Mark 14:22

Mar_14:22-24

Jesus took bread.

The symbols of Christs body

I. Let us glance at the gospel feast, as exhibited to our view in our periodical approach to the table of the Lord. What is it that we are to feast upon? What is it of which Jehovah Jesus says-This is My Body, and this is My Blood? It is His own Person-the glorious, perfect, complete God-Man. It is His redemption work, accomplished and perfected by Himself, which constitutes the gospel feast.

1. The redemption which constitutes good for our souls is perfect. Christ has not done His work by halves. He has not left His work in an unfinished state.

2. Moreover, the redemption that is in Jesus Christ is personal; and if it be not so, there is no eating of it. If you come to a meal, to make it personal, you must participate; you must receive for yourself.

3. Moreover, it is a permanent redemption.

II. Let me pass on to notice the ordained guests. He took and brake it, and gave to them-His disciples. I do not believe that Judas was there at that moment, though some people do. I shall not stop to argue that point, however. There are two things, and only two things, essential to a welcome guest. The first is, vital godliness, as an essential qualification; and the second is, the imputed righteousness of Christ as the essential robe.

III. Let me now press on to speak of the orthodox viands that we expect to feast upon, of which my precious Lord says-Take, eat, this is My Body, and this is My Blood. The sacrificed Lamb is the great feast itself. This was ordered under the Levitical dispensation every morning and evening-a lamb to be sacrificed and presented to the Lord-the lamb of the Passover; and the same sacred emblem, pointing to the precious Christ of God, is declared to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and just such persons as I have been describing were welcome to partake of it. This feasting on the Lamb, the atoning Blood, the perfect satisfaction, and the sacred acceptance thereof, is announced by God Himself as a thing with which He is well pleased; and the soul that is under the teaching and the operation of the Holy Ghost can find nothing to feast upon short of It. If I go to some places I have nothing but a dinner of poisonous herbs: I mean the beauties of rhetoric, the eloquence of the creature, heathenish morality, and nothing to profit the precious soul that is born from above. The believer is able to do what the Israelites were commanded to do: he is able to eat a whole lamb; he is able to partake of a whole Christ. So we may well say again, having Christ, I possess all things. Do not talk to me of feeding upon frames and feelings, and groping amongst ifs and buts, and peradventures, and probabilities, and contingencies, and conditions and uncertainties-they are enough to make all the people of God like Pharaohs lean kine, if they do not absolutely starve them to death.

IV. Let me now lead on your attention to the masters words-This is My body; and This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. Mark, I beseech you, that this sacred gospel feast is intended to nourish not the fleshly, but the spiritual existence. (Joseph Irons, M. A.)

The communion service

It is hardly necessary to remark, that almost every transaction of human life has its appropriate ceremony, its established order and process. In our most familiar intercourse we have oar known forms of salutation. The system is natural in its origin, and beneficial in its effects. In religion above all other subjects, established forms are valuable. They fix attention on the duties which we assemble to perform. They give its due solemnity to the most interesting of all human concerns. They impress more deeply the sentiments of piety on the heart. They support uniformity and sympathy in the public worship of God. Would it not then be unwise and ungrateful if we did not commemorate by some appropriate ceremony the most important transaction of the gospel, the sacrifice and death of Jesus Christ. Such has been prescribed by Him who had the undoubted right to prescribe it, the Author of that religion, which it is intended to support. The fitness and propriety of a commemoration appointed by such authority will not be called in question.

I. The memory of the most interesting events is apt to fade from the mind, unless occasionally revived by reflection on their respective circumstances, or by some suitable and regular commemoration. Even the sentiments of friendship require to be kept alive by tokens of regard. The disciples had seen the miracles of Christ. From the minds of those who had not teen them, at the distance of almost two thousand years, the genuine religion of the gospel might have been lost, had it not been cherished by the ordinances of the Church.

II. Before the publication of the gospel to the world, the natives of every heathen nation had their respective offerings to their Gods. They knew not from what authority their sacrifices were derived. They did but imperfectly understand the meaning of the ceremonies of their own worship. Their expectations were limited almost to temporal advantage. When we partake the sacrament we unite in an act of worship, of which we know the authority, intention, and benefit.

III. The sacrifices of the heathens, and the festivals that followed them, were usually attended with cruelty to inoffensive animals, disgraced by immoral practices, and performed at ruinous expense. The sacrifices of the Jews were designed to typify one efficacious sacrifice of the Redeemer of the world. Our sacrament is not the sacrifice itself. It is only the festival after it; commemorating the sacrifice, and urging our claims to the benefits, which it was intended to convey. By the prudent regulations of our Church no indecent excess can disgrace this act of our worship. The exhortations to repentance, faith, and charity are Scriptural.

IV. The last recommendation of our ceremonies at the sacrament is the fitness and propriety of the substances employed on that solemn occasion. From the wisdom and goodness of Him who prescribed them this was to be expected. Instead of the slaughter of animals, select and perfect, but within the reach of the poor;-instead of incense and spices which are only found in a few favoured regions of the earth, and which when found are more costly than appropriate, our Saviour has directed us to employ the simple elements of bread and wine; produced in every country; which may be obtained without delay or difficulty. These elements are fit emblems of the benefits to be derived from the solemnity; nay, the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ. (W. Barrow, LL. D.)

The Lords supper

I. The bread. This signifies our need of spiritual food from Christ. We have a spiritual life within, as real as the physical life, and needing just as much a constant supply of nourishment. When General Grant took the Federal army at Chattanooga it was feeble and dispirited because it was almost destitute. The food of the army was hauled with difficulty over mountain roads and the supply was totally insufficient. His first movement, on assuming command-and it was that which eventually led to victory,-was to repair the railroads, and open up communication, so that the army soon had everything it needed. There is a like necessity in the spiritual life of Christs army. We are worth very little in the service of Christ, except as we are spiritually nourished. The soul is easily starved by lack of appropriate food. And our spiritual nourishment must come from Christ.

II. The bread was blessed by Christ. The significance of this act was that God the Father was recognized as having a part in the work of the Son.

III. The bread is broken by Christ. Why is this? Here is a reminder of the sufferings of Christ. This, said Christ, is My Body which is broken for you The broken bread is designed to bring to our minds His sacrificial work. And it is worthy of remark that our Lord broke the bread Himself. He did not delegate this to another. So did Christ voluntarily surrender Himself to death. Therefore, He affirms in one place, doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. There is a peculiar value in the sacrifice of Christ, in the fact that He was not forced to it. All He did and suffered was voluntary. It was because He loved us. It was in the infinite tenderness of His heart that He became our Saviour.

IV. The bread was distributed to the disciples by Christ. Here is suggested our complete dependence on Christ for salvation.

V. The second part of this symbol. The use of the cup, as well as the bread, gives the idea of completeness. The two necessities for life are food and drink. When both are given there is fulness in the provision. The spiritual food symbolized in the supper covers all the needs of the soul. He who has Christ has what causes want to cease.

2. The doubling of the symbol also serves for emphasis. Thus Elisha, Hannah, and Job received double portions, that is, an unusual amount.

3. There is also climax. The giving of the cup presents not only the old thought suggested in the giving of the bread, but something more, which is even more important.

VI. The cup. The cup is symbolic of the Blood of Christ; and the blood of life. The juice of the grape, as it is violently pressed from the grape and procured by the grapes destruction, fittingly represents the Blood of Christ poured out for us.

VII. Eating the bread and drinking the cup. Our Saviours directions to His disciples regarding the Supper were very simple. They were, Take, eat. Drink ye all of it. And the one hint our Saviour gave as to the meaning of this reception of the Supper was in His words: This do in remembrance of Me. To this the apostle added the inspired comment: For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lords death till He come. From this language several things are plain. We are taught that our eating the bread and drinking the cup is a confession of Christ, a pledge to serve our Lord, and an act of fellowship as Christians. But it is, above all, a reception of Christ by faith. Our very act of taking the bread symbolizes the way in which we are to be benefited by Christ. We can not have Christ except as we open our hearts to Him. We are to give Him loving welcome. We are to rejoice in Him and accept Him, just as we do the food for the body, in the assurance that He will build us up in life and health. We must cherish the thought of Christ with the same loyalty with which we cherish earthly friendships. We remember earthly friends when they are out of our sight, recognizing their interests and rights, keeping ourselves in proper attitude towards them, and allowing no one else and nothing else to come between them and us in such way as to make us forgetful of them or indifferent towards them. The mother of Professor Louis Agassiz lived in Switzerland. In her beautiful old age Professor Silliman and wife called upon her and were charmed with her character. The morning they were leaving Switzerland she met them, and giving them a bunch of pansies said, with a beautiful play upon words, speaking of course in the French language: Tell my son that my thoughts (mes pensees) are all for him, they are all for him. Now this is the way we should feel towards Christ. If we give Him all our heart, all our thoughts, we are communing with Him, we are receiving Him to ourselves, as He desires. As the elements of the Supper are taken into our system, so do we receive Christ into our souls. (Addison P. Foster.)

