A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist by Darwell Stone M.A.

II

The New Testament contains four accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. Mentioned in chronological order, these are given by St. Paul, and in the Second, First, and Third Gospels. For the purposes of comparison, it may be convenient to quote them in a tabular form.

1 Cor. 11:23–25

St. Mark 14:22–25

St. Matt. 26:26–29

St. Luke 22:14–20

The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed

As they were eating,

And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the Apostles with Him, and He said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And He received a cup, and when He had given thanks, He said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and

He took bread, and when He had blessed, He brake it, and gave to them, and

Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and He gave to the disciples, and

And He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave to them,

said,

This is my body which is for you: this do for My memorial.

said, Take ye:

this is My body.

said, Take, eat;

this is My body.

saying,

This is My body, [which is given for you this do for My memorial.

In like manner also the cup after supper,

And He took a cup,

And the cup in like manner after supper,

and when He had given thanks, He gave to them: and they all drank of it.

and gave thanks, and gave to them,

saying,

And He said unto them,

saying,

Drink ye all of it: for

This cup is the new covenant in My blood:

This is My blood of the covenant,

This cup is the new covenant in My blood,

which is poured out for many.

which is poured out for many unto remission

even that which is poured out for you].

this do, as oft as ye drink it, for My memorial.

of sins.

Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new

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 the kingdom of God.

in My Father’s kingdom.

For as often as we eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till He come.

Before proceeding to discuss the doctrinal teaching which is implied in the New Testament accounts of the institution of the Sacrament, it may be convenient to quote statements in regard to it which are found in the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, written about 145 A.D., and in St. Irenæus, writing about 190 A.D. St. Justin Martyr writes: “The Apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, have handed down the command which Jesus gave, that He took bread and gave thanks and said, Do this for My memorial, this is My body; and that in like manner He took the cup and gave thanks and said, This is My blood; and that He gave it to them alone”. St. Irenæus writes: “He took that which in its created nature is bread and gave thanks and said, This is My body; and in like manner the cup, which is of that created nature which is used by us, He acknowledged as His blood, and taught to be the new oblation of the New Testament”.

What inferences as to doctrine, then, may rightly be drawn from the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist?

1. All the accounts contained in the New Testament, as also those which were known to St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenæus, concur in representing our Lord as having used the words “This is My body”. It is probable that He spoke in Aramaic; but, unless we are to ignore every principle of sound criticism, it must be supposed that the Greek words which all our authorities give accurately represent what He said. In Aramaic the word “is” would not be verbally expressed; the same meaning as that conveyed by it would be involved in the juxtaposition of the subject “this” and the predicate “My body”. The phrase then shows that our Lord used language by which in some real though unexplained sense He identified the bread which He held in His hand and gave to the Apostles with His body. It would be unnatural to suppose that the word “this” denoted anything different from the bread so held and given, or that the word “body” was used in any unreal sense.

2. The accounts of our Lord’s words used at the delivery of the cup differ slightly. According to St. Paul and St. Luke He said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood”; as reported in the First and second Gospels the words were, “This is My blood of the covenant”. Leaving aside for the moment any consideration of what is involved in the use of the word “covenant,” it must be noticed that the phrase “This is My blood” asserts, and the phrase “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” implies, a similar identification of the wine with our Lord’s blood to the identification of the bread with His body involved in His words at the delivery of the bread. The word “this,” or the phrase “this cup,” obviously denotes the contents of the cup; the phrase “new covenant in My blood” implies that what was given by our Lord and received by the Apostles as marking and making the covenant was His blood.

3. To the words “This is My body,” at the delivery of the bread, St. Paul adds, “which is for you: this do for My memorial,” and the longer text of St. Luke adds, “which is given for you: this do for My memorial”. To the words at the delivery of the cup already quoted, additions are made of “which is poured out for many” in the Second Gospel, of “which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” in the First Gospel, of “even that which is poured out for you” in the longer text of the Third Gospel, and of “this do, as oft as ye drink it, for My memorial” by St. Paul. The words “covenant,” “do,” “memorial,” and “poured out” need to be considered in connection with one another.

