|
Taken
With permission from Clarion Vol. 41, No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, (1995)
The beginning of the Reformed view
Guido de Bres
When
Guido de Bres, the author of our Belgic Confession, after years of having
eluded the persecution finally was caught, he was put into prison. Many people
came to see him there. Some just came to make fun of him and his friend and
colleague, Peregrin de la Grange. But others came for a serious reason: they
wanted to convert him. Among these was the bishop of Atrecht, Francois Richardot.
After
they had exchanged some pleasantries, they went down to business: a theological
discussion. The bishop asked Guido de Bres what subject they should discuss.
"Whatever you like," answered Guido de Bres. "Let us then speak about the
sacrifice of the Mass," said the bishop. The protestants usually oppose the
sacrifice of the Mass on the basis of Hebrews 10:26: "There no longer remains
a sacrifice for sins." But this text speaks only about the unforgivable sins.
For all other sins the sacrifice of Christ is useful. The bishop undoubtedly
was on his way to prove that the forgivable daily sins need a daily sacrifice
of Christ: the Mass.
But
Guido de Bres answered: Should we not begin with the institution of the Mass,
who instituted it and when? I do not find a word about that in Scripture.
But I have read what Luke wrote in Acts 2:42. He describes the situation of
the first congregation. But this text says that
the congregation devoted themselves to the breaking of bread. The "breaking
of bread" refers to the (Lord's) Supper. If there would have been a sacrifice
in the church at that time, Luke would have mentioned it." [1]
This
was the beginning of a lengthy debate between the bishop and Guido de Bres.
The debate focused all the time on this issue: Is the Mass a sacrifice, as
the Roman Catholics say, or a meal, as the Protestants say. In this debate
many texts and many quotations from church fathers were discussed. And it
was in the context of this discussion that the question whether bread and
wine change into the body and blood of Christ, was also debated (transubstantiation).
However, throughout the debate the main issue remained the character of this
sacrament: Is it a sacrifice or a meal?
This
discussion shows us what the fundamental issue was in the controversy concerning
the second sacrament. If you would ask anyone today what the main difference
was between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant view, he will probably answer:
transubstantiation. The Roman Catholics taught that bread and wine change
into the body and blood of Christ and the Reformation denied this. It cannot
be denied that transubstantiation was an important issue. But it was not the
center of the debate. The real issue was the meaning of this sacrament. Is
it a meal, or is it a sacrifice? And the matter of transubstantiation was
discussed within the context of this question.
This
difference was so far reaching that it even led to a different name for this
sacrament. Both the Roman Catholics and the Reformed use the same name of
baptism for the first sacrament. But the Roman Catholics spoke of "Mass" or
"Eucharist" but the Protestants
changed the name and called it "the Lord's Supper." In this name they summarized
the Reformed position: it is not a sacrifice to God, but a meal for God's
people. [2]
The Form for the Celebration of the Lord's
Supper
The
true meaning of the Lord's Supper was not just a topic for theologians to
debate about, it was important for all members of the church. The church members
had to know what the Lord's Supper signifies to benefit from it. Therefore Forms for the Celebration
of the Lord's Supper were made in the Reformed Churches. Different forms were
in use. Our form was made for the Reformed Churches of the Palatinate by Olevianus,
a student of Calvin. He derived
the first part, about the Institution, from Calvin's form, but for the second
part of the form, the Remembrance of Christ, he used as primary source the
form used in the Lutheran Wurtemberg.[3]
An explanation of the meaning of this sacrament is given in this second
part. Originally
two distinct meanings are given.
In the
first place we find here the emphasis on the meal character of this sacrament.
The Form does not say: We sacrifice Christ, but: Christ's sacrifice is the
food on which we live. "From this institution of the holy supper of our Lord
Jesus Christ we learn that He directs our faith and trust to His perfect sacrifice,
once offered on the cross. It is the only ground for our salvation. Thereby
He has become to our hungry and thirsty souls the true food and drink of life
eternal."
In this
part where the Lord's Supper is explained as a meal, some slight differences
can be detected in the way the Form speaks about the bread and the wine. The
Form, speaking here in the name of Jesus Christ, says: "I nourish and refresh
your hungry and thirsty souls with My crucified body and shed blood to everlasting
life ...."
This sentence probably intends to make a distinction between the significance
of the bread and the significance of the wine. The bread sustains: Christ
nourishes the hungry soul with His crucified body. But the wine does something
different: Christ refreshes the thirsty soul with His shed blood.
It should
also be noted at this point, that the sentences about bread and wine are not
parallel. About the bread the Form says that it is broken: "...as certainly
as this bread is broken before your eyes." But it does not say about the wine
that it was poured: "...and this cup is given to you."
But
the Form does not restrict the meaning of the Lord's Supper to a meal at which
the believers receive food and drink. A second meaning is given: The unity
of the participants. "By the same Spirit we are also united in true brotherly
love as members of one body. For the apostle Paul says: "Because there is
one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."
The
original form mentioned only two meanings of the Lord's Supper, but according
to the Form we use today, the Lord's Supper has a third meaning. After having spoken of the nourishment and the fellowship it
mentions the expectation of Christ's coming. "We receive at His table a foretaste
of the abundant joy which He has promised, and look forward to the marriage
feast of the Lamb." This part was inserted by Synod Smithville 1980.[4]
So now
the Form points out three meanings of the Lord's Supper: Christ's sacrifice
is our food, the unity of the body of Christ and the foreshadowing of the
glorious future. The three seem to be without relation. At least, the Form
does not indicate how they are connected.
The practice
The
Reformed conviction concerning the Lord's Supper is also expressed in the
way it is celebrated. The main opposition against the Roman Catholics is made
visible in the presence of a table. Even in congregations where the Lord's
Supper is not celebrated by sitting at a table, a table is placed in the front
of the church building, and the elements are ready on the table. It is not
an altar where a sacrifice is brought to God, but a table where a meal is
prepared for God's people.
Of the
three meanings, the first has been developed into several ceremonial actions:
the
bread is broken, meaning that Christ's
body was broken for our sins;
the
wine is poured from the pitcher into the cup, meaning that Christ's blood
was shed for our sins; the
bread and the wine are handed out, meaning that the salvation work of Christ
is offered to us:
the
bread and the wine are received and eaten, meaning that we receive in faith
the work of Christ for us and our salvation;
the
bread sustains and the wine refreshes
us, meaning that Christ's work
for us keeps us alive and gives
renewed strength.