Sacrament of the Lords Supper

Because the sacraments of the gospel are only two in number, it has sometimes been thought that they must be ordinances of minor importance. No mistake can be greater, or more calculated to depreciate the value of these divinely-appointed ordinances, which, from their very fewness, as well as from having received Christs explicit command, should receive the Christians strictest gard. The passage before us leads to inquiries respecting the meaning and design of this great sacrament.

I. The relations in which Christ here presents Himself to His disciples.

1. Propitiation. The object of the Lords Supper is not to commemorate Jesus as a Teacher, though in this He was unlike any other; nor to perpetuate the memory of His example, although His was the only perfect one ever afforded. It is, to keep constantly in mind that He who was the one illustrious Teacher, and the only perfect Exemplar, employing these together with His incarnate Deity, to add efficacy to the offering, yielded up His life a sacrifice for sinners.

2. The whole benefit of His death is available to those for whom He died. All He did is placed to our credit.

II. The relations which Christians by receiving this sacrament assume towards Christ.

1. They confess their need of Christ. At the Holy Table supply and demand meet. Christ proffering and the disciple needing forgiveness, and all the attendant blessings purchased by His blood.

2. They confess their personal faith in Christ. At the Lords Table disciples individually appropriate Christs work to themselves. By receiving Christ they gain inward strengthening.

3. They consecrate themselves to Christ. Eating at His Table, they proclaim themselves His friends, and consent to His claims as their Saviour and Lord. Christ there enters into covenant with them, and they with Him.

III. The relations into which by this sacrament Christians are brought toward each other.

1. Brotherhood. The bond which unites disciples to the Master links them to each other.

2. Love. Ill-will is banished by the very desire to sit with Christ at this feast, and in its warm and sacred atmosphere animosities can no more exist than an iceberg in the gulf stream. (P. B. Davis.)

Holy Communion

Picture the scene: our Lords last night on earth-He fully aware of it-the Paschal supper, commemorative (through fifteen centuries) of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt-our Lord surrounded by twelve persons, one of whom He knew to be His betrayer, and who went out from this meal to execute his purpose-our Lord full of thoughts, not for Himself, but for them, and in this instance leaving them something to do for Him when He was gone. Holy Communion is-

I. The commemoration of the death of Christ and of all contained and implied in that death (1Co_11:26). In that act of worship we express our faith in

(1) the fact,

(2) the intention,

(3) the efficacy of the death (as the completion of the earthly life, and as the prelude to the resurrection life) of Christ, very God and very man.

II. A token of the manner in which alone our spiritual life is maintained. The bread and wine are not merely gazed upon, but eaten and drunk; and that in church, as a religious act. This would be, not merely unprofitable, but irreverent also, if there were not a deep meaning in it. The key is Joh_6:1-71, which expresses in words the same truth the sacrament expresses in act. If we are to have life through Christ, it must be, not merely by hearing of Him, or contemplating Him as an external object, but by receiving Him into heart and soul as by a process of spiritual digestion.

III. The chief opportunity of so exercising and maintaining the spiritual life (1Co_10:16; Mat_26:26-28). Application

1. Form a high estimate of this ordinance, It is what we make it; great or small, according as we seek and expect much or little from it.

2. But let your high estimate be a spiritual estimate. Reverence, not superstition. Feed on Him, in thy heart, by faith.

3. Realize Christs presence.

4. Make due preparation.

5. Beware of delay in becoming a communicant.

6. Beware of coming once or twice and then ceasing.

7. Beware of becoming familiar with the sign and not with the thing signified. (Dean Vaughan.)

Importance of the Holy Communion

When we consider the acts of Christ on this eventful night, we are led to see how vast is the importance given to the Holy Communion. He puts it in juxtaposition with the Paschal supper. As an Israelite ceased to be of Israel-became an alien and outcast from the House of God, forfeited the grace of God and his inheritance in God-if he did not keep the Passover and partake of the Lamb; so He would have us learn that, in like manner, unless Christians partake of the Lamb of God in His New Institution, they are not members of Him, they cut themselves off as dead branches from a vine, they lose His grace, they are no more members of His Kingdom. (S. Baring Gould, M. A.)

The Holy Communion a support to the weak

It is just because you are a sinner that you need the help which God gives through the Eucharist. You know your own weakness; you tell me you are afraid of the sin of yielding to temptation after having communicated. Yes; but is it not almost certain that if you do not communicate you will yield? while, if you will only come in simple faith and trust, looking for Gods blessing, it is through the Holy Sacrament that God will give the grace and strength which will enable you to resist the temptation and come off victor in the fight. There was a labouring man some time since in one of our northern towns, who, owing to some mistake, had been misinformed as to the hour of service. He came when the Celebration of the Holy Communion was just over, and when they came out of Church they found him waiting sadly outside. The clergyman explained how the mistake had arisen, and expressed his sorrow for it. Never mind, master, said the man; but the poor fellow could not help adding, only I did so build upon it. He knew his own weakness, and his need of Divine grace and supernatural assistance; and so he was coming, not as if there was any virtue in the bare act of coming, not as if the Sacrament itself could save him, but because he had grasped the great truth that it is through the Sacrament that God imparts grace, and strength, and life to us His children, unworthy as we are of the least of His benefits. (Prebendary Gibson, M. A.)

Value of the Holy Communion

In times of persecution men would risk their lives to get their Communions. A hundred years ago, during the French Revolution, when religion was abolished by the French Parliament, when Sunday was done away with, the clergy were hunted into the thickets like beasts of prey, and none might conduct or attend a service on pain of death, did people go without this means of grace? No! From time to time a messenger hurried with a mysterious watchword from house to house; the black swamp, he would mutter, and pass on without greeting or farewell. But the persons addressed understood him. Shortly after midnight, men and women, dressed in dark clothes, would meet silently by the black swamp below the village, and there, by the light of a carefully-guarded lantern, one of the homeless priests would give the Body and Blood of the Lord to the faithful of the neighbourhood. They all knew that at any moment, before the alarm could be given, the soldiers might be upon them, and a volley of grape-shot might stretch them bleeding and dying on the ground. What matter? man might kill their body, but Jesus had said that He would raise them up at the last day. (M. A. Lewis.)

The new testament.

Testament or Covenant

The word is thirteen times translated testament in the A.V., and twenty times covenant. Its Hebrew equivalent properly means covenant. But its classical import is latter will or testament. Neither of the translations does full justice to the unique transaction referred to. Indeed no human word could. And to have used a Divine word would simply have been to speak an unintelligibility. The reference is to that arrangement or disposition of things, in virtue of which mercy, and the possibility of true and everlasting bliss, are extended to the sinful human race. It was a glorious device, culminating in the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

1. It was a covenant, inasmuch as there is, inherent in it, an element of reciprocity. God, on His part, does something. He does much, But the blessing involved in what He does is suspended, so far as mens enjoyment of it is concerned, on acquiescence on their part, or cordial acceptance, or faith.

2. It is also of the nature of a testamentary deed. For there is involved in it a disposition or disposal of the effects or goods which constitute the property of God; in virtue of which disposition it is that men, who acquiesce or believe, become His heirs. The deed is a real testament, for it is duly and solemnly attested and testified.

3. And it is also really a last will, for it is a final expression of the will and wish of God. (J. Morison, D. D.)

The sacraments as symbols

The Magna Charta of British history is not a more forcible witness to our national love of liberty, and our need of it as a condition of progress, than are these institutions to the universal needs of redeemed men. Ordinances that have persisted through innumerable and violent changes, and reasserted themselves in the face of gigantic efforts to suppress them, offer the strongest presumption that they are founded on true reason and spiritual necessity: and though they may have only a secondary and never a primary place, yet they are likely to be requisite still for the expression and nourishment of this life of the soul. Man is not all reason and will. He is still ensphered with sense, and dowered with imagination, and the whole of him cannot be fed, developed, and perfected without the beneficent ministry of symbol. Carlyle, no fanatic ritualist, says, with as much truth as beauty, Wouldst thou plant for eternity, then plant into the deep, infinite faculties of man, his fantasy and heart; wouldst thou plant for year and day, then plant into his shallow, superficial faculties, his self-love and arithmetical understanding; and again, speaking in Sortor Resartus of Symbols, he writes: Of kin to the so incalculable influences of concealment, and connected with still greater things, is the wondrous agency of symbols. In a symbol there is concealment and yet revelation; here, therefore, by silence and by speech acting together, comes a double significance. And if both the speech be itself high, and the silence fit and noble, how expressive will their union be! Thus in many a painted device, or simple seal-emblem, the commonest truth stands out to us proclaimed with quite new emphasis. (Dr. John Clifford.)

