26 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
And while they were eating, Jesus took bread. I do not understand these words to mean that with the paschal supper was mixed this new and more excellent supper, but rather that an end was then put to the former banquet. This is still more clearly expressed by Luke, when he says that, Christ gave the cup after that he had supped; for it would have been absurd that one and the same mystery should be broken off by an interval of time. And therefore I have no doubt that, in immediate succession, after having distributed the bread, he added the cup; and what Luke relates particularly respecting the cup, I regard as including also the bread. While they were eating, therefore, Christ took bread, to invite them to partake of a new supper. The thanksgiving was a sort of preparation and transition to consider the mystery. Thus when the supper was ended, they tasted the sacred bread and wine; because Christ had previously aroused them from their indifference, that they might be all alive to so lofty a mystery. And, indeed, the nature of the case demands that this clear testimony of the spiritual life should be distinguished from the ancient shadow. Jesus took bread. It is uncertain if the custom which is now observed among the Jews was at that time in use: for the master of the house breaks off a portion of a common loaf, hides it under the table-cloth, and afterwards distributes a part of it to, each member of the family. But as this is a human tradition not founded on any commandment of God, we need not toil with excessive eagerness to investigate its origin; and it is possible that it may have been afterwards contrived, by a trick of Satan, for the purpose of obscuring the mystery of the Lord's Supper. And even if this ceremony was at that time in use among the Jews, Christ followed the ordinary custom in such a manner as to draw away the minds of his followers to another object, by changing the use of the bread for a different purpose. This, at least, ought to be considered as beyond all controversy, that Christ, at this time, abolished the figures of the Law, and instituted a new Sacrament. When he had given thanks. Matthew and Mark employ the word eulogesas (having blessed;) but as Luke employs, instead of it, the word eucharistesas (having given thanks,) there can be no doubt as to the meaning; and as they afterwards use the word thanksgiving in reference to the cup, they expound with sufficient clearness the former term. So much the more ridiculous is the ignorance of the Papists, who express the blessing by the sign of the cross, as if Christ had practiced some kind of exorcising. But we must recollect what I lately noticed, that this thanksgiving is connected with a spiritual mystery. While it is true that believers are commanded to give thanks to God, because he supports them in this fading life, Christ did not merely refer to ordinary eating, but directed his view to the holy action, in order to thank God for the eternal salvation of the human race. For if the food which descends into the belly ought to persuade and arouse us to praise the fatherly kindness of God, how much more powerfully does it excite and even inflame, us to this act of piety, when he feeds our souls spiritually? Take, eat. That I may not be too tedious, I shall only explain briefly what is the nature of our Lord's institution, and what it contains; and, next, what is its end and us so far as it may be learned from the Evangelists. And, first of all, it strikes us, that Christ instituted a supper, which the disciples partake in company with each other. Hence it follows, that it is a diabolical invention, that a man, separating himself from the rest of the company, eats his supper apart. For what two things could be more inconsistent than that the bread should be distributed among them all, and that a single individual should swallow it alone? Although then the Papists boast, that in their masses they have the substance of the Lord's Supper, yet it is evident from the nature of the case, that whenever they celebrate private masses, they are so many trophies erected by the devil for burying the Lord's Supper. The same words teach us what sort of sacrifice it is that Christ recommends to us in the Supper. He bids his disciples take; and therefore it is himself alone that offers. What the Papists contrive, as to Christ's offering himself in the Supper, proceeded from an opposite author. And certainly it is a strange inversion, (anastrophe,) when a mortal man, who is commanded to take the body of Christ, claims the office of offering it; and thus a priest, who has been appointed by himself, sacrifices to God his own Son. I do not at present inquire with how many acts of sacrilege their pretended offering abounds. It is sufficient for my purpose, that it is so far from approaching to Christ's institution, that it is directly opposed to it. This is my body. As to the opinion entertained by some, that by those words the bread was consecrated, so as to become the symbol of the flesh of Christ, I do not find fault with it, provided that the word consecrated be understood aright, and in a proper sense. So then, the bread, which had been appointed for the nourishment of the body, is chosen and sanctified by Christ to a different use, so as to begin to be spiritual food. And this is the conversion which is spoken of by the