa (TU [Note: U Texte und Untersuehungen.] vii. 2, 117144, outlined by Stewart, Expos. July 1898, 43 ff.).
A variety of causes led to the discontinuance of the celebration of the Agape along with the Lords Supper. (a) The increase of abuses as they are found already in 1 Cor. and Jude. (b) The growth of the Church in large cities, where it became impossible for the Christians to meet together in house-celebrations. (c) The increasing power of the bishop and clergy, who found in house-gatherings a menace to the unity of the Church, together with the development of the dogma that the presence of a bishop was necessary to make a Supper valid. (d) Charges of child-murder and cannibalism ( , ). (e) The enforcement of the Imperial law against associations (see Drews, PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] v. Eucharistie). The change, already widespread in the time of Justin Martyr, whereby the Supper is definitely called the Eucharist and becomes the central part of public service, was of vast consequence, and gradually spread over the whole Church, transforming the conception of worship. In Tertullians circle the Eucharist is celebrated in the early morning and the Agape is held in the evening (Apol. 39, de Corona, 3). But authorities differ as to the completeness of the separation at Alexandria in Clements day, Bigg, e.g., saying that the Eucharist was not distinguished in time, ritual, or motive from the primitive Supper of the Lord (Christian Platonists, 102, 103), while Mayor is doubtful (Clem. Alex. [Note: Alexandrian.] Strom. vii. 382), and Zahn is strongly of the contrary opinion (PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] Agapen, 234).
7. The Lords Supper and the pagan Mysteries.Dr. Percy Gardner may be taken as a representative of a few scholars who trace the influence of the pagan Mysteries on St. Paul.
The great difference between the teaching of the Synoptic Jesus on the one hand, and the teaching of Paul, of the Fourth Evangelist, and of the author of Hebrews on the other, is just that the latter is permeated, as the former is not, by the ideas of spiritual communion, of salvation, of justification, and mediationideas which had found an utterance, however imperfect, in the teaching of the thiasi. Christians are, like the Pagan Mystae, called upon to be and . The language of the Pauline and Johannine writings shows the translation of Christianity on to a new level by the reception and baptism into Christ of a set of ideas which at the time, coming from a Divine source, were making their way into the various religions of the human race (Explor. Evangel. p. 340 ff.). H. J. Holtzmann also holds that in separating the sacrament as a specifically religious act unrelated to the kernel of his gospel, Paul opened the gates to mystery conceptions (NT Theol. ii. 186, 187).
But the sacrament of the Supper was in existence before St. Paul, and its import well established in the Jewish section of the Church before the gospel went to the Gentiles, who for many decades were not sufficiently influential to stamp the sacrament with mystery conceptions even if they had so desired. All this type of thought was alien to the Jewish mind, the only section of the nation that was in sympathy with these ideas being the Essenes, who derived their sacramental mealsin some sort mystery associationsfrom foreign sources, and they cannot be regarded as a factor in the shaping of the Christian rite (Bousset, Rel. des Judenthums, 431443). It is quite gratuitous to say that the ideas of spiritual communion, salvation, justification, and mediation are especially Pauline or Johannine. They had, in fact, a long history in Hebrew thought, and while they are frequent in mystery ritual, their import is different. The pagan Mysteries, even in their purest expression, were tainted with the religious conceptions of old nature-worships. Fellowship through sacraments with the Divine was thought to bring an infusion of the subtle material essence of the god, who thus held present communion with the initiated, and vouchsafed immortality to him. This was the result not so much of a moral act of faith as of an impression produced upon the character by the vision of the Divine drams. Contemplation and ecstasy crown the course of the initiated. A rigorous ethical discipline was also required by way of preparation for the vision of the Divine, but inasmuch as the purpose was to free the soul from its prison-house in the flesh, the purification was chiefly of a ceremonial character. The soul cleansed of earthly impurities would ascend after death into final union with the Supreme (see Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, Bk. iv. chs. v. vi.). Of sin in the Christian sense there is little trace in pagan thought. Such sin as the worshipper was freed from in the heathen Mysteries was inherent in him by reason of human frailty, or was an outward taint of the body (Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen, 38). When in the 2nd cent. these subtle shades began to colour Christian thought, it was a sign that the full summer was passing.
