5. The differences in the wording of the communion reports.
The differences in the reports, even if they call them small, cause not small difficulties for modern theologians.1312). They feel called upon to determine which of the four reporters (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul) presents the original words, that is, reports just the words (ipsissima verba) that Christ used at the institution and first celebration of the Lord's Supper. Regarding the result of this effort, Cremer says:1313) "Which are the ipsissima verba of Iesu Christi cannot be determined." Some report this negative result with perceptible satisfaction. They see in it a confirmation of their assumption that the boundaries between the Word of God and the Word of man in Scripture cannot be precisely determined. In other words, they see in the discrepancies in the wording of the communion accounts a proof against the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.1314) For the older theologians who hold to the inspiration of Scripture, this question does not exist. Some attribute the differences to the intention of the Holy Spirit, who edited the original words according to His pleasure, as He did with the quotations from the Old Testament.1315) The others hold for the fact that all four reports present original words. They declare the slight differences in the wording by the assumption that Christ at the first distribution of the Lord's Supper to His twelve
1312) Schnedermann on 1 Cor. 11:24. 25.<w:t>1313) RE. 3 I, 35.
1314) Thus Kahnis, Dogmatik 1 I, 666 ff. In Baier I, 102.
1315) Thus Luther says, St. L. XIX, 1104, "that the Holy Spirit has diligently arranged that no evangelist agrees with the other in the same words. Cf. my treatise in L. u. W. 1886, p. 77 ff.: "Die Form der alttestamentl. Zitate im N. T."
409 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 350]
disciples did not always repeat the same words, but changed the words somewhat in the course of the distribution. One will have to admit that this explanation can also be heard. It is also found in some of the more recent ones. Thus Nösgen says: "Jesus, in repeating the words of the Lord's Supper on the evening of the institution, will not have pronounced them in a stereotyped form." 1316) Meyer objects: Christ "certainly said the few meaningful words only once for all in this moment of painful emotion. Only this corresponds to the melancholy and consecration of the situation."1317) But this is so unconvincing that one could also conclude the opposite from the "painful emotion".
What then are the differences? If we compare the accounts in terms of their wording, it turns out that in the words referring to the bread, all the accounts go directly to the essence of the Lord's Supper. They all refer to the body of Christ as the communion gift. Matthew and Mark: τοντό έστι τό σώμά μον; Luke: τοντό εστι το αώμά μον το νπερ υμών διδόμενον ; Paul: τοντο μον εστι το σώμα το νπερ νμών κλώμενον.1318) With regard to the cup, the statements in Matthew and Mark also go directly to the nature of Holy Communion, that is, they designate directly the blood of Christ as the Communion gift, Matt. 26:28,
1316) Neutest. Offenb. I, 545. Cf. also Thomasius, Dogmatik III, 2, 62. Even apart from inspiration, I consider the assumption very improbable that Luke, for example, probably followed Paul, but substituted κλώμενον for διδόμενον. It is not likely that Luke would have allowed himself this interchange, especially since Paul says: Έγώ παρέλαβον από του Κυρίου, δ και Μαρέδωχα νμϊν. As is well known, it has also been negotiated whether the shorter or the longer accounts are to be taken as the original ones. It is a priori improbable that any reporter allowed himself shortenings or lengthenings of the words of the Lord's Supper.
1317) Commentary on Matthäusev. 6, S. 544.
1318) The κλώμενον is text-critically contested. It is in א*[HEBREW] ABC*,, it is found אc [HEBREW] Db ; D* has ϑρυπτόμενον, others διδόμενον. Findlay judges in The Expositor's Greek Test: "The three participles are various attempts to fill up a seeming ellipsis." Meyer: κλώμενον is "rightly suspected by Grießbach and erased by Lachmann,.Rückart, Tischendorf." Likewise Westcott and Hort, also Nestle. If κλώμενον is genuine, Calov's version on this passage is at any rate correct: Indicatur gravitas passionis Christi, quia corpus tanta tormenta sensit, ac si confractum ac comminutum fuerit. Calov says "ac si" because in the proper sense Christ's body was not broken, Joh. 19:33 ff.
