The Eucharist As Christian Sacrifice: How Patristic Authors Can Help Us Read The Bible

By C. John Collins

[C. John Collins is Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.]

I. Introduction

What is the connection between the Old Testament sacrifices and the Christian Eucharist? The usual answer among Christians today is that the death of Christ “fulfilled”—and thus abolished—the OT sacrifices, and that the Eucharist has its basis in the Passover.[1]

In the early church (that is, just after the apostles), however, it was common to see the Eucharist as the Christian sacrifice, using such passages as Mal 1:11 and Matt 5:23–24, or else such terms as “offering” (προσφορά) and “altar” (θυσιαστήριον). Many evangelicals are critical of this way of speaking. For example, Michael Vasey writes, “Two facts are clear: the New Testament never speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and the early church very quickly began to do so.. .. To partake of the Eucharist is to partake of the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 10.16); therefore the Eucharist is not a sacrifice.”[2]

The purpose of this essay is to see if there is in fact a proper “sacrificial” background to the Eucharist, to which the first and second century Fathers testify. My goal certainly includes a better grasp of this Christian rite; but it extends further to an exercise in method—namely, to see if there is any way to profit from the early Fathers (or intertestamental literature, for that matter), observing evangelical convictions about Scripture.

One way to approach the Fathers is to take them as authorities who show the church’s belief in its development. Similarly, we may wish to show how “enlightened” they were: “They clearly anticipated the view I hold!” On the other hand, we might just dismiss them: “They show how early the pristine apostolic beliefs were lost.”

All of these are similar in that they start with what I believe already; they then either enlist the tradition in support of it, or else enlist it to show that the tradition cannot be trusted.

But what if we use these authors for another purpose—to see Scripture through another set of eyes? We still face the problem of distinguishing the baby from the bathwater; but now we apply that task to our own beliefs and preunderstandings, as well as to those of the ancient authors. For in these days of keener hermeneutical awareness, we must acknowledge that our reading of Scripture is not simple or straightforward; it depends strongly on our network of plausibilities—which themselves need evaluating.

The fact that the Patristic “sacrificial” language occurs in the earliest extant writings, and that this language is widespread, makes me all the more willing to look again at the Biblical material. My hunch is that, in general, practices and terminology change more slowly than explanations for them; hence, it is quite possible that these writers do in fact preserve something from apostolic usage. It is also possible that what they preserve is not the same as the later doctrines of Eucharistic sacrifice (which may still use similar terminology).

So I aim here to examine the NT texts that speak of the Eucharist, to see how they use OT passages. I will then see whether the language used by the first- and second-century Greek Fathers is consistent with that.

II. NT Texts and OT Background

The NT texts are the Institution Narrative (Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20) and two passages from 1 Corinthians—10:16–18 and 11:23–26.[3]

The table in Appendix 1 of this essay sets out these texts, with the OT texts (LXX) that supply some of their wording or ideas. For example, the phrase in Matt 26:28, “the blood of the covenant,” comes from Exod 24:8 (as widely recognized). The reference to the “new covenant” in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25 evokes Jer 31:31 (LXX 38:31)—the only OT text that uses the expression. The notion of “remembrance” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:24–25 may base its language on Deut 16:3 (but this is uncertain; see below). The idea of “eating the sacrifices” in 1 Cor 10:18 alludes to the peace offerings of the OT, as in Lev 7:11–18 (and elsewhere).[4]

A startling pattern emerges from this list. The OT passages touching on sacrifice are generally dealing with peace offerings—and this would include the one Passover reference (Deut 16:3, assuming it applies), since the Passover was a kind of peace offering.[5] This implies that the interpretive backcloth for the Eucharist is not—as is often thought—the Passover, but the peace offering.[6]

The OT sacrifices differed in regard to the material of the sacrifice, the people who were to eat the sacrifice (and what parts), the way the parts are handled, and the purpose of the sacrifice. Leviticus 1–7 describe the procedures for burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.[7] For example, the burnt offering is wholly consumed in the fire on the altar (1:9), while the grain offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings provide portions for the priests (2:3; 6:26–30; 7:6). The peace offering is unique, in that the worshipers also eat of it. In the burnt offering, sin offering, and guilt offering, the priest “makes atonement” (1:4; 4:20; 5:6; Hebrew כפר). This language is not used for the peace offering or grain offering.[8]

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi has provided us with a valuable analysis of the peace offering, in which he points out:

the blood of the [peace offering] sacrifice enables the worshipper to draw near to the Lord, thus removing the sinfulness of the worshipper. This shows that though the peace offering is often offered to express thanksgiving and joy, the worshipper cannot express these attitudes to the Lord without his sinfulness being removed.[9]

It follows that even though the term “make atonement” is not used, the idea is not absent: but not as me function of the offering—instead, the blood indicates that the fellowship achieved is founded on forgiveness.[10] Kiuchi shows that this offering is anything but “going through the motions”; if properly carried out, it would shape the worshiper’s heart and life toward genuine devotion and purity:

Far from being the seedbed of Pharisaism, it is highly likely that the sacrificial law in Leviticus endorses a rich spiritual relationship between the worshipper and God. The concentration of the text on external rituals is not an indication that the worship is external, but it is rather an indication that the lawgiver desires to stress that the worshipper must express his inner attitude outwardly.[11]

In the peace offering, the worshipers eat “before the LORD” and “rejoice” (Hebrew שׂמח ,לפני יהוה e.g., Deut 12:7) and thus enjoy their fellowship with the LORD. AS Gordon Wenham puts it,

In all the other sacrifices the worshipper received nothing back, but in the peace offering most of the flesh was shared out by the worshipper with his family and friends, thus making the sacrificial meal a joyful barbecue. 

.. . What was acted out in this sacrifice was the believer’s daily experience: God had given him life and health initially, and every day in grace renewed these gifts. In every sacrifice the worshipper gave himself back to God in penitence and commitment, and in return received back a renewal of physical and spiritual life. Usually however there was no immediately visible sign of this renewal of life, but in the peace offering there was. The shared luxury of a meat meal was a tangible, indeed edible, token of God’s continuing mercy and grace. It was this that made peace offerings usually such joyous occasions.[12]

Here is how J. H. Kurtz describes the relationships between the various sacrifices:

In the peace offering the meal was the principal feature; and if this represented the most intimate fellowship with Jehovah, friendly intercourse, house and table companionship with Him, we must seek in this the end and the object of the sacrifice. The same progressive stages, therefore, which distinguish redemption and its symbolical correlate, the complete idea of sacrifice, incorporated themselves as it were in these three varieties of sacrifice: the stage of atonement, of justificatio, in the sin-offering; that of sanctificatio, in the burnt-offering; and that of sacramental fellowship, of the unio mystica, in the peace offering.[13]

III. The Language of the Fathers

Suppose for a moment that the peace offering is the right category for understanding the Christian Eucharist. What can we say about the “sacrificial” language we find in the early church? (As noted, I limit myself primarily to Greek-speaking Fathers of the first and second centuries.) Let us examine their words and ideas.[14]

In these sources we find references to Mal 1:10–14, our authors (such as Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) seeing the prophecy fulfilled in the Christian Eucharistic assemblies scattered through the world.[15] Verse 11 is the key, and here it is in the Hebrew and LXX, with translations:

MT	אמר יהוה צבאות כי־גדול שׁמי בנוים מגשׁ לשׁמי ומנחה טהורה שׁמי בגוים ובכל־מקום מקטר כי ממזרח־שׁמשׁ ועד־מבואו גדול	For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
LXX	διότι ἀπ᾿ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου ἕως δυσμῶν τὸ ὄνομά μου δεδόξασται ἐν τοῖς ἒθνεσιν καὶ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ θυμίαμα προσάγεται τῷ ὀνόματί μου, καὶ θυσία καθαρά, διότι μέγα τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τοῖς ἒθνεσιν, λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ.	For from the rising of the sun to the setting my name has been glorified among the nations, and in every place incense is brought to my name, and a pure offering. For my name is great among the nations, says the Lord Almighty.