(a) Covenant (διαθήκη). When our Lord said, “This is My blood of the covenant,” or “This cup is the new covenant in My blood,” His words were of such a kind as to suggest a connection between the rite which He was instituting and the sacrificial feasts in which the worshippers partook of the sacrifice and thereby received the blessing associated with it. They would recall also the covenants recorded in the Old Testament and the promise of a “new covenant” in the prophecies of Jeremiah. In particular a reference is naturally understood to the covenant between the Lord and Israel related in the Book of Exodus, which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes as the “first” “covenant” as compared with the “new covenant” of which our Lord is the “mediator”. In the making of the covenant with Israel the law of God was declared to the people by Moses, and the people answered in acceptance of the law, “All the words which the Lord hath spoken will we do”. After this declaration and acceptance of the law there were sacrifices of burnt offerings and peace offerings. As a further stage in the sacrifice “Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar”. Then, after again declaring the law which he had written in the “book of the covenant” and after the people had again accepted it, “Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words”. These acts were followed by the vision of God and the completion of the sacrificial meal. “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel.” “And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand: and they beheld God, and did eat and drink.” It is unnecessary here to enter into the many questions connected with the historical setting of this account, or with the vision of God which is described in it. It is sufficient to point out that to the mind of a Jew the phrase “My blood of the covenant,” or “new covenant in My blood,” would suggest a close association with a sacrificial rite in which man approached God; that the words were spoken at a meal which was either the Passover itself or an anticipation or representation of it; and that in its origin the Passover was a sacrifice in which deliverance was accomplished by means of blood, the symbol of life.

(b) Do (ποιεῖτε). The first and obvious meaning of the words “This do” is that they denote “Perform this action”; and it is clear that they were usually so understood by the writers of the early Church and the compilers of the Liturgies. But it has often been observed, and with justice, that in Holy Scripture both the Hebrew word עשה and the Greek word ποιεῖν have the sense of “offer” where the context contains sufficient indication of a sacrificial meaning, in something the same way that the English word “do” is used in the sense of ‘offer’ in the well-known sentence in which Shakespeare wrote, “Go bid the priests do present sacrifice,” that is, as rightly explained by Mr. Michael Macmillan, “offer sacrifice immediately”. Thus, for instance, the translation adopted in the Authorised Version and the Revised Version of a verse in Exodus, “The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even,” is a perfectly correct rendering, although the word translated “offer” is literally “do” both in the Hebrew (עשה) and in the Greek (ποιεῖν). Supposing then that the setting in which our Lord’s words were spoken is thought to be sufficiently suggestive of sacrificial ideas, “This do” may well be regarded as indicating, in addition to its primary meaning of “Perform this action,” a sacrificial element in the rite instituted.