410 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 351]
and Mark 14:24: τούτό εατι το αίμά μου το τής καινής διαϑήκης. In contrast, the cup words in Luke and Paul go directly to the final purpose (finis) of the Lord's Supper as a means of grace, namely, the New Testament or forgiveness of sins, 1 Cor. 11:25: τούτο το ποτήριον ή καινή διαθήκη εστιν εν τώ εμώ αΐματι; Luke 22:20: τούτο τδ ποτήριον ή καινή διαϑήκη έν τώ αϊματί μου. ¶ The answer to the question what is "the New Testament" (ή καινή διαϑήκη) has been made unnecessarily difficult. The "New Covenant" or the "New Testament" is, according to the explicit explanation of Scripture, the forgiveness of sins. This definition of the New Covenant is given by Scripture itself. As the forgiveness of sins the New Covenant is defined in contrast to the Old Covenant already in the prophecy Jer. 31:31-34.1319) This definition of the New Covenant is appropriated by the Apostle Paul Rom. 11:27 in the words: “For this is My covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins." The same is done in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 8:8-12 and 10:16-17, where the Jeremiah passage is quoted in more detail: "This is the testament that I will make to the house of Israel after these days, says the Lord. … For I will be merciful to their iniquity and their sins, and their unrighteousness will I remember no more." The Old Covenant as the Law Covenant is the imputation of sins, which is why Moses's ministry is called 2 Cor. 3:9 "the ministry that preaches condemnation," ή δα κονία τής κατακρίσεως. The New Covenant or New Testament as the covenant of the Gospel is the forgiveness of sins, wherefore the office of the New Testament is called 2 Cor. 3:9 "the office that preacheth righteousness," ή διακονία τής δικαιοσύνης. "Righteousness" here, by virtue of its contrast with "damnation," can only be iustitia imputata, that is, the forgiveness of
1319) One should not have doubted what Philippi on this passage remarks: "The Jeremiah passage is quite to be regarded as the Old Testament basic passage for the καινή διαϑήκη to be concluded with Israel in the future." The "this" (αντη) in "this is my testament" refers forward, of course, to "when I shall take away their sins." Meyer: "This remission of sins granted by me will be my covenant to them." Quenstedt II, 1283: Ipse Christus poculum eucharisticum nominat Novum Testamentum et Ieremias affirmat in Novo Testamento comprehendi hoc pactum: Propitius ero iniquitati eorum et peccati eorum non racordabor amplius, Ier. 31.. [Google]
411 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 351-352]
sins, be.1320) In short, Luther is right when he remarks on the words of the cup in Luke and Paul: "This cup is the New Testament": "Dear, what is 'New Testament' but forgiveness of sins and eternal life, purchased for us by Christ and granted to us in the sacrament?"1321) The following words, "in my blood" (Paul: εν τφ έμφ αΐματι, βηϊαδ: εν τφ άίματί μου) give the reason or cause why the communion cup is the New Testament or the forgiveness of sins. "In my blood" is: by means of my blood, because of my blood. Luther: "meines Blutes halben"; Chemnitz: propter sanguinem meum. Most of the moderns agree with this. Meyer also explains grammatically correctly: "Christ says that the cup is the New Covenant because of his blood, which is in the cup. The expression that the cup is the New Covenant, or the forgiveness of sins, has nothing unusual but abundant examples in Holy Scriptures. We have biblical examples in passages such as John 11:25 and John 6:64: Christ is the resurrection and the life, and: Christ's words are spirit and are life. The meaning is not that Christ only signifies or represents the resurrection and life, but that through Christ the resurrection is present. Likewise, Christ's words do not mean only spirit and life, but through Christ's words or in Christ's words there is spirit and life. So also the cup of the Lord's Supper does not signify the forgiveness of sins, but in and with the cup the forgiveness of sins is there or present by virtue or because of the blood of Christ, so that everyone who partakes of the cup can also take or appropriate the forgiveness of sins from it by faith.1322)
1320) So correctly also Meyer on this passage <w:t xml:space="preserve">1321) St. L. XX, 278 f..
1322) The το νπερ νμών εκχννόμενον in Luke, 22:20, though standing in the nominative case, is best related to the immediately preceding τφ αΐματί μον. The abnormal case setting emphasizes more emphatically what is said of the blood of Christ, namely, that the blood is shed for us, than would have been done by connecting it in the dative case. Thus Meyer and Philippi. That oppositional determinations, when they occur more independently and are thus to be emphasized, are placed in the nominative apart from the grammatical construction, is found both in the New Testament (Jas. 3:8) and in classical Greek. Cf. Winer, Gr. 6, p. 471 ff. In general, compare Winer's entire section on irregular sentence formation and irregular relationship of individual words in a sentence, l. c., pp. 495-559. From Luke 22:20 Winer draws
412 > The Lord's Supper. [English ed. ~ 353]