Eucharist

VIEW:42 DATA:01-04-2020

EUCHARIST.—This is the earliest title for the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. It is found in Ignatius and the Didache, and is based upon the eucharistia or giving of thanks with which our Lord set apart the bread and wine at the Last Supper as memorials of Himself (Mat_26:27, Luk_22:17; Luk_22:19, 1Co_11:24). The name Lord’s Supper, though legitimately derived from 1Co_11:20, is not there applied to the sacrament itself, but to the Love-feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper, and not yet separated from the Eucharist when St. Paul wrote. The irregularities rebuked by the Apostle (1Co_11:21; 1Co_11:29) are such as could only have accompanied the wider celebration, and doubtless contributed to the speedy separation of the essential rite from the unnecessary accessories. The title Communion comes from 1Co_10:16, where, however, the word is a predicate not used technically. The breaking of (the) bread (Act_2:42; Act_2:46) probably refers to the Eucharist (cf. Act_20:7, Luk_24:35?), but until modern times does not seem to have been adopted as a title.
1. The institution is recorded by each of the Synoptic Gospels, but not by St. John. A fourth account appears in 1 Corinthians.
Mar_14:22-25.
Mat_26:26-29.
22 As they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said. Take ye: this is my body. 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
26 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins. 29 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.
Luk_22:14-20.
1Co_11:23-25.
14 When the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 for I say unto you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 for I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body [which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you].
23 I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said. This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
A comparison shows variations of minor importance between Mark and Matthew. But the most remarkable differences are those of Luke, which mentions what is apparently a second cup. It seems scarcely credible that at a supreme moment, like that in which a sacred rite was being established, our Lord should have created the possibility of confusion by solemnly delivering two of the Paschal cups, dividing between them the words which, according to the other Synoptics, belong, as it would seem appropriately, to one. Nor, if He were about to ballow a succeeding cup as Eucharistic, is it likely that He would have spoken of the fulfilment of the Paschal wine in relation to another (Luk_22:17). In spite, therefore, of the fact that the majority of MSS and Versions favour its inclusion, Westcott and Hort are probably right in regarding the passage inclosed in brackets above as an interpolation. With this omitted, the narrative is assimilated to the other Synoptics. The inversion of bread and cup, which now becomes apparent and which probably belongs not to Luke but to his source, is perhaps due to the fact that the writer, dwelling on the Lord’s intention that the Passover should be fulfilled in a Messianic rite, records at the opening of his narrative a declaration similar to that which Matthew and Mark assign to a later stage, the delivery of the cup (Mat_26:29, Mar_14:25). These words, though referring more particularly to the Eucharistic bread, yet, as extending to the whole meal (‘this passover’), require no mention of the action that would accompany them; whereas the companion statement concerning the fruit of the vine (Luk_22:18) necessitates the mention of the cup (Luk_22:17). The first half of Luk_22:19 (the consecration of the bread), which, if the account were symmetrical, would appear (as arranged in Rush-brooke’s Synopticon) before Luk_22:15, is then added to complete the institution. A copyist, assuming a part of the narrative to be wanting, would then introduce, probably from a contemporary liturgical formula, the second half of Luk_22:19 and Luk_22:20, which bear a striking resemblance to the Pauline account, of which Luke is otherwise independent. A similar inversion is found in the sub-Apostolic Teaching of the Apostles.
2. From the Synoptic record the following inferences may be drawn: (1) The words of institution cannot themselves determine the meaning of the rite. Luke (unless v. 20 be genuine) omits ‘This is my blood of the covenant.’ [Notice also that the other traditional form varies the phrase—‘the new covenant in my blood’ (1Co_11:25).] This may be due to the fact that Luke introduces the cup primarily in relation to our Lord’s utterance concerning the fruit of the vine. But the sentence may be an interpretation of Christ’s action, based on its correspondence with the hallowing of the bread. Matthew further amplifies by adding the words, ‘unto remission of sins’ (Mat_26:28). It is clear that, 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 an ordinance, is Apostolic. The whole Twelve, but none other, are present with Jesus (Mar_14:17||). Judas had not yet gone out (Luk_22:21). The significant relation of the Apostles to the congregation of the spiritual Israel, prominent in Mark from the first (Mar_3:14), is not only emphasized by their seclusion with Jesus in this supreme hour, but explicitly stated by Luke (Luk_22:24-34). 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 [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , art. ‘Jesus Christ,’ 11. 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 (Luk_22:15), and wherein St. John contemplated the fulfilment of the Paschal type (Joh_19:36; cf. Exo_12:46). The bread and wine, as eaten in fellowship by Christ and His disciples on the night of the betrayal, and distributed, as often as the rite is renewed, to those who believe on 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 sprinkled 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. [Note: translate or translation.] 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 (1Co_11:23), 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 himself, 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 (1Co_15:3, Gal_1:6-9.). 