The communion service saved

A poor widow sent me a dollar and thirty-three cents, in silver change, saying that it was all she found in her dead husbands pocket book, and she wanted to give it to God. I told this to the children and their parents in the Church of the Ascension, in Chicago, and they soon found a way to use this widows mite for God. They said: We will make a communion service of it. So they added to it their gold rings and pieces of jewelry, and pocket pieces of silver, and a lady gave her dead boys silver cup, and so they kept on adding pieces of silver and gold till we had enough; and then the artist made us a very beautiful chalice and paten all of silver and gold. Now I must tell you what came of it, and that shall be my second story. When that dreadful fire which destroyed our churches and homes in Chicago was seen approaching our little church, a little girl, seven years old, came with her father to see what they could save. It was four oclock in the morning, and there was no light except what came from the fire. But little Louisa Enderli found the Communion Service and saved it. She was soon lost from her father, and for four weary miles she made her way among the crowd of people who were hurrying away from the burning district. The wind blew the burning sand and cinders in her eyes, and almost blinded them; but she defended them as best she could with one hand, and clung to her precious treasure with the other, refusing to give it up till she had it in a place of safety. For three days she was lost from her father, she having been sheltered and cared for by a kind German family. When her father at last found her, she threw her arms about his neck, saying, O, papa, I saved the Communion! I saved the Communion! But even then she could not give it up till she had placed it safely in the rectors hand. I think that was an act of Christian heroism worthy of the martyrs who died for their Lords sake in the older days. (Rev. Charles P. Dorset, rector of the Church of the Ascension, Chicago, Illinois.)

The blood of Christ

The only thing I want, said a dying bishop of our church, Bishop Hamilton, is to place my whole confidence more and more perfectly in the precious blood! (The Fireside Parish Almanack.)

Bloodshedding as an expression of love

A certain Asiatic queen, departing this life, left behind her three accomplished sons, all arrived to years of maturity. The young princes were at strife as to who should pay the highest respect to their royal mothers memory. To give scope for their generous contentions they agreed to meet at the place of interment, and there present the most honourable gift they knew how to devise, or were able to procure. The eldest came, and exhibited a sumptuous monument, consisting of the richest materials, and ornamented with the most exquisite workmanship. The second ransacked all the beauties of the blooming creation, and offered a garland of such admirable colours and delightful odours as had never been seen before. The youngest appeared, without any pompous preparations, having only a crystal basin in one hand, and a silver bodkin in the other. As soon as he approached he threw open his breast, pierced a vein which lay opposite to his heart, received the blood in the transparent vase, and, with an air of affectionate reverence, placed it on the tomb. The spectators, struck with the sight, gave a shout of general applause, and immediately gave preference to this oblation. If it was reckoned such a singular expression of love to expend a few of those precious drops for the honour of a parent, O how matchless I how ineffable was the love of Jesus in pouring out all his vital blood for the salvation of his enemies! (Students Handbook of Scripture Doctrines.)

The heavenly Passover

I. The reality and character of the life beyond death. Christ speaks of it as the kingdom of God. This is not the idea of mere existence, but of being in the highest form of organization. The Father-King will pervade all life with His own spirit. The law will be the Fathers rule, which is love.

II. The special form of life in the Fathers kingdom here anticipated. I will drink it with you new. This implies-

1. Close and intimate association between the Redeemer and the redeemed.

2. The mutual presence and intercourse of the redeemed.

3. Their sacred employment. The Saviour says He will drink, and they shall drink, the wine of the Pascal feast new in the Fathers kingdom. He had just said: This cup is the new covenant in My blood. The heavenly festival is a memorial celebration of redeeming love. To the redeemed it will be a cup of grateful love, and of grateful retrospection. (The Preachers Monthly.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 126, 128. — INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER Mar_14:22-25.

(See notes on Mat_26:26-29.)

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19-20; 1Co 11:23-25; Mat 26:26-29. “And while they were eating, Jesus taking bread and blessing it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, This is My body;” i. e., our Lord’s body in symbol, there being no argument here either for the Romish transubstantiation or the Lutheran consubstantiation. Joseph said, in the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh’s chief baker and chief butler, “The three vines are three days,” “The three baskets are three days,” simply signifying that they represent three days. “And taking the cup, and blessing it, He gave to them, saying, Drink you all from this; for this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins. And I say unto you, that I shall no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I may drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father.” Here you see that the Eucharist, on this occasion instituted by our Lord, was prospective as well as retrospective, looking forward to our Lord’s return in His glorious kingdom, when it will actually be celebrated through all the millennial centuries down to the end of time, our glorified Lord being here with us. Hence you see the deep and thrilling interest of this institution, which our Savior established at this memorable epoch, the very night of His betrayal and arrest; not only retrospecting the tragical scene of Calvary, when He gave His body and His blood a vicarious offering to redeem the whole world, and sustain the spiritual life of the saints by faith drinking His blood — i. e., appropriating perpetually its cleansing and sanctifying efficacy, and feeding on His body each fleeting moment — and by faith apprehending and appropriating the wonderful promises of the resurrection, translation, transfiguration, and assimilation of our mortal bodies to His glorious body; but sweeping on beyond His second advent into the happy centuries of the glorious Millennial Theocracy, when our Lord will again abide with His saints on the earth, enveloping the globe with the glory of His kingdom, Satan having been ejected and imprisoned, and will, as He here says, again celebrate this wonderful Eucharist with His disciples, this memorial institution running on down to the end of time. Now, you must not confound the Passover meal, which they all ate while Judas was with them, with the Eucharist, which our Lord instituted after the supper, Judas having gone away and joined His enemies, — the former being the closing out of the memorable Passover, which they had celebrated fifteen hundred years, now normally evanescing, as all the emblematic lambs are verified in the great Antitype the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world; the latter being a new institution, vividly commemorative of bloody Calvary, and equally and lucidly pointing down to our Lord’s glorious return to this world, when, as He here says, He will again join with His saints in the celebration of this institution, a perpetual and vivid reminder of the stupendous redemption of the whole human race.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 14:22-25 (Mar_14:22-25)

BREAD AND WINE

"And as they were eating, He took bread, and when He had blessed, He brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is My body. And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave to them: and they all drank of it. And He said unto them, This is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mar_14:22-25 (R.V.)

HOW much does the Gospel of St. Mark tell us about the Supper of the Lord? He is writing to Gentiles. He is writing probably before the sixth chapter of St. John was penned, certainly before it reached his readers. Now we must not undervalue the reflected light thrown by one Scripture upon another. Still less may we suppose that each account conveys all the doctrine of the Eucharist. But it is obvious that St. Mark intended his narrative to be complete in itself, even if not exhaustive. No serious expositor will ignore the fullness of any word or action in which later experience can discern meanings, truly involved, although not apparent at the first. That would be to deny the inspiring guidance of Him who sees the end from the beginning. But it is reasonable to omit from the interpretation of St. Mark whatever is not either explicitly there, or else there in germ, waiting underneath the surface for other influences to develop it. For instance, the "remembrance" of Christ in St. Paul's narrative may (or it may not) mean a sacrificial memorial to God of His Body and His Blood. If it be, this notion was to be conveyed to the readers of this Gospel hereafter, as a quite new fact, resting upon other authority. It has no place whatever here, and need only be mentioned to point out that St. Mark did not feel bound to convey the slightest hint of it. A communion, therefore, could be profitably celebrated by persons who had no glimmering of any such conception. Nor does he rely, for an understanding of his narrative, upon such familiarity with Jewish ritual as would enable his readers to draw subtle analogies as they went along. They were so ignorant of these observances that he had just explained to them on what day the Passover was sacrificed (ver. 12).

But this narrative conveys enough to make the Lord's Supper, for every believing heart, the supreme help to faith, both intellectual and spiritual, and the mightiest of promises, and the richest gift of grace.