Concerning
the second meaning, the unity, this is expressed in the one bread baked out
of many grains, and in the one wine pressed out of many grapes. This is based
on the expression of 1 Cor. 10:17: "Because there is one bread, we who are
many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." It should be noted
that Paul speaks here only about the bread, not about the wine.
Sometimes
the unity finds liturgical expression. Then the bread, even though it is already
cut, is placed in the form of a loaf to symbolize the unity. The unity is
also seen in the one pitcher from which the wine is poured.
Since
the third meaning, the expectation of Christ's coming, has been introduced
into the Form recently, it is probably not foremost in the minds of the congregation
when they celebrate the Lord's Supper. It would not be easy to find a liturgical
expression for it.
This
Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper, however, has come under attack
from three quarters. Changes have been proposed for exegetical, dogmatical
and for practical reasons. In the next issue we hope to present some of these
criticisms and their results for the celebration of this sacrament that is
so central in the life of the church of Christ.
We have
seen that the fundamental Reformed position concerning the second sacrament
is that it is a meal, not a sacrifice. But two other meanings are added to
this: the unity of the church and the expectation of Christ's return. The
actual celebration of this sacrament reflects some of this. But the Reformed
understanding and celebration of the Lord's Supper is now under attack for
exegetical, dogmatic and practical reasons.
Exegetical criticism: H. Ridderbos
H. Ridderbos
has discussed the Lord's Supper extensively in his book on the synoptic gospels:
The
Coming
of the
Kingdom. [5]
The Bible indicates that the Lord's Supper was instituted at a passover meal
as prescribed in Ex. 12 and 13. This is very important for the understanding
of the Lord's Supper, says Ridderbos, it leads to the question how
exactly
the Lord's Supper is related to the passover. Did Jesus Christ present Himself
here as the true passover lamb? This is maintained by many scholars, but Ridderbos
does not agree. When Jesus Christ speaks of "his body" He does not distribute
the lamb, but the bread. And concerning the wine, Jesus Christ does not say
that this refers to the blood of the passover lamb, but to the blood sprinkled
at the making of the covenant (425). The bread and the wine do not represent
the sacrifice of Christ, says Ridderbos.
The
true background for the Lord's Supper is the sacrifice meal. That means that
the Lord's Supper is a meal similar to the meals the people of Israel enjoyed
after having sacrificed an animal to God. The important consequence of this
is, that the sacrifice itself is no longer a part of the Lord's Supper. In
the sacrifice
meal the sacrifice is not represented in the meal. The meal is the result
of the sacrifice (426ff.). This means that the Lord's Supper does not set
before us the death of Jesus Christ, but only the beneficial results of His
death.
At first
sight this does not seem to be a very important change. But this impression
changes when we see how Ridderbos applies this to the elements of the Supper.
The breaking of the bread does not belong to the symbolism according to him.
When Jesus said: "This is my body," He did not refer to His sacrifice, but
to what He is distributing.
The
breaking itself does not have any particular meaning. Breaking bread was a
customary action: the father of the family did this at every meal (429).
Ridderbos
has even stronger objections against the pouring of the wine as a symbol of
the shedding of Christ's blood. The verb "to shed" cannot be used for the
action of pouring wine into a cup. Moreover, the wine was not poured out at
this moment of the passover meal. The wine had been standing ready for some
time, when Jesus spoke these words (429ff.).
Ridderbos
concludes that not the acquisition but only the application of salvation is
represented in the Lord's Supper. This means: Christ's death is not represented
in (broken) bread and (poured) wine. The point of the bread and the wine is,
that they are there to be eaten and drunk. The participants in their believing
act of eating and drinking will receive the virtue of Christ's expiatory death
(437ff.).
This
is undoubtedly a reduction compared to the traditional Reformed understanding
of the Lord's Supper. Of the meanings we found: the meal, the communion and
the eschatology, only the first is emphasized by Ridderbos. [6]
From this first meaning every reference to the sacrifice is removed. The Lord's
Supper should be conducted without the breaking of bread or the pouring out
of wine. No distinction is indicated between bread and wine. The meaning of
the Lord's Supper can, in Ridderbos' view, be summarized under two aspects:
1. Christ
gives the results of His workof
satisfaction
2. We receive the results of Christ's work
of satisfaction.
Dogmatical criticism: M.J.
Erickson
The
evangelical scholar M.J. Erickson discusses the Lord's Supper under the title:
the continuing rite of the Church.[7]
When he speaks of the meaning of this rite, he distinguishes three things
that are symbolized. 1 . It is in particular a reminder of the death of Christ
and its sacrificial and propitiatory character as an offering to the Father
on our behalf. 2. It further symbolizes our dependence upon and vital connection
with the Lord, and points forward to His second coming. 3. It symbolizes the
unity of believers within the church and their love and concern for each other
(pp. 1123ff.).
This
division concentrates on the Father, Jesus Christ and the church, respectively.
But in content it sounds close to the Reformed interpretation. The reference
to Christ's sacrifice, unity of the participants and to eschatology are all
there. The only remarkable thing is, that the meal character of the sacrament
is not mentioned. Is this intentional?
Then
it strikes us that Erickson characterized the Lord's Supper as a reminder.
From 1 Cor.
11 :26
Erickson draws the conclusion that the rite is basically commemorative
(1122).
The Lord's Supper is essentially a memorial
(1123). We have to realize what this means: Erickson does not see the Lord's Supper
as a means of grace. It is not God who shares out His grace in it, we ourselves
have to make it work. "The Lord's Supper, properly administered, is a means
of inspiring the faith and love of the believer as he or she reflects again
upon the wonder of the Lord's death and the fact that those who believe in
Him will live everlastingly" (1127). This explains the fact that the meal
character is not mentioned as a meaning of the Supper. For if it is taken
as a meal, then the fact that Christ shares it out becomes important. But
for Erickson the important thing is that we receive it.
