Page images
PDF
EPUB

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

presented in this ordinance; and this, like the remaining portion of the unleavened bread, was applied by Christ to a higher purpose for this cup was not, by the law of Moses, made essential to the observance of the passover; and it is therefore noted by St. Luke, that he took " the cup after supper."

Drink ye all of it.—Since the cup was administered to ALL as well as the bread, the withholding of the cup from the laity by the priests of the papal church, is a manifest corruption of this sacred rite, and destructive of the very nature of the ordinance itself. And if the cup ought to be withheld from the laity on the weak pretence, that Christ made the apostles priests at this ordinance, and that it was to be confined to them, for the same reason the bread ought to be eaten by the priests only, and so this sacrament be confined to priests only, and the laity be excluded from all participation of either kind. The Romanists do not, however, err in mixing the sacramental wine with water, which was the custom at the passover. This was practised by the early Christians. The Jews used only red wine at their passover; which is to be preferred also for the Christian ordi

nance.

Verse 28. For this is my blood of the new testament.-As the bread was the emblem of the body of Christ given to death for us, so the wine was the emblem of the blood of Christ shed for us. He was not to die a natural death, which might have been without shedding of blood, but a violent death; which marks its sacrificial character, for, like the ancient sacrifices, he was to be PUT TO DEATH, and his blood, like theirs, poured out before the Lord as an oblation. His blood is therefore called the blood of the new testament, της καινης διαθήκης, of the NEW COVENANT, for so ought the word to be rendered; (see preface ;) in which allusion is made, not to those heathen rites which some commentators have adduced

to illustrate the passage; but to that solemn transaction in which Moses, having taken "the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people," took also "the blood, and sprinkled it upon the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you." Exod. xxiv. 7, 8. This "book" contained the covenant made between God, and the church and nation of the Israelites. It was the record of the promises made on the part of God, and the engagements of obedience to his revealed will on the part of the people of Israel; thus it was a covenant or solemn engagement between both; and as covenants were anciently ratified by sacrifices, so here the blood of the victims was sprinkled upon the book, to denote at once that its covenanted blessings were procured by that blood of the true sacrifice of which the ancient sacrifices were the type, and as confirming the continued performance of the whole to the people upon their continued observance of the conditions. We see then the import of our Lord's words in this allusion. He calls the dispensation of his religion the NEW Covenant, in opposition to this old covenant, which was in its nature introductory and temporary; and in reference also to the prediction in Jeremiah xxxi. 31: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." This dispensation has the nature of a covenant, because it contains the "great and precious" promises on the part of God, the forgiveness of sins, the renewal of the heart in holiness, and the all-comprehensive engagement,

[ocr errors]

'And I will be their God, and they shall be my people," an engagement which includes not only all blessings which " pertain to life and godliness," but, as we learn from our Lord's discourse with the Sadducees, the resurrection of the body and the felicity of an endless future life. See note on chap. xxii. 32. All this is

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this

66

promised by God; and on the part of man are required repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," by the merit of whose death alone we can claim these blessings, and in sole respect to which, as a satisfaction to divine justice, God places himself in the bond of this covenant to bestow them. This covenant, the blood of Christ, that is, the pouring forth of his blood as a sacrificial victim, at once procured and ratified; so that it stands firm to all truly penitent and contrite spirits who believe in him: and of this great truth, the Lord's supper was the instituted sign and seal; and he who in faith drinks of the cup, having reference to its signification, that blood of Christ which confirms to true believers the whole covenant of grace, is assured thereby of its faithfulness and permanence, and derives to himself the fulness of its blessings. To this there is no exception; for the new covenant, unlike the old, is universal; and hence our Lord adds to the words, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed, εκχυνόμενον, poured out, περι πολλων, for MANY," that is, for all mankind, according to the undoubted use of the word by St. Paul in Rom. v. 15, &c.,-for, eis, in order to, the remission of sins, and of necessity all the penal consequences of human transgression, in a future life.

[ocr errors]

Such then is the nature and import of this great institution. It is COMMEMORATIVE: This do," is added by St. Luke, and by St. Paul, "in remembrance of me;" and as a commemorative institution, observed from the time of its appointment by all Christians, it is an irrefragable demonstration of the grand historical fact of our Lord's death and passion. It is EMBLEMATICAL, setting forth the sacrificial nature of the death of Christ; the benefits which accrue from it; and the means by which those benefits are received. It is FEDERAL. first institution the perfected covenant of grace with true believers was proposed, accepted, and ratified; and in every succeeding celebration, as there is a renewed

In its

[ocr errors]

assurance of God's love to us in Christ, so there is a renewed acceptance of the covenant on the part of all spiritual recipients, with its blessings on the one hand, and its obligations to love and obedience on the other. And, finally, it is a public CONFESSION of our faith in Christ, in all those views and relations in which he is represented to us in his own doctrine; and of our COMMUNION with him, and with his universal CHURCH. As to the names by which it is distinguished, they have all their significance. Though not properly a supper, because separate and distinct from the paschal supper, which was a sacred meal or feast, and because it was instituted after the 'supper was ended," it is called THE Lord's Supper, because it was manifestly appointed by our Lord to supersede the supper of the passover, and enjoined as a commemoration of a greater redemption than that of the Israelites from Egypt, upon Christians to the end of time: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come," 1 Cor. xi. 26. It is called the EUCHARIST, from euxapio"to give thanks,” because of the joyful thanksgivings to God with which its celebration by the followers of Christ has always been accompanied. By the Greek fathers it is often called a MYSTERY, from its emblematical character, and the truths which lay hidden under its visible elements. In the western church, it is more usually described as THE SACRAMENT of the Lord's supper, from sacramentum, which signified a sacred ceremony; and particularly, the Roman military oath, which was considered as a very solemn, religious act, this term being adopted to indicate that pledging of ourselves to fidelity to Christ which enters into the due celebration of this ordinance. Occasionally it is called THE COMMUNION, from that fellowship of the saints with each other, which this participation of mystic food, at the same common table of the Lord, so beautifully exhibits. Verse 29. I will not drink henceforth of

τειν,

[ocr errors]

fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

this fruit of the vine, &c.-The opinions of both ancient and modern commentators, on this passage, are very various. Some take the words to mean, that he would not henceforth eat or drink with the disciples until after his resurrection; others, that he intended to announce the substitution of the eucharist, in which he would participate with them in a spiritual manner, for the Jewish passover; others, that he intended to intimate his speedy departure, which would prevent him from partaking in any future solemnity, until he and his disciples should celebrate the heavenly feast together; figures from earthly entertainments being used to express the joys of heaven. In determining the sense, it is, however, necessary to ascertain the time when these words were spoken. St. Luke gives these as words of Christ, spoken during the paschal supper, after he had taken one of the cups of wine, probably the first or second cup which was used during that ceremony, and PREVIOUSLY therefore to his instituting the eucharist; and there are two reasons which make it probable that St. Luke has, in this instance, more closely followed the order of time than St. Matthew. The first is, that the wine of which our Lord had been partaking, must have been that of the paschal supper, and not of the eucharist, because of the latter he could not be a participant. This was to be done in REMEMBRANCE of him, and therefore done by others, not by himself; or, if considered as a FEDERAL rite, he was not a PARTY to the covenant, but the Mediator coming in between the parties, and could not perform every act which was proper either to the stipulating or to the assenting party. These considerations appear conclusive against our Lord either eating of the bread or drinking of the wine of the eucharist. The second reason in favour of St. Luke's order is, that that evangelist has stated this part of the conversation of our Lord with greater particularity than St. Mat

thew; and as his attention was more fully directed to it, it is the more probable that he has assigned it its proper place in the narrative. His words are: "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve 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 any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." These words appear to be the same as those recorded by St. Matthew, though with the addition, until that day when I shall drink it new with you, and with the variation of, "in my Father's kingdom," for "until the kingdom of God shall come;" the sense of which is the same, and not otherwise varied than as translations into Greek by two different persons from the language in which our Saviour spoke, which was the common language of the country. But if a similar observation was not made twice during the transactions of the evening, then the words in question are clearly, by St. Luke, referred to the celebration of the passover itself, and not to the eucharist. In this case, the meaning of our Lord's words is sufficiently obvious. The passover commemorates the redemption from Egypt; but that was a type of the Christian redemption, the completion of which is in the heavenly state. Our Lord therefore declared that he would no more eat of the passover, “until it was fulfilled," accomplished, "in the kingdom of God;" that is, the type should no more be celebrated; but he and his disciples would meet in a state of future felicity, and they with him would celebrate the full and perfected redemption of the church glorified. In like manner we are to understand his remark as to the wine he would not drink of the fruit of

j

30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

* Or, psalm.

the vine, until "the kingdom of God should come;" or, as it is expressed by St. Matthew, until he drank it new with them in the kingdom of his Father. This is a mode of expression not uncommon among the Jews, who spoke figuratively of "the wine of the world to come," as also of "sitting down at a feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," making use of the festivals of earth to represent the felicities of heaven. It is thus that our Lord makes use of earthly things to prefigure heavenly, and raised the thoughts of his disciples to the joy of meeting him in the world to come. In this view, the words of St. Matthew have also an easy interpretation: Until I drink it with you in my Father's kingdom; where NEW wine is to be taken in the same sense as heavens," " new earth," new man," &c., to denote wine of a different nature, spiritual refreshment, and spiritual joy, in which both the Saviour, who will then "see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied," and the disciples were to participate for ever.

