Basic HTML Version
630
broken down, and the blessings of salvation were extended to all the world. And in view of this
it was quite natural that the passover, a symbol with a national flavor, should be replaced by
one that carried with it no implications of nationalism.
3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT ACTIONS AND TERMS.
a. Symbolic actions.
All the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper make mention of
the breaking of the bread, and Jesus clearly indicates that this was intended to symbolize the
breaking of His body for the redemption of sinners. Because Jesus broke the bread in the
presence of His disciples, Protestant theology generally insists on it that this action should
always take place in the sight of the people. This important transaction was intended to be a
sign, and a sign must be visible. After distributing the bread, Jesus took the cup, blessed it, and
gave it to His disciples. It does not appear that He poured the wine in their presence, and
therefore this is not regarded as essential to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Dr. Wielinga
infers, however, from the fact that the bread must be broken, that the wine must also be
poured, in the sight of the communicants.[Ons Avondmaals Formulier, pp. 243 f.] Jesus
naturally used unleavened bread, since it was the only kind at hand, and the ordinary wine
which was largely used as a beverage in Palestine. But neither the one nor the other is stressed,
and therefore it does not follow that it would not be permissible to use leavened bread and
some other kind of wine. The disciples undoubtedly received the elements in a reclining
position, but this does not mean that believers may not partake of them in a sitting, kneeling,
or standing, position.
b. Words of command.
Jesus accompanied His action with words of command. When He gave
the bread to His disciples, He said, “Take, eat.” And in issuing this command He undoubtedly
had in mind, not merely a physical eating, but a spiritual appropriation of the body of Christ by
faith. It is a command which, though it came first of all to the apostles, was intended for the
Church of all ages. According to Luke 22:19 (comp. I Cor. 11:24) the Lord added the words: “This
do in remembrance of me.” Some infer from these words that the Supper instituted by Jesus
was nothing more than a memorial meal. It is quite evident, however, especially from John
6:32,33, 50,51; I Cor. 11:26-30, that it was intended to be far more than that; and in so far as it
had memorial significance, it was intended as a memorial of the sacrificial work of Christ rather
than of His person. There was another word of command in connection with the cup. After
distributing the bread the Lord also took the cup, gave thanks, and said, “Drink ye all of it,” or
(according to Luke), “Take this and divide it among yourselves.” It is quite clear that the cup
here stands for what it contains, for the cup could not be divided. From these words it is
perfectly evident that the Lord intended the Sacrament to be used in both kinds (sub utraque
specie), and that Rome is wrong in withholding the cup from the laity. The use of both elements