The
fact that Erickson sees the Lord's Supper as a memorial instead of as a means
of grace influences the way he speaks about the celebration. If our chief
concern were, says Erickson, to duplicate the original meal, then we would
have to use unleavened bread, since that was eaten at the passover meal. But
if our concern is
the symbolism, we might just as well use a loaf of leavened bread. Erickson
is of the opinion that we should strive, not for duplication, but for bringing
out the symbolism. The Lord's Supper must be celebrated in such a way that
it inspires the believer to faith and love.
This
means for the bread, that leavened bread can be used. Erickson adds here that
this loaf symbolizes two things. In the first place: the oneness of the loaf
symbolizes the unity of the church. In the second place, breaking the loaf
signifies the breaking of Christ's body
(p. 1125).
If I
may interrupt Erickson here for a moment, this is somewhat confusing to me.
The bread has here within the same context two distinct meanings. The bread
is first (in its oneness) is a symbol of the church, next (in its brokenness)
a symbol of Christ. I wonder if it is possible to see the bread within the
one action of the Lord's Supper, first as representing the church, and then
Christ. But I realize that if this critical remark is correct, we may have
to criticize our own tradition, too. We will have to come back to this in
a future article, but first we go back to Erickson.
Since
the Lord's Supper must inspire us, the elements can be replaced by substitutes.
But the substitutes should retain the symbolism. Fish may replace the bread.
Erickson even says that fish might well be amore suitable symbol than bread.
He does not give the reason for this statement. My guess is that fish is a
good substitute because it is a traditional symbol for Christ. But bizarre
substitutes, such as potato chips, should be avoided. The reason is, that
we then would focus our attention on the mechanics instead of on Christ's
atoning work (p. 1125).
Concerning
the wine Erickson says: if we want to duplicate the original institution,
wine has to be used, probably diluted with water. But if our concern is representation
of the blood of Christ, then grape juice will do equally well. But again,
bizarre substitutes such as cola, bear little resemblance to the original
and should not be used (p. 1125).[8]
We have
a general disagreement with Erickson concerning the Lord's Supper as a means
of grace. But we are also faced with more specific questions. Do the bread
and the wine itself contribute to the meaning of the sacrament? Or can they
easily be replaced, as long as we maintain the symbolism in general?
Practical criticisms: two movements from the 19th Century
Two
movements that came up in the 19th century did have an impact on the celebration
of the Lord's Supper. In the first place there is the movement for total abstinence,
often called the Temperance Movement. This movement began within the churches.
The Scriptures were often seen as the strongest bulwark to defend the doctrine
of total abstinence. Then the Lord's Supper became an embarrassment: there
wine was used. This led to the attempt to understand the word for "wine" in
the New Testament as meaning grape juice.
In our
century the discussion is no longer as fierce as it was during the last century,
but churches are still faced with questions. If there are (former) alcoholics
in the congregation, would it not be better to replace the wine with grape
juice? Does it not set a better example if the Lord's Supper is celebrated
without wine?
All
this leads to questions concerning the meaning of the Lord's Supper. Does
the wine contribute to the meaning of the Lord's Supper, or does the meaning
not suffer when it is replaced by grape juice?
The
other movement
which had an impact on the celebration of the Lord's Supper is the movement
for hygiene. H. Bavinck makes a remark in his dogmatics, that recently a movement
has come up in many churches to replace the one cup by individual cups. [9]
It was feared that the use of a communal cup could lead to the spreading of
contagious diseases.
This
movement seems now to be gaining in strength because of the fear of AIDS.
This, too, leads to a question concerning the meaning of the Lord's Supper.
Is the communal cup part of the meaning, or not?
The center of the Lord's Supper
The
traditional reformed understanding of the meaning of the Lord's Supper is
being questioned from several sides. This means that we have to go back to
Scripture. The church did not invent this ceremony, it only followed the instructions
of the Lord Jesus Christ, who made the Lord's Supper an institution in the
church, 1 Cor.
11:25.
But
where shall we begin, now that the meaning of the Lord's Supper is no longer
obvious to many? Studying the passages in the Bible that speak about the Lord's
Supper, it can easily be seen that this sacrament has its center in the body
and the blood of Jesus Christ. We should therefore first investigate the meaning
of eating Christ's body and of drinking Christ's blood. Later we can study
how these are represented in the sacrament.
The body
The
traditional Reformed position is that the word "body" refers to Christ's body,
as He gave it over to be crucified on the cross for our salvation. Some theologians
today, however, are of the opinion that the word "body" refers not the body,
but to the person of Christ. This is defended in different ways.
For
example, W.L. Lane in his commentary on Mark says that the Aramaic word for
"my body" means no more than "I." What Jesus says here is no more than: "I
am myself this bread," or: "My person is this bread." [10]
We have to reject this kind of exegesis. Whether the Lord Jesus said these
words in Aramaic or not, is a debated question. But we do not have an Aramaic
version, and we do therefore not know what word He would have used in Aramaic.
We have a Greek version, and that should remain the basis for exegesis. In
other words: We should not correct the Greek text from a supposed Aramaic
original.
Another
attempt to explain "My body" as meaning no more than "I" was given by J.P.
Versteeg. The word "body" refers according to him first of all to a person
as creature of God, see Rom.
12:1. It is used as equivalent for "oneself" in Eph.
5:28. "Body" is the concrete person in his actions toward God and man, see
2
Cor.
5:10. And when
Jesus Christ says: "This is My body," He means: "This am I," in the very concrete
sense of "Christ as He gave Himself for His people in His death on the cross."
[11]
Even
this brief summary makes clear that the meaning of the word "body" is continually
shifting. Versteeg gives no reason for his translations. But the most important
criticism that must be brought in against Lane as well as Versteeg is, that
they do not explain the word "body" in the context. [12]
From
the several meanings of "body" [13] only the first: either living or dead body, can be considered. Within the
context of the institution of the Lord's Supper the word "body" is used in
combination with the word "blood." This is very unusual; the usual combination
is "flesh and blood." It is not hard to determine what "flesh and blood" means.
Flesh and blood denote the two main parts of our body. But blood normally
belongs to a body, so that there is no need to speak of body and blood separately.
Why is the blood mentioned next to the body?
The
combination "body and blood" is used only once in the New Testa ment;
Heb. 13:11 says: "For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought
into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside
the camp." The word "body" in combination with "blood" here refers to a dead
body. Would this meaning also fit Christ's Word at the institution of the
Lord's Supper: "This is My body"? Before rejecting this interpretation as
impossible let us see whether this would fit the context of the Lord's Supper.
