Copyright
James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 121 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 121 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


the Church met together ' to eat the Lord's Supper.'
This supper was a real meal, and the food was
provided by those who attended it. But, whereas
it ought to have been a fraternal gathering, a
bond of unity, the selfishness and greed of the rich
made it most unsatisfactory ; for they insisted
upon keeping for themselves the food they brought,
whereas all the food brought ought to have been
put together and divided among the whole number.
The result of this was that some who attended had
not enough to eat and drink, and some had too
much. There were even cases of drunkenness.
This conduct of the rich naturally led to divisions.
Groups were formed, and the general spirit of
fraternity was broken.

St. Paul reminds the Corinthians of the great
solemnity of the Lord's Supper. He reminds them
how he had told them before of the Last Supper
itself, and how Jesus had instituted there a rite by
which Christians were to proclaim His Death until
He should come again. He reminds them that
they came to enter into communion with the Body
and Blood of Christ ; that this is a solemn matter ;
that self-examination is necessary, and care to re-
cognize the distinction between what is received
and common bread ; that those who fail to come up
to what is required of them in this matter, those
who receive unworthily, have in many cases already
received striking punishments from God, for the
objects to be received are so holy, that not only
does worthy reception bring great benefits, but un-
worthy reception brings stern judgment.

In 1 Co 10 St. Paul warns the Corinthians of
the dangers of idolatry. He holds up before them
the example of the Israelites, who, though they were
' baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,'
and ate the same spiritual food and drank the
same spiritual drink, yet died in the wilderness
because of their sins (vv. 1 ' 6 ). There is a clear
analogy with the case of Christians, who receive
spiritual food and drink, and yet are liable
to perish, in spite of their privileges, if they too
sin. The particular sin of which he warns them
is idolatry. He affirms that those who partake
of a meal in an idol's temple really enter into
communion with the demons who are at the back
of idolatrous worship. Communion with the Body
and Blood of Christ is incompatible with communion
with demons. ' You cannot drink the Lord's cup
and the cup of demons. You cannot share the
Lord's table and a table of demons' (v. 21 ). In his
conception the meat is offered to the idol and be-
comes the property of the demons, so that the



EUCHAEIST



EUCHAEIST



375



demons are, as it were, the hosts at the sacrificial
banquet. It is their cup which is drunk by those
who attend. It is their table at which the guests
sit. The parallel which St. Paul draws between
these demonic banquets and the Lord's Supper sug-
gests that in the same way the bread and the cup
are offered to the Lord, so that He becomes the
host. Therefore the Supper is His Supper, and it
is His Cup and His Table. But the thought goes
further than this. For not only do the communi-
cants enter into communion with Christ by being,
as it were, His guests at Supper ; but they enter
into communion with His Body and His Blood.
The use of these expressions makes it clear that
what is meant is that the communicant enters into
communion with Christ's Death. It is the language
of sacrifice which is here employed. The sacrificial
Death of Christ is an essential part of St. Paul's
thought. The worthy communicant feeds upon
that sacrifice, and so appropriates the blessing won
thereby.

But while it is true that it is only the worthy
communicant who obtains the blessing, St. Paul's
language clearly implies that the bread and the
wine are not merely symbols. They are really
to the communicant the Body and Blood of
Christ the Body broken and the Blood shed in
His sacrificial Death. They have this wonderful
character in themselves, apart from the faith of
the communicant. For the unworthy communicant
receives them at his peril, and the dangers of ir-
reverence are very great. The communicant must
discern the Body. The suggestion which has been
made that ' the Body ' in this phrase means Christ's
mystical Body, the Christian Church, is worthy of
very little attention. It is true that the word is
sometimes so used, but here the context makes it
necessary to understand by it the Body of Christ
which is represented by the bread and partaken of
by the communicant.