ancient doctors of the Church. But we must at the same time hold, that bread is not consecrated by whispering and breathing, but by the clear doctrine of faith. And certainly it is a piece of magic and sorcery, when the consecration is addressed to the dead element; for the bread is made not to itself, but to us, a symbol of the body of Christ. In short, consecration is nothing else than a solemn testimony, by which the Lord appoints to us for a spiritual use an earthly and corruptible sign; which cannot take place, unless his command and promise are distinctly heard for the edification of faith; from which again it is evident, that the low whispering and breathing of the Papists are a wicked profanation of the mystery. Now if Christ consecrates the bread, when he declares to us that it is his body, we must not suppose that there is any change of the substance, but must only believe that it is applied to a new purpose. And if the world had not been long ago so bewitched by the subtlety of the devil, that, when the monster of transubstantiation had once been introduced, it will not now admit any light of true interpretation on these words, it would be superfluous to spend any more time in investigating their meaning. Christ declares that the bread is his body. These words relate to a sacrament; and it must be acknowledged, that a sacrament consists of a visible sign, with which is connected the thing signified, which is the reality of it. It must be well known, on the other hand, that the name of the thing signified is transferred to the sign; and therefore, no person who is tolerably well acquainted with Scripture will deny that a sacramental mode of expression ought to be taken metonymically. I pass by general figures, which occur frequently in Scripture, and only say this: whenever an outward sign is said to be that which it represents, it is universally agreed to be an instance of metonymy. If baptism be called the laver of regeneration, (Titus in. 5;) if the rock, from which water flowed to the Fathers in the wilderness, be called Christ, (1-Corinthians 10:4;) if a dove be called the Holy Spirit, (John 1:32;) no man will question but the signs receive the name of the things which they represent. How comes it, then, that persons who profess to entertain a veneration for the words of the Lord will not permit us to apply to the Lord's Supper what is common to all the sacraments? They are delighted with the plain and literal sense. Why then shall not the same rule apply to all the sacraments? Certainly, if they do not admit that the Rock was actually Christ, the calumny with which they load us is mere affectation. If we explain that the bread is called his body, because it is the symbol of his body, they allege that the whole doctrine of Scripture is overturned. For this principle of language has not been recently forged by us, but has been handed down by Augustine on the authority of the ancients, and embraced by all, that the names of spiritual things are improperly ascribed to signs, and that all the passages of Scripture, in which the sacraments are mentioned, ought to be explained in this manner. When we bring forward a principle which has been universally admitted, what purpose does it serve to raise a loud clamor, as if it were something new and strange? But let obstinate people cry out as they please, all men of sound judgment and modesty will admit, that in these words of Christ there is a sacramental form of expression. Hence it follows, that the bread is called his body, because it is a symbol of the body of Christ. Now there are two classes of men that rise up against us. The Papists, deceived by their transubstantiation, maintain that what we see is not bread, because it is only the appearance that remains without the reality. But their absurd fancy is refuted by Paul, who asserts that the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ, (1-Corinthians 10:16.) Besides, their notion is at variance with the very nature of a sacrament, which will not possess all that is essential to it, if there be not a true outward symbol. For whence shall we learn that our souls feed on the flesh of Christ, if what is placed before our eyes be not bread, but an empty form? Besides, what will they say about the other symbol? For Christ does not say, This is my blood, but, this cup is the new testament in my blood. According to their view, therefore, not only the wine, but also the materials of which the cup is composed, must be transubstantiated into blood. Again, the words related by Matthew -- I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine -- plainly show that what he delivered to the disciples to drink was wine; so that in every way the ignorance of the Papists is fully exposed. But there are others who reject the figure, and, like madmen, unsay what they had just said. According to them, bread is truly and properly body; for they disapprove of transubstantiation, as wholly devoid of reason and plausibility. But when the question is put to them, if Christ be bread and wine, they reply that the bread is called body, because under it and along with it the body is received in the Lord's Supper. But from this reply it may be readily concluded, that the word body is improperly applied to the bread, which is a sign of it. And since those men have constantly in their mouth, that Christ spoke thus in reference to a sacramental union, it