The blood
In the
words of institution the "blood" is almost always (the exception is 1 Cor.
11 :25) connected with the verb: "to pour out." To quote the gospel according
to Mark: "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"
(Mark 14:24). What does the Greek expression "to pour out blood" mean? A survey
of the New Testament shows that this expression in all instances means: "to
murder." A clear example is Matt. 23:35: "Upon you may come the righteous
blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah
the son of Barachiah, whom you
murdered
between the sanctuary and the altar. [14]
We may
conclude that Christ's Word: "This is My blood which is poured out" refers
to the violent death which He was about to die. This supports the opinion
we stated above, that the word "body" refers to Jesus' dead body.
This
is confirmed by 1 Cor. 11 :26: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink
the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." Both the bread and
the cup refer to the death of Jesus Christ; the bread by the comparison with
a dead body; the cup by the comparison between the wine and the blood which
was shed.
This
leads to the conclusion that both the body and the blood refer to the death
of Jesus Christ. We have to disagree with Ridderbos' opinion, stated in the
second article, that the death of Jesus Christ is certainly in the background
but it is not present in the Lord's Supper itself. Our investigation led to
a different conclusion. The sayings about body and blood refer directly to
Christ's death. The traditional reformed conviction that Christ's death is
made visible in bread and wine is correct.
Eat...
Jesus
Christ does more than indicate the meaning of bread and wine. He also says
what the disciples have to do with bread and wine.
They
have to take the bread and eat it. The disciples have to accept it out of
Christ's hand and use it. Bread is meant to be used as food. The expression:
"This is My body
...., eat," can only mean that the death of Christ should be accepted in faith as
food. This food will keep them alive.
In the
gospel of Luke we do not find the words "take (and eat)." But in this gospel
another expression is used which points into the same direction: "This is
my body which is given for you" (Luke 22:19). "Given for you" is not the same
as "given to you." When Jesus Christ says that His body is given for the disciples,
He means that His death will benefit those who participate. The words "take
and eat" are, in effect, the same in meaning as "this body is given to your
benefit."
...and drink
The
emphasis on receiving and using is repeated with the wine. Luke mentions that
Christ said about the cup: "Take this" (Luke 22:1 7). Mark 14:24 does not
mention a command to take, but, while the disciples are drinking, Christ explains:
"This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many." Christ reveals
in these words that His death will benefit more than just the few disciples
who are at that moment eating with Him.
In Matt.
26:27ff. we find both the commandment to drink from the cup, and the explanation
that the blood is poured out for many. But this passage is
especially important because it also explains in what respect that blood of Christ will benefit the participants:
the blood "is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Here we hear
in what sense the death of Christ benefits the many: Christ died His violent
death that the sins of many would be forgiven.
Drinking
the wine means nothing less than through Jesus receiving the forgiveness of
sins. The manner in which Christ's death brings forgiveness is not explained
in the Lord's Supper, but this sacrament makes visible and tangible this promise
of forgiveness.
The covenant
One
more element is connected with the blood: the covenant. Mark 14:24 says: "This
is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many." In 1Cor. 11:25
is spoken of the "new covenant."
What
is the background of this expression? The text does not indicate that we have
here a quotation or a reference to a specific Old Testament situation. But
many texts of the New Testament speak of a contrast between the Old and the
New Covenant. Then the "Old Covenant" refers to the Mosaic covenant, with
its laws and institutions. The "New Covenant" refers to the newer relation
between God and His people, in which the Mosaic laws have been abolished (see
2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 4:24; Heb. 7:22; 8:8; 9:15; 10:16).
The
covenant established at Sinai could not bring the solution. God lived among
His people in a tabernacle, but separated from them through the sacrifices.
These sacrifices could not really take away the sins of the people. But through
the violent death of the Jesus Christ the new covenant is established. His
death lays the final basis why the people can live in communion with God.
The center of the Lord's Supper
Now
we can summarize the central content of the Lord's Supper:
Body
and blood symbolize the death of
Jesus Christ.
This
death benefits many (more than the
eleven!).
Christ's
death benefits many, because
it is for the forgiveness of their sins.
The
relationship with God (the covenant)
is based on it.
The
people should use Christ's body and
blood as bread and wine: they stay
alive by
receiving in faith the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
When
Jesus Christ, in the
institution of the Lord's Supper, spoke of His body and blood, He referred
to His death. He would not die for Himself, however, for He had no sins. The
central message of the Lord's Supper is that Jesus Christ would die for His
people, that they could live in communion with God.
Let
us from this vantage point look at the way in which this is represented in
the symbolical language of the sacrament.
The bread
Jesus
Christ instituted the Lord's Supper at the passover meal. This meal consisted
of several elements: the meat of the passover lamb, unleavened bread, bitter
herbs, green herbs, mashed fruit and wine. Out of these elements Jesus takes
the bread as an element in His new sacrament. Why?
Bread
was in Israel the common staple. The Old Testament speaks of the staff of
bread (Lev.
26:26,
Ezek.
5:16, 14:13), a clear indication that bread was their life support. In the Lord's Prayer
it represents the food man daily needs: "Give us this day our daily bread,"
Matt.
6:11. Jesus Christ uses this daily food in His sacrament. By making
this bread the symbol of His body He shows that we need His death as our daily
food. Our daily life before God depends on Him.
Should
this bread be unleavened? Unleavened bread had to be used at the passover
meal, we can therefore take it for granted that unleavened bread was used
at the institution of the Lord's Supper. However, the New Testament nowhere
emphasizes that special bread had to be used. It is true that in the New Testament
leaven is used as the symbol of malice and evil (1 Cor.
5:8).
But this text is not applied to the bread in the Lord's Supper. Nothing specific
is prescribed concerning the bread. Unleavened bread can be used, but leavened
bread will do just as well. The Roman Catholics, however, have changed the
unleavened bread into paper thin wafers. Reformed theologians have correctly
objected to the use of wafers in the Roman Catholic Mass. For there the idea
of food has disappeared. [15]
Another
question that could come up is, what this bread should be made of. Our tradition
prefers the use of white bread, but this is not prescribed in Scripture. Neither
is there a rule concerning
the grains to be used for the bread.