The Hebrew word מנחה (“offering”) is a general term for “gift,” and in cultic contexts can refer to offerings either of meat or grain.[16] That the word is general, and includes meat offerings, is clear from verse 13: “You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering!”[17] The Greek word used to render it is θυσία, which is also a general term meaning either “the act of sacrificing” or “that which is offered as a sacrifice.”[18] This is the Greek translator’s word for מנחה throughout Malachi (1:10, 11, 13; 2:12, 13; 3:3, 4). It can refer to the peace offering, even when used on its own (as in Deut 12:27 LXX).[19]

The ESV has interpreted the verse as future-referring, offering the present tense in the margin. The challenges of this text are well-known: is the prophet referring to the Jews dispersed among the Gentiles, or to the worship of the Gentiles themselves (both using the present tense interpretation), or to the coming time in which the Gentiles will honor the true God (the future)? I think the future interpretation fits the best, both with the context of Malachi and with the overall expectation of the OT (such as Isa 2:1–5); and Justin Martyr argues for it already in his Dialogue with Trypho.[20]

We further find some allusions to Matt 5:23–24 from the Sermon on the Mount (as in Didache, Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem), where Jesus says:[21]

23ἐὰν οὖν προσφέρῃς τὸ δῶρό́ν σου ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κἀκεῖ μνησθῇς ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔχει τι κατὰ σοῦ, 24ἄφες ἐκεῖ τὸ δῶρόν σου ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ὕπαγε. πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου, καὶ τότε ἐλθὠν πρεόσφερε τὸ δῶρόν σου.

23SO if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

The early Christians required that believers be at peace with one another before they partook of the Eucharist. The language in Matthew is broad enough to include references to the peace offering: for example, there are two places in the LXX where we find προσφέρω (“to offer”), δῶρον (“gift”), and θυσιαστήριον (“altar”) all together: Lev 2:12 (referring to a grain offering) and Num 7:10–11 (for the dedication of the altar, which included peace offerings, see vv. 17, 23, 29, etc.). Hence the principle in this instruction can apply to people celebrating a peace offering.[22]

More generally, we find Clement (fl. ca. A.D. 90-100) using the verb προσφέρω (“offer,” 1 Clem. 44:4, τοὺς προσενεγκόντας τὰ δῶρα [those who have offered the gifts”])[23] and the noun προσφορά (“offering,” 40:2, 4). Ignatius (martyred somewhere around A.D. 110) speaks of a θυσιαστήριον (“altar”) in a Eucharistic context (Phld. 4): “Be zealous, therefore, to employ one Eucharist: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup leading to unity of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow servants,. . .”

Based on how Ignatius elsewhere uses the altar with symbolism (Eph. 5:2; Magn. 7:2; Trall. 7:2), we do not need to conclude he meant a physical structure;[24] but in any case we see that he is able to use a “sacrificial” term in speaking of the Eucharist (or of the church as a Eucharistic assembly). Since this term, as we have seen, is general enough to include the peace offering, his language complies with that of the NT.

Similarly, general terminology appears in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho §29, and Irenaeus’s Against Heresies 4.18.1–6, regarding Christian sacrifices and offerings.

Seeing the Eucharist through the eyes of the peace offering may also allow us to explain why the term “Eucharist” (εὐχαριστία) became the technical term for the sacrament,[25] while in the NT the word is general (“thanks”; τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον [“the Lord’s Supper”] is the NT name of the sacrament). The noun and its related verb (εὐχαριστία, εὐχαριστέω) are quite rare in the LXX, SO that could not have promoted the terms’ use in the early church.[26] The verb appears in the Institution narratives (Matt 26:27 and parallels), so that might favor the term.

There is some evidence that the Jewish writers Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.—A.D. 50) and Josephus (A.D. 37-ca. 100) used the term εὐχαριστία and its etymological cousin χαριστήριον to describe peace offerings as acts of thankfulness. (See the discussion in Appendix 2.) This is significant, because these were preeminent Jewish authors, contemporary with the NT, who aimed at an audience wider than Judaism. Perhaps, then, this is evidence that at least some Hellenistic Jews could use these words for the peace offering, and if this is so, then this may explain why the early church adopted the term εὐχαριστία for their sacrament: because, according to the apostles, it corresponded to the peace offering.

To sum up: in all of the cases I considered, the Patristic authors’ language is consistent with the apostolic view that the Eucharist corresponds to the peace offering. I do not claim, however, that these authors necessarily understood the various kinds of OT offerings properly—but, as we shall now see, problems appear in a later era when the distinctions seem clearly to have been lost on Christian authors.[27]

Patristic authors later than the second century began to speak of the Eucharist as a propitiatory offering, and thus lost the apostolic connection. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386), in his Lectures on the Christian Sacraments,[28] called the Eucharist “the bloodless service, upon that sacrifice of propitiation” (τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν, ἐπὶ τῆς θυσίας ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ). This might be innocent, since he says it is “upon” (ἐπί) that sacrifice, which may be referring to Christ’s historical act; but he went on to describe prayers for the dead during the Eucharist, saying,

.. . ἀλλὰ Χριστὸν ἐσφαγιασμένον ὑπέρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων προσφέρομεν, ἐξιλεούμενοι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον θεόν.

.. . but we offer Christ slaughtered for our sins, propitiating our man-loving God both for them and for ourselves.

This is generally taken to show that Cyril saw the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, not only for the worshipers, but also on behalf of others.[29] He is using terms for propitiation (ἱλασμός, ἐξιλεόω) that are not properly applied to the peace offering, and this suggests that Cyril has conflated the different kinds of OT sacrifice.[30]

IV. Some Implications for Church Practice

We have gained a great deal so far: early Patristic usage has led us to re-examine the NT, and there the peace offering pattern for the Eucharist comes through. In turn the early Church Fathers that we have considered—first-and second-century Greek speakers—have not violated the NT usage in their own language. It is quite reasonable to suppose, therefore, that they received this usage from the apostolic era itself.

This new insight now provides us with tools to address some of the questions that have surrounded the theology and practice of the Eucharist among Christians. It is not feasible, in this essay, to give exhaustive bibliography on these subjects; instead I will suggest lines of thought for them.

1. The meaning of the Eucharist

First, it follows that the meaning of the Eucharist should be similar to that of the peace offering: to celebrate God’s provision of grace, and to enjoy his presence as he draws near to us in the meal.[31] As Warfield notes,

All those who partake of the victim offered in sacrifice were by that act made sharers in the act of sacrifice itself.. .. He who partook of the victim shared in the altar—in the sacrificial act, in its religious import and in its benefits. 