This communion takes place at a common meal.
The Christians of the community come together,
probably on the first day of the week, to a common
meal. The question arises as to whether the whole
meal is a communion, or whether communion takes
place during or after the meal, v. 18 suggests that
the latter is the true view. ' The cup of blessing
which we bless,' ' the bread which we break,' sug-
gest that during or after the meal there was a
solemn blessing of a cup, and a solemn breaking of
bread, in virtue of whicn the cup becomes ' the cup of
blessing,' and both it and the bread which is broken
assume their special character. It seems clear
that the 'blessing' is a solemn liturgical act, and
the parallelism with the breaking of bread indicates
that that has the same character. The ' cup of
blessing' is the cup over which a blessing has been
said, or the cup which has been blessed. There is
no necessary reference to any cup used in the Pass-
over. St. Paul speaks of the cup which 'we
bless,' but this does not necessarily mean that the
whole assembly blessed the cup, or broke the bread.
In fact, the language of Ac 20 11 , where it is said
that at Troas St. Paul himself ' broke the bread,'
suggests that the ' liturgical ' action was performed
by a single person, who was presiding. A definite
' blessing ' of a cup and ' breaking of bread ' would
seem to imply that the supper as a whole was not
the communion, though the supper as a whole was
the Lord's Supper, for the Lord was host. But dur-
ing supper, or more probably after supper (cf. 1
Co II 25 }, the president blessed the cup and broke the
bread ; and the cup so blessed and the bread so
broken assumed their special and sacred character.
As we have seen, the supper is a real and not a
symbolical meal. But St. Paul's suggestion that
the Corinthians' own houses are the proper places
in which to eat and drink, and his injunction that



if they are hungry they should eat at home (II 22 - 34 )
indicate the way in which the setting of the
Eucharist came so soon to be altered. For these
injunctions lead straight to the conclusion that the
Christian assembly at which the Lord's Death is
shown forth is not a suitable occasion for the satis-
faction of bodily needs. It is therefore not surpris-
ing that we find, when next we have any evidence,
that the Eucharist has been detached from its set-
ting as part of a common meal.

There are two further points which deserve notice
before we come to consider in further detail St. Paul's
view of the effects of communion. The first is the fact
that in 10 18 St. Paul puts the cup before the bread.
We find the same thing in the Didache ; and if the
shorter text of St. Luke's Gospel be the right one,
we find it also there. This is certainly a noticeable
point. But, whatever may be the explanation in
St. Luke and in the Didache, it is not possible to
suppose that at Corinth the cup actually did precede
the bread. For the form of the narrative of the
Last Supper which St. Paul gives (II 23 ' 25 ) places
the bread before the cup, and it is most unlikely
that that order was reversed in the Corinthian
Church. The explanation may be, as M. Goguel
suggests,* that the parallelism between the Lord's
Cup and the cup of libation at a heathen sacrifice
was closer than that between the eating of a
piece of bread and anything that took place
there. It may be for this reason that the cup
is mentioned before the bread. Or it may be
merely that the bread is put second because St.
Paul is to speak at further length about it in the
next verse. But in any case it is misleading to
regard 10 16 as having any real connexion with a
tradition of the cup having preceded the bread at
the Last Supper.

The second point is the phrase in II 2 * : ' Ye pro-
claim the Lord's death till he come.' The addi-
tion ' till he come ' is reminiscent of Mk 14 25 and
parallels, though the saying, as recorded in the
Gospels, says nothing about the Lord's return, but
speaks only of the joys of the Messianic Kingdom,
to be shared by Him with Christians. The idea
implied in the phrase ' till he come ' is similar
namely, that the Eucharist is but a provisional rite,
and looks forward to the day when communion with
Him shall be more direct in His Kingdom.

We may now consider St. Paul's view of the
effects of communion, and here the main thing to
notice is the realistic character of St. Paul's thought.
Participation in the one loaf produces a unity
among Christians. ' Because there is one bread, we
who are many are one body, because we all partake
of that one bread' (10 17 ). This unity is not the
cause but the effect of the communion. There is
a close parallel to the effect produced by participa-
tion in an idol-sacrifice, in which the worshippers
are united to one another as well as to the demon.
Besides this unity of believers which is produced
by participation, there is of course the communion
with the Body and Blood of Christ. It seems clear
that the parallel with the heathen sacrifices still
holds good. The communicant really enters into
communion with Christ conceived as a sacrificial
Victim. Whether this will be for his benefit or for
his undoing depends upon his own disposition ; but,
whatever his disposition may be, in no case is that
which he receives ordinary food. The bread since
it has been broken, and the cup since it has been
blessed, have assumed special characters. And it
is no light matter for anyone to partake.

Here the question must be faced whether St.
Paul's views on the subject of the Eucharist differed
from those of the Corinthians. It has been held
by W. Heitmiillert that St. Paul's conception

Op. tit. p. 144, following Heinrici.

t Taufe tmd Abendmahlbei Paulut, Qottlngen, 1908.