The
function of the bread in the Lord's Supper is to show that we need Christ's
death as the daily food on which we stay alive.
The breaking of the bread
Several
theologians today no longer consider the breaking of the bread as belonging
to the meaning of the Lord's Supper. Ridderbos is one of them. He gives the
following arguments:
1.
The texts about the institution do not support it. The expression "the bread
which is broken" is absent in the Gospels; in 1 Cor.
11:24
these words are mentioned in a number of manuscripts, but not in the most
important ones.
2.
The breaking of bread does not suggest a violent death; it was also not
a part of a sacrifice.
3.
John
19:36 says that "not a bone of Him shall be broken." The breaking of the bread
mentioned in the gospels is no more than the customary act of a father at
every meal. [16]
This
opinion is connected with the fact that, according to Ridderbos, the death
of Christ is not as such presented in the Lord's Supper. We have already
said in
answer to this that the words "body" and "blood" directly refer to Christ's
death. Within this context, does the breaking of the bread have a specific
meaning? Reviewing the evidence we will see that the breaking has a prominent
place in the institution.
1.
All three gospels mention it. Matthew
26:26 says: "As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it,
and gave it to the disciples" (see also Mark
14:22,
Luke
22:19). If
breaking the bread were no more than a customary action, there would be
no reason for it to be mentioned so emphatically at that point between "blessed"
and "gave." All three actions were customary; the father of the family blessed,
broke and handed out. Ridderbos would not deny that it has special significance
that Christ Himself distributed the elements under His disciples. In the
same way it can be maintained that the breaking of bread can have a special
meaning in the Lord's Supper, even though it was done at every meal.
2. The Lord's Supper can summarizingly be called "the breaking of the bread."
Acts
2:42 says
about the congregation of Jerusalem: "And they devoted themselves to the
apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."
Within this context of the liturgy of the church, the "breaking of the bread"
must refer to the Lord's Supper. This name will not have been derived from
an unimportant detail, but from a meaningful symbol.
3.
In 1 Cor.
11:24 we are confronted with a text critical problem. Does the text say: "This
is my body for you," or: "This is my body broken for you"? The evidence
of the manuscripts suggests that the word "broken" is original. We can then
explain the omission in a few manuscripts as caused by the concern that
this word "broken" would create a contradiction with John
19:36.
Jesus
Christ makes the breaking of bread, even though it was a part of every meal,
into a meaningful part of the Lord's Supper. Just as He did with the whole
sacrament. Even taking bread and eating it are customary actions, and yet
Christ gives important meaning to these actions in the sacrament.
What
does the breaking mean within the whole sacrament? According to the gospels
Jesus Christ breaks the bread and says that this bread is His (dead) body.
The breaking shows that His death will not be the result of natural causes,
but that it will be a violent death. The same applies to 1 Cor.
11:24, where the word "broken" is connected directly with the "body." The sentence
that Christ's body is "broken for you" means that Christ is put to death to
their benefit.
We can
conclude that the breaking forms a part of the meaning of the Lord's Supper.
It is a visible representation of the violent death of Jesus Christ. The breaking
should be maintained as part of the symbolic actions at the table.
The one bread
In 1
Cor. 10:17 yet another element of the Lord's Supper is emphasized: the unity.
"Because there is one bread we who are many are one body, for we all partake
of the same bread." The one bread teaches us the unity of the partakers. But
how? A brief survey will show that the interpretation has changed in the course
of the centuries.
Already
in the
Didache (an exhortation dating from the first or the beginning of the second century)
we find an interpretation of the one bread. In the instructions for the celebration
of the Lord's Supper we read: "As this broken bread was scattered over the
mountains and after having been gathered, became one, thus Thy church must
be brought together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom." [17] The comparison goes as follows: the grain of which this bread was made grew
on many hills but was brought together to form this one bread. Similarly the
church which is now spread over the whole world, must be brought together
into the Kingdom. The unity
symbolized here, is eschatological: it will be realized with the final gathering
of the church.
In Calvin's
explanation the emphasis is on unity of faith: "As [the bread] is made of
many grains so mixed together that one cannot be distinguished from another,
so it is fitting that in the same way we too should be joined and
bound
together by such a great agreement of minds that no sort of disagreement or
division can come between us." [18]
Here, too, the call for unity is based on the one bread which is made out
of many kernels of grain. But the unity is not something of the future, but
something for today, and the unity is threatened by quarrels.
In the
Form for the Celebration of the Lord's Supper this call for unity has been
expanded to include the wine. I quote the old version of the Form: "For as
out of many grains one meal is ground and one bread baked, and out of many
berries, pressed together, one wine and drink flows and mixes together, so
shall we all who by true faith are incorporated in Christ be all together
one body, through brotherly love ...and show this toward one another, not
only in words but also in deeds." [19]
There
are, however, several problems connected with these elaborations on 1 Cor.
10:17. When this chapter speaks about the unity, only the bread is mentioned.
The inclusion of wine is probably due to the tendency to make a complete parallel
between the bread and the wine.
In the
second place, the idea that bread consists of ground grain is absent in this
text. The text takes its starting point in the result: the one bread, and
does not take into consideration how this bread was made.
In the
third place, the main problem with this application is a shift in the comparison.
The bread, as Jesus Christ has said so clearly, represents His body as it
was given up to death. But in this application the comparison suddenly goes
into a completely different direction. The bread is no longer Christ, it represents
the congregation.
This
brings us back to the question how the unity is expressed in 1 Cor. 10:17.
A closer look at the text reveals that the unity is expressed in the participation
of the one bread. Paul does not say: We form one bread, but: We, many are
one body, because we all partake of the one bread. This bread is the bread
of the Lord's Supper, mentioned in v. 16, the bread which symbolizes Christ's
death for us.
The
unity of the believers is not expressed in the fact that so many people have
been brought together as grains to form one bread. 1 Cor. 10:17 says that
they receive the same bread which refers to Christ's broken body. This constitutes
their unity. In other words: The unity is based on the fact that they share
the same bread and so receive the same benefits of Christ's death.