is strange that they do not consider what they say. For what is the nature of a sacramental union between a thing and its sign? Is it not because the Lord, by the secret power of his Spirit, fulfills what he promises? So then those later instructions about the letter are not less absurd than the Papists. Hitherto I have pointed out the simple exposition of the words of our Lord. But now I must add, that it is not an empty or unmeaning sign which is held out to us, but those who receive this promise by faith are actually made partakers of his flesh and blood. For in vain would the Lord command his people to eat bread, declaring that it is his body, if the effect were not truly added to the figure. Nor must it be supposed that we dispute this point, whether it is in reality, or only by signification, that Christ presents himself to be enjoyed by us in the Lord's Supper; for, though we perceive nothing in it but bread, yet he does not disappoint or mock us, when he undertakes to nourish our souls by his flesh. The true eating of the flesh of Christ, therefore, is not only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited in reality. But there are three mistakes against which it is here necessary to be on our guard; first, not to confound the spiritual blessing with the sign; secondly, not to seek Christ on earth, or under earthly elements; thirdly, not to imagine any other kind of eating than that which draws into us the life of Christ by the secret power of the Spirit, and which we obtain by faith alone. First, as I have said, let us always keep in view the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, if we do not wish to overturn every thing; for otherwise we shall derive no advantage from the sacrament, if it do not, according to the measure of our small capacity, lead us from the contemplation of the earthly element to the heavenly mystery. And therefore, whoever will not distinguish the body of Christ from the bread, and the blood from the wine, will never understand what is meant by the Lord's Supper, or for what purpose believers use these symbols. Secondly, we must attend to the proper method of seeking Christ; that is, our minds must not be fixed on the earth, but must ascend upwards to the heavenly glory in which he dwells. For the body of Christ did not, by clothing itself with an incorruptible life, lay aside its own nature; and hence it follows that it is finite. But he has now ascended above the heavens, that no gross imagination may keep us occupied with earthly things. And certainly, if this mystery is heavenly, nothing could be more unreasonable than to draw down Christ to the earth, when, on the contrary, he calls us upwards to himself. The last point which, I said, claimed our attention, is the kind of eating. We must not dream that his substance passes, in a natural manner, into our souls; but we cat his flesh, when, by means of it, we receive life. For we must attend to the analogy or resemblance between bread and flesh, which teaches us, that our souls feed on Christ's own flesh in precisely the same manner as bread imparts vigor to our bodies. The flesh of Christ, therefore, is spiritual nourishment, because it gives life to us. Now it gives life, because the Holy Spirit pours into us the life which dwells in it. And though the act of eating the flesh of Christ is different from believing on him, yet we ought to know that it is impossible to feed on Christ in any other way than by faith, because the eating itself is a consequence of faith.
See also Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:15-20; 1-Corinthians 11:23-25.
As they were eating - As they were eating the paschal supper, near the close of the meal.
Luke adds that he said, just before instituting the sacramental supper, "With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." This is a Hebrew manner of expression, signifying "I have greatly desired." He had desired it, doubtless:
(1) that he might institute the Lord's Supper, to be a perpetual memorial of him;
(2) that he might strengthen them for their approaching trials;
(3) that he might explain to them the true nature of the Passover; and,
(4) that he might spend another season with them in the duties of religion. Every "Christian, about to die will also seek opportunities of drawing specially near to God, and of holding communion with him and with his people.
Jesus took bread - That is, the unleavened bread which they used at the celebration of the Passover, made into thin cakes, easily broken and distributed.
And blessed it - Or sought a blessing on it; or "gave thanks" to God for it. The word rendered "blessed" not unfrequently means "to give thanks." Compare Luke 9:16 and John 6:11. It is also to be remarked that some manuscripts have the word rendered "gave thanks," instead of the one translated "blessed." It appears from the writings of Philo and the Rabbis that the Jews were never accustomed to eat without giving thanks to God and seeking his blessing. This was especially the case in both the bread and the wine used at the Passover.
And brake it - This "breaking" of the bread represented the sufferings of Jesus about to take place - his body "broken" or wounded for sin. Hence, Paul 1-Corinthians 11:24 adds, "This is my body which is broken for you;" that is, which is about to be broken for you by death, or wounded, pierced, bruised, to make atonement for your sins.
