means of union with Christ in that character which |
is indicated by the broken body and the shed blood; te. union with the crucified Redeemer (Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, ch. vi. p. 240, Eng. tr.).
Those who insist on the literal meaning of the | ‘is’ as expressing identity, must be prepared to |
accept the literal meaning of the subject also; and this in the case of the cup produces great difficulty. ‘This cup (not its contents) actually is (not is an instrument or a symbol of) the covenant.’
‘The fellowship with the body of Christ’ is two- fold. It is fellowship of each recipient with Christ iy faith, and of all recipients with one another in Christ by love. It is in Christ that the union of all mankind subsists. There is communion in a nature which is common to Him and to them; ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἕν σῶμα ol πολλοί ἐσμεν, ‘because one bread,
The bread |
LORD’S SUPPER
149
one body, we the many are.’ ‘he act of eating and drinking together proclaims the union ot Christians in Christ. And this union and com- munion is symbolized in the composite unity of the bread and of the wine. ‘As this broken bread (κλάσμα), scattered upon the mountains and gathered together became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy King- dom’ (Didaché, ix. 4).
A Bible Dictionary is not the place in which to discuss late developments of ncharistic doctrine ; but it may point out scriptural tests for judging some of these.
(1) Christ placed the new rite in close connexion with the Passover. Evenif He had not done so, the apostles would inevitably have been influenced by | Jewish ideas, and especially by paschal observ- | ances, in interpreting the new rite. This fact | seems to exalts all doctrines which teach that the consecrated elements become or contain the | physical body of Christ which was ‘born of the | Virgin,’ with ‘bones and nerves and all that per- tains to the true idea of a body.’* To partake of the blood of an animal was abomination to a Jew. In the paschal ritual it was expressly provided that the blood should be separated from the flesh that was to be eaten. The idea of eating human flesh and drinking human blood would have in- spired the apostles with unspeakable horror ; and it is incredible that Christ can have intended to shock them with any such doctrine. He had warned them beforehand (Jn 6") against any such carnal πούϊοη---σωματικὴ ἔννοια (Athan. ad Serapion. iv. 19). (2) The words els τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν exclude a corporal presence; for a memorial of what is bodily present would be meaningless. (3) St. Paul repeatedly calls the consecrated bread, not ‘body’ or ‘ flesh,’ but ‘ bread’ (1 Co 11°). Can we believe that the celebrant now distributes more than Christ distributed then; or that what He held in His hands and distributed to His disciples was nothing less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and God- | head? (See Thirlwall, Charges, ii. p. 251; Schultzen, Das Abendmahl, p. 48.)
2. Another aspect of the Lord’s Supper is pointed cat by St. Paul; and again it is an explanation of the words of Christ. The Lord said, ‘This do ye, for the remembrance of me,’ to which the apostle adds, ‘For (confirmatory) as often as ye eat this | bread (bread thus blessed and broken) and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s deat: till he come’ (ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ without ἄν, because the coming is certain). As the Passover was for a memorial of the deliverance wrought by J”, to be kept ‘throughout your generations ’ (Ex 12), so the Eucharist is a memorial of the deliverance wrought by Christ’s death, to be kept ‘till he come.’ Commemoration ceases when He who is commemorated returns. Meanwhile the Eucharist is the Church’s consola- tion for the Lord’s withdrawal from sight. It links the second Advent to the first by keeping both in mind. Like the dramatic actions of the | Hebrew prophets, it illustrates, and emphasizes, and impresses on the memory a special proof of God’s care for His people. It is Christ’s last and supreme parable ; a parable not merely told but acted by Himself. He sets forth His own death, and shows that those who would profit by it must make it their own by faith and love. As Chryso- stom says, ‘We do not then offera different sacrifice, as the high priest formerly did, but
always the same: or rather, we celebrate a * Verum Christi Domini Corpus, illud idem, quod natum ex Virgine, in cwlis sedat ad dexteram Patris, hoc Sacrament« contineri (Catechismus Romanus, Pars 11. cap. iv. Quast. 22) Hoc loco etiam explicandum est, non solum veri Christ! Corpus, et quicquid ad veram corporis rationem pertinet reluti, osta et nervos, sed etiam totum Christum in h
Sacramento contineri (ἰδία. Quast. 27).
150 LORD’S SUPPER memorial of a sacrifice’ (on Hebrews, How-. xvii. 3). This leads on to another aspect.
3. Christ’s death was a Lg ok and to proclaim His death, and appropriate His body and blood offered in that sacrifice, is to realize the sacrifice and to appropriate its eflects. The ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν of the body (1 Co) and the ὑπὲρ or wept πολλῶν of the blood (Mk, Mt) point to this. And they mean much the same; for it is unreasonable to restrict ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to the disciples then present. It was in our behalf that the body was broken and the blood shed. The sacrificial idea appears in He 13", where θυσιαστήριον probably refers indirectly to the Eucharist. But the altar on which Christ offered His sacrifice is the Cross; and the altar on which we offer is Christ Himself. The θυσιαστήριον is not the holy table. And it may be doubted if there isa sacrificial meaning in the double τοῦτο ποιεῖτε (1 Co 11*- >), For (i.) in LXX the frequent Heb. words which mean ‘offer’ or ‘sacrifice’ are not translated by ποιεῖν, but by προσφέρειν, ἀναφέρειν, θύειν, θυσιάζειν, and the like. (ii.) The ordinary meaning of ποιεῖν in LXX, in NT, and elsewhere, is the natural meaning here. (iii.) The Gr. Fathers adopt this ordinary meaning and interpret, ‘Perform this action.’ (iv.) Syr-Sin. has, ‘Thus doin remembrance of me.’ (v.) The ancient liturgies do not use ποιεῖν or facere of the bread and wine, but προσφέρειν or offerre. (vi.) The sacrificial meaning might easily have been made clear by the use of προσφέρειν. Moreover, we have τοῦτο, not τοῦτον : not ‘Do this bread,’ but ‘Do this thing.’ (See Expositor, 3rd series, vii. p. 441; T. K. Abbott, Zssays on the Texts of the OT and NT, 1891, p. 110; J. R. Milne, Zhe Doctrine of the Eucharist, 1895, p. 19). The use of ποιεῖν here is exactly analogous to that in Ex 12% of the Passover: ἐποίησαν οἱ viol ᾿Ισραὴλ καθὰ ἐνετείλατο Κύριος τῷ Μωσῇ, οὕτως ἐποίησαν. Comp. πάντα ὅσα ἐλάλησεν Κύριος ποιήσομεν (Ex 247).