When
we take "bread" in this sense, we have solved the problem of the double meaning
of "bread" in the Lord's Supper. There is actually only one meaning of bread:
it always refers to Christ's body given over to death. The special emphasis
in 1 Cor. 10:17 is that those who participate of this one bread form a unity.
Should
this unity be expressed at the Lord's Supper by sharing in one loaf?
There is no need for that. Paul, in 1 Cor. 10 does not emphasize that the
Corinthians share one bread, not two or three. He draws their attention to
the fact that they share the same bread. It is, therefore, not necessary to
place the bread on the table in the form of a loaf.
But
I would like to emphasize that Paul says: "Because we partake of one bread,
we many are one
body." This word "body" reminds us of what Paul says in 1 Cor. 12: "For the body
does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot would say...," v.
14ff. "Body" is not an invisible entity or a group of persons who accidentally
met. It is a structured community of people who have different gifts and different
duties within that community. The church at Corinth is such a body.
Eating
of the bread which represents Christ binds different people together as members
of one body. Participating in the celebration of the Lord's Supper means that
one takes one's place within the community of the church.
We now
begin with discussing the wine as element. As we saw earlier, there is a movement
that rejects the use of wine in the sacrament. Other people are not so rigorous
as to deny that wine was used at the institution, but they think that wine
can just as well be replaced by something else.
The wine
To begin
with that first objection, it cannot be denied that Jesus Christ used wine
when He instituted this sacrament. At the passover meal wine was drunk, and
Jesus used this wine. Neither can it be denied that at the celebration of
the Lord's Supper in Corinth wine was used, for some got drunk (1 Cor. 11
:21). But is it important to maintain that it should be wine? Can grape juice
not be a good substitute? Why wine?
It is
sometimes thought that the choice for wine was determined by the colour. The
red colour is to remind the people of Christ's blood. Now wine can have another
colour than red, but it seems that the passover ritual required red wine.
The Bible, however, does nowhere give any attention to the colour. Just as
there is no similarity between the bread and the body of Christ (then the
meat of the passover lamb would have been used), so also the use of the wine
is not based on similarity in colour with blood.
Wine,
however, was exceptional in that the people did not usually drink wine. Bread
was daily food, but the common drink was water (see Is. 3:1). This holds true
in New Testament times, otherwise Paul need not have said to Timothy: "No
longer drink only water, but use a little wine" (1 Tim. 5:23). Wine is exceptional.
Wine
belongs to special occasions, and particularly to festivities. Wine was drunk
during the festivities at the sanctuary
(Deut. 14:26). It was used at festive meals (Job 1:13) and at weddings (John
2:13). It is part of the feast which the Lord will prepare for His people (Is. 25:6). God has given wine "to gladden
the heart of man" (Ps. 104:15).
The
function of the wine in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is, to give a
festive character to this meal. The celebration of the Lord's Supper is an
occasion for great joy (see also Acts 2:46). Within the celebration of the
Lord's Supper especially the drinking looks forward to the drinking with Christ
in His Kingdom (Mark 14:25).
Here
we detect the reason why the Lord used two elements in the sacrament. The
Roman Catholics withhold the wine from the congregation. They think that there
is no need for the laymen to drink the wine, since the grace of the sacrificed
Christ is received fully through the bread. To be sure, both the bread and
the wine refer to the same death of Christ (1 Cor. 11:26). But they represent
Christ's death in a different way. In the bread He is presented as the bread
of life: we can only stay alive through Him. In the wine He is presented as
the cause of our joy. When we think of the death of Jesus Christ we will become
sad, for we realize that our sins made his death necessary. But the wine shows
that to our sadness great joy should be added. Through His death Christ has
worked salvation for us, and that is joy indeed. We express this joy in songs
of praise to God (Acts 2:47).
Wine
belongs to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. What then to do for those
brothers and sisters who for some reason cannot drink wine? They should not
be forced to drink the wine. But since it is an individual problem, individual solutions
should be found. [20]
The
cup
We have
the custom to pour the wine from a pitcher into a cup during the celebration
of the Lord's Supper. We know, however, that at the first celebration the
wine was not poured out at that moment. The cup had been prepared beforehand,
and had been standing there for some time, before it was drunk.
But
even though the Lord's Supper was instituted at the passover meal, the Supper
may not be equated with this meal. We have to ask whether the words of the
institution emphasize the pouring out of the wine. The answer is: No. There
is a consistent emphasis on the breaking of the bread, but not even once is
the pouring of wine mentioned. The verb "to pour out" is only used in connection
with Christ's blood: "This is My blood of the covenant which is poured out
for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). The custom to pour out
the wine at the table is probably the result of a tendency to equalize the
elements.
Another
question is, whether the use of the cup is important. Protestant theology
has always drawn attention to the fact that the second word at the Lord's
Supper was not said about the wine, but about the cup. "This cup is the new
covenant in My blood" (1 Cor. 11 :25). This formulation has always been used
against the Roman Catholic theory of transubstantiation. It is impossible
that Jesus Christ means that the cup changes into his blood. But then the
first word cannot mean that the bread changes into the body of Christ.
But
after the Roman Catholic theory was rejected, not much was done with the cup.
There was also no special need to discuss the cup since everywhere one or
more communal cups were used. But now that the communal cup has been questioned
for hygienic reasons, we have to investigate whether a specific meaning is
connected with the cup.
About
the cup which Jesus made into the cup of the Lord's Supper, we read:
"And He took a cup..., gave it to them, and they all drank from it" (Mark
14:23). "From it" can only refer to "from the cup." The text can only mean
that they all drank from the same cup. The communal cup is indicated in a
different way in Matt. 26:27: "And He took a cup, ...gave it to them saying:
'Drink of it, all of you.'" The receivers of the cup together share in the
blessings of Christ's death.
The
words of institution show that the cup is a meaningful element of the Lord's
Supper. The joyful results of Christ's death are shared within the congregation.
In a time when individualism threatens the community of the church it is important
to maintain the communal cup as a sign that we together with so many different
people, who are not all our friends, need and receive the fruits of Christ's
salvation work.
Again,
after the meaning of the cup has been established, it is possible to make
accommodation for special situations. The church already in 1581 decided on
special rules for a celebration where lepers were present. Synod Leeuwarden
1920 did the same for other contagious diseases. [21]
Yet the general rule is that communal cups reflect best the intention of the
Lord in the institution of the Lord's Supper. [22]
The table
Over
against the Roman Catholic understanding of the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice
to God, the Reformed have emphasized that it is a meal. Therefore they replaced
the altar by a table. The table was placed in full view of the people. But
there was no unity in the way they used the table.