This is my body - This represents my body. This broken bread shows the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not meant that his body would be literally "broken" as the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, "Lo, my body!" or, "Behold my body! - that which "represents" my broken body to you." This "could not" be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them "living." And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his "living body" there changed at once to a "dead body," and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the "living" body of Jesus was before them.
Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the "bread" and "wine" were literally changed into the "body and blood" of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover Exodus 12:11; "It" - that is, the lamb - "is the Lord's Passover." That is, the lamb and the feast "represent" the Lord's "passing over" the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal "passing over" their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, "This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to "remembrance," in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. See Matthew 13:37; "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man" - that is, represents the Son of man. Genesis 41:26; "the seven good kine are seven years" - that is, "represent" or signify seven years. See also John 15:1, John 15:5; Genesis 17:10. The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: "As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain for your sins."
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. 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 (13:1-38) mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from 14:1-31 the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters 15, 16, and 17, the discourse which followed the administration of the cup; yet he takes no notice of the Divine institution 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.
Matthew 26:26 Mark 14:22 Luke 22:19 1-Corinthians 11:23-24 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it (ευλογησας and blessed God) and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed (ευλογησας, blessed God) and brake it, and to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took bread and gave thanks, (ευχαριϚησας, i.e. to God), and gave brake it, and gave unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you: This do in remembrance of me. The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; And when he had given thanks (και ευχαριϚησος, i.e. to God) he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After giving the bread, the discourse related, John 14:1-31, 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.
Matthew 26:27-29 Mark 14:23-25 Luke 22:20 1-Corinthians 11:25 And he took the cup, and gave thanks (ευχαριϚησας), and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of it. And he took the cup; and when he had given thanks, (ευχαριϚησας), he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying: After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many or the remission of sins. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 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. 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.
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. 14, Arise, let us go hence. Then succeed the following words, which conclude the whole ceremony.
Matthew 26:30 Mark 14:26 Luke 22:39 John 14:1 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. And he came out, and went as he was wont to the Mount of Olives. And his disciples also followed him. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kedron.
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.
As they were eating - Either an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think. See the observations at the end of this chapter.
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, (Matthew 26:17), i.e. the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God, (Exodus 12:15-20; Exodus 23:15; Exodus 34:25), were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the passover, 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 entirely new for baking, or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service of the passover, and never brought out on any other occasion."
To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, 1-Corinthians 5:6-8. 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 wickedness, but with the Unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institution, in the celebration of this Divine ordinance, then, unleavened, unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign, or type, the thing signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself should either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances, as expressive as possible of the thing signified. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not only point out this, but also the disposition required in those who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of malice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the table of God with malice or ill-will against any soul of man, or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the Lord's body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin might be destroyed; and that sincerity, ειλικρινεια, such purity 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.
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 showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every 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.
And blessed it - Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the word ευλογησας, blessed, instead of ευχαριϚησας, gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. But instead of ευλογησας, blessed, ευχαριϚησας, 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 the Syriac and Arabic, and is confirmed by several of the primitive fathers. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by the word It, which is improperly supplied in our version. In all the four places referred to above, whether the word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread, but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God's creatures without rendering him thanks; and he who acted contrary to this command was considered as a person who was guilty of sacrilege.
From this custom we have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace (gratas thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of blessing, probably that which our Lord used on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here, though it has been mentioned once before. On taking the bread they say: -
ברוך אתה אלהינו מלך העולם המוצא לחם מן הארץ
Baruch atta Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, ha motse Lechem min haarets.
Blessed be thou, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth!
Likewise, on taking the cup, they say: -
ברוך אלהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הגף
Baruch Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, Bore perey haggephen.
Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit it of the vine!
The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying before and after meat: -
Bismillahi arahmani arraheemi.
In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.
No blessing, therefore, of the elements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but God 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, unauthorized either by Scripture or the practice of the pure Church of God; necessary of course to those 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.
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 the Distribution, of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. 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.