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 comment 1Co_11:26). It is St. Paul only that introduces the command, ‘This do in remembrance of me’ 1Co_11:24), 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 masculine form of the Gr. pronoun. Clearly, however, the phrase refers to the whole Eucharistic action, not to the particular acts of eating and drinking, the latter of which is differentiated from it in 1Co_11:26. It is further argued that the word used for ‘remembrance’ (anamnçsis, 1Co_11:24-25) implies a ritual memorial before God. The word, however, almost invariably used in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] with this signification is different (mnçmosynon, Lev_2:2; Lev_2:9; Lev_2:16; Lev_5:12, Num_5:26; anam. is found in Lev_24:7 and Num_10:10). And, though the form of words in which, according to the traditional ritual, the house-father recalled the redemption from Egypt is probably present to the Apostle’s mind, it is uncertain whether this recital of Divine deliverance was directed towards God. As now used it would seem to be intended to carry out the injunction of the Law given in Exo_12:26-27 (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 [Note: Revised Version.] , viz. announcement to men rather than commemoration before God (cf. 1Co_9:14). 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 (1Co_10:16). The table of the Lord is contrasted with the table of demons (1Co_10:21) through the medium of the sacrificial system of the OT, of which it is a fundamental principle that to eat of the offerings is to have communion with the altar (1Co_10:18). The words ‘Lord’s table’ and ‘altar’ are found as synonyms in Malachi (Mal_1:7; Mal_1:12). 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 (Lev_7:15-21). A closer study of the OT brings into greater prominence the connexion between sacrifice and feasting (Exo_32:6 ff., Deu_12:5; Deu_12:12; Deu_26:10-11, 1Sa_1:3 ff; 1Sa_16:2; 1Sa_16:11; see Schultz, OT Theol., Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] i. c. xii.). The end of sacrifice in Israel, as among other nations, is the union of the worshipper with the object of worship, through the covering which the priest supplies (W. R. Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 Lect. xi.). This is especially evident in the Passover, which is a sacrifice (Exo_12:27; Exo_34:25, Num_9:7; Num_9:13), 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 (1Co_5:7), in the offering of the body of Christ once made on the Cross (Heb_10:10; cf. Joh_19:36, 1Co_10:17). 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 (1Co_11:27, but see below), and through which the faithful have fellowship with Christ in His mystical body (1Co_10:16-17). 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 argument 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 (1Co_10:20), whose presence is incompatible with that of Christ (1Co_10:21).
5. The crucial words of the second passage (1Co_11:17-34) are ‘if he discern not the body.’ ‘Lord’s’ is an interpolation of the TR [Note: Textus Receptus.] , which the RV [Note: Revised Version.] properly rejects (1Co_11:29). The RV [Note: Revised Version.] also brings out the fact that the verb tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ‘discern’ (1Co_11:29) is again used in 1Co_11:31—‘if we discerned ourselves’—thus showing that the word does not mean ‘perceive’ but’ discriminate.’ ‘Body’ is left undefined, including, as it apparently does, the mystical body which the unworthy despise in the Church of God, the sacramental elements which they dishonour by profane use, and the sacrifice of Christ with which they reject communion, thereby becoming guilty in respect of each (1Co_11:21-22; 1Co_11:26-27).
6. Both passages express what is implicit in the division of the sacrament into two kinds. It is the body and blood as separated in death through which communion is attained. In 1Co_10:16, by placing the cup first, as in St. Luke’s account of the institution, St. Paul emphasizes the sacrificial death of Christ as a necessary element in the Eucharistic feast. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that access to the Holy Place is gained through the offered body and sprinkled blood (Heb_10:19-22); St. John, that union with Christ is found in that Living Bread which implies death because it is flesh and blood (Joh_6:52-58). Commenting on the unique phrase ‘drink his blood,’ Westcott says that to Jewish ears the idea conveyed is the appropriation of ‘life sacrificed’ (see note on Joh_6:63 in Gospel acc. to St. John). There is nothing to warrant the mediæval inference that the phrase ‘flesh and blood’ is equivalent to ‘personality,’ and that therefore ‘the whole Christ’ is sacramentally present in the Eucharistic elements. But it does imply vital union with Him who became dead and is alive for evermore (Rev_1:18), a Lamb ‘as though it had been slain’ (Rev_5:6), a Priest upon His throne (Zec_6:13; cf. Heb_8:1), who through the one offering of Himself has perfected for ever (Heb_10:14) those that come to God through Him.
7. In conclusion, however, it must be frankly admitted that, while one view of the sacrament may seem on the whole to express more fully than others the general tenor of NT teaching on the subject, none of the explanations which have divided Christendom since the 16th cent., not even the theory of transubstantiation when precisely defined, can be regarded as wholly inconsistent with the language of Scripture.
J. G. Simpson.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The word, in its original Greek, ευχαριστια, properly signifies giving thanks; from the hymns and thanksgivings which accompanied that holy service in the primitive church. See LORD'S SUPPER.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

ū?ka-rist. See LORD'S SUPPER.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Eucharist
one of the names of the Lord's Supper, from εὐχαριστία, giving of thanks. SEE LORD'S SUPPER.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores