Vers. 12—17, 22—25. Parallel passages: Matt. xxvi. 17-—19, 26—29; Luke xxii, JTm13, 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi, 23—34.—The old dispensation merging in the new.—L. THe PassovER AND THE INSTITUTION or THE SupreR. 1. Comparison of the records. The memorial Passover differed from the Egyptian or original Passover in several points. A still greater change is now made. The substance now takes the place of the symbol. The antitype supersedes the type. The true Paschal Lamb—Christ our Passover, about to be sacrificed for us—being come, the Jewish Paschal lamb disappears. The unleavened cakes and wine, formerly only secondary and subordinate, now become the primary and principal elements of the feast, as representing the body and blood of the Lamb to be slain. The idea of Christ’s sacrificial death, previously intimated with more or less clearness, is now fully exhibited. In the fact of the particulars being foretold there is a close resemblance to that prediction which preceded the triumphal entry. The record of the Lord’s Supper is fourfold. It is recorded by three evangelists and by one apostle. These are the evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke; with Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Some points are brought out more fully or distinctly in one, and some in another, of these; accordingly, a brief comparison of their respective records with each other helps to a better understanding of the whole. (1) Instead of “ blessed,” used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, St. Luke and St. Paul employ the expression, “ gave thanks.” (2) In addition to the statement of “ This is my body,” found in St. Mat- thew and St. Mark, St. Luke and St. Paul give an explanation, the former adding, *‘ which is given for you;” the latter, “ which is broken for you;” while both enforce it by the suitable exhortation, “This do in remembrance of me.” (3) St, Luke and St. Paul append a note of time—‘after supper,” or “when he had supped.” (4) Whereas (a) St. Matthew and St. Mark say simply, “This is my blood of the new testament, St. Luke and St. Paul introduce the word “cup,” and alter the arrange- ment of the sentence, in this way rendering the whole clause clearer and more explicit; thus, “ This cup is the new testament [more correctly ‘covenant,’ Revised Version] in my blood,” Mark alone (6) supplements the accounts of the other evangelists by stating the fact, “ They all drank of it.” (5) St. Matthew and St. Mark have, “ shed for many,” using the preposition xep) paaleaens to in behalf of, or for the benefit of ; but St. Luke has ‘“‘shed for you,” employing Sweep which, from the idea of superposi- tion, covering, defence, or protection, may mean in the stead, or place, or room of, and 80 conveying the idea of substitution, though not so distinctly and definitely as arf, (6) St. Matthew alone points out the purpose in the expressive words “ for the remission of sins.” (7) It is also to be noted that the original word for “shed” is éxxuvdpevoy, a present participle passive, and so signifying literally being shed, as though the suffer- ings were already begun, the passion entered on, and the sacrifice commenced. These four records of the inspired penmen, each writing from his own standpoint, but all under the direction of the Holy Spirit, furnish a full exhibition of this ordinance in its different aspects; while they impress us with its solemnity and sacredness, deepen- ing the interest we should take in it and the importance to be attached to it. Besides, there is usually this difference between the record of the same fact or truth when presented in a Gospel and then in an Hpistle, that the record of the former is historical, that of the latter doctrinal; the former contains the plain narrative, the latter its practical application; the concise enunciation of the former finds its complete develop- ment in the latter; the direct statement of the Gospel is commented on or treated somewhat controversially in the Epistle, 2. The Awthor of this ordinance. The Lord
OB. XIV. 1—72.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MARK. 281,
Jesus Christ is the Author of this solemn institution; both evangelist and apostle refer its appointment to him. He is sole King and Head of his Church. His kingship is the result of a Divine decree. “TI have set my King,” says Jehovah, “on my holy hill of Zion.” The government, both legislative and executive, is in his hand, as the prophet had foretold, “ and the government shall be upon his shoulders.” He is also “* Head over all things to the Church.” Not only so; this ordinance in particular is his special appointment, for it is the memorial of his death, and keeps the memory of his dying love green in the Christian’s soul. To him, therefore, we owe its institution, the manner of its observance, the time of its continuance, and the persons admissible to its enjoyment. Nor is there any ordinance more closely identified with the Saviour than this ordinance of the Supper. He is its “all in all,” its Alpha and Omega. The words are his, and speak of him; the symbols are his, and point to him; the blessings embodied are his, being the purchase of his blood; the praise is his, for “ unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, .. . to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.” The new covenant, with all its benefits, present and prospective, is his, for he ratified it. 3. Abuses. Little more than a quarter of a century had elapsed when human abuses were beginning to overlay thia holy ordinance in the Church of Corinth, so common is it for man to leave an impure print on all his hand doth touch. A reformation of the holy rite had become necessary, and a republication followed. The abuses removed, and the ordinance restored to its original simplicity and sanctity, St. Paul received it by revelation, and republished it in his First Epistle to the Corin- — thian Church, as he says, ‘‘ For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered — unto you.” With this fresh publication of it, we have a fuller exposition of its nature, and increased obligation for its observance; while it is restamped, as it were, with the seal, and resanctioned by the signature of the Church’s Head. 4. The time of its appointment. The time of its appointment was “the same night in which he was betrayed.” This of itself, apart from all other evidence, is proof positive that Jesus was more than man. It was the night when the Jewish Sanhedrim concerted measures for his apprehension; when chief priests and scribes and rulers were planning his condemnation and plotting his death ; the night when one of his own disciples played the
of traitor and betrayed him into the hands of his deadliest foes; when another disciple denied him, and all forsook him; the night when he was to be delivered to his persecutors—to their malice and mockery and the worst tortures that their malevolence could devise.