"That the breaking of this bread to be distributed," says Dr. Whitby, "is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul and all the evangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2dly, Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body, Broken for you, 1-Corinthians 11:24. But when the elements 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-Corinthians 10:10. 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 Scriptural rite had never been observed in the Church of Christ.
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 Esther Corpus Meum, This is my body, and Hic Esther 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, it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples ate?" He 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.
Let it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this point, that the paschal lamb, is called the passover, because it represented the destroying angel's passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians; and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the passover, 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.
Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body), as he did not speak in the Latin tongue; though as much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate as if the original of the three evangelists had been written in the Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, following the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, Panis hic corpus meum signficat, or, Symbolum est corporis mei: - hoc poculum sanguinem meum representat, or, symbolum est sanguinis mei: - this bread signifies my body; this cup represents my blood. But let it be observed that, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, as used in the Bible, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for, it signifies. So Genesis 41:26, Genesis 41:27. The seven kine Are (i.e. represent) seven years. This Is (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Daniel 7:24. 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-Corinthians 10:4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find in Revelation 1:20, The seven stars Are (represent) the angels of the seven Churches: and the seven candlesticks Are (represent) the seven Churches. The same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the word. Matthew 13:38, Matthew 13:39. The field IS (represents) the world: the good seed Are (represent or signify) the children of the kingdom: the tares Are (signify) the children of the wicked one. The enemy Is (signifies) the devil: the harvest Is (represents) the end of the world: the reapers Are (i.e. signify) the angels. Luke 8:9. What might this parable Be? Τις ΕΙΗ η παραβολη αυτη: - What does this parable Signify? John 7:36. Τις ΕΣΤΙΝ αυτος ο λογος: What is the Signification of this saying? John 10:6. They understood not what things they Were, τινα ΗΝ, what was the Signification of the things he had spoken to them. Acts 10:17. Τι αν ΕΙΗ οραμα, what this vision Might Be; properly rendered by our translators, what this vision should Mean. Galatians 4:24. For these Are the two covenants, αυται γαρ ΕΙΣΙΝ αι δυο διαθηκαι, these Signify the two covenants. Luke 15:26. He asked, τι ΕΙΗ ταυτα, what these things Meant. See also Luke 18:36. After such unequivocal testimony from the Sacred writings, can any person doubt that, This bread is my body, has any other meaning than, This bread Represents my body?
The Latins use the verb, sum, in all its forms, with a similar latitude of meaning. So, Esse oneri ferendo, he is Able to bear the burthen: bene Esse, to Live sumptuously: male Esse, to Live miserably: recte Esse, to Enjoy good health: Esther mihi fistula, I Possess a flute: EST hodie in rebus, he now Enjoys a plentiful fortune: Esther mihi namque domi pater, I Have a father at home, etc.: Esse solvendo, to be Able to pay: Fuimus Troes, Fuit Ilium; the Trojans are Extinct, Troy is No More.
In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, to be killed. Ουκ ΕΙΜΙ, I am Dead, or a dead man. Matthew 2:18 : Rachel weeping for her children, οτι ουκ ΕΙΣΙ, because they Were Murdered. Genesis 42:36 : Joseph is not, יוסף איננו Yoseph einennu, Ιωσηφ ουκ ΕΣΤΙΝ, Sept., Joseph is Devoured by a Wild Beast. Romans 4:17 : Calling the things that Are not, as if they were Alive. So Plutarch in Laconicis: "This shield thy father always preserved; preserve thou it, or may thou not Be," Η μη ΕΣΟ, may thou Perish. ΟΥΚ ΟΝΤΕΣ νομοι, Abrogated laws. ΕΙΜΙ εν εμοι, I Possess a sound understanding. Εις πατερα υμιν ΕΣΟΜΑΙ, I will Perform the Part of a father to you. ΕΙΜΙ της πολεως της δε, I Am an Inhabitant of that city. 1-Timothy 1:7 : Desiring to Be teachers of the law, θελοντες ΕΙΝΑΙ νομοδιδασκαλοι, desiring to be Reputed teachers of the law, i.e. Able divines. Τα ΟΝΤΑ, the things that Are, i.e. Noble and Honorable men: τα μη ΟΝΤΑ, the things that are not, viz. the Vulgar, or those of Ignoble Birth.
Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of those words of our Lord,
Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc Esther Corpus Meum dicendo, id est, Figura corporis mei.
Advers. Marc. l. v. c. 40.
"Having taken the bread, and distributed that body to his disciples, he made it his body by saying, This is my body, i.e. a Figure of my body."
That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the providence of God, we have complete versions of the Gospels in this language, and in them it is likely we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this occasion. In Matthew 26:26, Matthew 26:27, the words in the Syriac version are, hanau pagree, This is my body, hanau demee, This is my blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a verbal translation; nor would any man, even in the present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above to express, This represents my body, and this represents my blood.
As to the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar coast, it is a fact that it never held the doctrine of transubstantiation, nor does it appear that it was ever heard of in that Church till the year 1599, when Don Alexis Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and the Jesuit Fransic Rez, invaded that Church, and by tricks, impostures, and the assistance of the heathen governors of Cochin, and other places, whom they gained over by bribes and presents, overthrew the whole of this ancient Church, and gave the oppressed people the rites, creeds, etc., of the papal Catholic Church in its place. Vid. La Croz. Hist. du Ch. des Indes.
This was done at the Synod of Diamper, which began its sessions at Agomale, June 20, 1599. The tricks of this unprincipled prelate, the tool of Pope Clement VIII., and Philip II., King of Portugal, are amply detailed by Mr. La Croze, in the work already quoted.
But this form of speech is common, even in our own language, though we have terms enow to fill up the ellipsis. Suppose a man entering into a museum, enriched with the remains of ancient Greek sculpture: his eyes are attracted by a number of curious busts; and, on inquiring what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that Plato, a third Homer; others Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Caesar, Nero, Vespasian, etc. Is he deceived by this information? Not at all: he knows well that the busts he sees are not the identical persons of those ancient philosophers, poets, orators, historians, and emperors, but only Representations 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 passover, we may consider him as saying: "This bread is now my body, in that sense in which the paschal lamb has been my body hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats has been my blood under the Old: Exodus 24; Hebrews 9. That is, the paschal lamb and the sprinkling of blood represented my sacrifice to the present time this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages; therefore, Do this in remembrance of me."
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 sacrifice - 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, το υπερ υμων διδομενον, 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, το υπερ υμων κλωμενον, (1-Corinthians 11:24), which is broken - sacrificed in your stead; as without the breaking (piercing) of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no remission.
In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word, as there is none without its appropriate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is written, Ephesians 5:2. Christ hath loved us, and given himself, υπερ ημων, on our account, or in our stead, an offering and a Sacrifice (θυσια) to God for a sweet-smelling savor; that, as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, Genesis 8:21, (to which the apostle evidently alludes), from which it is said, The Lord smelled a sweet savor, ריח הניחח riach hanichoach, a savor 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.
(7) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and (l) blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; (m) this is my body.
(7) Christ who will without delay fulfil the promises of the old covenant, institutes a new covenant with new signs.
(l) Mark says, "Had given thanks": and therefore blessing is not a consecrating with a conjuring type of murmuring and power of words: and yet the bread and the wine are changed, not in nature but in quality, for without doubt they become tokens of the body and blood of Christ, not of their own nature or force of words, but by Christ his institution, which must be recited and laid forth, that faith may find what to lay hold on, both in the word and in the elements.
(m) This is a figure of speech which is called metonymy: that is to say, the giving of one name for another: so he calls the bread his body, which is the sign and sacrament of his body: and yet nonetheless, it is a figurative and changed kind of speech meaning that the faithful do indeed receive Christ with all his gifts (though by a spiritual means) and become one with him.
And as they were eating,.... The paschal lamb, and just concluding the whole solemnity, which was done by eating some of the (k) lamb: for
"last of all he (that kept the passover) eats of the flesh of the passover, though it be but the quantity of an olive, and he does not taste anything after it; and at the same time he eats the quantity of an olive of unleavened bread, and does not taste anything after it; so that his meal endeth, and the savour of the flesh of the passover, or of the unleavened bread, is in his mouth; for the eating of them is the precept.
