The most salient fact connected with the institution of the Lord’s Supper is, of course, that this took place at, or, to be more specific, in the midst of, the Passover Meal. It was “while they were eating” the passover meal, Jesus, having taken up a loaf and blessed it, broke it and gave it to his disciples (Mat. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22). This was, assuredly, no accident. As the time of His offering drew near, the indications thicken of the most extreme care on the part of our Lord in the ordering of every event: and these indications are least of all lacking with respect to this Passover (Mat. xxvi. 2; Luke xxii. 8; Mark xiv. 13 sq; Luke xxii sq.), which He himself tells us he had earnestly desired to eat with his disciples before he suffered (Luke xxii. 15). We must certainly presume that all our Lord did at this meal was in execution of a fairly detailed plan of action, formed in the clear light of the whole future (Luke xxiii. 16, 18, 30; John xiii. 1, 3, 11, 18, 19, 21, 27, Mt. xxvi. 31; Luke xxii. 31, 37 etc.). Nothing can be more certain than that He deliberately chose the Passover Meal for the institution of the sacrament of His body and blood.

The appropriateness of this selection becomes apparent the moment we consider the similarities between the two ordinances. These lie in part upon the surface. Both, for example, are feasts, religious feasts, religious feasts in which the devotional life of Jews and Christians respectively to a large extent centre. They penetrate, however, also in part very much below the surface. The central feature of both, for example, is eating a symbol of Jesus Christ himself. The typical character of the Paschal lamb certainly cannot be doubted by any reader of the New Testament (Jn. i. 20, 19, 36; I Cor. v. 7; I P i. 19; Rev. v. 6, 12, vii. 14; xii. 11, xiii. 8 et passim): the lamb that was slain and lay on the table at this feast was just the typical representative of the Lamb that had been slain from the foundation of the world in whose hands is the Book of Life. The bread and wine of which we partake at the Lord’s table are in like manner, according to our Lord’s precise declaration, the representations of His body and blood—His body given, His blood poured out for us. What is done in the two feasts is therefore precisely the same thing: Jesus Christ is symbolically fed upon in both. The close similarities between the two feasts again certainly cannot be looked upon as accidental. We must assuredly judge that our Lord, in instituting the Supper, meant to make it to the full extent to which these similarities point, a replica of the Passover. In this sense at least the Lord’s Supper is the Christian Passover Meal. It takes, and was intended to take, in the Christian Church, the place which the Passover occupied in the Jewish Church. It is the Christian substitute for the Passover.

Even this, however, does not do justice to the relation between the two. If in the light of the broad facts suggested rather than recited in what has been said, we seek to go back in imagination to that upper chamber, and to realize exactly what Jesus did when he took the bread and wine and gave them to his disciples to eat and drink in remembrance of Him, we shall not fail to perceive that it is almost as inadequate to say merely that the Lord’s Supper was instituted as the substitute for the Passover as to say merely that it was instituted at the Passover. It is not something entirely different from the Passover—or even wholly separate—now put into its place, to be celebrated by Christians instead of it. It is much rather only a new form given to the Passover, for the continuance of its essential substance through all the time. Precisely what our Lord appears to have done was to change the symbols which represented his sacrificed Person in the feast, was to adapt it to the new conditions of the kingdom as now introduced by him, and thus to perpetuate it throughout the new dispensation. The lamb had hitherto been the symbol of the great coming sacrifice; but as they sat about the table and ate, Jesus solemnly took up a loaf and breaking it gave it to his disciples and said: “take, eat: this is my body that is given for you.” Many thoughts, many feelings may have crowded in on His disciples’ minds as he spoke. There was much they may not have understood; much which, half understanding, they may have have revolted from. But there was one thing that, however dimly, they can scarcely have failed to catch a glimmering of: their master was identifying himself with the Paschal lamb, and he was appointing to them a new symbol in its stead. For was not that lamb what had been given for them, the symbol and seal of their redemption? And was He not speaking of himself as given for them, and appointing the bread and wine as the symbols of himself? We may be sure there were searchings of heart that night as to what these things might mean: gropings no doubt in darkness: but not gropings all together without a clue or in a darkness unillumined by a single beam.

Part 2.

NOTE

Source: “The Fundamental Significance of the Lord’s Supper” in The Bible Student, v. iii, 1901, pp. 77–83 (HT: Harrison Perkins).

Resources

• How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button
• Resources On The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelcast Series: What Must A Christian Believe?
• Resources On Fencing The Lord’s Table
• Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 75—How Does The Lord’s Supper Signify And Seal To Believers That We Partake Of Christ’s One Sacrifice And All His Benefits?
• Heidelberg 75: The Supper Is More Than A Memory (1)
• Heidelberg 75: The Supper Is More Than A Memory (2)
• Heidelberg 75: The Supper Is More Than A Memory (3)
• Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 76—What Does It Mean To Eat The Crucified Body And Drink The Shed Blood Of Christ?
• Heidelberg Catechism 76: Embracing, Communing With, And United To Christ
• Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 77—Where Has Christ Promised To Nourish Believers With His Body And Blood As Surely As We Receive The Elements?
• Heidelberg 77: As Don Says, It’s In The Bible
• Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 78—Is Transubstantiation True?
• Heidelberg 78: Against Transubstantiation
• Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 79—Why Does Christ Call The Bread His Body And The Wine His Blood?
• Heidelberg 79: A Metaphor Is No Joke
• Heidelminicast: Heidelberg Catechism 80—The Difference Between The Lord’s Supper And The Pope’s Mass
• Heidelberg 80: We Don’t Need Any Footnotes
• Calvin’s Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper
• Now On Sale For $10.00: Beza On The Lord’s Supper