[ocr errors]

new

This is one method of interpreting the text; but there is another, which, without supposing what is wholly incredible, that our Lord partook of the elements of bread and wine as instituted in his supper, will allow that both St. Luke and St. Matthew are equally exact as to the order of time in which the occurrences at the last supper are.stated. The words of St. Matthew agree in sense with those of St. Luke; but, as stated above, there is an addition to them, which makes it probable that St. Luke omits what St. Matthew has recorded, and St. Matthew what is related by St. Luke. In this case we must suppose that the remark of our Lord, as stated by St. Matthew, that he would not "drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom," was made not only during the paschal supper, as recorded by St. Luke, but also after he had delivered the eucharistic cup. Still, if

this be allowed, all the difficulty which the common notion involves, that our Lord partook of the eucharist with his disciples, may be easily avoided. For although we should allow that he ate of the bread and drank of the wine with which he instituted the peculiar and distinct ordinance of the Lord's supper, neither the bread nor the wine became the elements of that institution, until they had passed from him to the disciples with his own declaration of THE INTENT and significancy with which he delivered them to the disciples, and with which they were to receive them. As part of the paschal solemnities he ate the bread, and drank" the cup of blessing;" but before he distributed the bread, and " divided" the cup among his disciples, he gave them a NEW AND PECULIAR SIGNIFICANCY, under which not he himself, but his disciples only received them. Without, therefore, involving the notion that he either ate the bread or drank the wine sacramentally, he might repeat his former observation, that he would no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until he drank it new with them in a higher and figurative manner in the kingdom of his Father; that is, that after THAT EVENING he would no more be associated with them, either in commemorating the Jewish passover, or in administering his own; but that the fruit and effect of his great redemp. tion should be enjoyed mutually by them, when the purposes of his mediatorial office should be accomplished, and the glorious fruits of his undertaking should be enjoyed in the kingdom of "the Father," where "God shall be all in all." Of the two interpretations I have suggested, the latter is probably the most satisfactory.

This fruit of the vine.—Γεννημα του αμπελον is a periphrasis for wine, and is the mode of expression used in the form of giving thanks upon taking the passover cup; for then the master of the house said, "Blessed be he that created the fruit of the vine." Verse 30. Sang a hymn.-The paschal

31 Then saith Jesus unto them, ' All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, * I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

j Mark xiv. 27; John xvi. 32.

k Zech. xiii. 7.

psalms were from the hundred and thirteenth to the hundred and eighteenth inclusive, and were called the great Hallel; of which the Jews themselves remark, that they allude to the sorrows of the Messiah, and the resurrection from the dead. This Hallel, or song of praise, was not sung all at once, but in parts, the last of which was sung at the close of the passover.

Verse 31. Then saith Jesus unto them, &c.-The time was probably as they were proceeding to the mount of Olives. The term offended here, as in several other places, signifies, to be so discouraged and affrighted by the sufferings to which men would be exposed for Christ's sake, as to forsake him, as men do a rough and dangerous path. When they saw their Master arrested, they feared the consequences as to themselves, and for the time forsook him

For it is written, I will smite, &c.—Although this quotation is not introduced with the more lengthened formula, "that it might or may be fulfilled," the particle yap sufficiently shows that our Lord represented the scattering of his disciples, like a flock of timid sheep, to be the proper accomplishment of the prophecy to which he refers, and not, as so many understand it, as warranting the application of an apt proverbial expression. The passage referred to, and in fact quoted, is Zech. xiii. 7: Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." The section of prophecy in which this passage stands has a reference both to nearer and more distant, and manifestly evangelical, events; and, like all other prophecies of this class, it contains passages, the peculiar phrase of which shows that they can only be applied to our Lord

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

himself. In the former part of the text quoted by our Lord, he against whom the sword of God is summoned to awake, is called my shepherd; which indeed might apply to any ruler raised up by him to rule his people the Jews; but when this shepherd is called THE FELLOW" of the Lord of Hosts, no one can be intended but Him who was equal" with God, and yet, by becoming man, and a substitute for guilty men, voluntarily exposed himself to the sword of the rectoral justice of God, to make atonement for the sins of the world. With the smiting of the shepherd the prophet connects the scattering of the sheep; and the event both in time and manner signally answers to the prophecy: when our Lord was apprehended, all the disciples forsook him and fled." But why, it may be asked, should this apparently minor circumstance have been noticed, since no great blame appears to have been attached to them simply for this act, and had they remained with Christ they could have afforded him no assistance, nor indeed did he need any power save his own, had he chosen to exert it? The reason probably was, not only to record an instructive incident, but to direct attention to the whole of an illustrious prophecy, which not only predicts the sufferings of Messiah, and the desertion of his immediate followers, but inscribes in the strongest character the doctrine of his divinity,THE MAN, THE FELLOW OF JEHOVAH, and by consequence the vicarious nature of his sufferings; for to such a being suffering must have been voluntary, and endured for others; and though inflicted by men in the exercise of their free-agency, yet thereby accomplishing the counsel of God: the sword was the Lord's; the haad that wielded it, as far as the sufferings were external, the hand of man.

« PreviousContinue »