In tlie social customs of the East, the giving and receiving of bread has always been the principal factor in establishing a bond of peace between the host and the guest at his table. It was a gravely unnatural oft'ence to violate that law of hospitality. Of this offence Judas Iscariot was guilty at the Last Supper.
In travelling through Palestine and partaking of the hospitality of the peasantry, one may notice in the bread the indentations of the pebbles, and small patches of grey ash, with here and there an inlaid attachment of singed grass or charred thorn, the result of the simple baking process. It is bread, however, the best that the poor can give, and it is given with gladness and the dignity of a high duty towards the guest. When Christ sent forth His disciples to tell of His approach. He charged them to take no bread with them (Mk 6*). It would have been a serious discourtesy to have set aside as unfit for their use that which was ottered to them willingly by their own people, and would have hindered the reception of the good tidings of the Kingdom.
To the crowd that selfishly followed Christ tlie giving of liread as by Moses was the sordid sum- mary of Messianic hope (Jn 6''). God's gift of natural food to His peopleenters into the praises of the Magnificat (Lk P^). When Cluist called Him- self ' the bread of life ' (Jn O'''^), He c.mld <cnfidently appeal to all the endeared and s.mt.iI .i-^nriations connected in the East with tlic nn :iniim niid use of bread. In the initiation of lli'- I'a-soviM, .■mil in its commemoration afterwards, bread was regarded by the Israelites as the most general and ett'ective symbol of their life in Egypt. In the initiation of the new covenant also the same humble article of food was adopted at the Lord's Supper, to be, with wine, the token of fellowship between Himself and His Church, and the symbol among His disciples of the Communion of Saints. Tlie use of a symbol so familiar and accessible to all, and so representa- tive of common life, seems to suggest that to the mind of Christ some realized and visible com- munion among the members of His Church was possible and to be expected.
G. M. Mackie.
BREAKFAST.-Lk IP" (RVni). See Dinner and Meals.
BREAST.— See Bosom.
BREATHING.— On the evening of the Resurrec- tion, the Lord appeared to the disciples, gave them the commission 'As my Father, etc.,' 'and when he had said this, he breathed on them (^i/fi/iiiffJiire), and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost
232 BRETHREN OF THE LORD
BRETHREN OF THE LORD
(AajSere TlveSpta'Ayioy). Whose soever sins . . . re- tained,' Jn 20-"-. The word ifjupvaaoi is that em- ployed by LXX to translate nsj in Gn 2', Ezk 37". As Westcott observes, ' the same image which was used to descrilie tlie communication of tlie natural life [at the Creation] is here used to express the communication of the new, spiritual life of re- created Immanity.' The figure of human life de- pending on the breath of God is frequent in tlie Bible ; besides alx)ve passages, see Job 12" SS-*, Ps 33^ Is 42S Dn 5'^, Ac 17^. In the following the breath of God is synonymous with the manifesta- tion of His power : 2 S 22'«, Job 37'" 41=i, Is 11^ Both ideas seem to underlie our Lord's action. The Church was now receiving its commission, and the efficacy and reality of the commission must depend upon the indwelling in the Church of tlie same Spirit as was in Christ Himself. ' Alike the mission of the Church and its authority to forgive or retain sins are connected with a personal quali- fication, "Take ye the Holy Ghost " ' (Ederslieim, ii. 644). The work was not new, but was that already received from the Father by the Son and now handed on to that Church which was to be Clirist's body on earth. He had compared the action of the Spirit to breath (Jn 3'). ' By breath- ing on them He signified that the Holy (;host was the Spirit not of the Father alone but likewise His own ' (Aug. St. John, tr. 121).
Considerable difference of opinion exists as to whether the act of breathing, with the authority to retain or forgive sin, was bestowed upon the Apostles only or on others besides. Tliose who limit it to the Apostles urge that 'discijiles' is always in the later chapters of St. John used to signify Apostles ; and that, even if otliers were present, the analogy of Mt 28'^ and Mk 16'*->' im- plies that the breathing and commission were limited to the Apostles. They would then see in the act a formal ministerial ordination.* On the other hand, Westcott and many otlR-rs, comjiaring Lk 24^, see no reason whatever for limiting the act and commission to Apostles. Even of the Eleven we know that Thomas at least was absent (Jn 20^). The commission was one given to the Christian society as a body : in it in its corporate capacity would dwell the Holy Ghost, and the authority of retaining or forgiving sins.
Literature. — The Commentaries on St. John ; Westcott, Rerelation of Risen Lord, p. 81 ; Ederslieim, Life and Times 0/ Jesus the Messiah, ii. 644 ; Gore, Christian Minislri/, p. 229; Stanley, Christian Institutions, p. 192.