THE LORD’S SUPPER
2004-2005
LESSON FOUR
Arguments from the comparison, consensus, and mutual exposition of the four Scripture passages in which the institution of the Lord’s Supper is described and repeated: Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Cor. 11.
A. In Chapter 7, we said:
1. Scripture is not of private interpretation.
2. 2Pe 1:20.
3. Particularly we looking to clear foundation of dogmas.
B. What care and by what rule Scripture shows its own interpretation.
1. When it wishes for an understanding different than words in their natural sense.
2. e.g. use of Elijah/John by Sacramentarians.
a. Not Elijah the Tishbite.
b. But look at Mt. 11:14.
c. We look to Scripture for answer, not our reason.
d. See also Jn 1:21 and Lk 1:17.
3. e.g. “leaven” of Mt 16:6 and Mt 16:11.
4. Canonical writers
a. Repeat same concepts and same dogmas.
b. So that if unclear in one place, explained more fully in another.
c. So with Lord’s Supper
(1) If repetitions clearly show words not to be taken in proper sense and clearly show another definite interpretation proper, so be it.
(2) Otherwise, would be wrong to depart from proper meaning
d. Lord’s Supper
(1) Four different writers.
(2) Exact dating not possible.
(3) Order appears certain.
(a) Matthew
(b) Mark
(c) Luke
(d) Paul
2. Mt 28:20.
B. Mt 26:26-28: words of institution.
1. Tables had not yet been cleared.
2. Used ordinary bread left over from meal.
3. There is no figure of speech in word “to give thanks” Greek: eucharistein
a. form of the Eucharist was accommodated to events of that moment.
b. is manifest that the taking of bread.
(1) was external act.
(2) performed by hands.
(3) reason given was to “eat”.
(4) therefore, certainly to be understood by taking it with the mouth.
C. “This”: the demonstrative particle.
1. Carlstadt (d. 1541) stirred up controversy, saying:
a. That distributed, received, and eaten is not the same thing.
b. Because gender not in agreement with “bread”.
c. “bread” Greek:arton – masculine gender.
d. “this” Greek:touto – neuter gender
e. “body” Greek:sōma - neuter gender
2. But, notion rejected because:
a. Common for demonstrative particle to agree in gender with the substantive that follows.
b. Impossible to demonstrate there is always a reference to preceding.
c. e.g. Ge 2:22,23 – “her”, “This is now”.
D. “Is” Greek:estin explains what it is which is distributed and received.
E. “My body” Greek:to sōma mou
1. Christ affirms that it is His body (mou: lit. “of me”)
2. Article “the” (to) shows He strongly confirms the proper meaning of the word which is clearly dealt with in Luke and Paul.
F. Left no option but proper and natural meaning.
1. Common bread.
2. Blessed with giving of thanks by the words of Christ (Mark and Paul).
3. It is externally exhibited, distributed, received and eaten (i.e. taken orally).
4. Christ affirms with clear declaration that it is His body.
5. He does not say “He who eats My bread”.
6. Therefore, bread and His body distributed at the same time.
7. But brevity could produce ambiguity, since church is also called the body of Christ (Eph 1:22,23) as is substance of the shadows (Col 2:17).
8. For this reason, Matthew writes that He also took the cup.
G. Here adversaries demand figure of speech re: “cup”.
1. They say the container is used in place of the content.
2. They say must therefore allow admission of figures of speech.
3. But Christ did not use an empty cup, “Drink of it”.
4. He show the kind of content it had, real wine.
5. Thus “cup” retains proper and natural meaning.
6. He did not use His bare hands.
1. He “gave thanks”, but not in way:
a. Re: 5 loaves (Mt 14:19).
b. Re: common cup earlier (Lk 22:17).
c. Re: Holy type or Libation cup (Mt 26:39).
2. But in another way that through this Eucharist, wine by His word, receives designation of blood of Christ.
3. Only in Matthew is “For” (gar) added
a. Important! (cf NIV’s omission).
b. i.e. “Drink, because this is My blood”.
I. Therefore, second portion also consists of two things.
1. Wine.
2. His blood.
J. Adversaries.
1. Fabricate notion that it is not necessary that all four elements be present and received orally.
2. They say that to faith the presence is no less real.
3. But, He said re: that eaten and drunk is His body and blood.
4. And, Matthew adds “of the New Testament”.
5. And, He adds “(lit) that which for many is being shed for forgiveness of sins”.
6. c.f. Ac 20:28.
7. c.f. O.T. covenant: Ex 24:8.
8. Christ is both the Mediator (by sacrifice) and Guarantor (by Lord’s Supper) of New Covenant.
K. Nothing indicates meaning contrary to plain words.
A. Mk 14:22-26.
B. Written some years after Matthew.
1. Mark not an apostle.
2. Shows what was handed down (probably by Peter?)
C. Mark uses “after He had blessed” Greek:“eulogesas”, not “thanks” as Matthew did. (per Chemnitz: T.R. and Nestle do not reflect this: Nestle shows Mt 26:26 “eulogēsas” and 26:27 “eucharistēsas”; Lk 14:22: “eulogēsas” – 14:23 “eucharistēsas”)
1. Paul uses “cup of blessing” in 1Co 10:16.
2. i.e. not the “thanksgiving” generally used re: ordinary food (as in 1Ti 4:3 or Lk 22:17 as to Passover).
3. Points to special power of the divine Word.
4. e.g. used by Mt., Mk., and Lk. re: five loaves to feed five thousand people. [Gk: kai epion ex autou pantes (“drank of it everyone”)]
D. Mk says “They all drank of it” where Mt says “All of you drink of it”.
1. Shows that apostles obeyed.
2. Also shows Christ’s intent.
3. Contrary to those who would say “drink” means only to embrace by faith.
1. Oecolampadius (d.1531) excepts to syllable by syllable repetition.
2. But, purpose of repetition is to strengthen and confirm.
a. A guarantee confirmed in writing: Greek:asphales.
b. c.f. Php 3:1.
F. Repetition here confirms Matthew.
Copyright © 2005 CrossTies Counseling
Ministries, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