(c) Memorial (ἀνάμνησις). This word occurs five times in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. As translated from the Hebrew in the Revised Version, the first four of these passages are as follows: “Thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial (Hebrew לְאָזְכָּרָה; Septuagint εἰς ἀνάμνησιν), even an offering made by fire unto the Lord”. “In the day of your gladness, and in your set feasts, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be to you for a memorial (Hebrew לְזִכָּרוֹן; Septuagint ἀνάμνησις) before your God.” “A Psalm of David, to bring to remembrance” (margin of Revised Version, “to make memorial”: Hebrew לְהַזְכִּיר; Septuagint εἰς ἀνάμνησιν). “For the chief musician. A Psalm of David; to bring to remembrance” (margin of Revised Version, “to make memorial”: Hebrew לְהַזְכִּיר; Septuagint εἰς ἀνάμνησιν). The fifth passage, as translated in the Revised Version from the Septuagint, is as follows: “For admonition were they troubled for a short space, having a token of salvation, to put them in remembrance (εἰς ἀνάμνησιν) of the commandment of Thy law”. In the first two of these five passages it is clear that the word denotes a sacrificial memorial before God. In the fifth of them it is equally clear that the context requires the meaning of a memento to man. The third and fourth passages are not without share in the obscurity which surrounds the titles of the Psalms; but the probability is very strong that a memorial before God is denoted. The best commentators explain the title of these two Psalms as a liturgical note signifying that the Psalms were to be used in connection with the offering of incense, or, as appears to be more probable, the offering of the Azkara, as the portion of the meal offering mixed with oil and burnt with incense on the altar (Lev. 2:2) and the incense placed on the shewbread and afterwards burnt (Lev. 24:7) were technically called in the Levitical ritual; and these are among the many passages in which the marginal renderings of the Revised Version preserve translations more acceptable to the best Hebrew scholars than those printed in the text of that version. Moreover, on the less likely hypothesis that the titles of these Psalms refer to their contents, not to their liturgical use, the sacrificial meaning of a memorial before God would not be absent. “His broken-hearted faith,” wrote Dr. Kay, explaining the title in reference to the contents of the Psalm, “is presented to the Lord like the azkarah-frankincense of the meat-offering, burnt with fire.” As regards the use of the word memorial (ἀνάμνησις) in the Septuagint, then, it is used twice clearly in the sense of a sacrificial memorial before God, twice probably in that sense, and once to denote a memento to men. The only place in the New Testament, in addition to the accounts of the institution of the Eucharist, in which the word is used is Hebrews 10:3. “In those (that is the Jewish) sacrifices there is a remembrance (ἀνάμνησις) made of sins year by year,” where the memento to the worshippers in connection with the Levitical sacrifices is denoted. On the whole it may be said that the word memorial naturally suggests, without actually necessitating, the sense of a sacrificial memorial before God; and that in the case of the institution of the Eucharist the probability of a sacrificial meaning is greatly strengthened by the use of the word covenant just before and by the sacrificial surroundings when our Lord spoke.

(d) Poured out (ἐκχυνόμενον). This word occurs in the accounts of the Institution given in the First, Second, and Third (longer text) Gospels. It is grammatically connected with the word “blood” in the First and Second Gospels, and with the word “cup” in the Third Gospel. In each place it was translated “shed” in the Authorised Version. The Revised Version has “poured out” in St. Luke, but “shed” is retained in St. Matthew and St. Mark. Consistency seems to require “poured out” as the right translation in each place; and the word suggests the pouring out of the blood of the slain victim at the base of the altar in the Jewish sacrifices, rather than the shedding of the blood in death. The emphasis on this action in the Jewish law, the analogy of the pouring out of drink offerings before the Lord, and the generally sacrificial character of the whole rite, as well as the inferences which may be drawn from the history of sacrifice in other nations, concur to make it highly probable that in these Jewish sacrifices the blood was poured out as an offering to God, and that the pouring out was not merely a utilitarian method of disposing of the blood.

4. The sentence added in 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till He come,” will be more appropriately considered in connection with the teaching of St. Paul than as part of the account of the institution of the Sacrament, since it is more probable that they are a comment of St. Paul than that they were spoken by our Lord.

5. The elements used by our Lord were at that time associated with sacrificial rites. Bread and wine were largely employed both in Jewish and in heathen sacrifices. Among the Jews the meal offerings consisted of fine flour, the drink offerings consisted of wine. It is not unworthy of notice that in Latin one of the most distinctively sacrificial terms, immolatio, the source of the English word immolation, was derived from mola, the salted meal with which the victims in sacrifices were sprinkled. In the first century of the Christian era bread and wine would naturally suggest the idea of sacrifice.

6. The doctrinal inferences then which may rightly be drawn from the accounts of the institution of the Sacrament are that our Lord in some sense identified the bread and wine which He gave to the Apostles with His body and blood; and that the Eucharist, while not explicitly described as a sacrifice, was associated with terms and a method of administration which are indicative of sacrifice rather than opposed to it.