It is hard to imagine that any reader would conceive that the bread in Christ's hands had become His body, which still lived and breathed; or that His blood, still flowing in His veins, was also in the cup He gave to His disciples. No resort could be made to the glorification of the risen Body as an escape from the perplexities of such a notion, for in whatever sense the words are true, they were spoken of the body of His humiliation, before which still lay the agony and the tomb.

Instinct would revolt yet more against such a gross explanation, because the friends of Jesus are bidden to eat and drink. And all the analogy of Christ's language would prove that His vivid style refuses to be tied down to so lifeless and mechanical a treatment. Even in this Gospel they could discover that seed was teaching, and fowls were Satan, and that they were themselves His mother and His brethren. Further knowledge of Scripture would not impair this natural freedom of interpretation. For they would discover that if animated language were to be frozen to such literalism, the partakers of the Supper were themselves, though many, one body and one loaf, that Onesimus was St. Paul's very heart, that leaven is hypocrisy, that Hagar is Mount Sinai, and that the veil of the temple is the flesh of Christ (1Co_10:17; Phm_1:12; Luk_12:1; Gal_4:25; Heb_10:20). And they would also find, in the analogous institution of the paschal feast, a similar use of language (Exo_12:11).

But when they had failed to discern the doctrine of a transubstantiation, how much was left to them. The great words remained, in all their spirit and life, "Take ye, this is My Body . . . this is My Blood of the Covenant, which is shed for many."

(1) So then, Christ did not look forward to His death as to ruin or overthrow. The Supper is an institution which could never have been devised at any later period. It comes to us by an unbroken line from the Founder's hand, and attested by the earliest witnesses. None could have interpolated a new ordinance into the simple worship of the early Church, and the last to suggest such a possibility should be those skeptics who are deeply interested in exaggerating the estrangements which existed from the first, and which made the Jewish Church a keen critic of Gentile innovation, and the Gentiles of a Jewish novelty.

Nor could any genius have devised its vivid and pictorial earnestness, its copious meaning, and its pathetic power over the heart, except His, Who spoke of the Good Shepherd and of the Prodigal Son. And so it tells us plainly what Christ thought about His own death. Death is to most of us simply the close of life. To Him it was itself an achievement, and a supreme one. Now it is possible to remember with exultation a victory which cost the Conqueror's life. But on the Friday which we call Good, nothing happened except the crucifixion. The effect on the Church, which is amazing and beyond dispute, is produced by the death of her Founder, and by nothing else. The Supper has no reference to Christ's resurrection. It is as if the nation exulted in Trafalgar, not in spite of the death of our great Admiral, but solely because he died; as if the shot which slew Nelson had itself been the overthrow of hostile navies. Now the history of religions offers no parallel to this. The admirers of the Buddha love to celebrate the long spiritual struggle, the final illumination and the career of gentle helpfulness. They do not derive life and energy from the somewhat vulgar manner of his death. But the followers of Jesus find an inspiration (very displeasing to some recent apostles of good taste) in singing of their Redeemer's blood. Remove from the Creed (which does not even mention His three years of teaching) the proclamation of His death, and there may be left, dimly visible to man, the outline of a sage among the sages, but there will be no longer a Messiah, nor a Church. It is because He was lifted up that He draws all men unto Him. The perpetual nourishment of the Church, her bread and wine, are beyond question the slain body of her Master and His blood poured out for man.

What are we to make of this admitted fact, that from the first she thought less of His miracles, His teaching, and even of His revelation of the Divine character in a perfect life, than of the doctrine that He who thus lived, died for the men who slew Him? And what of this, that Jesus Himself, in the presence of imminent death, when men review their lives and set a value on their achievements, embodied in a solemn ordinance the conviction that all He had taught and done was less to man than what He was about to suffer? The Atonement is here proclaimed as a cardinal fact in our religion, not worked out into doctrinal subtleties, but placed with marvelous simplicity and force, in the forefront of the consciousness of the simplest. What the Incarnation does for our bewildering thoughts of God, the absolute and unconditioned, that does the Eucharist for our subtle reasonings upon the Atonement.

(2) The death of Christ is thus precious, because He Who is sacrificed for us can give Himself away. "Take ye" is a distinct offer. And so the communion feast is not a mere commemoration, such as nations hold for great deliverances. It is this, but it is much more, else the language of Christ would apply worse to that first supper whence all our Eucharistic language is derived, than to any later celebration. When He was absent, the bread would very aptly remind them of His wounded body, and the wine of His blood poured out. It might naturally be said, Henceforward, to your loving remembrance this shall be My Body, as indeed, the words, As oft as ye drink it, are actually linked with the injunction to do this in remembrance. But scarcely could it have been said by Jesus, looking His disciples in the face, that the elements were then His body and blood, if nothing more than commemoration were in His mind. And so long as popular Protestantism fails to look beyond this, so long will it be hard pressed and harassed by the evident weight of the words of institution. These are given in Scripture solely as having been spoken then, and no interpretation is valid which attends chiefly to subsequent celebrations, and only in the second place to the Supper of Jesus and the Eleven.

Now the most strenuous opponent of the doctrine that any change has passed over the material substance of the bread and wine, need not resist the palpable evidence that Christ appointed these to represent Himself. And how? Not only as sacrificed for His people, but as verily bestowed upon them. Unless Christ mocks us, "Take ye" is a word of absolute assurance. Christ's Body is not only slain, and His Blood shed on our behalf; He gave Himself to us as well as for us; He is ours. And therefore whoever is convinced that he may take part in "the sacrament of so great a mystery" should realize that he there receives, conveyed to him by the Author of that wondrous feast, all that is expressed by the bread and wine.

(3) And yet this very word "Take ye," demands our cooperation in the sacrament. It requires that we should receive Christ, as it declares that He is ready to impart Himself, utterly, like food which is taken into the system, absorbed, assimilated, wrought into bone, into tissue and into blood. And if any doubt lingered in our minds of the significance of this word, it is removed when we remember how belief is identified with feeding, in St. John's Gospel. "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst . . . He that believeth hath eternal life. I am the bread of life." (Joh_6:35; Joh_6:47-48.) If it follows that to feed upon Christ is to believe, it also follows quite as plainly that belief is not genuine unless it really feeds upon Christ.

It is indeed impossible to imagine a more direct and vigorous appeal to man to have faith in Christ than this, that He formally conveys, by the agency of His Church, to the hands and lips of His disciples, the appointed emblem of Himself, and of Himself in the act of blessing them. For the emblem is food in its most nourishing and in its most stimulating form, in a form the best fitted to speak of utter self-sacrifice, by the bruised corn of broken bread, and by the solemn resemblance to His sacred blood. We are taught to see, in the absolute absorption of our food into our bodily system, a type of the completeness wherewith Christ gives Himself to us.

That gift is not to the Church in the gross, it is "divided among" us; it individualizes each believer; and yet the common food expresses the unity of the whole Church in Christ. Being many we are one bread.

Moreover, the institution of a meal reminds us that faith and emotion do not always exist together. Times there are when the hunger and thirst of the soul are like the craving of a sharp appetite for food. But the wise man will not postpone his meal until such a keen desire returns, and the Christian will seek for the Bread of life, however his emotions may flag, and his soul cleave unto the dust. Silently and often unaware, as the substance of the body is renovated and restored by food, shall the inner man be strengthened and built up by that living Bread.

(4) We have yet to ask the great question, what is the specific blessing expressed by the elements, and therefore surely given to the faithful by the sacrament. Too many are content to think vaguely of Divine help, given us for the merit of the death of Christ. But bread and wine do not express an indefinite Divine help, they express the body and blood of Christ, they have to do with His Humanity. We must beware, indeed, of limiting the notion overmuch. At the Supper He said not "My flesh," but "My body," which is plainly a more comprehensive term. And in the discourse when He said "My Flesh is meat indeed," He also said "I am the bread of life . . . He that eateth Me, the same shall live by Me." And we may not so carnalize the Body as to exclude the Person, who bestows Himself. Yet is all the language so constructed as to force the conviction upon us that His body and blood, His Humanity, is the special gift of the Lord's Supper. As man He redeemed us, and as man He imparts Himself to man.