.. . [The Lord’s Supper] is a sacrificial feast, offering the victim, in symbols of bread and wine, to our participation, and signifying that all those who partake of the victim in these symbols, are sharers in the altar, are of those for whom the sacrifice was offered and to whose benefit it accrues.[32]

At the same time as we note continuity, we should also note the redemptive-historical development: namely, in the peace offering the bloody sacrifice fore-shadowed Jesus’ own sacrificial death, while in the Eucharist the worshipers feast on the now-offered sacrifice of Jesus.[33]

If we see the Eucharist this way, then we can see how it relates to Christ’s own sacrifice. When the Eucharist is called a “sacrifice” or “offering,” the words are properly used in the sense of “thing sacrificed or offered,” as in 1 Cor 10:18. Hence, for example, when Stylianopoulos writes that the Eucharist is “a sacramental act making present the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ by the power of the Spirit,”[34] he is almost right, but not quite: in view of the peace offering background, we should say that the act brings the worshiper into an enjoyment of God’s company—the benefit purchased by the unique sacrifice that Jesus offered.[35]

If we follow this point through, we also find guidance concerning the proper tone for celebrating the Eucharist: it is to be primarily a joyful occasion. There is, to be sure, a place for penitence and sorrow in it, since it is human sin that requires the blood to be shed; but this is only the preliminary, and not the focus. The proper focus, according to passages like Deut 12:7 and 14:26, is to eat before the LORD, and there to rejoice with others—and this should set the tone in the Christian celebration.

This may also provide some guidance as we think about the eschatological dimension of the Eucharist: in Matt 26:29 Jesus tells his disciples that he will drink the cup anew with them in his Father’s kingdom. Howard Marshall draws a connection between this saying and the Jewish notion of the Messianic banquet (which has its origin, apparently, in Isa 25:6–12), mentioned in Luke 14:15 and applied in texts such as Luke 13:29; Rev 3:20; 19:9. Marshall supposes that “the Lord’s Supper is linked to the Passover in that the Passover is a type of the heavenly banquet while the Lord’s Supper is the anticipation of the heavenly banquet. The middle term of comparison between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper is the heavenly banquet.”[36] Perhaps it is better to say, under this fresh perspective, that the image of a heavenly banquet draws its power from the meaning of the peace offering as a fellowship meal with God, and that the Christian Eucharist continues this imagery. The anticipation should foster a deep-seated joy and assurance in those who partake.

2. Frequency of the Eucharist

Second, the common problem of why we should celebrate the Eucharist more than once a year is settled if we see it as a peace offering—in fact, we can see why frequent communion should be the norm for the church.[37]

Michael Green writes of “the problem of how the annual Passover of the Jews changed into the weekly Eucharist of the Christians,” suggesting that “while the meaning of the Eucharist derived from the Passover, the frequency of its celebration came rather from the communal meals of which that Passover had been the climax.”[38] Some have even gone on to deny that the historical Last Supper was a Passover meal because of the problem of relative frequencies.

Apparently the early church faced the question of frequency, as Frances Young describes: “At a later period, when the Eucharist was interpreted as the Christian Passover, some people seem to have taken the logical step of only attending the Eucharist on Easter Sunday, and Chrysostom found it necessary to settle a controversy on the issue.”[39]

But now we have a different way of seeing it, one that relieves us of these problems. As I have already pointed out, it is quite appropriate to see a Passover meal as the historical setting of the Last Supper. That is not the same, however, as saying that the Passover is the sole interpretive backcloth for the Eucharist, and it is striking that NT authors do not use the Passover in that way.[40] It is also striking that none of the early Christian writers before Origen (ca. A.D. 185-254) makes an explicit association between the Eucharist and the Passover.[41]

Since the peace offering had a wider variety of settings, and was generally available to God’s people, the reason for the weekly norm of the early church becomes easier to see.

3. The “New Covenant”

Third, this offers an avenue to make sense of the curious statement in Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25:

τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἳματι

This cup is the new covenant in my blood.

Many interpretations have been offered, mostly under the assumption that it refers to a redemptive-historical change of one sort or another.[42] But let us think for a moment about the original setting of the phrase that it uses from Jer 31:31.

The actual content and context of Jeremiah’s prophecy show that his concern was not with redemptive-historical changes (though they are not necessarily excluded),[43] but with the problem of God’s covenant people lacking inward covenant reality: they were satisfied with having the covenant as an external administration only, without genuine circumcision of the heart. Hence the “new covenant” as he told of it was a situation in which this failure would be cured.

This comes through from the fact that the expression “they broke my covenant” (Jer 31:32, הפרו את־בריתי) is properly interpreted in Greek by LXX οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου, “they did not continue in my covenant” (see also Heb 8:9). It refers to people who reject the provisions of covenant membership that God offers—people who refuse to live faithfully.[44] We further see it in the fact that the benefits—setting the law within them, writing it on their hearts, forgiveness, knowledge of God—were all intended for a faithful Israelite to experience.[45] The connection with the Exile and Restoration of Judah (vv. 27–28, 38–40) shows that these events lie between the prophet’s time and the time he spoke of. This text, and the related 32:36–44; 50:5, therefore join a list in the contemporary Ezekiel, who also spoke of a time after the Exile when there would be covenant reality at long last.[46]

In other words, the “new covenant” in Jeremiah designates a setting in which God’s people have genuine covenant participation.[47]

In this light Paul’s words in 1 Cor 10:16 are the key:

Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὅ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ;

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?

The cup is participation in the sacrifice—in other words, the sacrament expresses the reality of participating in Christ’s sacrifice, that is, of embracing the covenant from the heart. As Warfield put it in the sermon I have cited already, “In partaking of the Lord’s Supper we claim a share in the sacrifice which Christ wrought out on Calvary for the sins of men. This is the fundamental meaning of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrificial feast.”[48] The cup “is” the new covenant in the same way as the bread “is” the body of Jesus (see 1 Cor 11:24–25; Luke 22:19–20)[49] —sacramentally.[50]

4. “In remembrance of me”

The expression, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (“this do in remembrance of me,” Luke 22:19; see also 1 Cor 11:25), has occasioned much discussion about who does the remembering: God (remembering that Christ has offered his sacrifice, and thus renewing his pledge to his people), or the worshiper (remembering Christ’s sacrifice on his behalf, thus renewing his pledge to God).[51] Can this new way of seeing the Eucharist help us?

I must confess that at this point I am not sure. The earliest references to the remembrance, so far as I know, come from Justin Martyr, and seem to speak of man’s remembering the sufferings of Jesus on our behalf.[52] Contextually, this makes good sense: 1 Cor 11:26 begins with γάρ (“for”), and we can easily take that as explaining the memorial—the very last word of verse 25 is ἀνάμνησις. Further, it is certainly true that καταγγέλλω (“proclaim,” v. 26, “you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”) is used consistently in the NT and in 2 Maccabees (8:36; 9:17—it is not found in the LXX) for proclaiming news to humans rather than to God.[53]

This finds support from Millard’s study of the Eucharist against the background of covenants in the ancient Near East.[54] He observes that “all covenants were largely concerned with the conduct of the subject party” and notes:

Each time the Corinthian Christians shared the Lord’s Supper they purported to show their allegiance to the covenant it symbolized.. . . 

.. . because Jesus knew that the disciples might forget him and all that he signified, he instituted the meal of the New Covenant. 

.. . Thus Paul’s words mean that the Supper of the Lord was initiated to remind the disciples of the Lord of the work he had done.

I find this attractive and plausible, but not yet decisive.

