« VorigeDoorgaan »
Holy Eucharist. b Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, And as they were eating, and said, Take, eat; "this is my body.
He institutes the
A. M. 4053. and said, Master, is it I? He said
A. D. 29.
An. Olymp. unto him, Thou hast said.
* Mark 14. 22. Luke 2. 19.— 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25.————© Many Greek copies
xugie, LORD, is it I? But, Judas dares not, or will not use this κύριε, august title, but simply says gaßß, TEACHER, is it I?
Thou hast said.] Ev uzas, or panes pas atun amaritun, ye have said," was a common form of expression for YES. IT IS SO. "When the Zipporenses enquired whether Rabbi Judas was dead? The son of Kaphra answered, Ye have said," i. e. he is dead. See Schoetgen. Hor. Hebr. p. 225.
Verse 26. Jesus took bread] This is the first institution of what is termed the LORD'S SUPPER. To every part of this ceremony, as here mentioned, the utmost attention should be paid.
To do this, in the most effectual manner, I think it necessary to set down the text of the three Evangelists, who have transmitted the whole account, collated with that part of St.
V. 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it (hoynoa; and blessed | -God) and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.
V. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, (eux¤gisnoas,) and gave it to thein, saying: Drink ve all of it.
V. 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many
for the remission of sins.
V. 29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
V. 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed (whoynoas, blessed God) and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, cat, this is my body.
V. 30. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.
V. 23. And he took the cup; and when he had given thanks, (xagisnoas) he gave it to them; and they all drank of it.
V. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.
V. 25. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
[upwards of 100] have, gave thanks. See Mark 6. 41.
V. 26. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.
After giving the bread, the discourse related (John xiv. 1—31. inclusive) is supposed by Bishop Newcome to have been delivered by our Lord, for the comfort and support of his disciples under their present and approaching trials.
Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which speaks of the same subject, and which, he assures us, he received by divine revelation. It may seem strange, that although John (chap. xiii. v. 1-38) mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from chap. xiv. 1–36. the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters xv. xvi. and xvii. the discourse which followed the administration of the cup; yet he takes no notice of the divine institu tion at all. This is generally accounted for on his knowledge of what the other three Evangelists had written; and on his conviction, that their relation was true, and needed no additional confirmation, as the matter was amply established by the conjoint testimony of three such respectable witnesses.
A. 403. An. Olymp.
A. D. 29.
V. 20. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying:
d1 Cor. 10. 16.
This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
V. 39. And he came out, and went as he was wont to the Mount of Olives. And his disciples also followed him.
After this, our Lord resumes that discourse which is found in the 15th, 16th, and 17th chapters of John, beginning with the last verse of chap. xiv. Arise, let us go hence. Then succeed the following words, which conclude the whole ceremony.
V. 25. After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying:
This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
V.1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kedron.
The sacrament of the
From the preceding harmonized view of this important transaction, as described by three EVANGELISTS and one APOSTLE, we see the first institution, nature, and design of what has been since called THE LORD'S SUPPER. To every circumstance, as set down here, and the mode of expression by which such circumstances are described, we should pay the deepest attention. Verse 26. As they were eating] Either an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think.-See the observations at the end of this chapter.
Lord's supper instituted.
as the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be diffused through the whole soul; and, that truth, the law of righteousness and true holiness, might regulate and guide all the actions of life. Had the bread used on these occasions been of the common kind, it would have been perfectly unfit, or improper, to have communicated these uncommon significations; and, as it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblematical representation more deeply impressive; and the sign, and the thing signified, have their due correspondence and influence.
Jesus took bread] Of what kind? Unleavened bread, certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, (ver. 17.) i. e. the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God, (Exod. xii. 15—20. xxiii. 15. and xxxiv. 25.) were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the pass-over, having leaven, in his dwelling, was considered to be such a transgressor of the divine law as could no longer be tolerated among the people of God; and therefore, was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. Leo of Modena, who has written a very sensible treatise on the customs of the Jews, observes, "That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the precept concerning the removal of all leaven from their houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that they either provide vessels tirely new for baking, or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service of the pass-over, and never brought out on any other occasion."