376



EUCHAEIST



EUCHARIST



differed from theirs in that he believed that it was
the dying Christ with whom the communicant
entered into communion, whereas they thought
rather of the glorified Christ. According to this
idea, in ch. 10 St. Paul adopts the view of the
Corinthians, but in ch. 11 he gives them his own
view. It is true that the behaviour of the Corinth-
ians at the supper would suggest at first sight that
their beliefs about it were of no very solemn charac-
ter, and it may seem strange that men who believed
that they were actually commemorating Christ's
Last Supper and Death, should treat the meal as
an opportunity for self-indulgence ; but it is by no
means impossible that this may have been so. St.
Paul's attitude throughout is that of a man who is
reminding others of what they already know rather
than of one who is giving new instruction. His
view of the nature of the Eucharist rests ultimately
upon his view of the institution, and as to this he
expressly states that he had given them instruction
before ( 1 1 23 ). It is not an uncommon thing for men
to need to be reminded of a fact with which they
are perfectly well acquainted, nor indeed is it un-
common for men to act in a way which is quite
inconsistent with their religious beliefs, even though
these beliefs are quite honestly held. What the Cor-
inthians had learned about the Eucharist they had
learned from St. Paul. It is therefore unlikely that
their view of the Eucharist was essentially different
from his, though no doubt they may not have wholly
understood it. Some of his language suggests that
they thought that communion would benefit them
mechanically, and that their dispositions did not
much matter. This is in line with the general
view of them which we get from the Epistle as a
whole.* They laid stress on the value of yv&crts
and attached insufficient importance to morality.
If there is any point in which their views differed
from St. Paul's, it is probably to be found here.
It may be that when he speaks of the possibility
of eating and drinking judgment unto themselves,
he is giving them new teaching. But this does not
involve the consequence that their intellectual
belief about the Eucharist was seriously different
from his, but rather that their conscience needed
to be awakened.

4. St. Paul's account of the institution of the
Eucharist. The investigation of the relation be-
tween the various accounts which we possess be-
longs properly to the study of the Gospels. It
will be sufficient here to notice that, in spite of
verbal differences, St. Paul's account is much the
same as that of St. Mark and St. Matthew, except
that it contains the command of repetition, ' Do
this in remembrance of Me,' which is otherwise
found only in the longer text of St. Luke. Whether
this indicates Pauline influence upon the Gospels
is a difficult question, but one which does not fall
within the scope of this article. St. Paul refers
the communion at Corinth back to an institution
by our Lord on the night of His betrayal an in-
stitution at which He alluded to His Death in
sacrificial terms, and commanded the performance
of the rite in memory of Himself. This narrative
of the institution (1 Co H 28 " 84 ) is introduced by the
words yu> y&p vap\a.pov d.wb TOU Kvpiov. It has been
supposed that by this expression St. Paul means
to claim that he had received the whole narrative
of the institution, which he goes on to give, by
direct revelation from Christ. If this were his
claim, it would very seriously affect the historic
value of St. Paul'b evidence in the matter. But
his words do not necessarily bear any such mean-
ing. The theory has been put forward that we
have in these words an indication that the Euchar-
ist as a rite was invented by St. Paul, and that he
was the first to connect the social meal of the Chris-
* See art. CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THK.



tians with the Last Supper of the Lord. But it
seems by no means improbable that the words
imply merely that he had received it from the
Lord through tradition. There is no indication of
any disagreement between St. Paul and the other
apostles on this subject. And it has been pointed
out that it is most improbable that we owe to St.
Paul the mention of Christ's Body and Blood. If
he had himself been inventing his terms, he would
in all probability have spoken of Flesh and Blood.*
He seems to be following tradition, or, at any rate,
to be under the impression that he is following
tradition, in his account of the Eucharist. The idea
that St. Paul's own views were much influenced by
conceptions current among Corinthian Christians
has no support in our authorities. He explicitly
states that the account of the institution is no new
teaching, but that he has taught it himself to the
Corinthians before ; and it is on this account of
the institution that his doctrine is based.

