| 124. The Institution of the Lord's Supper. | ||||
IT Was At The Last meal, according to the Synoptics, with whom the apostle Paul also agrees (1 Cor. xi. 23 ft ), that Jesus gave to the unleavened bread and the wine which, agreeably to the custom of the paschal feast, he, as head of the family, had to distribute among his disciples, a relation to his speedily approaching death. During the repast, we are told, he took bread, and after givino-thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples with the declaration: "This is my body," touto e)sti to swma mou, to which Paul and Luke add: "which is given (or broken) for you," uper umwn didomenon - klwmenon; in like manner, according to Paul and Luke after supper, he presented to them a cup of wine with the words: This is my blood of the new testament, touto e)sti to ai(ma mou, thj kainhj diaqhkhj, or according to Paul and Luke: the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many, or for you, kainh diaqhkh e)n tw ai(mati mou, to peri pollwn ekxunomenon, to which Matthew adds: for the remission of sins, ei)j a)fesin a(martiwn, and Paul, what he and Luke previously give in reference to the bread: Do this, touto poieite (Paul, with the wine, as often as you drink it, o(sakij a)n pinhte) in remembrance of me, ei)j thn e)mhn a)namnhsin. | ||||
The controversy between the different confessions as to the meaning of these words, whether they signify a transmutation of bread {P.716} and wine into the body and blood of Christ, or a presence of the body and blood of Christ with and beneath those elements, or lastly the symbolizing of the body and blood of Christ by bread and wine, may be pronounced obsolete, and ought not to be any longer pursued, at least exegetically, because it is founded on a misplaced distinction. It is only when transmitted to a modern age, and to the occidental mind, in which the forms of thought are more abstract, that what the ancient oriental understood by the words, touto e)stin divides itself into the above variety of possible significations; and if we would obtain a correct conception of the idea which originally suggested the expression, we must cease to discriminate thus. To explain the words in question as implying a transmutation of the substance, is to go too far, and to be too definite; to understand them of an existence cum et sub specie etc. is too much of a refinement; while to translate them: this signifies, is too limited and meagre an interpretation. To the writers of our Gospels, the bread in the commemorative supper was the body of Christ: but had they been asked, whether the bread were transmuted, they would have denied it; had they been spoken to of a partaking of the body with and under the form of bread, they would not have understood it; had it been inferred that consequently the bread merely signified the body, they would not have been satisfied. | ||||
Thus to dispute further on this point is a fruitless labour; it is a more interesting question, whether Jesus merely intended this peculiarly significant distribution of bread and wine as a parting demonstration of attachment to his disciples, or whether he designed that it should be celebrated by his disciples in memory of him after his departure. If we had only the account of the two first evangelists, and this is admitted even by orthodox theologians, there would be no solid ground for the latter supposition; but the words, "Do this in remembrance of me," which are added by Paul and Luke, appear decisive of the fact that Jesus purposed the founding of a commemorative meal, which according to Paul, the Christians were to celebrate, "until he comes." Concerning this very addition, however, it has been of late conjectured that it may not have been originally uttered by Jesus, but that in the celebration of the Lord's supper in the primitive Church, the presiding member of the community, in disributing the elements, may have exhorted the rest to continue the repetition of this meal in remembrance of Christ, and that from this primitive Christian ritual the above words were added to the address of Jesus, This conjecture should not be opposed by an exaggerated estimate of the authority of the apostle Paul, such as that of Olshausen, who infers from the words, "I have received of the Lord," that he here delivers an immediate revelation from Christ, indeed, that Christ himself speaks through him: since, as even Suskind {P.717} has admitted, and as Schulz has recently shown in the most convincing manner, the phrase parelabon apo tou Kuriou cannot signify an immediate reception, but only a mediate transmission from the individual specified. If, however, Paul had not that addition from Jesus himself, still Suskind thinks himself able to prove that it must have been communicated, or at least confirmed, by an apostle, and is of opinion, in the manner of his school, that by a series of abstract distinctions, he can define certain boundary lines which must in this case prevent the intrusion of an unhistorical tradition. But the severe attention to evidence which characterizes our own day, ought not to be expected from an infant religious society, between the distant portions of which there was not yet any organized connection, or for the most part any other than oral communication. On the other hand, however, we must not be induced to regard the words touto poiete etc.. as a later addition to the address of Jesus, on false grounds,such as, that it would have been repugnant to the humility of Jesus to found a rite in remembrance of himself; nor must we rate too highly the silence of the two first evangelists, in opposition to the testimony of Paul. | ||||