These circumstances considered, will it not appear that the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord's supper is highly improper? He who can say, "This is a matter of no importance," may say, with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the wine is of no importance; and a third may say, "neither the bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to spiritual references; and the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are useless." Thus we may, through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God; and with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself.-Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but to their ruin, by shewing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every en-word which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. The Lutheran church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.
To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may || be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wicked- || ness, but with the UNLEAVENED bread of sincerity and truth.
And blessed it] Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the word evλoyngas, blessed, instead of xaşısnoas, gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. But instead of evλoynoas, blessed, tuxaşısnoas, gave thanks, is the reading of ten MSS. in uncial characters, of the Dublin Codex rescriptus, published by Dr. Barrett, and of more than one hundred others, of the greatest respectability. This is the reading also of Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institu- the Syriac and Arabic, and is confirmed by several of the tion, in the celebration of this divine ordinance, then, unleavened, Primitive Fathers. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign or type, the thing same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself, should these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived circumstances, as expressive as possible, of the thing signified. by the word IT, which is improperly supplied in our version. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt In all the four places referred to above, whether the word enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread, but to us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms only point out this, but also the disposition required in those himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of ma- thanks on taking the bread, and taking the cup at their ordinary lice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the any of God's creatures without rendering him thanks; and he table of God with malice or ill-will against any soul of man, who acted contrary to this command, was considered as a or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to person who was guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace, Lord's body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin || (gratias thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of might be destroyed; and that sincerity, xgva, such purity | blessing, and probably that which our Lord used on this occa
The sacrament of the
Lord's supper instituted. sion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here, though it, the DISTRIBUTION of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. has been mentioned once before: on taking the bread, they say: In the Romish church, the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people, that THEY may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest, and it is generally understood by the communicants, that they should not masticate, but swallow it whole.
Likewise on taking the cup, they say:
"That the breaking of this bread to be distributed," says
: jean 170 a71a bien qha wnbx 772 Baruch Elohinoo, Dr. Whitby, "is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, Melech, haôlam, Boré perey haggephen. by the continual mention of it by St. Paul and all the Evan
before and after meat:
Blessed be our God, the king of the universe, the creator of gelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, the fruit of the vine! which shews it to be a necessary part of it. 2dly, Christ The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying says, Take, eat, this is my body BROKEN for you, 1 Cor. xi. 24. But when the clements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3dly, Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me, i. e. "Eat this bread broken, in remembrance of my body broken on the cross:" now, where no body broken is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, The Apostle, by saying, The bread which we BREAK, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? sufficiently informs us, that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1 Cor. x. 10. Hence it was, that this rite of distributing bread broken, continued for a thousand years; and was, as Humbertus testifies, observed in the Roman church in the eleventh century." WHITBY in loco. At present, the opposite is as boldly practised, as if the real scrip
tural rite had never been observed in the church of Christ.
Baruch atta ברוך אתה אלהינו מלך העולם המוצא לחם מן הארץ
Elohinoo, Melech, haôlam, ha motse Lechem min haarets.
Blessed be thou our God, king of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!
الله الرحمن الرحيم
Bismillahi arahmani arraheemi.
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate. No blessing therefore of the clements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but Gop the sender is blessed, because of the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread, are merely Popish ceremonies, unauthorised either by Scripture, or the practice of the pure church of God; necessary of course to them who pretend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure, the grossest in folly and most stupid in nonsense, to which God in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man.
And brake it] We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing similar to our high raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and to divide it, there was no need of a knife.
This is my body.] Here it must be observed, that Christ had nothing in his hands at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds; and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. "But," says a false and absurd creed, "Jesus meant, when he said HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, this is my body, and HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, this is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity and adorable divinity!" And for denying this, what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, "Can any man of sense believe, that when Christ took up that bread and broke it, that it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself He broke to picces, and which he and his disciples ate ?" who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith; for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason, as to this subject.