Thus we are led up to the sublime conception of a new human force working in humanity. As truly as the life of our parents is in our veins, and the corruption which they inherited from Adam is passed on to us, so truly there is abroad in the world another influence, stronger to elevate than the infection of the fall is to degrade; and the heart of the Church is propelling to its utmost extremities the pure life of the Second Adam, the Second Man, the new Father of the race. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive; and we who bear now the image of our earthy progenitor shall hereafter bear the image of the heavenly. Meanwhile, even as the waste and dead tissues of our bodily frame are replaced by new material from every meal, so does He, the living Bread, impart not only aid from heaven, but nourishment, strength to our poor human nature, so weary and exhausted, and renovation to what is sinful and decayed. How well does such a doctrine of the sacrament harmonize with the declarations of St. Paul: "I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me." "The Head, from whom all the body being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God" (Gal_2:20; Col_2:19).

(5) In the brief narrative of St. Mark, there are a few minor points of interest.

Fasting communions may possibly be an expression of reverence only. The moment they are pressed further, or urged as a duty, they are strangely confronted by the words, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread."

The assertion that "they all drank," follows from the express commandment recorded elsewhere. And while we remember that the first communicants were not laymen, yet the emphatic insistence upon this detail, and with reference only to the cup, is entirely at variance with the Roman notion of the completeness of a communion in one kind.

It is most instructive also to observe how the far-reaching expectation of our Lord looks beyond the Eleven, and beyond His infant Church, forward to the great multitude which no man can number, and speaks of the shedding of His blood "for many." He, who is to see of the travail of His soul and to be satisfied, has already spoken of a great supper when the house of God shall be filled. And now He will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until that great day when the marriage of the Lamb having come and His Bride having made herself ready, He shall drink it new in the consummated kingdom of God.

With the announcement of that kingdom He began His gospel: how could the mention of it be omitted from the great gospel of the Eucharist? or how could the Giver of the earthly feast be silent concerning the banquet yet to come?

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

14:22-25 The Last Supper began with a blessing. In modern practice, Christians ask God to bless the food; Jews in Jesus’ day blessed God for providing the food with the words, “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.” • this is my body. . . . This is my blood: Some understand these words to mean that the bread and wine are transformed into the very body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation); others, that the bread and wine remain bread and wine but that the real presence of Jesus is found in them (consubstantiation). In these two views, when one participates in the Lord’s Supper, one actually eats and drinks the body and blood of Jesus. A third view is that in eating the bread and wine, Christians spiritually feed on Jesus. A fourth view is that the meal is primarily a memorial, and the elements are symbolic of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf. See also John 6:53-63 and corresponding study note.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar 14:22. Ἄρτον, bread) Mark does not add the article.—μον, my) Understand, which is given for you, to be supplied by implication from Mar 14:24 [My blood, which is shed for many].

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 14:22-25 . The Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:26-29 , Luk 22:19-20 ), vide notes on Mt.’s account, to which Mk.’s closely corresponds.

Mar 14:22 . ἐσθιόντωνα ., while they were eating, as in Mar 14:18 ; a very general indication of time. This and the announcement of the betrayal are for Mt. and Mk. the two memorabilia of the paschal feast of Jesus with His disciples, and all they know is that they happened during feast-time. λάβετε , take, without φάγετε , as in Mt.; the more laconic expression likely to be the original. “Take” implies “eat”.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 22. Eat] This is omitted by many MSS. and versions, but I think without reason. It is found in the parallel places, Mt 26:26; 1Co 11:24. See the subject of the Lord's Supper largely explained on Mt 26:26, &c.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(22-25) As they did eat.—See Notes on Mat_26:26-29.

Take, eat.—The latter word is wanting in many of the best MSS.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22–25. Institution of the Holy Eucharist

22. And as they did eat] On the departure of the Traitor the Saviour, as though relieved of a heavy load, broke forth into words of mysterious triumph (Joh_13:31-35), and then, as the meal went on, proceeded to institute the Holy Eucharist.

Jesus took bread] that is one of the unleavened cakes that had been placed before Him as the Celebrant or Proclaimer of the Feast.

and blessed] giving thanks and pronouncing the consecration, probably in the usual words, see above, Mar_14:16.

Take, eat] “Eat” is omitted here in the best editions.

this is my body] St Luke adds, “which is being (or on the point of being) given for you;” St Paul (1Co_11:24), “which is being (or on the point of being) broken for you,” while both add, “do this in remembrance of Me.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks,.... Over it, and for it, by blessing it, and appropriating it to the present use and service:

he gave it to them; his disciples,

and they all drank of it; Judas, as well as the rest, as he bid them do; See Gill on Mat 26:27.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Ver. 22. {See Trapp on "Mat 26:26"} The Lord’s supper is (as Justin Martyr saith) τροφη ευχαριστηθεισα, food made up all of thanksgiving.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This which I now give, and which you now receive; for the bread is not the figure of Christ, but is changed into the true body of Christ; and he himself says, The bread, which I will give you, is my flesh. (St. John vi.) But the flesh of Christ is not seen, on account of our infirmity; for if we were allowed to see with our eyes the flesh and blood of Jesus, we should not date to approach the blessed sacrament. Our Lord therefore condescending to our weakness, preserves the outward species of bread and wine, but changes the bread and wine into the reality of flesh and blood. (Theophylactus) --- St. John Chrysostom, in his thirtieth sermon on the treason of Judas, says: "Christ is also now present to adorn our table, (altar) the same that was present to adorn that table. For it is not man that causes the elements to become the body and blood of Christ, but the very Christ, the same that was crucified for us: Greek: oude gar anthropos estin o[?] koion ta prokeimena ginesthai soma kai aima christou all autos o staurotheis uper emon christos. The priest stand his vicegerent, and pronounces the words, but the power and grace is of God. He says, this is my body, and the word changes the elements: and as the sentence ’increase and multiply, and fill the earth, was spoken once, but still imparts fecundity to human nature throughout all time: so these words (of consecration) once spoken, constitute an absolute, perfect sacrifice upon every altar of the Church from that day to this, yea even to the time when Christ shall come again at the last day." Greek: Schema pleron esteken o iereus, ta remata phtheggomenos ekeina e de dunamis, kai e charis tou theou esti. touto mou esti to soma, phesi touto to rema metarruthmizei ta prokeimena. Kai kathaper e phone ekeine e legousa "auxanesthe, kai plethunesthe, kai plerosate ten gen," errethe men apax, dia pantos de tou[?] chronou ginetai ergo endunamousa ten phusin ten emeteran pros paidopoiian. outo kai e phone aute apax lechtheisa, kath ekasten trapesan en tais ekklesiais, ex ekeinou mechri semeron, kai mechri tes autou parousias, ten thusian apertismenen epgasetai. (St. John Chrysostom, Serm. xxx, on the treachery of Judas.)

These words are so plain, that it is difficult to imagine others more explicit. Their force and import will however appear in a still stronger light, if we consider the formal promise Christ had made to his apostles, as related by St. John, that he would give them his flesh to eat, that same flesh he was to deliver up for the life of the world. He on that occasion confirmed with remarkable emphasis of expression the reality of this manducation, assuring them that his flesh was meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; and when some of the disciples were shocked at such a proposal, he still insisted that unless they eat his flesh, they should have no life in them. The possibility of it he evinced from his divine power, to be exemplified in his miraculous ascension; the necessity of it he established, by permitting those to abandon him who refused to believe it; and the belief of it he enforced on the minds of his disciples, from the consideration that he, their teacher, was the Son of God, and the author of their eternal salvation. The apostles were deeply impressed with these thoughts, previously to the institution of the holy Eucharist; consequently when they beheld Jesus Christ, just before his death, taking bread into his sacred hands; when after blessing it with solemnity, they heard him say, Take, eat; this is my body, which shall be given for you; they must necessarily have concluded, that it was truly his body, which he now gave them to eat, according to his former promise. And though their reason or senses might have started difficulties, yet all these were obviated by their belief of his being God, and consequently able to effect whatever he pleased, and to make good whatever he said. --- Moreover, if we consult tradition, we shall find that the Greek, as well as the Latin Church, has uniformly declared in favour of the literal sense of Christ’s words, as may be seen at large in all Catholic controvertists. The learned author of the Perpetuite de la Foi, and his continuator, Renaudot, in the two additional quarto volumes, have invincibly demonstrated, that the belief of all the Oriental Christians perfectly coincides with that of the Catholic Church, respecting the real presence. Dr. Philip Nicolai, though a Protestant, candidly acknowledges, in his first book of the Kingdom of Christ, p. 22, "that not only the churches of the Greek, but also the Russians, the Georgians, the Armenians, the Judæans, and the Ethiopians, as many of them as believe in Christ, hold the true and real presence of the body and blood of our Lord." This general agreement amongst the many Churches of the Christian world, affords the strongest evidence against Secker and others, who pretend that the doctrine of the real presence is a mere innovation; which was not started till 700 years after Christ’s death. For, how will their supposition accord with the belief of the Nestorians and Euthychians, who were separated from the Church of Rome long before that period, and who were found to agree exactly with Catholics concerning this important tenent? --- See this point clearly given in Rutter’s Evangelical Harmony.

