This do as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me more drink of the fruit of the vine
henceforth drink of this fruit of the vino
from henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine
in the Kingdom of God
I
Mt Until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom
Lk Until the Kingdom of God shall come
1 Co adds : For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye proclaim the Lord's 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 unneces- sary any attempt to fix this action into the order of the regular Passover. The procedure was pecu- liarly 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 (Lk 2221-23, 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 (Mt 14i9 153», Jn 6"). 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 Mk 141*^21 and Jn I821-30 jg against the traitor having remained throughout the Supper.
(a) The common underlyiny 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 Go-spel, as e.g. Jn 161, -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 Jn 6*''-^^ may be used to illuminate this procedure, because the same truth is expressed in Jn. in words as in the Lord's Supper by words and symbol.
The second part of the Supper is another sol- emnly acted allegory. Old is passing over into new. At Sinai sprinkled blood had ratified a covenant (Ex 24'*-3). 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 be 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 (Is 42'^ 40** 5213. 14. 15 .5;^ii. 12 . see Kautzsch, ' Religion of Israel,' in Hastings' DB, Extra Vol. 708).
The new covenant is about to be ratified by Messiah's blood. The many are to be ransomed (Mk 10*^), 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 Messiah's 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 Gen- tiles for her inheritance, and the eagles gathered upon the carcase of official Judaism.
(6) Differences in detail. — The records, as pre-
LORD'S SUPPER
LORD'S SUPPER
67
served in the TR, divide into tv^'o tj-pes — Mark- :Mattbe\v and Luke-Paul. In the shorter recension of Luke, to be referred to later, there is an inde- pendent narrative. We begin uith the ilarkan tradition, reproduced mainly in ]\Latthew, as the earliest source.
(i.) Mark-Mattheir. — The words 'take (eat)' may perhaps be intended to emphasize the representa- tive action of the disciples. As those who are to sit on twelve thrones, they are not eating a com- mon 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 omiasion from .Mk.-Mt. of the command to repeat the meal as a memorial is the most remark- able 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«).