Basic HTML Version
629
feast in which the Lord provides for all in rich abundance. (2) Trapeza kuriou, the table of the
Lord, a name that is found in I Cor. 10:21. Corinthian Gentiles offered to idols and after their
sacrifices sat down to sacrificial meals; and it seems that some of the Corinthian church thought
it was permissible to join them, seeing that all flesh is alike. But Paul points out that sacrificing
to idols is sacrificing to devils, and that joining in such sacrificial meals is equivalent to
exercising communion with devils. This would be absolutely in conflict with sitting at the table
of the Lord, confessing allegiance to Him and exercising communion with Him. (3) Klasis tou
artou, the breaking of bread, a term that is used in Acts 2:42; cf. also Acts 20:7. While this is a
term which, in all probability, does not refer exclusively to the Lord’s Supper, but also to the
love-feasts, it certainly also includes the Lord’s Supper. The name may even find its explanation
in the breaking of the bread as this was ordained by Jesus. (4) Eucharistia, thanksgiving, and
eulogia, blessing, terms which are derived from I Cor. 10:16; 11:24. In Matt. 26:26,27 we read
that the Lord took the bread and blessed it, and took the cup and gave thanks. In all probability
the two words were used interchangeably and refer to a blessing and thanksgiving combined.
The cup of thanksgiving and blessing is the consecrated cup.
D. INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.
1. DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE INSTITUTION.
There are four different accounts of the
institution of the Lord’s Supper, one in each of the Synoptics, and one in I Cor. 11. John speaks
of the eating of the passover, but does not mention the institution of a new sacrament. These
accounts are independent of, and serve to complement, one another. Evidently, the Lord did
not finish the passover meal before He instituted the Lord’s Supper. The new sacrament was
linked up with the central element in the paschal meal. The bread that was eaten with the lamb
was consecrated to a new use. This is evident from the fact that the third cup, generally called
“the cup of blessing” was used for the second element in the new sacrament. Thus the
sacrament of the Old Testament passed into that of the New in a most natural way.
2. THE SUBSTITUTION OF BREAD FOR THE LAMB.
The paschal lamb had symbolical significance.
Like all the bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament, it taught the people that the shedding of
blood was necessary unto the remission of sins. In addition to that it had a typical meaning,
pointing forward to the great sacrifice which would be brought in the fulness of time to take
away the sin of the world. And, finally, it also had national significance as a memorial of Israel’s
deliverance. It was but natural that, when the real Lamb of God made His appearance and was
on the point of being slain, the symbol and type should disappear. The all-sufficient sacrifice of
Jesus Christ rendered all further shedding of blood unnecessary; and therefore it was entirely
fitting that the bloody element should make way for an unbloody one which, like it, had
nourishing properties. Moreover, through the death of Christ the middle wall of partition was