2. New Testament and Early Catholic Ideas
The Lord, when he founded the Supper, neither performed nor instituted a sacrificial act. All that he
did with the bread and the wine was directed to the
disciples; in the later
terminology it indicated a sacrament, not a sacrifice. But it had
1. The New reference to his death as a sacrifice, and
Testament. was intended to impress upon the disciples that he in his death was the
sacrifice of the new covenant,wherein the new covenant was made
perfect. It was in connection with
the cup that the thought of sacrifice first entered,
this act having a somewhat different significance
from that with the bread (cf. C. von Weimacker,
Apostolisches Zeitalter, pp. 576-577, Freiburg, 1890).
Paul, the oldest witness (cf.
Luke xxii. 19-20;
Matt. xxvi. 26,
sqq. and
Mark xiv. 22
sqq., represent a later tradition), applies the bread or the
"body" to the congregation, the church, the members of which represent their communion (kaindnia)
with one another and with their Head when they
break it together, and prove
themselves the "body
of Christ " (cf. the course of thought in
I Cor. xi. 20
sqq.; also xii. 13, 27;
Col. i. 18, ii. 19;
Eph. i. 23).
The thought of Jesus may have been that
even in the future, when his followers broke the
bread in his memory, he would be with them, would
himself "nourish" them as
if he were present "in
the body." His own have his "body," that is,
himself, always with them like bread for their nourishment. His act corresponded in ritual form to
the promise of
Matt. xviii. 20.
The counterpart
to the "body" in the second transaction is not
the " blood," but the " new covenant." The Lord
did not offer his " flesh," but his " body "-it was
a change of far-reaching consequences when the
Church began to talk of the " flesh "instead of the
" body "-and he did not offer his " blood " but the
"new covenant." Paul speaks nowhere of drinking
the " blood," but always of the " cup." So far as
he sets the acts with the bread and the cup
parallel,
he seems to bring the latter into relation with the
"one spirit" of the congregation
(I Cor. xii. 13,
which really proves only that Paul did not have a
"dogma" about the Supper). If the thought of
Jesus were as just stated, this in connection with the
"cup of the covenant," which was made by the
"blood," by a sacrifice, could lead to the notion that
the Supper of the Lord had some, though a limited,
resemblance to a sacrificial meal. Paul drew a
parallel between the "table of the Lord" and
the
sacrificial meals of both Jews and Gentiles
(I Cor. x. 18
sqq.); but this must not be pressed. Paul has
in mind here only the close relationship of the
participants to one another- in case of the Jews, the
relationship with their gods in case of the heathen.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 10 sqq.) the
combination between the celebration of the Supper
and the sacrificial meal is developed further. The
conception that "we [the Christians] have an altar,"
from which others may not eat, is not expressed by
Paul, though he may have suggested it. Just how
far the idea of the writer went is not made plain.
His thought may have been that the congregation
of
Jesus "ate" directly from the cross as its altar,
that it continually renewed a "sacrificial meal" in
addition to the "offering once for all." But he may
have meant that in the Lord's Supper the congregation renewed the "sacrifice" in cultio-commemorative manner, that the eucharistic ceremony
was a repetition of what had taken place on Calvary.
In any case the Epistle to the Hebrews shows how
easily the conception of the Lord's Supper passed
over into that of a sacrificial meal, even of a sacrificial act. That it eventually became only a sort of
dramatic memorial of the sacrificial death of Jesus
is easily comprehended.