The breaking of the bread, I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony; because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross; and as all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world; so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord's body, while engaged in this most important and divine of all God's ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented, i. e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the Holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things, through the medium of earthly similitudes. And gave it to the disciples] Not only the breaking, but also point, that the Paschal Lamb is called the Pass-over, because
Let it be observed, if any thing further is necessary on this
The sacrament of the
Lord's supper instituted.
it represented the destroying angel's passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the first-born of the Egyptians: and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the Puss-over, several times in this chapter; by which it is demonstrably evident, that they could mean no more than that the lamb sacrificed || on this occasion was a memorial of, and REPRESENTED the means used for the preservation of the Israelites from the blast of the destroying angel.
to LIVE miserably: rectè ESSE, to ENJOY good health: EST mihi fistula, I POSSESS a flute: EST hodie in rebus, he now ENJOYS a plentiful fortune: EST mihi namque domi pater, I HAVE a father at home, &c. ESSE solvendo, to be ABLE to pay: FUIMUS Troes, FUIT Ilium; the Trojans are EXTINCT, Troy is NO MORE.
Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of those words
In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, to be killed. Oux EIMI, I am DEAD, or a dead man. Matt. ii. 13. Rachel weeping for her children, ori ovx EIEI, because Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum, (this is they WERE MURDERLD, Gen. xlii. 36. Joseph is not, * qor my body) as he did not speak in the Latin tongue; though as Yoseph einennu, Iwon oux EETIN, Sept. Joseph is DEVOURED much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vul- by a WILD BEAST. Rom. iv. 17. Calling the things that ARE gate, as if the original of the three Evangelists had been writ- not, as if they were ALIVE. So Plutarch in Laconicis: "This ten in the Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, follow-shield thy father always preserved; preserve thou it, or may ing the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, Panis hic | thou not BE:" H μn E20, may thou PERISH. ΟΥΚ ΟΝΤΕΣ corpus meum significat, or, Symbolum est corporis mei :-hoc || opo, ABROGATED laws. EIMI, I POSSESS a sound poculum sanguinem meum representat, or, symbolum est sangui- || derstanding. Εις πατέρα υμιν ΕΣΟΜΑΙ, I will PERFORM the nis mei :--this bread signifies my body; this cup represents my PART of a father to you. ΕΙΜΙ της πολεως της δε, I AM (n_15blood. But let it be observed, that in the Hebrew, Chaldee, HABITANT of that city. 1 Tim. i. 7. Desiring to BE teachers of and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there is no term which ex- thie late, θέλοντε; ΕΙΝΑΙ νομοδιδασκαλοι, desiring to be REPUTED presses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and teachers of the law, i. e. ABLE divines. Ta ONTA, the things that Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, ARE, i. e. NOBLE and HONOURABLE men: a pŋ ONTA, the things say, it is, for, it signifies. So Gen. xli. 26, 27. The seven that are not, viz. the VULGAR, or those of IGNOBLE BIRTH. kine ALE (i. e. represent) seven years. This is (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Erypt. Dan. vii. 24. The ten horns ARE (i. e. signify) ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them, and the Rock WAS (represented) Christ. 1 Cor. x. 4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find in Rev. i. 20. The sezen stars ARE (represent) the angels of the That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin, on this seven churches: and the seven candlesticks ARE (represent) the occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what seven churches. The same form of speech is used in a variety was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our of places in the New Testament, where this sense must neces- Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the providence sarily be given to the word. Matt. xiii. 38, 39. The fell 1s of God, we have complete versions of the Gospels in this (represents) the world: the good seed ARE (represent or sig-language; and in them it is likely we have the precise words nify) the children of the kingdom: the tares ARE (signify) the spoken by our Lord on this occasion. In Matt. xxvi. 26 and eh ldren of the wicked one. The enemy is (signifies) the devil: 27. the words in the Syriac version are, a the harvest is (represents) the end of the world: the reapers ARE (i. e. signify) the angels. Luke viii. 9. What might this hanau pagree, this is my body, oso hanau demee, parable BE? Tię EIH ʼn magaßoλn auтn ;--What does this parable|| this is my blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a verSIGNIFY? John vii. 36. T.; EETIN Outos o hoyos; What is the bal translation; nor would any man, even in the present day, SIGNIFICATION of this saying? John x. 6. They understood speaking in the same language, use, among the people to not what things they WERE, Tiva HN, what was the SIGNIFICA- whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above to exTION of the things he had spoken to them. Acts x. 17. Ti av press, This represents my body, and this represents my blood. EIH to ogapa, what this vision MIGHT BE; properly rendered But this form of speech is common, even in our own lanby our translators, what this vision should MEAN, Gal. iv. 24. || guage, though we have terms enow to fill up the ellipsis. For these ARE the two covenants, avras yag EILIN as duo dix- Suppose a man entering into a museum, enriched with the reSaxa, these SIGNIFY the two covenants. Luke xv. 26. He ask-mains of ancient Greek sculpture; his eyes are attracted by a
of our Lord, Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus
ed, EIH aura, what these things MEANT. See also chap.