Perhaps this point may be decided by means of another more general question, namely, what led Jesus to make this peculiarly significant distribution of bread and wine among his disciples? Orthodox theologians seek to remove as far as possible from the person of Jesus, as divine, all progress, and especially a gradual or sudden origination of plans and resolutions not previously present in his mind; hence, according to them, there lay in Jesus from the beginning, together with the foreknowledge of his destiny, and his entire plan, the design to institute this supper, as a commemorative rite to be observed by his Church; and this opinion may at least appeal for support, to the allusions implying that he already contemplated the institution a year beforehand, attributed to Jesus in the sixth chapter of the fourth gospel. | ||||
This is certainly an insecure support, for, as a previous inquiry has shown, those allusions, totally unintelligible before the institution of the Supper, cannot have proceeded from Jesus, but only from the evangelist.:); Further, as, viewing the subject generally, it appeared to annul the reality of the human nature in Jesus, to suppose that all lay foreseen and prepared in him from the first, or at least from the beginning of his mature age; nationalism has maintained, on the contrary, that the idea of the symbolical act and words in question did not arise in Jesus until the last evening. According to this view, at the sight of the broken bread and the outpoured wine, Jesus had a foreboding of his near and violent death; he saw in the former an image of his body which was to be put to death, and in the latter of his blood which was to be shed; and this mo-{P.718} mentary impression was communicated by him to his disciples. But such a tragical impression could only be felt by Jesus if he contemplated his death as a near event. That he did so with a greater distinctness at the last meal, is thought to be proved by the assurance which, according to all the Synoptics, he gave to his disciples, that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine until he drank it new in the kingdom of his Father; so that, as there is no ground for supposing a vow of abstinence on his part, he must have foreseen that his end would arrive within the next few days. If, however, we observe how in Luke this assurance in relation to the wine is preceded by the declaration of Jesus, that he will no more eat the Passover until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God, it appears probable that originally the fruit of the vine also was understood not as wine in general, but as specially the beverage of the Passover; of which a trace may perhaps be discovered in the expression of Matthew and Mark, this "fruit of the vine." Meals in the Messianic kingdom were, in accordance with the ideas of the age, often spoken of by Jesus, and he may have expected that in that kingdom the Passover would be observed with peculiar solemnity. "When therefore he declares that he will no more partake of this meal in the present age, aluv, but only in the future; iirst, this does not apply to eating and drinking in general, and hence does not mean that his sojourn in this pre-messianic world was to have an end within the next few days, but only within the space of a year; nor, secondly, does it necessarily involve the idea that this change was to be introduced by his death, for he might even yet expect that the kingdom of the Messiah would commence during his life. | ||||
Meanwhile, to deny every presentiment of his end on the part of Jesus in these last days of his life, is on the one hand, not warranted by our previous examination; and on the other, would compel us to doubt the institution of the ritual supper by Jesus, which we can hardly do in opposition to the testimony of Paul. It is moreover easily conceivable, that the continually increasing involvement of his relation to the Jewish hierarchy, might at length bring to Jesus the conviction that his death was inevitable, and that in a moment of emotion he might even fix the next Passover as the term which he should not survive. Thus each of the supposed cases appears possible: either that, owing to a thought suggested by the impressiveness of the moment, at the last Passover which he celebrated with his disciples, he made bread and wine the symbols of his body which was to be slain and his blood which was to be shed; or that for some time previously he had embraced the design of be-cuieathing such a commemorativemeal to his adherents, in which case he may very probably have uttered the words preserved by Paul and Luke. But before this intimation of the death of Jesus had {P.719} been duly appropriated by the disciples, and received into their conviction, they were overtaken by the actual catastrophe, for which therefore, they might be regarded as wholly unprepared. | ||||