So that the paschal supper was now concluded, when Christ entered upon the institution of his own supper:
Jesus took bread; which lay by him, either on the table, or in a dish. Though this supper is distinct from the "passover", and different from any ordinary meal, yet there are allusions to both in it, and to the customs of the Jews used in either; as in this first circumstance, of "taking" the bread: for he that asked a blessing upon bread, used to take it into his hands; and it is a rule (l), that "a man does not bless, , "until he takes the bread into his hand", that all may see that he blesses over it.
Thus Christ took the bread and held it up, that his disciples might observe it:
and blessed it; or asked a blessing over it, and upon it, or rather blessed and gave thanks to his Father or it, and for what was signified by it; and prayed that his disciples, whilst eating it, might be led to him, the bread of life, and feed upon him in a spiritual sense; whose body was going to be broken for them, as the bread was to be, in order to obtain eternal redemption for them: so it was common with the Jews, to ask a blessing on their bread: the form in which they did it was this (m):
"Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the king of the world, that produceth bread out of the earth.
What form our Lord used, is not certain; no doubt it was one of his composing, and every way suitable to the design of this ordinance. It was customary also when there were many at table, that lay down there, however, as Christ and his disciples now did, for one to ask a blessing for them all; for so runs the rule (n),
"if they sit to eat, everyone blesses for himself, but if they lie along, , "one blesses for them all".
Moreover, they always blessed, before they brake:
"Says Rabba (o), he blesses, and after that he breaks:
this rule Christ likewise carefully observes, for it follows,
and brake it. The rules concerning breaking of bread, are these (p),
"The master of the house recites and finishes the blessing, and after that he breaks:--no man that breaks, is allowed to break, till they have brought the salt, and what is to be eaten with the bread, before everyone--and he does not break neither a small piece, lest he should seem to be sparing; nor a large piece, bigger than an egg, lest he should be thought to be famished;--and on the sabbath day he breaks a large piece, and he does not break, but in the place where it is well baked: it is a principal command to break a whole loaf.
Christ broke the bread, as the symbol of his body, which was to be broken by blows, and scourges, thorns, nails, and spear, and to be separated from his soul, and die as a sacrifice for the sins of his people: and having so done, he
gave it to the disciples; which being a distinct act from breaking the bread, shows that the latter does not design the distribution of the bread, but an act preceding it, and a very significant one: and which ought not to be laid aside: according to the Jewish (q) usages,
"He that broke the bread, put a piece before everyone, and the other takes it in his hand; and he that breaks, does not give it into the hand of the eater, unless he is a mourner; and he that breaks, stretches out his hand first and eats, and they that sit, or lie at the table, are not allowed to taste, until he that blesses, has tasted; and he that breaks, is not allowed to taste, until the Amen is finished out of the mouth of the majority of those that sit at table.
And said, take, eat, this is my body; in Luke it is added, "which is given for you", Luke 22:19; that is, unto death, as a sacrifice for sin; and by the Apostle Paul, 1-Corinthians 11:24, "which is broken for you"; as that bread then was, and so expressive of his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death, for them. Now when he says, "this is my body", he cannot mean, that that bread was his real body; or that it was changed and converted into the very substance of his body; but that it was an emblem and representation of his body, which was just ready to be offered up, once for all: in like manner, as the Jews in the eating of their passover used to say (r) of the unleavened bread,
, this is "the bread of affliction", which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.
Not that they thought that was the selfsame bread, but that it resembled it, and was a representation of the affliction and distress their fathers were in at that time: to which some think our Lord here alludes: though rather, the reference is to the passover lamb, which is frequently, in Jewish writings, called "the body" of the lamb: thus mention being made of the bringing of the herbs, the unleavened bread, and the sauce "Charoseth", with other things to the master of the house, it is added (s):
"and in the sanctuary (whilst that stood) they bring unto him, , "the body of the lamb".
Again, elsewhere (t) it is said,
"they bring a table furnished, and on it the bitter herbs and other greens, and the unleavened bread, and the sauce,
"and the body of the paschal lamb".
And a little further (u),
"he recites the blessing, blessed art thou O Lord, &c. for the eating of the passover, and he eats, , "of the body of the passover".