This is my Blood.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

See Poole on "Mat 26:26", and following verses to Mat 26:30, where the very small differences between our evangelist and Matthew and Luke are also considered.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The last clause of this verse should be read thus: Take ye: this is my body (Labete touto esti to swma mou). The institution of this Holy Sacrament took place at the close of the Paschal supper, but while they were yet at the table. The bread which our Lord took would most likely be unleavened bread. But this does not surely constitute a reason why unleavened bread should be used ordinarily in the celebration of the Holy Communion. The direction of the Prayer-book of the English Church is wise and practical, "It shall suffice that the Bread be such as is usual to be eaten." This is my body; that is, sacramentally. St. Augustine ("Sermo.," 272) says, "How is the bread his body? and the cup, or that which the cup contains, how is that his blood? These are, therefore, called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen while another thing is understood" (quoted by Dr. Morison, p. 392).

Vers. 22-25. The Lord"s Supper.

A good title, as it was an evening meal; and it was appropriated to a new and special purpose by our Lord, in connection with whom its significance is received. He is the Host, while his disciples are the guests. Consider it:

I IN RELATION TO THE PASSOVER. The general meaning of the Passover was perpetuated in a spiritual sense. There was:

1. A transfer. Not of the whole Passover, but of a portion. It was during the progress of that meal, "as they were eating," that this particular occurrence took place. "He took bread or a loaf," thus adopting that, and the cup which was passing round, as something distinct from the main portion of the Passover meal, viz. the eating of the lamb itself. The cup was usually passed round three times, the bread frequently. We can conceive Christ"s manner unusually solemn and impressive, as he raised these otherwise subordinate elements of the Paschal feast into prominent distinctness.

2. An interpretation. He took the brittle cake of unleavened bread and broke it, saying, "This is my body;" and the cup, saying, "This is my blood." The doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are philosophical refinements upon the simple meaning of the phrases, and lead inevitably to contradiction and absurdity. Christ was alive before them, and using his body, as he spoke. It must, therefore, have been distinct from the bread. "When our Lord said that the bread which he took in his hands was his body, and that the wine which he held in the cup was his blood, he used a simple figure of speech, such as he often employed. He called himself bread, a door, a vine; meaning that these objects resembled and so represented him. The words are understood figuratively by all, and must be so. Controversies merely concern the nature of the figure.... The Romanist interpretation is figurative. It supposes a figure without a precedent, a miracle without a parallel; and it attributes the salvation of men, not to the actual death of Christ, but to what he did with the bread and wine. As the Passover was simply a symbolical service, the addition to it would be regarded as similar" (Godwin). "Note that, according to our Savior himself, the liquid contained in the cup was not literal blood, but the fruit of the vine" (Morison).

II IN ITSELF.

1. A covenant or testament. It was "a disposition of things," by virtue of which the good to be obtained through the obedience and sacrifice of Christ is secured to those who believingly partake. It is a "testament," inasmuch as it was to have effect after Christ"s death, and through the fact and manner of that death believers were to become heirs of the blessings it secured. This "agreement," which is contained in the covenant-idea, is a mutual affair, and involves mutual obligations. It also, after the precedent of ancient Israel, constitutes the true recipients God"s people and him their God. The thing handed over is not the body and blood, but that life and grace which they represented.

2. A communion. "Take ye." "He gave to them: and they all drank of it." It is only as a communion that the covenant has effect. To those who have received the life and spirit of Christ there is forgiveness and peace. Their sins are blotted out, and they are passed over in the mercy of God. And so the act of communion is a spiritual one, and involves fresh realization of the meaning of the great facts of atonement, and the duties of the reconciled children of God.

3. An anticipation. There is to be another feast, when the Savior comes to his people, and his people enter with him into the scene of the "marriage supper of the Lamb." It was Christ"s last earthly Passover: he looked thence confidently forth to the final victory over sin and death, and the consummation of all things.

4. A thanksgiving. "Eucharist." In view of all the blessings to be conferred through Christ"s death, and as acknowledging the mercy and love of God in common viands and (as symbolized by them) in the benefits of salvation. M.

Vers. 22-25. The Lord"s Supper a celebration of death.

It is elsewhere spoken of as a "memorial," i.e. a funeral feast for the Savior. Not merely a vain regret, an indulgence of disconsolate affection, but

I A CELEBRATION OF DEATH AS COMPLETED SELFSACRIFICE.

1. Therefore all that was most precious in the life was secured, in the highest degree and the best way, as a blessing for others. The early disciples were not handling mangled, useless remains, but touching a living spirit, pregnant with grace and power and inspiration. The "body" and "blood" of Christ, kept from moral corruption and death, were a spiritual fruit" rich and rare.

2. And believers are made partakers of the spiritual fullness of Christ"s perfected nature, in receiving the "elements" of his "body" and "blood.

II A CELEBRATION OF DEATH AS THE:REVELATION AND AVENUE OF IMMORTALITY. This "funeral feast" is full of hopeful, confident anticipation, because in the death that is celebrated:

1. The higher spiritual life is seen as the result of the sacrifice of the earthly nature. It is in the voluntary and obedient laying down of this earthly life that Christ set free his Spirit as an influence to savingly affect mankind, and satisfied and commended that perfect righteousness which is the ground of acceptance and union with God, the true life of the Spirit.

2. A foretaste is given of the final victory of righteousness over sin and death. The Captain of salvation, about to enter into final conflict with the powers of darkness, confidently looks forward, and invites his followers to look forward with him, "to glory, and honor, and immortality." In prospect of the final feast of victory and joy that was set before him, he was ready to go down into the gloom and shadow of death. M.

Vers. 22-24. The Lord"s Supper.

The Lord"s Supper was the natural outgrowth of the Passover. The broken bread, which was made a symbol of our Lord"s broken body, had been seen and partaken of for generations by the Jews, who had regarded it as "the bread of affliction" which their fathers once ate in Egypt. "The cup of blessing," transformed into "the communion of the blood of Christ," was the third cup in the feast, which followed on the distribution of the Paschal lamb, and preceded the singing of the Hallel. The whole Passover was a symbolical festival of remembrance, and this we believe the Lord"s Supper was intended to be. It was not to be a repeated sacrifice, as Gregory the Great was the first to suggest, but was a feast to be eaten in remembrance of the Savior. No symbols could be more appropriate. The bread represented the Bread of life; the broken bread that it was broken for us. The wine was "the blood of the grape", (Gen_49:11) poured out from the true Vine, (Joh_15:1) which was its Source. The expression, "This is my body," surely could not have been taken in any literal sense by the disciples, who had their Lord in his physical presence visible amongst them when he spoke. It was equivalent to "This represents my body;" just as elsewhere we read, "The field is the world;" "I am the true Vine;" "Leaven... which is hypocrisy" (see also Gal_4:24 Heb_10:20). What, then, are some of the advantages of this commemorative feast?

I IT REPRESENTS THE PROPRIETARY CHARACTER OF CHRIST"S DEATH. His blood was shed for many, for the remission of sins. His death was not merely a martyrdom; it was an atonement. He gave his life for the sheep. The prophets foretold this; (Isa 53) the apostles declared it; (Ro 5) the redeemed praise the Lamb who was slain, because he washed them from their sins in his own blood.

II IT REMINDS US OF THE NECESSITY FOR PERSONALLY PARTAKING OF CHRIST. "Take, eat: this is my body." What we eat and drink becomes a part of ourselves. Once our Lord said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Food is useless unless we partake of it. Christ came to us in vain unless we trust him as our own Savior and Lord.

III IT IS IN ITSELF A MEANS OF GRACE. This is to be proved in experience rather than by Scripture. Just as a word which we can see or hear conveys a thought which we cannot see or hear, so the bread and the wine convey thoughts of Christ, of his sacrifice, of his claims, of his love, which refresh and strengthen our inmost life.

