Luke 22:19-20

‘And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me.” And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”

And then Jesus came to the second part of what He wanted to convey to His disciples from the Passover feast. For in one sense in taking the Passover bread and breaking it before passing it to them He was treating it like a regular meal (usually the blessing came after the passing out of the Passover bread). He was indicating that what He was doing had a special purpose connected with Himself, that the blessing would flow out from Himself. It was a reminder of the feeding of the multitude (Luke 9:16), and a guarantee that He would feed them in the days to come (Luke 24:30; John 6:53). He wanted them to see in this bread His body given for them on which they could feed as they continually came to Him and believed on Him. He wanted them to see Him as the One Who could feed their souls and give them continuingly abundant life (John 10:10).

He no doubt had in mind His words in John 6:35, ‘I am the bread of life (which had come down from Heaven and gives life to the world - Luke 22:33), he who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst'. And His later words, ‘I am the living bread who came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live for ever. And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh' (John 6:51). Thus in speaking of the giving of His body He was conveying the fact that through His death He was offering them life, eternal life (John 4:10) and that they would enjoy that life  as they kept on coming to Him and kept on believing in Him. This was no offer of a semi-magical, mystical method of conveying something inaptly called ‘grace', but an offer of a living and continual personal relationship with Himself, an abiding in the vine (John 15:1).

We must remember that eating flesh and drinking blood was a vivid Old Testament way of describing the killing of people. In the Old Testament, when the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread' (Psalms 14:4; Psalms 53:4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people' (Micah 3:3), both were indicating the actions of those who were doing great harm to them, including slaughtering them. To eat flesh is therefore to partake in the benefits resulting from the suffering of another.

By eating the bread they would certainly not be indicating that they themselves would kill Him, at least not directly (although their sins would kill Him), but by their act they were equally certainly indicating their need to partake of His suffering, to receive benefit through His suffering, and that it was their sins which were responsible for His death. They were partaking in His death. Others would kill Him, what they would do was benefit through His death and become a part of it (see John 6:54). Thus this was not meant in any quasi-magical sense. It was to be a spiritual act. The bread could not be His body, even by a miracle, for He was Himself at that time there in His body (so those who try to make it more have to call it a ‘mystery', which in this case means something that not only defies common sense and logic, which might be possible, but is totally self-contradictory, which is not possible. Even the greatest of miracles could not make a piece of bread eaten at a table the same as a human body present there alive at the same table!). In sensible interpretation it had to mean ‘this represents my body' (compare the use of ‘is' in Luke 8:11; Galatians 4:24; Revelation 1:20) just as the bread at the Passover represented the bread of affliction.

When eating the Passover bread the Jews saw themselves as partaking in the sufferings of their ancestors. In a sense they actually saw themselves as one with them in corporate unity. Thus they enjoyed a genuine spiritual experience of oneness with their deliverance (although the bread remained the same). In the same way when Christians eat of this bread they see themselves as partaking in the death of Christ, as having been with Him on the cross (Galatians 2:20). So by recognising and acknowledging their close participation with Him in His death by faith they recognise that through it they have received eternal life. But no further lamb is slain or is needed. No further offering is made, or needs to be made. Nothing needs to be done to the bread. He is the one sacrifice for sin for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). They rather recognise that His offering of Himself once for all (Hebrews 9:28) is something that they continually participate in, and that they participate by constantly coming to Him and believing in Him (John 6:35). Thus do they eat of His flesh and drink of His blood by benefiting through His death (John 6:53), just as in the Old Testament men ‘ate flesh' and ‘drank blood' when they benefited by their deaths, and just as the Jews became partakers in the blood of the prophets by consenting to their deaths (Matthew 23:30).

‘This do in remembrance of Me.' By these words He was also setting up a means of remembrance and continual participation in what He was to do for them. That was what the Passover had always been to the Jews. As they participated in it they felt that once again they were back in Egypt and God was coming down to deliver them. They recognised that once again they were His people, awaiting His powerful working. They felt as though they were being delivered again. When they ate the bread they said, ‘This is the bread of affliction that we ate in Egypt'. And they really felt that it was, for the ‘we' represented the whole body of Israel past and present. They felt as though they were there once again, at one with their forefathers, that they were a continuation of their forefathers. It was not just a memorial but a ‘remembrance' (difference ours, the Greek word could mean either) in which they were taken back in time and participated again with their ancestors of old in the mighty working of God. And it was all with the hope that one day it would happen again and introduce God's kingly rule.