number of curious busts; and on enquiring what they are,
St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance here which is not noticed either by St. Matthew or St. Mark. After, this is my body, the former adds, which is given for you; the latter, which is broken for you: the sense of which is, "As God has in his bountiful providence given you bread for the sustenance of your lives, so in his infinite grace, he has given you || my body to save your souls unto life eternal. But as this bread must be broken and masticated, in order to its becoming proper nourishment, so my body must be broken, i. e. crucified for you, before it can be the bread of life to your souls. As therefore your life depends on the bread which God's bounty has provided for your bodies, so your eternal life depends on the sacrifice of my body on the cross for your -souls." Besides, there is here an allusion to the offering of sacrifices-an innocent creature was brought to the altar of God, and its blood (the life of the beast) was poured out for, or in behalf of the person who brought it. Thus Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, This is my body, To utter uμwy didoμerov, which IS GIVEN in your stead, or in your behalf; a free GIFT from God's endless mercy for the salvation of your souls. This is my body, to unter vμwy nλwμevoy, (1 Cor. xi. 24.) which is broken-sacrificed in your stead; as without the breaking (piercing) of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no remission.
ATIONS of their persons in sculpture, between which and the originals, there is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational vitality, and a block of marble. When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, This is my body, who but the most stupid of mortals could imagine that he was, at the same time, handling and breaking his own body! Would not any person, of plain common sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus and the piece of bread, as between the block of marble and the philosopher it represented, in the case referred to above? The truth is, there is scarcely a more common form of speech in any language, than, this is, for, this REPRESENTS or SIGNIFIES. And as our Lord refers, in the whole of this transaction, to the ordinance of the Pass-over, Verse 27. And he took the cup] Mera To Suvajaı, after we may consider him as saying, "This bread is now my having supped, Luke xxii. 20. and 1 Cor. xi. 25. Whether body, in that sense in which the Paschal Lainb has been my the supper was on the paschal lamb, or whether it was a combody hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testa-non or ordinary meal, I shall not wait here to enquire: see at ment, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats has the end of this chapter. In the parallel place in Luke xxii. been my blood under the Old: Exod. xxiv. Heb. ix. That we find our Lord taking the cup, ver. 17. and again ver. 19. is, The Paschal Lamb and the sprinkling of blood, repre- by the former of which was probably meant the cup of blesssented my sacrifice to the present time: this bread and this ing, nanan dia kos haberakah, which the master of a family wine shall represent my body and blood through all future took, and after blessing God, gave to each of his guests by ages: therefore, Do this in remembrance of me.” way of welcome: but this second taking the cup, is to be understood as belonging peculiarly to the very important rite, which he was now instituting, and on which he lays a very remarkable stress. With respect to the bread, he had before simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup, he says, drink ye all of this: for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it, therefore he says, Drink ye ALL of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God's institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup, as pointing out the blood poured out, i. e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, that can be said to celebrate the Lord's supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it, that the very men who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink YE ALL of this cup, in this
In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word, as
there is none without its appropriate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is written Ephes. v. 2. Christ hath loved us, and given himself, vñez nμwr, on our account, or in our stead, an offering and a SACRIFICE (Svoia) to God for a sweet-smelling savour, that, as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, Gen. viii. 21. (to which the Apostle evidently alludes) from which it is said, The Lord smelled a sweet savour, an riach hanichoach, a savour of rest, so that he became appeased towards the earth, and determined that there should no more be a flood to destroy it; in like manner, in the offering and sacrifice of Christ for us, God is appeased towards the human race; and has in consequence decreed, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.