Expositor's Bible: The Gospel of MatthewGibson, John Monro
Religion
Expositor's Bible: The Gospel of Matthew
Gibson, John Monro
Bible. Matthew -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
The connection of the new feast with the old is closely maintained. It
was "as they were eating" that the Saviour took bread, and from the
way in which He is said to have taken "a cup" (R.V.) it is plain that
it was one of the cups it was customary to take at the Paschal feast.
With this in mind we can more readily see the naturalness of the words
of institution. They had been feasting on the body of the lamb; it is
time that they should look directly at the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world; so, taking the new symbol and handing it to
them, He says, "Take, eat; this is My body."
How strange that into words so simple there should have been imported
anything so mysterious and unnatural as some of the doctrines around which
controversy in the Church has raged for weary centuries--doctrines
sadly at variance with "the simplicity that is in Christ."[29] At the
first institution of the Passover the directions for eating it close
with these words, "It is the Lord's Passover." Does any one for a
single moment suppose that in so putting it Moses meant to assert any
mysterious identity of two things so diverse in their nature as the
literal flesh of the lamb and the historical event known as the Lord's
Passover? Why, then, should any one for a moment suppose that when
Jesus says, "This is My body," He had any thought of mysterious
transference or confusion of identity? Moses meant that the one was
the symbol of the other; and in the same way our Saviour meant that
the bread was henceforth to be the symbol of His body. The same
appropriateness, naturalness and simplicity, are apparent in the words
with which He hands the cup: "This is My blood of the covenant" (R.V.
omits _new_, which throws the emphasis more distinctly on _My_) "which
is shed"--not, like the blood of the lamb, for a little family group,
but--"for many," not as a mere sign (see Heb. x.), but "unto remission
of sins."
The new symbols were evidently much more suitable to the ordinance
which was to be of world-wide application. Besides, it was no longer
necessary that there should be further sacrifice of life. Christ our
Passover was sacrificed once for all; and therefore there must be no
thought of repetition of the sacrifice; it must be represented only;
and this is done both simply and impressively in the breaking of the
bread and the pouring of the wine. Nothing could be more natural than
the transition from the old to the new Passover feast.
Rising now above all matters of detail and questions of
interpretation, let us try humbly and reverently to enter into the
mind of Christ as He breaks the bread and pours the wine and
institutes the feast of love. As in the earlier part of the evening we
had in His dealings with the traitor a touching unveiling of His
human heart, so now, while there is the same human tenderness, there
is with it a reach of thought and range of vision which manifestly
transcend all mortal powers.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account