IV IT IS A PROCLAMATION OF FELLOWSHIP. 1Co_10:16, etc., "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." A "communion" is that of which we are common partakers, and St. Paul argues that by eating and drinking together thus we proclaim our unity; just as the Israelites in Egypt, on the night of the Exodus, met in families, each finding its center of thought and safety in the Paschal lamb. It is the idea of the family, and not of the priesthood, that God makes the germ of the Christian Church. Those in it are to "bear one another"s burdens, and so fulfill the Law of Christ." By the extension of the Church will come about the true brotherhood, for which the world still sighs.

V IT IS A PLEDGE OF FIDELITY. The "sacramentum" was the oath taken by the Roman soldier that he would never desert the standard, never turn his back on the foe, and never be disloyal to his commander. By our presence at the sacrament we pledge each other, before God, that with his help we will be true men, more courageous, more pure, more victorious, than before.

VI IT IS A SIGN OF SEPARATION. The Egyptians had no part in the Passover. The scribes and Pharisees were not invited to the upper room. Judas, so far as we can judge, left before the new rite was instituted. St. Paul spoke of the duty devolving on the Church at Corinth to remove the immoral from fellowship. Yet all true disciples, though they may doubt as Thomas did, or deny their Lord like Peter, are invited to eat and drink with each other, and with their Lord. A.R.

Vers. 22-25. Eucharistic service.

I THE SYMBOLIC BREAD AND WINE. Eating and drinking are the most significant physical acts of life. For they are the foundation of life. Hence the act is appropriate as a symbol of the foundation of spiritual life. The appropriation of Christ by the intelligence and will is analogous to the appropriation of food in the process of digestion.

II THE SERVICE IS THE VISIBLE SEAL OF A NEW COVENANT. Which is a tinuation, an enlargement or evolution of the old; founded on better promises. Objectively, the grace of God is more clearly revealed and abundantly poured forth in the New Testament than in the Old. Subjectively, the conditions of blessing are purer and simpler. The spiritual act of faith includes them all, including the man as a whole.

III IT IS DESIGNED AS MEMORIAL. The form, the words, the spirit of the loving and suffering Savior, appear and reappear at each celebration. It is the memorial of devotion for our sakes, and the reminder to us of the duty to live not for ourselves, but for the spiritual ideal contained in him.

IV IT IS DESIGNED TO BE PROPHETIC. "Until that day!" Our purest earthly joys are the buds of celestial flowers. The reunion of the family on feast-days speaks of the reunion in heaven. All our best earthly joys are promises of better joys in heaven. The scene of the Lord"s Supper lifts us out of the commonplace associations of life. We realize in it prophetically the truth of our personal and social existence. J.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The institution of the Lord’s Supper:

v. 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is My body.

v. 23. And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, 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.

The meal had practically come to a conclusion, with Christ and the disciples still reclining about the table, when the Lord did a remarkable thing. He took bread, either one of the two paschal loaves or a piece that had remained after the meal. Having spoken a blessing over it, He broke it and passed it around to them, probably by going from one to the other, each one receiving a piece. To the several disciples He may have changed the address a trifle, but the substance was always the same: Take and eat; this is My body. This was not a mere symbolical act, for there was not the remotest resemblance between the fragments of bread and the body of a full-grown man. And here it makes no difference whether Jesus spoke Greek or Aramaic on that evening: He stated that the bread which He gave to them is His body. Then He took the cup which I they had used during the meal, the third cup being known as the cup of blessing. Having given thanks to God over it, He gave it to them, passing from one to the other. And again He made a very clear statement regarding the contents of that cup: This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. It is the New Testament which was herewith ushered in; the covenant which God makes with the world in and with Christ and His blood and through its shedding has brought salvation to all men, even though only a part of mankind will accept the offering of their redemption through the blood of Jesus. If we believe the words of Christ just as they were here spoken, taking our reason captive under the obedience of Scriptures, we shall always receive the full benefit of this Sacrament. We shall always take from it the assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins. We shall always be strengthened anew in our faith. As the celebration of the first Passover strengthened the Israelites for their long journey through the wilderness, so the Lord’s Supper is for the believers of the New Testament food on the way during their earthly pilgrimage. And incidentally, like the paschal meal, it points forward to the end of the journey, to the heavenly banquet, where the Lord will drink with us of the cup of salvation in all eternity. To this the Lord refers when He says that He will henceforth not drink with them of the fruit of the vine. For this expression was the term by which the paschal wine was designated among the Jews, the term which they used in the blessing of, and in the thanksgiving over, the wine. To argue that the Lord had used anything but true, fermented wine in the institution of the Eucharist, is to overthrow all historical and exegetical reasoning. See Mat 26:29. The Lord here instituted the second Sacrament of the New Testament. "As in Baptism He loosed from the Old Testament circumcision the sacred washing which accompanied it, and made it the New Testament Sacrament of the covenant entered into, so also now He severed the breaking of the bread and the cup of thanksgiving from the Old Testament Passover, and made it a sacrament of the New Testament redemption."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Immediately after the celebration of the passover, our Lord institutes his holy supper; in which institution, we have observable the author, the time, the elements, and ministerial actions.

Observe here, 1. The author of this new sacrament: Jesus took bread.

Note thence, That to institute a sacrament is the sole prerogative of Jesus Christ. The church has no power to make new sacraments: it is only her duty to celebrate those which our Saviour has made.

Observe, 2. The time of the insitution, the night before his passion; The night in which he was betrayed, Jesus took bread.

Learn thence, That it is very necessary when sufferings are approaching, to have recourse to the table of the Lord, which affords both an antidote against fear, and is a restorative to our faith.

Observe, 3. The sacramental elements, bread and wine; bread representing the body, and wine the blood, of our dear Redeemer.

Observe, 4. The ministerial actions, The breaking of the bread, and the blessing of the cup.

As to the bread, Jesus took it; that is, set it apart from common use, and separated it for holy ends and purposes. He blessed it; that is, prayed for a blessing upon it, and brake it; thereby shadowing forth his body broken upon the cross for the redemption and salvation of a lost world; Do this in remembrance of my death.

As to the cup, Christ having set it apart by prayer and thanksgiving, he commands his disciples to drink all of it; and accordingly they all drank of it, says this evangelist; and our Saviour gives his reason for it, For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for the remission of sins Mar 14:24; that is, the wine in this cup represents the shedding of my blood, by which this new covenant between God and man is ratified and confirmed.

Whence we gather, That every communicant hath as undoubted a right to the cup as to the bread, in the Lord’s supper; Drink ye all of this, says Christ; therefore to deny the cup to the common people, is sacrilege, and directly contrary to our Saviour’s institution. And Christ calling the cup the fruit of the vine, affords a strong argument against the doctrine of transubstantiation; thus: "That which after consecration remains the fruit of the vine, is not substantially changed into the blood of Christ. But Christ called the wine in the cup the fruit of the vine after consecration; therefore that which Christ gave the apostles to drink, was not substantially changed into his blood. Wine is metaphorically called the blood of the grape; why may it not, by a like metaphor, be styled the blood of Christ?

After the celebration was over, our Saviour and his disciples sung an hymn, as the Jews were wont to do at the passover, the six eucharistical psalms, from the 113th to the 119th psalm.

From Christ’s example, we may gather, how suitable it is to sing a psalm after the celebration of the Lord’s, supper; how fit it is that God be glorified in his church, by singing of psalms; and in particular when the Lord’s supper is celebrated: When they had sung an hymn, they went into the Mount of Olives.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXX. Lord's Supper Instituted].