And now it is, as if Christ had said, you have had "the body" of the lamb set before you, and have eaten of it, in commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and as a type of me the true passover, quickly to be sacrificed; and this rite of eating the body of the paschal lamb is now to cease; and I do here by this bread, in an emblematical way, set before you "my body", which is to be given to obtain spiritual deliverance, and eternal redemption for you; in remembrance of which, you, and all my followers in successive generations, are to take and eat of it, till I come. The words, "take, eat", show that Christ did not put the bread into the mouths of the disciples, but they took it in their hands, and ate it; expressive of taking and receiving Christ by the hand of faith, and feeding on him in a spiritual manner,
(k) Maimon. Hilch. Charnetz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 9. Vid. Bartenora in Misn. Pesach. c. 10. sect. 8. (l) Levush hattecheleth Numbers. 167. sect. 3. & Shlchan Aruch in Buxtorf. Exercit. de Coena Dominic. Thes. 45. (m) Haggadah Shel. Pesach. fol. 249. 2. Ed. Basil. Misn. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 1. (n) Ib. sect. 6. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 42. 2. & 43. 1. (o) T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 39. 2. (p) Maimon. Hilch. Beracot, c. 7. sect. 2, 3, 4. T. Bab. Berncot, fol. 47. 1. (q) Ib. sect. 5. (r) Haggadah Shel Pesach, p. 4. Ed. Rittangel. fol. 242. 2. Ed. Basil. (s) Misn. Pesach, c. 10. sect 3. (t) Maimon. Chametz Umetzah, c. 8. sect. 1. (u) Ib. sect. 7.
This ordinance of the Lord's supper is to us the passover supper, by which we commemorate a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. Take, eat; accept of Christ as he is offered to you; receive the atonement, approve of it, submit to his grace and his government. Meat looked upon, be the dish ever so well garnished, will not nourish; it must be fed upon: so must the doctrine of Christ. This is my body; that is, spiritually, it signifies and represents his body. We partake of the sun, not by having the sun put into our hands, but the beams of it darted down upon us; so we partake of Christ by partaking of his grace, and the blessed fruits of the breaking of his body. The blood of Christ is signified and represented by the wine. He gave thanks, to teach us to look to God in every part of the ordinance. This cup he gave to the disciples with a command, Drink ye all of it. The pardon of sin is that great blessing which is, in the Lord's supper, conferred on all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings. He takes leave of such communion; and assures them of a happy meeting again at last; "Until that day when I drink it new with you", may be understood of the joys and glories of the future state, which the saints shall partake with the Lord Jesus. That will be the kingdom of his Father; the wine of consolation will there be always new. While we look at the outward signs of Christ's body broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sins, let us recollect that the feast cost him as much as though he had literally given his flesh to be eaten and his blood for us to drink.
As they were eating. Before they had arisen from the paschal feast.
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. As was the custom. Luke and Paul say, "gave thanks," which is the same thing.
This is my body. Not literally, as the Catholics and Luther contend, but "represents my body." We interpret it as we do his other sayings: "The seed is the word," "The field is the world," "The reapers are the angels," "The harvest is the end of the world," "I am the door," "I am the vine." So, too, at this very feast, the Jew was wont to say of the paschal lamb, "This is the body of the lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt." Not the same, but this is meant to represent and commemorate that. He could not have meant that the bread was his real body, because his body was present at the table breaking the loaf, and he was speaking and acting in person among them. The doctrine of the "Real Presence" is every way unreasonable.
Jesus took the bread - the bread or cake, which the master of the family used to divide among them, after they had eaten the passover. The custom our Lord now transferred to a nobler use. This bread is, that is, signifies or represents my body, according to the style of the sacred writers. Thus Genesis 40:12, The three branches are three days. Thus Galatians 4:24, St. Paul speaking of Sarah and Hagar, says, These are the two covenants. Thus in the grand type of our Lord, Exodus 12:11, God says of the paschal lamb, This is the Lord's passover. Now Christ substituting the holy communion for the passover, follows the style of the Old Testament, and uses the same expressions the Jews were wont to use in celebrating the passover.
*More commentary available at chapter level.