Three
practices have existed within the churches of the Reformation. The first was
that bread and wine were brought by the ministers and elders to the people
who remained sitting in the pew. The second was that the people walked up
to the table, and received there the elements and ate and drank standing.
The third was that the people went forward and sat at the table, and there
partook of bread and wine. [23]
All
three can be traced back to the 16th century. But none is original. At the
passover where the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, Jesus and His
disciples reclined at the table (Luke 22:14). In the apostolic church the
Lord's Supper was celebrated in connection with a communal meal, as far as
we know. This shows that even in the first century they did not just copy
the first
celebration. Since the Lord's Supper is a meal, it is probable that it was
celebrated at a table, but this is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians. Nowhere
in the institution is special attention given to the fact that the Lord's
Supper was celebrated at a table. The table is indirectly important, to emphasize
the meal character of this sacrament. Therefore we can use the table in such
a way that it contributes most to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, given
the local opportunities. [24]
But
on one occasion the word "table" in connection with the Lord's Supper receives
special attention. In 1 Cor. 10:21 is said: "You can not partake of the table
of the Lord and the table of demons." This text must be explained in the context.
Paul is discussing the question whether Christians can participate in a sacrificial
meal for heathen gods.
Paul
has already stated that idols do not exist (1 Cor. 8:4). But this statement
cannot be used as an argument to participate in heathen sacrificial meals.
Even though the idols do not exist, the demons do. They are the ones who in
fact have prepared these sacrifice meals (1 Cor. 10:19, 20). By partaking
of such meals the believers would in fact become partakers of the table of
demons. The church at Corinth should know that such a behaviour is very dangerous.
It would provoke the Lord to jealousy (vv. 22) and they know what happened
when the Lord is provoked (vv. 7-10).
This
command not to partake in a sacrifice meal was a hard one for the Corinthians.
It meant that they could no longer be a member of social societies These societies
were very important for the social contacts. They offered assistance to their
members when they would become poor, they took care of them when they would
fall ill, and they organized the funerals of the members. But the most important
aspect was the social contact the members could enjoy with other people. Just
as today it was important then to know the right people.
These
societies, however, adopted a god as protector and held their gatherings and
meals under the auspices of that god. Therefore Christians were not allowed
to participate in these social activities. This meant a serious restriction
on their social contacts. Because these societies were so pervasive, Christians
could not participate in political and social life. They could not become
civil servants, for then they would have to sacrifice to the emperor. This
in turn led
for some to their death, when under Nero the Christians were forced to eat
food sacrificed to the emperor.
The
Lord's Supper is the table of the Lord, and shows the communion with God and
with Jesus Christ. This communion requires that one stay away from participation
in any festivity of the social societies. The Lord's Supper requires staying
away from everything that is tainted with other religions.
Gifts from the table
Yet
another meaning of the Lord's Supper can be seen when we consider that it
was first celebrated as a part of a communal meal, as is indicated in 1 Cor.
11. The members of the congregation brought food, each according to his means.
These meals served not only the communication between the saints, but also
the communion of the saints. The poorer members of the congregation received
food at these occasions. Such meals were called "love (meals)." [25]
This
combination of a celebration before the Lord and support for the needy already
had a long history behind it in the first century. When Israel appeared before
the Lord at the harvest feasts, they had to come, not only with their families
and dependents, but also with those who had no fields and therefore no harvest.
They were the Levite who was living within the town, the sojourner, the fatherless
and the widows (Deut. 16:11,
14).
All these people shared in the fruits of the harvest. They probably also received
what was left of the tithe after the celebration (Deut.
14:22-27).
And once every three years they received the whole tithe (Deut.
14:28, 29).
This
custom is present in 1 Cor. 11. When Paul discusses it, he has no problem
with the fact that the Lord's Supper was combined with a meal for the whole
congregation. But he does have a problem with the way it went in Corinth.
For the rich; who had brought much, began to eat on their own. And so they
got drunk, and the poor remained hungry (1 Cor.
11:21).
The
fact that poor sinners receive the riches of Christ at the Lord's Supper should
lead to financial care for the poor in the congregation. The Lord's Supper
does not only direct our love towards Jesus Christ, but also toward those
who with us participate in the gifts of Jesus Christ. This is the meaning
of the offering plate at the table. This is certainly not meant as a kind
of admission fee to the Lord's Supper. The meaning is that God's people, in
gratitude for
the grace for poor sinners shown at the table of the Lord, now express this
gratitude by caring for the poor. The collection at the table should be for
the work of the deacons.
Eschatological perspective
The
Lord's Supper has one more important meaning, indicated right at the moment
of its institution. Probably before the Lord's Supper was celebrated by the
disciples, Jesus Christ said: "I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in
the Kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16). [26]
The Lord's Supper looks forward to the time when the Kingdom of God has come
on the earth. Then Jesus Christ is again in their midst. He will participate
in the great celebration of which the Lord's Supper is only a foretaste. That
will be the fulfillment of the joy of the Lord's Supper.
When
we celebrate the Lord's Supper today, we should feel that our joy is not complete:
Jesus Christ is not yet there to celebrate it with us. The Lord's Supper
should make us long for the time when He will join us.
Conclusion
We can
conclude that the Lord's Supper is full of meaning. The sacrament is celebrated
regularly in the congregations. This is according to Christ's ordinance. But
the repetition and our inattentiveness can easily lead to a shallow and individualistic
celebration of it. A clearer understanding of the richness of this institution
can contribute to a richer experience of our Christian faith.
Footnotes
[1]
See the Dutch Book of Martyrs, Waerachtige Historie der vromer
Martelaren
en
getrouwe Bloedtgetuygen Jesu Christi,
fol. 424. The edition I used has no title page. Since the last story dates
from 1655, it is probably the edition of I.G. Oudorpius (Amsterdam: Schippers,
1671).
[2]
C.
Trimp has summarized the same opposition as one between altar and table, see
his Het altaar
gebroken - de
tafel hersteld:
De reformatie van de avondmaalsliturgie in de gereformeerde kerken van de
zestiende eeuw (Apeldoorn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting, 1979).