CXX. THE LORD'S SUPPER INSTITUTED. (Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.) aMATT. XXVI. 26-29; bMARK XIV. 22-25; cLUKE XXII. 19, 20; fI. COR. XI. 23-26.

a26 And as they were eating, fthe Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, bblessed, fhe brake it, aand he [657] gave to the disciples, and said, bTake ye: aTake, eat; this is my body. fwhich is cgiven ffor you: this do in remembrance of me. [As only unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, that kind of bread must have been used by our Lord, and it is fitting that it should still be used by us in keeping the Lord's Supper, not only for propriety's sake, but because that bread which is emblematic of purity is most suitable to represent the body of the sinless Christ. The Catholics and some few others take our Lord's words literally when he says, "This is my body." On this they found the doctrine of transubstantiation, i. e., that the bread and the wine become literal body and blood when blessed by the priest. There are many weighty arguments against such a doctrine, but the main one for it is found in the words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the Jer_31:31-34. It was the practice of Eastern [658] peoples to use blood in making any pact or covenant ( Exo_24:6-8). Christ represents himself as the victim from whence the blood was to be taken to ratify or seal the new covenant, and he makes the cup the symbol of that blood. A full discussion of the old and new covenants will be found in the Book of Hebrews. We may, however, sum them up by saying that the old covenant promised the land of Canaan and Christ in the flesh to the Israelites, while the new covenant promises heaven and Christ in glory to the Christian], bwhich is poured out for many. [It is explicitly stated elsewhere that Christ died for all ( Heb_2:9, 2Co_5:14, 2Co_5:15), and the word "many" is used, not to contradict, but to emphasize the fact. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.] aunto remission of sins. ceven that which is poured out for you. [The prime object of Christ's death is here declared. It was to accomplish the forgiveness of sins. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which it secures are consequent upon this-- Joh_1:29, Eph_5:2, Heb_7:27, 1Jo_2:2, 1Jo_4:10, Isa_53:10, Rom_8:2, 1Co_15:3.] fthis do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [The word "remembrance" comes as a refrain after both the loaf and the cup. The central purpose of the supper is to bring the sacrifice of Christ and all its blessed results vividly to mind.] 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. [This verse is a comment of Paul's upon the nature of the supper. In keeping the Lord's Supper we proclaim to our own souls and to the world our trust in the death of Christ, and our hope that he will return and fulfill the expectations begotten in us by it.] a29 But b25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink ashall not drink henceforth bof the athis fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in bthe kingdom of [659] God. amy Father's kingdom. band they all drank of it. [In speaking of this future drinking of the fruit of the vine Jesus does not mean literal wine, for he does not drink literal wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term "drink," therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper. The term new is most naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, we think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just described.]

[FFG 657-660]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22–26. As they did eat. On the institution of the Lord's Supper, see notes on Matt. 26:23–29. Compare Luke 22:19–21; 1 Cor. 11:23–25.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

bread

This was a flat loaf of unleavened bread, which was eaten as part of the Passover meal.

broke it

This means that he broke the bread into pieces for the people to eat. AT: "broke it into pieces" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

Take this. This is my body

"Take this bread. It is my body." Though most understand this to mean that the bread is a symbol of Jesus' body and that it is not actual flesh, it is best to translate this statement literally. (See: Symbolic Language)

He took a cup

Here "cup" is a metonym for wine. AT: "He took the cup of wine" (See: Synecdoche)

This is my blood of the covenant, the blood that is poured out for many

The covenant is for the forgiveness of sins. This can be written more explicitly. AT: "This is my blood that confirms the covenant, the blood that is poured out so that many may receive the forgiveness of sins" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

This is my blood

"This wine is my blood." Though most understand this to mean that the wine is a symbol of Jesus' blood and that it is not actual blood, it is best to translate this statement literally. (See: Symbolic Language)

Truly I say to you

This indicates that the statement that follows is especially true and important. See how you translated this in Mark 3:28.

fruit of the vine

"wine." This is a descriptive way to refer to wine.

new

Possible meanings are 1) "again" or 2) "in a new way"

translationWords

Jesus

bread

bless

wine

blood

covenant

amen

kingdom of God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

22. [3114][3115] omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς. [3116][3117][3118][3119][3120][3121][3122][3123] omit φάγετε, from Mt.

[3114] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[3115] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[3116] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[3117] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.

[3118] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[3119] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[3120] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[3121] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[3122] Codex Oxoniensis. 9th cent. Contains Mark, except Mar 3:35 to Mar 6:20.

[3123] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

22. ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν. The Evangelist seems to be anxious to make clear that two memorable events of that evening, the disclosure about the presence of a traitor (Mar 14:18), and the Institution of the Eucharist, took place during the meal.

λαβὼν ἄρτον. He took one of the cakes of bread and acted as He did at the feeding of the 5000 (Mar 6:41) and of the 4000 (Mar 8:6), breaking, blessing, and distributing to the disciples. But on this occasion there is no distribution by the disciples to others. That came later, when, in accordance with the Lord’s command (1Co 11:24-26), the Eucharist became a permanent Christian rite. Syr-Sin. omits λαβών, “as they did eat bread.” We cannot insist that ἄρτος must mean leavened bread, and that therefore the meal cannot have been the Passover. The conclusion is right, but the premise is precarious. It is unlikely that at such a time the disciples would provide leavened bread.

St Paul’s account of the Institution is the earliest; but that of Mk and Mt. is independent of it. Their narrative has some features which are not in his; εὐλογήσας of the bread and εὐχαριστήσας of the cup, Λάβετε of the bread, λαβὼν εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν of the cup, their all drinking of it, the Blood being ἐκχυννόμενον ὑλὲρ πολλῶν, and the declaration οὐ μὴ πίω … τοῦ Θεοῦ. On the other hand, St Paul gives two features which are not in Mk or Mt. He places a considerable interval between the bread (during supper) and the cup (after supper), and he records the important charge τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. What seems to be the true text of Lk. is silent about both. Five features are in all four narratives; taking bread, thanksgiving or blessing, breaking, “This is My Body,” and the mention of a cup. The first three give us ritual which may be said to be Divinely appointed.

There is probably no difference in meaning between εὐλογήσας (Mar 6:41 of the 5000) and εὐχαριστήσας (Mar 8:6 of the 4000). Both are used of the bread, and refer to the utterance in which Christ blessed God and gave thanks. Both verbs contain the εὖ which appears also in εὐδοκία and εὐαγγέλιον. It is remarkable that there is so little agreement as to the exact words spoken; the exact words are not of supreme importance. It is having the mind of Christ and acting in His spirit that must be secured.

τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. Our Lord’s human Body was present and His Blood had not yet been shed. Therefore all carnal ideas respecting the meaning of these words are excluded. Few words in Scripture have given rise to more controversy. All that it concerns us to know is certain; that those who rightly receive the Eucharist spiritually receive Christ. How this takes place has not been revealed and cannot be explained. Nor is any explanation necessary for right reception. See Hastings’ D.B. art. “Lord’s Supper” and the literature there quoted; also Robertson and Plummer on 1Co 11:23 f.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22-25.] Institution of the Lord’s Supper. Mat 26:26-29. Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20. 1Co 11:23-25. See notes on Matt.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22-25. In the course of the Passover meal, Jesus takes a portion of the bread from the table, and gives it to the disciples after the ordinary blessing or giving of thanks, saying, This is my body. And the cup of wine he blessed in the same way, and gave it to them, saying, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. This is the last time, he says, that he will drink with them, until they share with him the new wine of the kingdom.

22. Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν—And as they were eating. In the course of the meal, therefore. But none of the evangelists state the time more exactly. λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε—he took bread, and having blessed he broke it. The object of εὐλογήσας may be God, in which case, it means, having praised, its ordinary sense; or it may be the bread, in which case, it means, having invoked a blessing on; a Biblical use. The former meaning is suggested by the use of εὐχαριστήσας in Luk 22:19, and 1Co 11:24. As a matter of fact, the invocations at meals among the Jews intermingled thanksgiving and blessing. λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου. Lk. adds τὸ ὐπὲρ ὐμῶν διδόμενον, which is given for you, and 1 Cor. the same without διδόμενον. Both add τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. As to the meaning of the words, this is my body, it is enough to say that any insistence on their literal meaning is entirely contrary to linguistic laws and usage. They may mean, this represents my body, just as well as, this is literally my body. Meyer refers for examples of this use of εἶναι to Luk 12:1—the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy; J. 10:7—I am the door of the sheep; 14:6—I am the way, the truth, and the life; Gal 4:24—these (two sons of Abraham) are two covenants; Heb 10:20—the veil, that is his flesh. But it is useless to multiply instances of so common and evident a usage. And yet, the one that evidently disproves the literal meaning, not merely establishing the possibility of the symbolic use here, but making the literal meaning impossible, is right at hand. For in the account of the consecration of the cup, Luk 22:20, 1Co 11:25, it reads τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. No one would contend for the literalness of the language in this case, and yet it is perfectly evident that the copula is used in the same sense in both cases, giving the meaning of the bread in the one case, and of the cup in the other, but not saying that the bread is actually flesh, nor the cup a covenant. All this without taking into account our Lord’s manner of speech. We have some right to judge what any person says in a particular case by his habit of thought and speech. This warrants us in saying that the literal meaning is impossible to Jesus. It would pull down all that he had been at pains to set up throughout his ministry—a spiritual religion.

Omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. אaBD, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit φάγετε, eat, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABCDKLM* PU Π, 1, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Egyptt.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.