Moreover, the theory that St. Paul's doctrine of
the Eucharist was peculiar to himself, and arose in
the first place owing to purely local causes at
Corinth, fails to account for the universality of the
Eucharist. If it was only St. Paul and some of
his converts for whom the Eucharist was a real
religious rite if, that is to say, it was St. Paul
who gave a religious significance to what was at
first merely a social meal the universal adoption
of St. Paul's ideas constitutes a serious historical
problem. Other doctrines of St. Paul by no means
met with such wide-spread acceptance. His doc-
trine of justification was hardly understood at all
by anyone until the time of St. Augustine. But
we know of no church without a Eucharist. Even
in the Didache it is a definite rite, though its
significance is doubtful. It stands with Baptism
as one of the two rites which belong to Christianity.
Development no doubt there was. The ' breaking
of the bread' in the primitive community at
Jerusalem did not cariy with it all the ideas which
were associated with the Eucharist at Corinth.
But even there it is a religious rite, and not a mere
social meal.

The Didache appears to show us a community
where the doctrine of the Eucharist had not
developed on Pauline lines. There is no clear re-
ference to its connexion with the Last Supper. It
is tempting to bring into line with this the ' break-
ing of the bread ' in the Acts, and to suppose that
there too there was no thought of the Last Supper,
And in favour of this view might be alleged the
fact that there is no mention of the Eucharistic
cup in the Acts of the Apostles, which may be sup-
posed to indicate an absence of sacrificial concep-
tions. But all this is a most dangerous form of
the argument a silentio. For the writer of the
Acts has no occasion to speak of the ideas which
Christians associated with the 'breaking of the
bread.' So his silence on the matter is absolutely
worthless as negative evidence. And, though there
is no mention of a Eucharistic cup, it is extremely
unlikely that at Troas there was no such cup, in
view of the fact that Troas was a Pauline church.
The Acts makes no mention of a cup. This is
natural enough, for the writer is not giving a full
account of the proceedings. But exactly the same
consideration applies to the ' breaking of the bread '
at Jerusalem. The fact that no cup is mentioned
is no sort of evidence that the meal did not include
the blessing and partaking of a cup. If it did so,
the writer of the Acts could hardly have framed
his sentence so as to include a mention of it ; and
there is no reason why he should have done so.
As has been pointed out above, if it had not been
for accidental circumstances at Corinth, we should
not have heard anything about the Eucharist in
* Heitmiiller, op. tit. p. 26.



EUCHAKIST



EUODIA



377



St. Paul's Epistles, and should have supposed that
the Pauline churches in St. Paul's time knew of
no such rite. This fact is in itself a sufficient
warning against the danger of drawing conclusions
from the silence of a writer.

In the absence of more definite evidence, no
theory can be more than a hypothesis. But the
facts are best accounted for by tne hypothesis that
the ' breaking of bread ' was from the beginning a
religious rite associated with a social meal, in which
Christians commemorated the Last Supper of our
Lord with His apostles. As Christians came in-
creasingly to realize the significance of our Lord's
Death as a sacrifice, a conception which was popu-
larized by St. Paul, but which had its roots in the
consciousness and teaching of Jesus about the
necessity of His Death for the coming of the King-
dom, they came to realize increasingly the signifi-
cance of this rite, and of the words which Jesus
had spoken at the Last Supper. These words could
not be understood until the sacrificial aspect of the
Lord's Death was realized. But, when that was
understood, then the rite of the ' breaking of the
bread ' was bound to be seen by Christians to have
the significance which St. Paul attached to it and
which was implicit in it from the first, although
not fully understood the significance_of the parti-
cipation by the communicant in Christ, conceived
of as the sacrificial Victim. It may be supposed
that the Church represented by the Didache had
not attained to the understanding of the sacrificial
character of Christ's Death, and therefore had
failed to appreciate the meaning of the Eucharist.

5. The Greek mystery-religions. The view
which has been widely held, that St. Paul derived
his conceptions about the Eucharist from the Greek
mystery-religions, is excluded by the hypothesis
which has just been put forward. No doubt there
is a real sense in which Christianity is a mystery-
religion. It meets and satisfies the same needs
which are met by mystery-religions in the Grseco-
Roman world, and it is certainly possible that St.
Paul may have been influenced by the intellectual
and religious atmosphere of the world in which he
was born and in which he laboured. But it must
be remembered that he was educated in Jerusalem
at the feet of Gamaliel. And his Rabbinical
training certainly exercised a great influence upon
his mind. It is hardly conceivable that the autnor
of the 1st chapter of Romans would have allowed
himself to be directly influenced by any particular
heathen cult. It is true that he treats tne Eucha-
rist as analogous to the heathen sacrificial feasts,
but it is only to emphasize the contrast between
them. He is certainly unconscious of any borrowing
from them.