[3]
See for the
form: B. Wielenga, Ons avondmaalsformulier (Kampen-. Kok, 19131, esp.
pp. 19ff.; 283ff. Trimp says about this combination of a Calvinist and a Lutheran
form, that it is an attempt to show that the Calvinist and the Lutheran view
on the Lord's Supper are not mutually exclusive, Het altaar gebroken de
tafel hersteld, p. 27.
[4]
See the
Acts of Synod Smithville, 1980, Art. 136, pp. 102ff., and pp. 158ff. The Reformed
Churches in the Netherlands have made the same change in the Form for the
Celebration of the Lord's Supper.
[5]
H. Ridderbos, The Coming
of
the
Kingdom
(tr. H. de Jongste; ed. R.O. Zorn; Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1962), ch. 9: The Coming of the Kingdom and the Lord's Supper. The numbers
in the text refer to the pages of this edition. Ridderbos also discussed the
Lord's Supper in his book Paul: An Outline of his Theology (tr.
J.
R. De
Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) pp. 414ff.; but for the meaning Ridderbos
refers back to his The
Coming of
the
Kingdom.
[6]
In his The
Coming of
the
Kingdom
Ridderbos does speak extensively about the eschatological perspective. Eschatology
is very important for Ridderbos, but he does not see it as a meaning of the
Supper. In his book Paul Ridderbos does pay attention to the unity expressed
in the Lord's Supper (pp. 423 ff.). By his method Ridderbos seems to imply
that the idea of unity is not present in the Synoptic Gospels, but only in
the epistles of Paul.
[7]
M.J.
Erickson, Christian Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), pp.
1107ff.
[8]
The examples of potato chips and cola are probably not so far out as we might
suppose. In the December 6, 1991 issue of Calvinist Contact an article appeared
about a celebration of the Lord's Supper at which Wonder bread and Koolaid
were used for the elements (see p. 20). But it is possible that the opportunities
were limited since this Supper was celebrated within a penitentiary.
[9]
H.
Bavinck, Gereformeerde
Dogmatiek,
Vol. IV (4th ed. Kampen: Kok, 1930) p. 548.
[10]
W.L. Lane, The Gospel according to
Mark,
p. 506. Lane refers to the article on sooma by J. Behm in
TDNT vol.
3, p. 736. J. Jeremias says about the origin: "Most authors join G. Dalman,
who, in 1922, proposed guph as the equivalent of sooma," The
Eucharist
Words of
Jesus,
p. 198.
[11] J.P. Versteeg, "Het avondmaal volgens het Nieuwe Testament" in W. Van 't Spijker,
among others ed.,
Bij brood en
beker (Goudriaan: De Groot, 1980) pp. 42ff.
[12]
See J. Jeremias, The
Eucharistic Words of
Jesus,
p. 200; "But then we must again reject guph as an equivalent of "body," because
its complement is nowhere "blood."
[13]
The dictionary for New Testament Greek gives the following meanings of the
word: 1. body of man or animal - a. dead body; b. living body; 2. plural:
slaves; 3. bodies of plants and heavenly bodies, 1 Cor. 15:4. overagainst
skia: the thing itself, Col. 2:17; 5. the Christian community; see W. Bauer,
W.A. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament (Chicago
and London: University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed. 1979) pp. 799ff.
[14]
See W. Bauer, among others, A
Greek-English
Lexicon,
p.
22, s.v. aima, 2.a.;
see
also the article of J. Behm, in TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 173ff. In the Septuagint
the expression "to pour out blood" is also used, in connection with the sacrifice,
for the blood which is poured out at the foot of the altar (Ex. 29:12, Lev.
4:7 etc.) but this meaning does not fit in the Lord's Supper. If this was
the intended meaning, the words "at the foot of
the altar" should have to be mentioned.
[15]
See e.g.
W. à Brakel, Redelijke godsdienst (repr. by J.H. Donner; Leiden:
Donner,
1882) vol. 1, p. 997.
[16]
H. Ridderbos, The
Coming of
the
Kingdom,
p. 429.
[17]
Didache, IX.4.
Hymn
46:2
has taken up this very old expression:
As
grain, once scattered on the hillsides, Was in the broken bread made one, So
from all lands Thy Church be gathered Into Thy kingdom by Thy Son.
[18]
Institutes
IV, 17, 38.
[19]
The expression used in the revised Form, is simplified, but essentially the
same.
[20]
This is a traditional reformed position, in place as early as 1565, see
W.F. Dankbaar, Communiegebruiken in de eeuw der Reformatie (2. ed.; Groningen:
Instituut voor liturgiewetenschap, 1987) 83; see also J. Van Bruggen, `Drinkt
daaruit allen, maar hoe?' (De Reformatie 66 (1991), 22-24).
[21]
See for these decisions F.L. Bos,
De orde der kerk ('s
Gravenhage: Uitgeverij Guido de Bres, 1950) pp. 230ff.
[22]
At this point I would like to add a remark of K. Schilder which deals indirectly
with this situation. In one of his Press Reviews Schilder passes on a report
that some people had left the local church they belonged to and established
another because in their former church individual cups had been introduced.
Schilder does not think that the church that had introduced individual cups
had through that fact become a false church, and that this is a good reason
to establish another church, see De
Kerk
(ed . J. Kamphuis;
Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1960) vol. 1; pp. 369 ff.
[23]
See the illustrations in W. van 't Spijker,
Bij brood
en
beker,
resp. pp. 174; 139; 222.
[24] I prefer the sitting at the table, where the idea of a meal and of eating
and drinking occurs in its natural environment. But this should be balanced
by the opportunities in large congregations. Repetition of the formula and
having many "tables" does not contribute to an attentive participation.
[25] The name occurs in the epistle of Jude, v. 12. See the article "Love Feast,"
written by D.H. Wheaton, in W.A. Elwell,
Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), pp. 660ff.
[26] Mark records as word after the drinking of the cup: "I shall not drink again
of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom
of God," Mark 14:25. So Jesus Christ said this more than once during the hours
of celebrating the Passover. The expectation of Christ is also mentioned
in
Matt.
26:29 and 1 Cor. 11 :26.
<to
Top of Page>
| 