Our difficulty lies in the fact that we have only a handful of LXX uses of ἀνάμνησις (“reminder, memorial”), and none is strictly parallel to what we have in the NT.[55] If we expand our search to include the verb μιμνήσκω) (“to remember”), we get a few extra possibilities.[56]

If we look specifically for peace offering passages, we find that Deut 16:3 has the people remembering God’s kindness to them at Passover;[57] while Ps 20:4 has the LORD remembering a king’s offerings (which, I suppose, could include peace offerings). In Num 10:10, the blowing of trumpets over the burnt offerings and peace offerings serves as a reminder of the people before God—that is, he remembers them (as in v. 9).[58]

So I think the evidence favors the “man’s remembering” interpretation; but I cannot help wondering if a double remembrance—both man and God remembering—is possible is such a setting, and hope someone will clear this up for me.[59]

5. Who should officiate?

Fifth, this view of the Eucharist has a bearing on how we should think of the Christian ministry. If the Eucharist is a kind of peace offering, then of course we must ask whether a priestly person should officiate at it. The NT case for the priestly character of the pastoral ministry is inferential—that is, it is based on the parallel functions of OT priest and Christian minister, rather than on explicit terminology. In the letters of Ignatius, however, the “bishop”—who is the president of the board of elders—must preside at the Eucharist.[60]

Theodore Stylianopoulos argues that “the priestly character of the liturgical leader derives from the Eucharist as sacrifice and not from some other independent ground.”[61] The study here lends some support to this claim, but we should not abstract this function from the whole range of duties in the priestly mission. In a valuable study of the Levitical priesthood, Louis Leloir showed that the functions of a Levitical priest involved his role as an oracle (using the Urim and Thummim, as well as service in judging cases), his work of instructing the people in God’s word, and his leadership in performing the cult.[62] Liturgical leadership is therefore one part of a pastoral priesthood.

Protestants usually object to this idea on three fronts: first, that the only priesthood the NT knows about is that of Christ (as in Hebrews) and that of all Christians (as in 1 Pet 2:9); second, that we must reject sacerdotalism; and third, that this sets up an élite that is contrary to the spirit of the NT.[63] This question is too large to address at the tail end of a short study; but I hope that a better discussion of the topic will arise, one that is free of false antitheses between the OT institutions and the NT counterparts. I hope we will recognize, for example, that the “priesthood of believers” is an OT arrangement (Exod 19:6), and therefore cannot contradict a special priesthood for the ministry (see Exod 19:22, in the same passage as the common priesthood); that the OT priesthood was not sacerdotal (in the sense in which that word came to be used in the Reformation); and that the OT priests were not an élite, but a pattern for godliness. As Leloir points out in regard to this last matter,

If then Israel seeks from its priests intercessory prayer it also keeps its eyes and ears fixed on them in order to receive from them an example of the observance of the Law as well as the teaching and interpretation of the Law. It requires of them not only to pray more than the other people of Israel and to represent this people before God, but also holiness of life, doctrine, prudence, integrity and zeal for the conversion of sinners. The priests must be models and arbitrators for the people, as well as being able to give them spiritual nourishment. As recognised teachers of the people who can shed light on difficult cases, and appreciated by all for the worthiness of their life, they should be careful not to lead astray but to bring back to the right path those who have lost their bearings.[64]

It only makes sense, from a pastoral point of view, that such individuals be those who officiate at the sacred celebration of the church’s peace offerings.

6. Should children participate?

Finally, this surely has something to say about who should participate in the feast—namely, it places a heavy burden of proof on those who would deny the Eucharist to baptized children.[65]

The peace offering celebration, as Deuteronomy describes it, included the worshipers’ household (12:6–7; 14:23–27), which meant their children as well as dependents, Levites, sojourners, widows, and fatherless (12:11–12, 17–18; 14:28; 16:10–11). Why should the Christian celebration be less embracing?[66]

The usual reason advanced for a more restricted rule for the Christian Eucharist is 1 Cor 11:28–29 (“let a person examine himself. .. discerning the body”). These verses are taken as setting out qualifications for taking communion, which amount to disqualifications for younger children. But if we see the Eucharist as corresponding to the peace offering, we can also see that these demands of Paul’s take their place with the OT prophets’ denunciation of careless participation in the sacrifices, which do not exclude children from participation.[67] The particular crowd in Corinth have, by their selfishness, effectively denied their common participation in the “body” of Christ—hence defiling one of the very purposes for the Lord’s Supper rite (11:17–22). Such abusers should of course examine themselves—or else cease taking the Supper; and Isaiah would have said the same (Isa 1:15–17). This is a caution for all who would partake, of course; but that is a far cry from saying that ability to “examine oneself” is therefore a universal criterion for worthy participation.

I conclude then that the baptized children of believers belong at the Eucharistic table as participants: they need its benefits as much as their parents do.[68] According to J. H. Srawley, the early church observed tins practice: “Nor again did the early Church withhold the privilege of communion from baptized children.. .. Infant communion is referred to not only by Cyprian and Augustine in the West, but also in the Apostolic Constitutions in the East.”[69]

V. Concluding Reflections

This study has illustrated one way that we can profit from studying the early Fathers of the church. The simple “courtesy” of giving them the benefit of the doubt led to a fresh insight into the basic Christian rite of the Eucharist—and this in its turn sheds light on a number of controversies that have swirled around our own practice of that rite.

Perhaps we shall find other topics on which to profit from these authors as well.

Appendix 1: New Testament Passages on the Lord’s Supper, with Old Testament Background

NEW TESTAMENT	OLD TESTAMENT
Matthew 26:26–29 26᾿Εσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν· λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.
27καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες,
28 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ σἶμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.	Exodus 24:8 λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἶμα κατεσκέδασεν τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ τὸ αἶμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς διέθετο κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων
29λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενὴματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου.
Luke 22:15–20 15καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς· ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·
16λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ.
17καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς·
18λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλοῃ.	Deuteronomy 16:3 οὐ φάγῃ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ζύμην ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας φάγῃ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄζυμα ἄρτον κακώσεως ὅτι ἐν σπουδῇ ἐξήλθετε ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἵνα μνησθῆτε τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἐξοδίας ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν
19καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
20καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.	(but see below) Jeremiah 31:31 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν
1 Corinthians 10:16–18 16Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν;
17ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν.
18βλέπετε τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα; οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν;
1 Corinthians 11:23–26 23᾿Εγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτί ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον	Leviticus 7:11–18 (allusion)
24καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
25ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.	remembrance: see discussion in text; possibly Leviticus 24:7 (ἀνάμνησις); Numbers 10:9–20 (ἀναμιμνήσκω, ἀνάμνησις) Deuteronomy 16:3 (μιμνήσκω); Psalm 20:4 [19:4] (μιμνήσκω)
26ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ.

APPENDIX 2: εὐχαριστία in Philo and Josephus

Henri Cazelles suggests that the use of the terms εὐχαριστία and εὐχαριστέω in the writings of Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D.50) might shed some light on the background of the Christian Eucharist, specifically, because he finds Philo using these terms to speak of the thank offering, whih is a type of peace offering (Lev 7:12–13, 15; Hebrew זבח תודת השׁלמים ,זבח התודה ,תודה).[70]

There are several drawbacks to this line of argument: first, there is the fact that the LXX term for “thank offering” is θυσία αἰνέσεως (“sacrifice of praise,” as in Heb 13:15),[71] or simply αἴνεσις.[72] Philo knew the LXX terms—the general one for “peace offering” (θυσία σωτηρίου) and the specific one for “thank offering” (θυσία αἰνέσεως), as attested in his Special Laws, 1:224 (which discusses the thank offering).

