EUCHARIST
although
formulas
were
probably
already
in
use,
the
language
was
not
yet
stereotyped.
We
cannot,
therefore,
be
certain
of
the
precise
form
of
words
that
our
Lord
adopted.
(2)
The
rite,
like
the
gospel
of
which
it
is
on
ordinance,
is
Apostolic.
The
whole
Twelve,
but
none
other,
are
present
with
Jesus
(Mk
14i'||).
Judas
had
not
yet
gone
out
(Lk
22M).
The
significant
relation
of
the
Apostles
to
the
congregation
of
the
spiritual
Israel,
prominent
in
Mark
from
the
first
(3"),
is
not
only
emphasized
by
their
seclusion
with
Jesus
in
this
supreme
hour,
but
explicitly
stated
by
Luke
(22'"-'*).
Though,
therefore,
there
is
nothing
beyond
the
form
of
the
record
itself
to
indicate
the
permanent
and
monumental
character
of
the
institution,
yet
the
place
which
from
the
first
the
rite
assumed
as
the
bond
of
Christian
fellowship,
and
for
which
Christians
like
Ignatius
in
the
sub-Apostolic
age
claimed
the
authority
of
the
Apostles,
accords
with
and
interprets
the
Synoptic
narrative.
To
go
behind
the
Apostolic
Eucharist
is
no
more
possible
for
historic
Christianity
than
to
separate
the
actual
Christ
from
the
Apostolic
witness.
(3)
The
Eucharist
is
Paschal
in
origin
and
idea.
—
It
is
unnecessary
to
determine
whether
the
Last
Supper
was
in
fact
the
Passover,
according
to
the
impression
of
the
Synoptists,
or,
as
St.
John
seems
to
imply,
anticipated
by
twelve
hours
the
Jewish
Feast.
(See
Sanday,
in
Hastings'
DB,
art.
'Jesus
Christ,'
II.
E.
ii.)
No
mention
is
made
of
the
lamb,
and
the
significant
identification
of
the
elements
accessory
to
the
feast,
whether
typically
or
effectually,
with
the
sacrifice
of
Christ,
suggests
that
its
chief
feature
was
absent.
And
this
would
seem
to
bind
the
rite
thus
instituted
more
closely
than
ever
to
that
suffering
before
which
He
earnestly
desired
to
celebrate
it
(Lk
22"),
and
wherein
St.
John
contemplated
the
fulfilment
of
the
Paschal
type
(Jn
IQ";
cf.
Ex.
12«).
The
bread
and
wine,
as
eaten
in
fellowship
by
Christ
and
His
disciples
on
the
night
of
the
betrayal,
and
dis-tributed,
as
often
as
the
rite
is
renewed,
to
those
who
believe
gn
Jesus
through
the
Apostolic
word,
is
the
Christian
Passover
celebrated
beneath
the
Cross,
where
the
very
Paschal
Lamb
is
offered
for
the
life
of
the
world.
Its
interpretation
must,
therefore,
begin
from
the
great
Hebrew
festival,
in
which
it
finds
its
origin,
and
which
was
regarded
as
a
corporate
communion
of
the
Covenant
People
beneath
the
shelter
of
the
sprinlded
blood,
an
extension
of
that
first
sacred
meal
eaten
when
the
destroying
angel
was
passing
over
and
working
redemption
for
Israel
(see
Schultz,
OT
Theol.,
Eng.
tr.
vol.
i.
pp.
196,
197,
363-366).
3.
St.
Paul's
account
of
the
institution
(see
above)
was
written
not
later
than
a.d.
58,
and
is
therefore
older
than
the
Synoptics.
He
claims
to
have
received
it
as
part
of
the
inviolable
deposit
of
the
gospel
(1
Co
11^2),
which
he
must
hand
on
unimpaired
to
those
to
whom
he
ministers
the
word.
The
phrase
'from
the
Lord'
can
hardly
imply,
as
some
have
maintained,
that
a
direct
revelation
was
given
to
Mmself
,
extending
to
the
form
of
words;
but
only
that
the
record
is
part
of
that
original
message
of
which
the
Apostles
were
the
guardians
rather
than
the
interpreters
(1
Co
15',
Gal
I'-').
The
form
of
tradition
here
reproduced
brings
out
explicitly
the
fact
that
the
Eucharist
was
regarded
in
the
Apostolic
Church
as
an
ordinance
to
be
observed
in
Christian
congregations
till
the
Lord's
Coming
('as
oft
as
ye
drink,'
with
com-ment
v.").
It
is
St.
Paul
only
that
introduces
the
command,
'This
do
in
remembrance
of
me'
(y.^),
an
expression
fruitful
in
controversy.
It
has
been
urged
that
the
word
rendered
'
do
'
means
'
offer,'
and
that
the
Eucharist
is,
therefore,
by
its
terms
sacrificial.
Not
only
is
this
an
uncommon
use
of
the
Greek,
unsuspected
by
the
Greek
commentators
themselves,
but
the
word
'this'
(Gr.
neuter)
which
follows
can
only
be
'this
action,'
not
'this
bread,'
which
would
require
the
mascu-line
form
of
the
Gr.
pronoun.
Clearly,
however,
the
phrase
refers
to
the
whole
Eucharistic
action,
not
to
the
partic-
EUCHARIST
ular
acts
of
eating
and
drinking,
the
latter
of
which
is
differentiated
from
it
in
v.!m.