In the same way when the disciples, and those who came to believe on Him through their words, took bread in this way and ate it, they were to feel that they were once again walking with Jesus and supping with Him. They were to feel as though they too were entering personally into His brokenness on the cross. They were being crucified with Him (Galatians 2:20). And they were then to sense that they were receiving new life from Him as the branch receives it from its oneness with the vine (John 15:1), and dying and rising again with Him (Romans 6:4; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:1). And if their hearts were rightly disposed towards Him, that is what would happen. And they were to see that they were renewing their covenant with Him, a covenant sealed by His blood, that guaranteed their position before the Father as His children (2 Corinthians 6:16). This last idea of the covenant is central to the Lord's Supper. It is to be more than a memorial, it is to be a personal remembrance, a full participation in Him through the Spirit, and a recommitment to His covenant through which full salvation has come. But there would be nothing mysterious about the bread. The bread would not change either physically or spiritually (any more than the Passover bread did). It would rather be the point of contact through which they came in touch with the crucified and living Christ, coming to Him and believing on Him continually, enjoying His presence among them (Matthew 18:20; Matthew 28:20) and thus enjoying life through His name.

We should note that Jesus said ‘do this' not ‘offer this'. It was an act of remembrance not an offering. The offering was of Jesus, made once and for all on the cross. The ‘doing' of this was a remembrance of that offering. The wine did not replace His sacrifice or even mime it. It was a memorial of the blood that had been shed.

It is difficult to overstress the significance of what this change to the Passover ritual meant. Consider the extraordinary fact. Here Jesus was taking over the Passover, as He had taken over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5), and was applying it to Himself. No ordinary prophet would ever have dared to do this. Humanly speaking it was outrageous, unless the One Who did it was God Himself (which is why Jesus made this crystal clear at this time - John 14:6). For it was to make out that what He was about to do was as great, if not greater, than what God, their Almighty Lord, had done at the Passover. It was to supplant the God-ordained Passover. It was replacing the Passover by the new deliverance being wrought by Him through the cross. In His death and resurrection it would be He Who would ‘pass over' His people, protecting them from the wrath to come, and making available for them the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46). It was declaring that in Him was fulfilled all that the Passover had meant to Israel, and more. Here was God's final and full act of deliverance for all who would shelter beneath His blood. It was the fulfilment of all that the Passover had meant, and to which the Passover had pointed.

‘And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.” ' And in the same way, when He took what was probably the third cup, (they were all cups of blessing, but this was especially thought of as the cup of blessing), to be taken after eating the Passover meal, He told them that it was the symbol of the new covenant in His blood, a covenant sealed through the death of the Victim, and by participation in the Victim. This took their minds back to the days at Mount Sinai when the covenant had been offered and the people of God had accepted it and had sealed it with the shedding of blood, the blood of His covenant, ‘the blood of the covenant that He has made with you' (Exodus 24:8). Then animals had been offered in substitution and representation, and the blood had been sprinkled on the people. Here then also was the sealing of a covenant in blood, but this time it was in His blood, of which they in symbol ‘drank' by receiving the wine as they responded spiritually to Him in dependence on His sacrifice. And the covenant was the new covenant by which God guaranteed to do a transforming work in their hearts and lives (Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrews 8:8), bringing them full forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46; Acts 26:18) and inheritance among those who were made holy in Him (Acts 26:18).

Thus when they drank wine in the future (or when they participated in the equivalent of the Passover in the future) they were to see in it a remembrance of His death. The redness of the wine would remind them of His blood shed for them. The drinking of the wine would remind them that they partook in the benefits of His death. Just as their fathers had partaken of the blood of the prophets by participating in killing them (Matthew 23:30), so they partook of the blood of Jesus because they were participating in His death and receiving forgiveness for their sins (Luke 24:47; 1 John 1:7), the very sins which had brought about His crucifixion and were therefore responsible for His death. For the cup of the new covenant in His blood was ‘poured out for them' (so the Greek), as He was, like the Servant of the Lord described of old (Isaiah 53:12), numbered with the transgressors (Luke 22:37). Thus by coming to Him and believing in Him through participation in the bread and the wine they would be continually enjoying forgiveness and eternal life in His name. They would be abiding in Him (John 6:53). They would be guaranteeing, as long as their inward hearts were in parallel with their outward action, their participation in the new covenant in His blood.

Once again He was taking a familiar Old Testament metaphor. In Zechariah 9:15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood (the blood of their enemies) like wine' signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies. And David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?'. Furthermore Isaiah brought both metaphors of eating and drinking together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine' (Isaiah 49:26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person's blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death.