Second, when we come to look closely at the passages Cazelles points to, they do not quite show what he suggests. Philo does in fact use εὐχαριστία and εὐχαριστέω to refer to peace offerings,[73] but he also uses them more widely for the disposition of thankfulness—hence he applies the words to offerings that are not in the peace offering category.[74] It is probably true to say of Philo, as Ledogar does in his study of “praise” vocabulary, that Philo’s use of εὐχαριστία and cognates reflects his interest in “the fundamental virtue behind all religious acts, not only praise but also prayer, the keeping of festivals, and, especially, sacrifice.”[75] So Philo’s “thanks” vocabulary is not specific enough to make Cazelles’s argument compelling.

A third problem is that we do not know how widespread Philo’s use of terms would have been, so its connection to that of the early church is uncertain.

There are some passages from Philo that do point in the direction we are looking, however. For example, in Special Laws, 1:224, he tells us about the “thank offering” (θυσία αἰνέσεως), saying that the one who has experienced God’s bounty should requite God with “hymns and benedictions and prayers and sacrifices and the other expressions of thankfulness (εὐχαριστίαι) as religion demands.” He then goes on to say, “all these collected and summed up have obtained the single name of praise (αἴνεσις).” So he does express a close connection between the LXX name of the thank offering, and the idea expressed by εὐχαριστία.

We can take Cazelles’s suggestion and make it into a stronger case if we do two things: first, if we consider what we find in Josephus (A.D. 37-ca. 100), and second, if we expand our discussion to the etymologically related term χαριστήριον “thank-offering”—a term not used in the LXX.[76]

Josephus associates giving thanks (εὐχαριστίαι) and sacrifices (θυσίαι) in Antiquities, 9:2, in describing Jehoshaphat’s response to the rebuke and encouragement from Jehu the Seer (2 Chr 19:1–3): he betook himself to acts of thanks and sacrifices (Josephus adding this detail to the Biblical account).[77] And when describing the peace offering of the Pentateuch (Ant. 3:228), he calls it ἡ χαριστήριος θυσία—”the thankful sacrifice.”[78]

If we now consider Philo’s use of the term χαριστήριον, we see that he too applies it to genuine peace offerings (as the Passover, Spec. 2:146; the votive offering, Moses 1:219, 253; the consecration of the firstborn, Spec. 1:138; 3:134).[79] Philo’s usage here seems to be more specific to the peace offering.

It appears, therefore, that both of these two preeminent Jewish authors, contemporary with the NT, who (like the NT) aimed at an audience wider than Judaism, used words related to εὐχαριστία for peace offerings—with Josephus being clearer than Philo. Perhaps, then, this shows that at least some Hellenistic Jews could use these words for the peace offering; and if this is so, then this helps to explain why the early church made this their term for what the NT writers called “the Lord’s Supper” (τὸ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) because it corresponded to the peace offering.

APPENDIX 3: Sacrificial Images for the Death of Christ

In the body of this essay I have argued that the peace offering is the sacrificial model for the Eucharist in the NT. Other kinds of sacrifices appear in the NT, of course—especially to depict the benefits of Christ’s death for believers. In this Appendix I will give a very brief survey of these pictures. We will see that the NT usage is consistent with the distinctions between the sacrifices.

The other kinds of OT sacrifices include the “burnt offering” (Hebrew עולה; LXX ὁλοκαύτωμα Lev 1:3, and ὁλοκάρπωσις, Gen 8:20); the “sin offering” (Hebrew חטאת; see discussion below); the “guilt offering” or “compensation” (Hebrew אשׁם; LXX πλημμελεία Lev 5:6, occasionally περὶ ἁμαρτίας, Isa 53:10); and the “grain offering” (Hebrew מנחה; LXX θυσία—both terms are general but used in a specialized sense).

The Greek renderings for the sin offering are more complicated than those for other sacrifices. Since the Hebrew term חטאת can also mean “sin,” we might expect the Greek ἁμαρτία to be the translation; but this is fairly rare in the Pentateuch (Exod 29:36; Lev 4:21, 24; 5:12; Num 18:9). The Greek translation seems to depend on the syntax of the Hebrew, so that לחטאת (“for a sin offering”) is περὶ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας (“concerning sin,” e.g., Lev 4:3). Then the phrase περὶ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας can render the simple noun itself (e.g., Lev 5:11b). Commonly the Hebrew noun is rendered by a Greek substantival phrase, namely, an article with ἁμαρτία either as a genitive or as the object of a preposition: e.g., Lev 4:8 τὸ στέαρ τοῦ μόσχου τοῦ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (“the fat of the bull—the one of sin”; or ESV, “the fat of the bull of the sin offering”); Lev 6:10 τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (“the sin offering”); Lev 6:18 τὰ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (“the sin offering”).[80] In Exod 29:14 we find a genitive without the article to render “it is a sin offering”: ἁμαρτίας γάρ ἐστιν (“for it is of sin”). Perhaps the article is absent because the genitive is the predicate.[81]

Of these the NT especially uses the expression περὶ ἁμαρτίας, as in Rom 8:3b:

ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί,

By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin [ESV margin, as a sin offering], [God] condemned sin in the flesh. . .

See also Heb 5:3; 13:11; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.[82]

Other terms that evoke the sacrificial system include references to ἱλασμός (“propitiatory sacrifice”), which represents Hebrew כפורים (“atonement, atoning sacrifice”) in Lev 25:9 and Num 5:8 (see also 2 Mace 3:33). In 1 John 2:2; 4:10 Jesus is said to be ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν (“the propitiatory sacrifice for our sins”). The related word ἱλαστήρτον (“place or act of propitiation”), which typically renders כפורת (“mercy seat”) in the LXX (but see 4 Mace 17:22, where it refers to a propitiatory sacrifice), appears in Rom 3:25, which speaks of Christ, “whom God put forward as a propitiation [ἱλαστήρτον] by his blood.” The verb ἱλάσκομαι (“to make propitiation [for]”) commonly renders כפר (“to make atonement”); it appears in Heb 2:17, where Christ “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

First Peter 1:19 speaks of believers as having been ransomed τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ (“with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot”). The expression ἀμνὸς ἄμωμος commonly renders כבשׂ תמים (“lamb without blemish”), which is required for a burnt offering (e.g., Exod 29:38).

The NT does apply Passover imagery to Jesus’ work: in 1 Cor 5:7, “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed”; but the context there is not the Eucharist, but the removal of leaven during Passover (as an emblem of removing “malice and evil,” v. 8); compare Exod 12:15; Deut 16:4 for the requirement. In John 19:36, we are told that “these things”—namely the fact that the soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus—”took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘Not one of his bones will be broken [ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ].’” This is likely a reference to Exod 12:46, which contains instructions for the Passover lamb: ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ (“you shall not break any of its bones”).[83]

It is possible that John 1:29—ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”)—refers to Jesus as the Passover lamb. The difficulty with that is the word ἀμνός (“lamb”), which the LXX does not use in Passover contexts. A better candidate is Isa 53:7 LXX,[84] where the Servant—a Messianic figure in the NT[85] —is ἀμνὸς ἐναντίον τοῦ κείραντος αὐτὸν (“a lamb before its shearer”). Since in this context the Servant is a guilt offering (Isa 53:10), it seems unlikely that this is a Passover reference.