It
is
further
argued
that
the
word
used
for
'remembrance'
(anamnesis,
vv.^-
!")
implies
a
ritual
memorial
before
God.
The
word,
how-ever,
almost
invariably
used
in
the
LXX
with
this
signification
is
different
(mnSmosynon,
Lv
2*-
«■
'«
S'^,
Nu
5^;
anam.
is
found
in
Lv
24'
and
Nu
10'°).
And,
though
the
form
of
words
in
which,
according
to
the
traditional
ritual,
the
house-father
recalled
the
redemp-tion
from
Egypt
is
probably
present
to
the
Apostle's
mind,
it
is
uncertain
whether
this
recital
of
Divine
deUverance
was
directed
towards
God.
As
now
used
it
would
seem
to
be
intended
to
carry
out
the
injunction
of
the
Law
given
in
Ex
12«-
"
(see
Haggadah
for
Passover).
The
same
uncertainty
attaches
to
St.
Paul's
explanatory
statement
—
'
ye
proclaim
the
Lord's
death
'
—
though
the
natural
interpretation
of
the
Greek
is
in
favour
of
the
idea
suggested
by
the
RV,
viz.
announcement
to
men
rather
than
commemoration
before
God
(cf.
1
Co
9").
The
evidential
value,
not
the
mystical
significance,
of
the
rite
is
here
asserted.
4.
The
sacrificial
character
of
the
Eucharist
is
involved
in
the
declaration
that
the
bread
broken
is
a
communion
of
the
body,
the
cup
of
blessing
a
communion
of
the
blood,
of
Christ
(1
Co
10»).
The
table
of
the
Lord
is
contrasted
with
the
table
of
demons
(v.^i)
through
the
medium
of
the
sacrificial
system
of
the
OT,
of
which
it
is
a
funda-mental
principle
that
to
eat
of
the
offerings
is
to
have
communion
with
the
altar
(v.").
The
words
'Lord's
table'
and
'altar'
are
found
as
synonyms
in
Malachi
(1'-
'2).
The
Levitical
code
includes
many
forms
of
oblation
in
which
feeding
on
the
sacrifice,
if
it
ever
existed,
has
disappeared;
but
provision
is
made
for
it
in
the
case
of
the
peace-offerings
(Lv
T"-'').
A
closer
study
of
the
OT
brings
into
greater
prominence
the
connexion
between
sacrifice
and
feasting
(Ex
32"-,
Dt
12'-
12
26'»",
1
S
isff-
162";
see
Schultz,
OT
Theol.,
Eng.
tr.
i.
c.
xil.).
The
end
of
sacrifice
in
Israel,
as
among
other
nations,
is
the
union
of
the
worshipper
with
the
object
of
worship,
through
the
covering
wUch
the
priest
supplies
(W.
R.
Smith,
BS^
Lect.
xi.).
This
is
especially
evident
in
the
Passover,
which
is
a
sacrifice
(Ex
12"
3425,
Nu
9'-
"),
and,
as
including
a
repast,
should
rank
among
the
peace-offerings.
The
Eucharist,
therefore,
is
a
sacrifice,
not
as
the
commemoration
of
the
death
of
Christ,
but
as
the
means
of
participation
in
the
Paschal
Lamb
slain
for
us
(1
Co
5'),
in
the
offering
of
the
body
of
Christ
once
made
on
the
Cross
(He
10'";
cf.
Jn
19™,
1
Co
10").
The
crucifixion
of
Christ's
natural
body
results
in
the
institution
of
that
instrument
of
union,
the
sacramental
body,
in
respect
of
which
the
unworthy
partaker
is
guilty
(1
Co
ll^',
but
see
below),
and
through
which
the
faithful
have
fellowship
with
Christ
in
His
mystical
body
(10"-
").
The
transition
from
one
application
of
the
word
'body'
to
the
others
—
'one
bread,
one
body'
—
is
very
subtle,
and
they
are
no
doubt
so
vitally
connected
in
the
mind
of
St.
Paul
as
hardly
to
be
capable
of
exact
distinction.
But
it
is
unlikely
that
in
a
passage
where
the
argu-ment
would
have
been
satisfied
by
the
use
of
one
word
—
'body'
—
on
the
analogy
of
the
common
pagan
identification
of
the
god
with
the
sacrifice,
he
should
have
used
the
longer
phrase
—
'communion
of
the
body'
—
if
he
had
not
felt
that
the
single
word
would
have
failed
to
give
the
exact
meaning.
The
sense
of
the
whole
passage
depends
upon
the
reality
of
the
gift
conveyed
through
the
feast
in
which
it
is
symbolically
presented.
St.
Paul
holds
that
there
is
a
real
communion
in
the
sacrificial
feasts
of
the
heathen,
though
in
this
case
with
demons
(v.2»),
whose
presence
is
incompatible
with
that
of
Christ
(v.'i).
5.
The
crucial
words
of
the
second
passage
(11"-'*)
are
'if
he
discern
not
the
body.'
'Lord's'
is
an
inter-polation
of
the
TR,
which
the
RV
properly
rejects
(v.^s).
The
RV
also
brings
out
the
fact
that
the
verb
tr.
'
dis-cern'
(v.2')
is
again
used
in
v."
—
'if
we
discerned