St. Paul is ruled by the Hebrew idea of sin as it became heightened by the life and death of Jesus. God is for him the supremely moral Person, and sin is treason against His Sovereignty. On His Son, the Redeemer from sin, he lavishes all his loyalty and worship. Indeed, Christ becomes his intimate personal friend and Lord. For him it is Christ to live, which is only another way of saying that Christ is his spiritual food as it is symbolized in the Supper (1Co 10:4; 1Co 10:17). He does not, it is true, lay inordinate emphasis on the celebration of Baptism or the Supper (1Co 1:14-17), but he finds in the common meal of love the most perfect earthly expression of the fellowship of the saints with the Head of the body. The living Christ draws the believers, who have abandoned their former pagan fellowship, into a new communion with Himself. He is the most real of all per sons, dwelling in the hearts of a loving company as their thought is focussed upon Him by the symbols of His redemption, and pledged by this memorial of His death to return (see Dobschtz, Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters, 72, 73; Ramsay, Expos., Dec. 1900, Jan. 1901). Even the use by St. Paul of such words as mystery and to initiate (), 1Co 2:6-7, 2Co 1:22, Php 3:12, hardly justifies the assumption of conscious influence (Heinrici, Com. [1887] zu 2 Kor. 121; Anrich, 112). Nor is there any more reason for discerning mystery-doctrine in John, for the conception of God and of true worship which rules this Gospel is unsurpassed (Joh 4:20-24), while in Joh 6:63 words which might be thought to have a materialistic sense are expressly said to be spirit and life. In the final discourses of Jesus the conditions for receiving the Spirit of Christ are ethical. Those abide in Christ who show their love to Him by obeying His command to love one another. In the First Epistle the final vision of God is promised for the world to come, but only those can know God now who love, and who have had their sins taken away through the Lamb of God who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2, cf. Joh 1:29). Faith in Paul. love and knowledge, almost convertible terms in John, are the subjective conditions for communion with God, who dwells in the individual heart attuned to the loving fellowship of the brotherhood.
It may be partially true to say that without the sacraments Christianity would not have conquered Europe, and yet such a judgment should be qualified by the fact that non-sacramental Judaism was the most effective proselytizer of all the religions of the old world. Widespread as the mystery cults were, the Jews became a church within the Roman Empire, exceeding other foreign worships in numbers, the attention it attracted, and the privileges it extorted from a hostile power. Philo, the only mystery philosopher of the Jews, was an isolated phenomenon (Bousset, op. cit. 78, 79).
Unquestionably, the heathen Mysteries satisfied many deep religious longings. The contemplation of impressive ceremonial and a Divine drama concealed from all but the initiated, the litany, the rhythmic music, appealed to the feeling of the worshipper, and swept him into an attitude of mind in which he enjoyed Divine communion and received a pledge of his immortality. By means of a common meal he entered into mystical union with the god, and began the process of deification through the infusion of the imperishable Divine nature. Degraded though these Mysteries often were by magic and superstition, they were felt by their purest votaries to be the guarantee of salvation here in fellowship with God and of a blessed future life (Anrich, pp. 39, 46, 47; Dill, 609614). And yet Judaism was the most powerful factor in that religious world, because it satisfied more perfectly than any mystery cult the more insistent ethical and spiritual needs of human nature. But Christianity brought to the world a richer boon than either Judaism or the heathen Mysteries. It offered all that was best both in the Mysteries and in Judaism. By its sacraments it disclosed its open secret to Jew and Gentile; and in these sacraments the believer, as one of a brotherhood of saints, was brought into perfect communion with the eternal God who had redeemed him.
The most sacred symbol of this redemption, the core of religious worship, was the Lords Supper, and it remained truly symbolic until, after the first decade of the 2nd cent., the stream of Christian life, making its way through pagan soil that was saturated with ideas drained off from mystery practice and thought, began to grow discoloured. How far in the succeeding years there was direct imitation between Christianity and the mystery religions, or how far resemblances were due to ideas that had by a long process of religious development become almost essential to the thought of the early centuries, is a problem that still awaits solution. But it was the Gnostic sects that were first invaded and overcome by distinctly heathen influences. The Christian Church, with its immense reserve of spiritual power, performed a masterly and slow retreat from the more exalted positions of the Apostolic age (Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, i. 285299; Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 283309; Mayor, Clement of Alexandria, ch. iii.; Inge, Christian Mysticism, Lect. ii. and Appendix B; and esp. Dill and Anrich, ut supra).
Literature.Schultzen, Das Abendmahl im NT, 1895; J. H. Thayer, Recent Discussions respecting the Lords Supper in JBL [Note: BL Journal of Biblical Literature.] xviii. [1899] 110131; Cremer and Loofs, Abendmahl, i. and ii., in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] i.; Drews, Eucharistie, ib. v.; Zahn, Agapen, ib. i.; Plummer, The Lords Supper in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iii.; J. A. Robinson, Eucharist in Encyc. Bibl. ii. The views of Harnack, Jlicher, and Spitta are clearly outlined by G. Wauchope Stewart in Expos. 5th ser. viii. [1898] 4361, 86102, and by Grafe in Ztschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche, 1895, pt. 2. See also Percy Gardner, Origin of the Lords Supper, 1893; J. F. Keating, The Agape and the Eucharist, 1901; J. C. Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT, 1903 [excellent]; G. H. Box, Jewish Antecedents of the Eucharist, and reply by J. C. Lambert in JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] , vols. iii. iv.; H. B. Swete, Eucharistic Belief in the Second and Third Centuries, ib. vol. iii.; W. B. Frankland, The Early Eucharist, 1902 [useful for textual material]; Bishop A. J. Maclean, art. Agape in Hastings forthcoming Encyc. of Religion and Ethics.
R. A. Falconer.