So as we partake of the Lord's Supper we are indicating that, as David would have done if he had drunk the water brought to him by those who loved him, we are seeking to benefit by His sacrifice of Himself. We are partaking in His death. We are making His death our own, so that we might enjoy His life springing up within us.

EXCURSUS on the Problems of 22:19-20.

It is sad that at this sacred point in the narrative it is necessary to pause in the midst of having our thoughts fixed on Christ in this way in order to briefly consider some of the problems connected with these verses. (A book could be written on each). Those who are not concerned with the kind of things that we will consider here can pass on and ignore this Excursus. But the first problem that we have is as to whether a part of these verses is actually in the original text of Luke (our conclusion will be a definite ‘yes). The second is as to how Luke's words tie in with the other Gospels and with Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:23. And the third is as to whether the bread and the wine are but symbols, or whether they are more than symbols.

1). What part of these verses were not in the original text, if any?

To simplify the matter we can say that there is one important Greek manuscript, and only one, which excludes the latter part of these verses. It excludes the words, ‘which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.” ' All the other most important Greek manuscripts include the words. Only D does not. D is, however supported by Old Latin versions and other manuscripts of versions (e.g. a b d e ff2 i l). Still others rearrange the verse order (e.g. Syriac s c). And some would argue that it is so unlikely that it would be omitted if it was once there that this must indicate that it was not in the original version of Luke. But paradoxically the actual abundance of it in Old Latin manuscripts, and the lack of the omission elsewhere, rather emphasises a localised omission.

If there had been a number of witnesses on both sides, of a fairly even and general nature, the argument from omission would have seemed conclusive. But against it here is the argument as to how the same words, which are not specifically reproduced from elsewhere word for word, could possibly have found their way into all other Greek manuscripts in approximately the same form, especially considering their widespread nature, apart from D, if it was not there in the original. It is statistically impossible. It would seem logically from the evidence that the omission must only have occurred in a text going to the area where D was prominent, and that the words were present in all others, which would serve to confirm that the original text of Luke, sent everywhere else, included it. Otherwise surely some other Greek texts and versions must have arisen in other areas excluding it. This solidarity of evidence is especially impressive because such an early witness as Justin Martyr (c.150 AD) includes it, even though he may well have been connected with the area in which D arose (D, which has within its pages parallel Greek and Latin texts, is probably a Western text, although this is disputed by some). On balance this is firmly and finally conclusive for the inclusion of it. Those few secondary witnesses which then have it included in a different order may be seen as an attempt to restore the text without having the full information necessary for the restoration, or perhaps as an attempt to fit it to the tradition that they used for the observance of the feast.

Then we must add a further argument and that is the fact that the whole of what is said in these verses is required by the balance of Luke's account. The first mention of eating and drinking was of ‘not eating and drinking' by Jesus. In view of His then introducing the bread we would surely then expect some comment on the eating and drinking of the disciples. Thus the verses fit aptly in their place.