Notes

1. For a clear statement of this position, see B. B. Warfield, “Communion in Christ’s Body and Blood,” in Faith and Life (1916; repr. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 227–28. Others who connect the Eucharist to the Passover include E. M. B. Green, “Eucharistic Sacrifice in the New Testament and the Early Fathers,” in Eucharistic Sacrifice (ed. J. I. Packer; London: Church Book Room Press, 1962), 67–68, and A. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 873–74. See also J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner’s, 1966), 22–231; Jean Zizioulas, “L’Eucharistie: Quelques aspects bibliques,” in Jean Zizioulas, Jean-Marie-Roger Tillard, and Jean-Jacques von Allmen, L’Eucharistie (Églises en Dialogue 12; Maison Mame, 1970), 20–22.
2. M. Vasey, “Eucharist, Sacrifice, and Scripture,” in Essays on Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Early Church (ed. C. Buchanan; Bramcote, Nottinghamshire: Grove Books, 1984), 7. See also Steve Walton, “Sacrifice and Priesthood in Relation to the Christian Life and Church in the New Testament,” in Sacrifice in the Bible (ed. Roger T. Beckwith and Martin J. Selman; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 143; Roger Beckwith, “The Relation between Christ’s Sacrifice and Priesthood and Those of the Church: An Attempt at a Summary Statement,” Churchman 103, no. 3 (1989): 233; Green, “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” 71.
3. I have left out John 6:51–58 (included in Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum), since it remains to be seen whether and how it applies to the Eucharist—and this is outside the scope of this essay.
4. R. F. Collins (1 Corinthians [Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999], 380) takes the verse (10:18) as a reference to the priests’ eating, and not to the people’s. But surely the NA27 editors were right to offer a broader reference in the margin; after all, Paul speaks of Israel as a whole, and the issue in 1 Corinthians concerns the people as a whole.
5. See Richard E. Averbeck, “שֶׁלֶם [peace offering],” NIDOTTE 4:141. R. T. Beckwith (“The Age of Admission to the Lord’s Supper,” WTJ 38 [1976]: 135) denies that the Passover is a peace offering; but Averbeck provides the reasons to sustain it. See also Gordon Wenham, Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 82 n. 15; and Jean M. R. Tillard, “Une crux oecumenistarum: L’Eucharistie sacrifice,” in Communio Sanctorum: Mélanges offerts à Jean-Jacques von Allmen (ed. B. Bobrinskoy et al.; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1982), 273–74. More fully see J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (1860; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980), 365; he notes that the Passover is called a זבח (“sacrifice”), the common name of the peace offering. It, like the peace offering, includes the communal meal, and the directions for disposing of the leftovers (Exod 12:10) correspond to those for the peace offering (Lev 7:15). The dabbling of the Passover blood corresponds to the sprinkled blood of the peace offering (Lev 17:6). Green (“Eucharistic Sacrifice,” 67) betrays confusion on this point: he thinks that the term זבח (“sacrifice”; Greek, θυσία) is applied only loosely to the Passover, not recognizing that the term is a general one for the peace offering.
6. This is not to deny that the Passover was the historical occasion on which Jesus instituted the rite (see Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 871–74, showing the Passover origin). Rather, I am arguing that the Passover idea is included in the Eucharist—since it is a kind of peace offering—but does not exhaust its meaning. This allows us to reject Mary Douglas’s effort to connect the Eucharist with the grain offering, in “The Eucharist: Its Continuity with the Bread Sacrifice of Leviticus,” Modern Theology 15 (1999): 209-24. She gives no serious attention to any NT text in her discussion. I think it unlikely that the grain offering plays any part in the Eucharist, because, first, only the priests ate from it, and second, there is no shedding of blood.
7. I use traditional terms for these, as found in the ESV. I am not addressing the question of whether we can find better names for them, such as “purification offering” and “reparation offering” for the “sin offering” and “guilt offering.” We also need to be careful, because in common usage—as opposed to Biblical—a “peace offering” is a gift by which one makes peace.
8. Ezek 45:15, 17 may seem like an exception. However, the peace offering and grain offering appear in a list with the burnt offering and sin offering, which “make atonement.”
9. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, “Spirituality in Offering a Peace Offering,” TynBul 50 (1999): 29.
10. In traditional Christian terms, I would suggest that the idea of atonement is “sacramentally expressed” in the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings, for various purposes, while in the peace offering fellowship with God is sacramentally expressed.
11. Kiuchi, “Spirituality in Offering,” 31.
12. Gordon Wenham, “The Theology of Old Testament Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice in the Bible, 83–84. See also Wenham, Leviticus, 81–83.
13. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the OT 175. See further A. F. Rainey (“The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts,” Bib 51 [1970]: 485-98) who concludes: “The peace offerings represented the communal experience in which the Lord, the priest and the worshipper (along with his family and the indigent in his community, Dt 12, 17–19) all had a share. The ritual approach was therefore: expiation, consecration, fellowship.”
14. Useful surveys of the passages include J. de Watteville, Le sacrifice dans les texts eucharistiques des premiers sicls (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1966); Maurice Jourjon, “Textes eucharistiques des pres anténicéens” in L’Eucharistie; Le sens du sacrement: Un dossier théologique (ed. R. Didier; Lyon: Faculté de Théologie, 1971), 94–118; Willy Rordorf et al., The Eucharist of the Early Christians (New York: Pueblo, 1978); and Robert J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judaeo-Christian Background before Origen (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1978), 498–508.
15. Didache 14:1–3 (perhaps from the first century); Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-165), Dialogue with Trypho, §§28, 41, 117; Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 115-200), Against Heresies, 4.17.5–6, and Fragment, §37. E. B. Pusey (The Minor Prophets with a Commentary Explanatory and Practical [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885], 2:472–74) gives a full documentation of Patristic references to Mal 1:10–14. (The Didache is not included in his list, it having been but newly-published.)
16. Walton (“Sacrifice and Priesthood, “143) asserts without argument that Malachi speaks of the meal offering, as does Green, “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” 72. Although the word can refer to that, it does not have to, and it is used generally in Malachi, as argued here. Justin Martyr, Trypho, §41, may perhaps have thought that the grain offering was the antecedent; but we may say two things in reply: first, he calls it a “type of the bread of the Eucharist,” and does not make much more of it than that, and second, if he thought there was a closer connection (without saying it explicitly), then this would be an example of terms and practices changing more slowly than explanations, as I mentioned above.
17. ESV, rendering MT; LXX is similar.
18. BDAG, 462b–463a.
19. A common expression for peace offering is θυσία σωτηρίου.
20. Justin, Trypho, §117. For a good discussion that supports the future idea, see Douglas Stuart, “Malachi,” in The Minor Prophets, vol. 3 (ed. Thomas E. McComiskey; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1304–7; see also Ernest C. Lucas, “Sacrifice in the Prophets,” in Sacrifice in the Bible, 69. The contrary position is argued (unsuccessfully, I judge) in, e.g., M. Zar-Kavod, “Malachi,” in TrêʿAsar (Minor Prophets, Daʿat Miqra; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1970), 4–5; Andrew E. Hill, Malachi (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 187.