We know exceedingly little about the mystery-
religions which were current in the time of St.
Paul.* But it may be noted that Johannine
Eucharistic teaching has at first sight much more
in common with the later mysteries than that
of St. Paul. The very able argument of A.
Schweitzer, f by which St. Paul's Eucharistic doc-
trine is explained on the basis of Jewish eschato-
logy, perhaps hardly carries conviction as a whole,
but his criticism of those who allege Greek influence
is very telling. He points out that St. Paul's
theology exercised very little influence on the
Grseco-Roman world, and was not understood by
the Greek Fathers. This carries with it the strong
probability that St. Paul's theology was not really
Greek, but Jewish. Schweitzer's interpretation is
that we are to look for an explanation of St. Paul's
sacramental doctrine in the condition of the world
between the Death of Jesus and His Coming, ex-
pected to be immediate. ' The Apostle asserts an

See art. MYSTERY, MYSTERIES.

t Paul and his Interpreters, Eng. tr., London, 1912.



overlapping of the still natural, and the already
supernatural, condition of the world, which becomes
real in the case of Christ and believers in the form
of an open or hidden working of the forces of death
and resurrection.'* He maintains that this is not
Greek, but Jewish. It should, however, be admitted
that the form of some of St. Paul's statements may
be due to the atmosphere in which he lived and
worked. What is here maintained is that the
general teaching of St. Paul on the subject is more
easily explained by the hypothesis that it is not
drawn from Greek sources, but is an explication of
something that was already implicit in the ' break-
ing of bread ' of the earliest community, and was a
true interpretation of the actual intention of Jesus.
LITERATURE. To the books mentioned in the text and foot-
notes of the article, the following may be added : EDS, art.
' Lord's Supper ' (A. Plummet) ; ERE, art. ' Eucharist (to end
of Middle Ages)' (J. H. Srawley) ; EBi, art. 'Eucharist' (J.
Armitagre Robinson) ; PRE*, artt. ' Abendmahl ' (Cremer and
Loofs) ; F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Ifrchris-
tentwns, i., Gottingen, 1893 ; C. Gore, Dissertations on Subjects
connected with the Incarnation, London, 1895, p. 308, also The
Body of Christ, do. 1901 ; A. Schweitzer, Das Abendmahl im
Zusammenhang mit dem Leben Jesu und der Geschichte des
Urchristentums, Tubingen, 1901 ; W. B. Frankland, The Early
Eucharist, London, 1902 ; J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduc-
tion to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, do. 1903, p. 393 ;
J. C. Lambert, The Sacraments in the NT (Kerr Lecture),
Edinburgh, 1903 ; R. M. Adamson, The Christian Doctrine of
the Lord's Supper, do. 1905; P. N. Waggrett, The Holy
Eucharist, London, 1906; J. V. Bartlet, in Mansfield College
Essays, do. 1909, p. 43 ; D. Stone, A History of the Doctrine of
the Holy Eucharist, do. 1909 ; J. Wordsworth, The Holy Com-
munion*, do. 1910; F. Dibelius, Das Abendmahl, Leipzig,
1911; P. Gardner, The Religious Experience of St. Paul,
London, 1911; W. Heitmuller, Taufe und Abendmahl im
Urchristentum, Tubingen, 1911. G. H. CLAYTON.



EUNICE (EtW/j ; the spelling EivtlKij of TR is
erroneous). Eunice, the mother of Timothy (2 Ti
I 6 ) is referred to in Ac 16 1 as a Jewess who believed.
Her husband, however, was a Greek, and we find
that, although she was a Jewess, she had refrained
from circumcising her son, probably out of respect
for her husband's opinions. The grandmother of
Timothy is alluded to as Lois (q.v.), and she was in
all likelihood the mother of Eunice. Some have
put forward the conjecture that, as both Lois and
Eunice are Greek names, the women were Jewish
proselytes, but this is improbable ; nor is it likely
that the father of Timothy was in any way attached



Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 121 of 234)