But why should D have excluded it? Various possible suggestions can be made. Clearly the first possibility is that it happened in a very early manuscript, (from which it was then copied in the area to which it went), through the carelessness and sleepiness of an official scribe. Even today great scholars can very occasionally make the most enormous howlers simply because their attention has slipped for a brief moment in the complexity of what they are dealing with and they never catch up on their error, and that in spite of the facilities that they enjoy that early copyists never dreamed of. It is true that it was a huge mistake to make, but it could have happened. Perhaps he got so caught up in the words that he actually forgot to write them down, and then thought that he had done so, and carelessly continued as though they were there. Copying was a long, laborious and tiring task, and checking almost equally laborious. It was not unusual for a dedicated scribe to end up absolutely exhausted, and in such a state anything could happen. Secondly it may have been copied from a manuscript of Luke's Gospel which had had the words deliberately excised in order to prevent the ‘sacred and most secret' words of the most sacred Christian ceremony being publicised to outsiders in the area to which it went. (Or possibly for this reason Luke's copy to Theophilus omitted it). Or it may have been omitted because it did not agree with the tradition that the copyist's church used in the observance of the Communion/Lord's Supper (the Didache omits the sacrificial reference when describing their tradition of the Lord's Supper) People can do funny things when they regard something as ‘sacred'. That would, of course, raise the questions to why it was not also done in Matthew and Mark. But the answer to that may be that it was because the alteration took place in the separate manuscript of Luke that the later copyist used, or because his church actually used the version in Matthew and Mark. Thirdly, not knowing much about the Passover feast, he may have been concerned at the mention of two cups, and having already entered in about one cup, decided to omit the second. But if that were the case we would not have expected him to end quite as abruptly as he did. Or his decision may have been the result of the fact that he was unhappy that Luke's version did not seem quite to conform with Matthew and Mark, and was therefore better left out. For the scribe would know that the church for whom he wrote the manuscript would be well aware of the words used in their own communion services and could include them themselves, and would have Matthew and Mark to work from. This might especially be the case if he knew of fierce disputes about which words were correct. Thus he may have decided to leave the solution to the question up to them. And in considering any of these arguments we should note how abruptly the shorter reading ends. It requires a concluding comment which does not appear in the shorter reading. Something certainly seems to be missing in the shorter version, especially to anyone who did observe Communion/the Lord's Supper. Perhaps this copyist wanted each church to fill in the gap with their own traditional version of the sacred words. Another possibility is that having already written about the wine and the bread his mind might have temporarily ‘switched off' so that when he picked up again he did so after the (second) giving of the wine. If this manuscript was then widely used in Old Latin areas (a copy of it was after all preserved, which suggests that it may have been an ‘official' text) it would explain the comparative ‘abundance' of Old Latin Texts which had the omission in them, as compared with those found elsewhere. So all in all there are many possible explanations and the facts would in our view seem to suggest very strongly that in this case the longer reading is correct, while the shorter one arose from an early copying error, mainly because of the impossibility of it otherwise being contained in all other Greek manuscripts.

2). Why are their different versions of the words in the Gospels and in Paul?

In answering this question we shall first consider the breaking of the bread passages, putting in capitals the words which are exactly the same. And in doing so we must remember that none of the writers record all Jesus' words. Each is translating, and each selects what is suitable to the point that he is getting over. It is not therefore in the main a choice between either/or but of both/and.

Matthew 26:26 'And as they were eating, Jesus TOOK BREAD, and blessed, and BROKE IT, and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY.'

Mark 14:22 'And as they were eating, he TOOK BREAD, and when he had blessed, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, and said, Take you, THIS IS MY BODY.'

Luke 22:19 'And he TOOK BREAD, and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.'

1 Corinthians 11:23 'For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed TOOK BREAD, and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and said, "THIS IS MY BODY, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." '

Common to all is that HE TOOK BREAD, BROKE IT AND SAID, 'THIS IS MY BODY', stressing the essential unity of the passages. Matthew adds to Jesus' words, 'Take you, eat', Mark adds 'Take you'. Luke and Paul omit this but it is clearly implied. Luke adds, 'Which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me,' and Paul adds, 'which is for you, Do this in remembrance of me'. Paul's 'which is for you' parallels Matthew's 'take, eat' and especially Mark's 'take you'. Luke's 'given for you' simply amplifies the idea. Thus the basic idea is the same in all, with small differences of presentation in order to bring out particular points. The additional words, 'Do this in remembrance of me' are, of course, really required in order to explain the perpetuation of the feast throughout the early church. Thus even if we had not been told about it we would have had to assume it. Indeed, while 'This is my body' would certainly be impressive standing alone, it does require extra words for it to make sense to the hearers. It is possibly the writers and ministers who like dramatic pauses, and not the original speaker, who wish it to stand in its starkness, knowing that the readers/recipients would know its deeper significance. Of course, what His exact words were in Aramaic can only be postulated, for we only have the Greek translations. But the Greek in each case gives the true essential meaning of what He was saying.

Slightly more complicated are the words about the cup.

Matthew 26:27 'And he took a CUP, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink you all of it, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many to remission of sins.'

Mark 14:23 'And he took a CUP, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many.'

Luke 22:20 And the CUP in like manner after supper, saying, THIS cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD, even that which is poured out for you.'

1 Corinthians 11:25 'In the same way also the CUP, after supper, saying, "THIS cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.'