21. Did. 14:2; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4.18.1. See also Cyril of Jerusalem, Lectures on the Christian Sacraments, §5:3 (more discussion on him below).
22. Bernard Cooke (“Synoptic Presentation of the Eucharist as Covenant Sacrifice,” TS 21 [March 1960]: 11) suggests that “a peace offering is indirectly referred to in Mt 5:23, ” though he does not address the Greek terms—nor does he see the close connection between NT language about the Eucharist and the peace offering.
23. There are at least two possible grammatical constructions of this entire phrase, and my point does not depend on which is preferred. The full phrase is ἐὰν τοὺς. .. προσενεγκόντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. J. B. Lightfoot (The Apostolic Fathers, Part I: Clement of Rome [London: Macmillan, 1890], 2:294) translates “if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office,” taking τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς as a single phrase. Michael W. Holmes (The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 79) takes τἀ δῶρα as the object of προσενεγκόντας, and τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς as a genitive to go with ἀποβάλωμεν: “if we remove from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts.” Holmes’s rendering is more likely, in view of the words that have just preceded in 44:3, ἀποβάλλεσθαι τῆς λειτουργίας “to be removed from the ministry,” which display the same syntax (and a neat chiasmus for those who like such things: ἀποβάλλω <genitive>. .. <genitive> σ̓ποβάλλω). See also BDAG, 107b, s.v. ἀποβάλλω, sense 4.
24. See William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 198–99, on Philadelphians.
25. See Ignatius (e.g., Phld. 4; Smyrn. 6:2; 8:1) and Justin Martyr (First Apology §66). Along with the verb εὐχαριστέω, it may be used in this technical sense in Did. 9–10, though some dispute it. Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser (The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity [Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2002], 298–304) argue that it is; Kurt Niederwimmer (The Didache [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 144) contends that it is not. My discussion does not depend on the outcome of this.
26. One occasionally reads the assertion that εὐχαριστέω and cognates render Hebrew ברך, for example, Georges Blond, “Clement of Rome,” in Rordorf, et al., The Eucharist of the Early Christians, 25—but this is incorrect: the two occasions when a Hebrew original exists for cognates of εὐχαριστέω, Prov 11:16 and Sir 37:11, do not contain the Hebrew root ברך. The usual rendering for this Hebrew root is εὐλογέω and cognates.
27. The Patristic citations in Gerald Bray, ed., 1-2 Corinthians (Ancient Christian Commentary; Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999) display no grasp of the differences in the various kinds of sacrifice in the OT (these Patristic sources, though, are generally from a later period).
28. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (ed. F. L. Cross; Crestwood, N.Y: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986). The citations are from Lecture 5, §§8, 10 (I have in places improved the ET of the Greek).
29. As in Cross’s introduction to Cyril’s Lectures, page xxxiii. According to Frances Young (The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom [Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979]), the notion that the Eucharist was a propitiatory sacrifice has plenty of evidence “in the later part of our period” (pp. 269-70, cf. 279–82), and is especially clear in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures. That applies to the Greek-speaking church; in the Latin-speaking realm, these ideas appear earlier, at least with Cyprian (ca. A.D. 200-258)—see R. P. C. Hanson, Eucharistic Offering in the Early Church (Bramcote, Nottinghamshire: Grove Books, 1979), 17.
30. In the LXX, ἱλασμός appears, for example, in Lev 25:9 (Day of Atonement); Num 5:8 (a ram of atonement); Ezek 44:27 (a sin offering). The verb ἐξιλεόω does not appear, but it seems to be a variant of ἐξιλάσκομαι, which is commonly used of propitiatory offerings: burnt offering (Lev 1:4), sin offering (Lev 4:20, 26), and guilt offering (Lev 5:6), but not of the peace offering. On the usage of ἐξιλεόω, see LSJM, 594b; G. W. H. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 496b–497a.
31. I wonder if this also explains why the Eucharist was originally part of an Agape meal: such social concern for the poor and the clergy echoes that of Deut 12:17–19; 16:10–11 (and see Ignatius, Smyrn. 6:2, which draws a connection between the Eucharist and concern for the widow, fatherless, oppressed, imprisoned, released, hungry, and thirsty). This setting makes good account of the concerns so aptly described in B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 142–58 (which takes the Passover as the backcloth, p. 150): “the Christians who were the ‘haves’ should have welcomed those have-nots by sharing their food with them” (p. 144). I suspect that we also have an explanation why the people brought food to share (1 Cor 11:20–22), which might be called their “offering” (e.g., 1 Clem. 40:4).
32. Warfield, “Communion in Christ’s Body and Blood,” 226–27. Warfield’s sermon is based on 1 Cor 10:16–17, and even though he fails to make the connection with the peace offering, he still has many valuable insights. In quoting these words I make no claim as to the “mode” by which Christ makes himself present to those who partake.
33. Perhaps that explains why the Eucharist uses bread in place of meat: the blood of Jesus now having been shed, we shed sacrificial blood no more. All these considerations show how wrong-headed is the argument of George May, “The Lord’s Supper: Ritual or Relationship? Making a Meal of It in Corinth, Part 2: Meals at Corinth,” RTR 61 (2002): 1-18. May rejects the idea that the Last Supper of Jesus instituted “a ritual that is to be repeated after Jesus’ death” (p. 1), and claims that “it is hard to find in [the descriptions of the Last Supper and the meals of the early church] any sacramental, ritual, liturgical or ceremonial celebrations” (p. 17). Running through his discussion is an unexamined premise that ritual and gospel are antithetical—a premise not supported either by the Old Testament or by the New.
34. Theodore Stylianopoulos, “Holy Eucharist and Priesthood in the New Testament,” GOTR 23(1978): 129.
35. Ecumenical discussions have fostered a variety of ways of describing the relationship, and the Stylianopoulos quotation seems to be one of these. The essays in Packer, ed., Eucharistic Sacrifice, analyze these proposals critically, especially J. I. Packer, “Introduction” (1–21), and R. J. Coates, “The Doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice in Modern Times” (127–53). In general, I think that their theological concerns are valid ones. Someone with different theological concerns, but who nevertheless agrees with my assessment of the NT picture, is Frances Young, The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom, 273–80 (see her comments, for example, on pp. 273, 278, and 279 n. 112).
36. I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 79–80.
37. For an historical survey, see Robert Taft, “The Frequency of the Eucharist throughout History,” in Can We Always Celebrate the Eucharist? (ed. Mary Collins and David Power; New York: Seabury, 1982), 13–24. He argues that, though the frequency of the Eucharist has varied over time, “less than every Sunday can lay no claim to be traditional.” This tradition, Taft argues, has its roots in the NT itself, as in Acts 20:7–12 and 1 Cor 16:2, and in the designation “Lord’s Day” in Rev 1:10 to correspond to “Lord’s Supper” (both use the same adjective, κυριακός).
38. Green, “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” 61.
39. Young, The Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 307 (referring to Chrysostom’s Homilies on Hebrews, xvii).
40. Paul’s Passover reference, 1 Cor 5:7–8, does not occur in a context where the Eucharist is in view. Rather, it is an application of the “cleansing out the leaven” motif connected with the Passover (Deut 16:4).
41. See Young, The Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 306–9. She contends that Origen’s use of this association “may not be very significant since it need not give evidence for the general belief of the Church.”
