* If Ac 245 does not refer to the Eucharist, then the supposi-
tion that the Eucharist was celebrated daily in the earliest age has no foundation. Ac 207-11 points to Sunday as the usual day
LORD’S SUPPER
LORD’S SUPPER 145 |
improbable; and here the Western interpolation ἐπιδιδοὺς καὶ ἡμῖν was added to suggest a Eucharist, an interpretation which Tertullian adopts (de Orat. 24). On the other hand, both the Eucharist and the common meal are perhaps indicated in Ac 2074, The mention of the first day of the week points to religious observance : and γευσάμενος seems to refer to the common meal after the κλάσας τὸν ἄρτον in the Eucharistic rite. Only in 1 Co '4'° is it supposed that ἡ εὐχαριστία is used in the specific sense of Eucharist rather than in that of thanks- riving generally. Yet it is not probable that St. Paul is here deviating from his use of the word else- where (2 Co 4° 911, Eph 54, Ph 45, Col 27 45,1 Th 3%, 1 Ti 44, and in the plur, 2 Co 9", 1 Ti 2!), which is also the common use both in NT (Ac 24°, Rev 49 72) and in LXX (Wis 16%, Sir 37", 2 Mac 2”), The use of εὐχαριστεῖν in the next two verses (17-18) shows that je oo Se generally is meant. And this is confirmed by the use of εὐχαριστεῖν in Clem. Rom. Cor. 41. But the use of εὐχαριστία in the specific sense begins very early. We find it in the Ignatian Epistles (Philad. 4; Smyrn. 7) side by side with the general meaning (Eph. 13). The same double use is found in Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 64- 66, Try. 116, 117). The specific sense is common in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian. But it is remarkable that neither Justin, nor Cyprian (Zp. 63), nor Firmilian in his letter to Cyprian (Zp. 65), nor Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 19, 22, 23), say anything about either the εὐλογία or the κλάσις, both of which are so prominent in NT. Other terms which in course of time became names for the Lord’s Supper are κοινωνία, τῶν ὐστηρίων κοινωνία, προσφορά, λειτουργία, μυστήριον συνάξεως, μετάληψις ἁγιασμάτων, ἁγία μετάληψις, com- munio, communicatio, perceptio corporis et san- guinis, ete. Words which originally designated one part of the rite were used to express the whole.
Il. OT TypEs.—(a) We have the authority both of Christ and of St. Paul for regarding the manna as a type of the Eucharist. The great discourse on the Bread of Life, no doubt, covers all those means of grace by which Christ is imparted to believers. But a special reference to the Lord’s Supper is clear from the words used about eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood, and from the fact that just a year after this discourse Christ in- stituted the Eucharist. It is incredible that this momentous act in the work of redemption had not yet been thought of by Him when He spoke at Capernaum. ‘The references to the manna in the discourse are frequent, and the correspondence be- tween the language used (Jn 6°) and the accounts of the institution cannot be fortuitous. The πνευματικὸν βρῶμα of 1 Co 10° refers to the manna regarded as supernatural food. The apostle takes this supernatural food as a type of the Encharistie bread; and it is possible that the at πνευματικόν is selected with reference to the Zucharist rather than to the manna. The exact meaning of what is said about the πνευματικὸν πόμα is doubtful; but evidently the water supernatur- ally supplied to the Israelites is regarded by St. Paul as a type of the blood of Christ received in the Eucharistic cup.
(Ὁ) Patristie writers find t Supper in the gifts made by Melchizedele, in the shewbread, and in other offerings. With regard to Melchizedek, it is remarkable that the author of the Ep. to the Heb., who is the only NT writer who mentions him (5% 10 6” 71-17), passes over the
es of the Lord’s
fact that Melchizedek ‘brought forth bread and wine ’(Gn 1418). As we are immediately afterwards told that ‘he was priest of God most High,’ it is not surprising that patristic writers treat this bread and wine as a sacrifice offered by the priest- king, and as a type of the Eucharist: τὴν ἡγι-
+ OL
IlIl.—10
ασμένην τροφὴν eis τύπον εὐχαριστίας (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 25, p. 637, ed. Potter); imago sacrificii m pane et vino constituta (Cypr. Ep. 63). Jerome goes further, and says that this sacrifice of bread and wine was offered for Abraham (ad Matt. 22*), See Westcott on He 7}.
(c) It is obvious that, as the Lord’s Supper com- memorates the sacrifice made by Christ on the Cross, whatever was a type of that sacrifice may be called a type also of the rite which commemor- ates it; and, where the offering was bread, the inducement to treat it in this way would be the greater. Cyril of Jerusalem thus uses the shewbread (Catech. 22). In a similar manner Justin treats Is 3316 (77ry. 70), and Irenzeus treats Mal 1" (Iv. xvii. 5, 6) as a prediction of the Eucharist.
III. PARTIAL ANTICIPATIONS.—(a) Just as the chief type, viz. the manna, is indicated by Christ Himself, so also is the chief anticipatory rite, viz. the Passover. It appears to have been [but see JEsUS CHRIST, vol. 11. p. 634] while celebrating the paschal supper that He instituted the rite which was to supersede it, and be known as the Lord’s Supper. And here a remarkable parallel with the institution of Christian baptism exists. The original rite for admission to Judaism was cireum- cision, This was supplemented by baptism, which in later times became the only rite of initiation epelicable to both sexes. In the original ritual of the Passover, the lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs were the essentials (Ex 128). The wine and the solemn ‘cup of blessing’ were later acces- sories. Just as in the one rite Christ abandoned the circumcision and retained the baptism, so in the other He abandoned the lamb and retained the wine. In both cases the rite was made unbloody and painless; and from the treasure-house were brought forth things new and old. There is a new departure ; but also a clear connexion with the past ; for Providence, even in its revolutions, is conservative.