In each Jesus takes a cup and says either, 'This is the covenant in my blood', or alternatively the more stark equivalent in Hebrew form, 'This is my blood of the covenant'. The former is interpretive of the latter. The ‘new' may have dropped out in Matthew and Mark because it was felt to be superfluous, or Luke and Paul, in interpreting, may have added that it was a 'new' covenant, because they wanted their Gentile readers to know that it was not just the old Jewish covenant renewed. But all would be aware that it was in fact a new covenant, partly in accordance with God's promise in Jeremiah 31:31, and partly because it was 'in His blood' and looked to the cross, and Jesus' very words and actions thus demanded it even if He did not say it. Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that He said, 'which is poured out for ---'. Mark simply adds, 'for many', Luke adds. 'for you' and Matthew adds 'for many to remission of sins'. Paul omits this but adds, 'Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me', which is actually required to be said by Jesus (or something like it) to establish the permanence of it as a symbol. As Mark's 'for many' probably has Isaiah 53:11; Isaiah 53:12 in mind it has the same significance as Matthew's longer phrase 'for many to remission of sins'. 'Luke's 'you' simply personalises it, recognising that the 'you' is by then being spoken to the whole church who are the 'many' for whom Christ died. Thus the essential meaning is again the same. And as with the bread the importance of doing it in remembrance must at some time have been said by Jesus for the Apostles to take up the feast and perpetuate it as they did. The slight overall differences emphasise the point each is seeking to bring out as they translate or paraphrase from the Aramaic, without altering the basic sense. Essentially all are saying the same.

3). Are the bread and wine symbols only, even though very important ones, or do they become more than that?

To some extent we have already dealt with this question, but we must now expand on it. The bread and wine were never intended to be ‘dispensed' by some authoritative figure as though divine favour could be dispensed. No human person was ever intended to take control over them. There is never any suggestion of that in Scripture. Each person who ate and drank the bread and wine was intended to look directly to God as they ate and drank it together with the fellow-members of their church. The whole point of the Passover meal was that it was a ‘family and friends' occasion. While the head of the household might call on God for blessing while distributing the bread, there was no thought of priestly ministry.

But as always eventually human beings had to take control of them. At first it was genuinely in order to protect them from being used casually (compare the need in 1 Corinthians 11:27). But it was not long before those who thought of themselves more highly than they ought to think began to use them as a means of control. They began to give the impression that by dispensing them or withholding them they could control men's salvation. And then they even began to entrap God within them and hang Him up in a casket for all to see, and to speak of the bread and wine as though it actually became the body and blood of Christ. So easily can such a sacred ceremony be turned into something which it was never intended to be. Fallen man has an innate tendency to bastardise pure religion, especially if by it he can control people. (The same thing happened originally in primitive religion in exactly the same way, where the basic idea of the All-father gradually became debased into polytheism and magic).

For, as we have pointed out above, the bread at the actual Last Supper could never have become His body in any real sense at all whether physical or spiritual. When he said, ‘this is my body', it could not possibly have been taken literally. (For the use of ‘is' in this way see Luke 8:11; Galatians 4:24; Revelation 1:20 where representation is clearly intended. In the Aramaic ‘is' would probably be lacking, as in Genesis 40:12 where again the idea is representative). For He was still using His body, and they were still looking at Him in it. His words at that stage could only possibly mean ‘this represents My body' for they could see his real body standing in front of them. To say that God somehow made it His body, when His body was actually there among them, is so clearly self-contradictory, that we could never suggest it of God. God is never self-contradictory. The early Christians would know that the wine could not have literally become His blood, for they knew that at the time when this was instituted His blood still flowed through His veins. Even if they had been literally turned into flesh and blood before them, it would still not have been  His  flesh and blood. And this is so even if we had had no other grounds for seeing otherwise. Those who insist, ‘but He said “This is my body” ' and want to take it literally do but make fools of themselves, and sadly of others. While He was in His body there could be no way at all, even by a miracle, for the bread to be His body. That is the one certainty.

But when we recognise that this phrase, ‘This  is  my body' replaces ‘this  is  the bread of affliction which our father's ate', the last phrase clearly symbolic even though in a powerful way (there was no way in which it could be the bread in question), the issue is settled. Both phrases refer to something that represents what is spoken about, not the thing itself. Thus we have a second reason why it should not be taken literally.

Are the bread and wine then ‘merely symbolic'? We must certainly remove the ‘merely'. They were symbolic in a deep and genuine way. They were a symbol to be entered into and experienced through the Holy Spirit. Thus when we eat and drink our spirits rise up to the One Whom they represent and have spiritual communion with Him. In our spirits we are united with Him in His death and resurrection (Romans 6:5). We recognise again that we have been made one with Him, and we recognise that we are participating in all that He is for us.

For Jesus' whole point was that we should see in the bread and wine pictures of what He was here to do, and of the benefits that we could receive through Him. It was fallen man who then recognised that he could use these ideas in order to manipulate gullible people, and once the ideas had taken hold and were held fanatically they were difficult to get rid of.

END OF EXCURSUS.