42. For just two examples among many, consider Green, “Eucharistic Sacrifice,” 66; Bernard Cooke, “Synoptic Presentation of the Eucharist as Covenant Sacrifice,” in TS 21 (1960): 35. When Cooke goes on to say (p. 36), “Jesus if the diathêkê” (his italics), he is failing to tie himself to the words of the Gospel account.
43. By “redemptive-historical change” I mean a change in the way in which God’s covenant is administered through time, so that a loyal covenant member was to practice his faith accordingly: e.g., after Gen 17 circumcision was the external mark of the covenant, and failure to observe it meant disaster (Gen 17:14). After 2 Sam 7 the house of David was the channel of God’s covenantal working, and salvation was tied to it (and thus prophets to the Northern kingdom told of their return to David, as in Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11–15).
44. See, e.g., Gen 17:14; Deut 31:16, 20; Jer 11:10.
45. For specific terms see, for example, Prov 3:3; 7:3 (writing on the heart); Isa 1:3; 1 Sam 3:7 (where not knowing the Lord is a reproach); Ps 25:11 (forgiveness). For the expression “I will be their God and they shall be my people,” see Gen 17:7–8 (note also Jer 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; Ezek 34:24, 31; 36:28). For internality in general, see Deut 6:5–6; 10:16; 30:6, 14 (and in Jer, see 4:4; 9:25–26).
46. Passages for Ezekiel’s “new covenant” include Ezek 11:14–21 (esp. v. 20); 16:60–63; 34:25; 36:22–32; 37:26. It is possible that Isa 42:6; 49:8; 54:10; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8 deal with the topic as well, but that is a matter for another discussion.
47. R. S. Rayburn (“The Contrast between the Old and New Covenants in the New Testament” [Ph.D. diss., University of Aberdeen, 1978]) argues—persuasively, to my mind—that this is in fact the idea behind the NT use of the expression “New Covenant” in 2 Cor 3:5–18 and Heb 8:7–13. For now, however, I am simply seeing if we can look at the Eucharistic saying against the backdrop of Jeremiah. On pp. 506-7 Rayburn mentions a few ideas on the Lord’s Supper, with nothing conclusive.
48. Warfield, “Communion in Christ’s Body and Blood,” 229.
49. In 1 Cor 11:24–25, the syntax of the two assertions is the same: τοῦτο “this” and τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον “this cup” are the subjects, with the linking verb ἐστίν “is.” In Luke 22:19 we have the linking verb, while in v. 20 it is missing; but since these are but two ways of expressing the same structure (that is, a predicate nominative), there is no difference in the ideas expressed. Winter (After Paul Left Corinth, 153–54) discusses some of the word order differences between Luke and 1 Corinthians, but they have no bearing on the point I am discussing.
50. A sacrament is a sacred rite of the covenant that uses symbolism, but also conveys what it symbolizes—for spiritual nurture (1 Cor 10:16–18) or for punishment (1 Cor 11:29–30), depending on the condition of the worshiper.
51. The discussion widens to include the exact connection between the sacrament and Christ’s historical sacrifice, but I have handled that above and need say no more.
52. Trypho, §§41, 70, and First Apology, §66.
53. Robert J. Ledogar (Acknowledgment: Praise Verbs in the Early Greek Anaphora [Rome: Herder, 1968], 131–35) thinks that his vocabulary study favors this take on the anamnesis.
54. A. R. Millard, “Covenant and Communion in First Corinthians,” Apostolic History and the Gospel (ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin; Exeter: Paternoster, 1970), 242–48.
55. These are Lev 24:7 (a memorial portion in the tabernacle bread); Num 10:10 (blowing the trumpets serves as a reminder of the people before God); the titles of Pss 38 and 70 (“for the memorial offering”); and Wis 16:6 (where the bronze serpent was “a symbol of salvation, for a reminder of your law’s command”).
56. Deut 16:3 (at Passover the people of Israel must remember how they came out of Egypt); Ps 20:4 (LXX 19:4, may the LORD remember all the king’s offerings); 42:5 (LXX 41:5; the psalmist remembers how he will go to the house of God; this seems to begin his encouragement of v. 6).
57. I suspect that Ps 42:5 fits in with this as well.
58. Many have rejected the idea of God remembering, asserting the theological point that God does not forget—for example, Thomas Hewitt, “The Development of Eucharistic Doctrine up to the English Reformation,” in Eucharistic Sacrifice, 94: “It is man who forgets, never God.” But this is a failure to reckon with the analogical language used in the Bible itself.
59. Additional bibliography includes David Gregg, Anamnesis in the Eucharist (Grove Liturgical Studies 5; Bramcote, Nottinghamshire: Grove Books, 1976), and “Hebraic Antecedents to the Eucharistic ᾿Ανάμνησις Formula,” TynBul 30 (1979): 165-68—both of which are marred by poor philological method. (For example, he searches for a presumed Hebrew original for the Greek expression, and makes the Hebrew the object of exegesis; but the Greek is meant to be understood by Greek speakers, and it alone has empirical existence.) Robert A. D. Clancy, “The Old Testament Roots of Remembrance in the Lord’s Supper,” Concordia Journal 19, no. 1 (January 1993): 35-50. Interestingly, Clancy allows that “there may be a double remembrance going on in the Lord’s Supper” (p. 47).
60. This is clearest in his Smyrn. 8:1–2: “Let that Eucharist be counted valid, which is under the bishop, or to whomever he designates [it].. .. It is not lawful either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop.” See also Justín Martyr, First Apology, §§65, 67, where the “president” (προεστώς) both ministers the word and officiates at the Eucharist.
61. Stylianopoulos, “Holy Eucharist and Priesthood in the NT,” 129.
62. Louis Leloir, “Permanent Values of the Levitical Priesthood,” in A. M. Charue et al., Priesthood and Celibacy (Milan: Editrice Àncora, 1972), 31–65. In the same volume, see also Joseph Coppens, “Old Testament Priesthood,” 3–30. One does not need to follow these authors’ agreement with critical reconstructions of Israel’s history, or their endorsement of clerical celibacy (contrary to the OT model!), to find great benefit in their essays.
63. Most recently, see Colin Bulley, The Priesthood of Some Believers (Carlisle, Cumbria and Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster Press, 2000), and my review of this work in Presb 28:2 (2002): 115-19.
64. Leloir, “Permanent Values,” 58.
65. I. Howard Marshall (Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 156) suggests that baptism itself should not be a requirement for participation: “The New Testament says nothing about any particular conditions for participation in the sacrament beyond a willingness to come to Christ in faith and with love for other believers.” But Marshall is operating with too restrictive a notion of what it would take for the NT to “say anything about” some subject. If, as I have argued, it draws on peace offering ideas from the OT, then we should assume that the principles for participation are analogous, unless we have clear warrant otherwise.
66. It should be obvious from this discussion that I endorse infant baptism. The household terminology of these passages, and that of Gen 17:27 (LXX), makes it hard for me to see the household baptisms in the NT (e.g., Acts 16:15, 31–34; 1 Cor 1:16) in any other light.
67. These texts include Isa 1:11–17; 29:13; Amos 5:21–25; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6–8; Jer 7:21–23; and 1 Sam 15:22. For discussion of these, see J. A. Motyer, “Prophecy, Prophets,” in New Bible Dictionary (ed. D. R. W. Wood et al.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 971a–972a. Motyer argues that these texts do not reject sacrifice as such; instead they are aimed at abuses of the system. His case would be much better, however, if he noted that the prophets Amos and Hosea addressed Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and hence the sacrifices offered there were automatically defiled—under no circumstances could they follow the Pentateuch’s law (see 1 Kgs 12:26–33).
68. Compare Christian Keidel (“Is the Lord’s Supper for Children?” WTJ 37 [1975]: 301-41) who favors “paedocommunion,” with R. T. Beckwith (“The Age of Admission to the Lord’s Supper”) who opposes it. But neither provides a knock-down argument, since they both assume that the Eucharist continues the Passover. (Beckwith argues on the basis of whether children were expected to participate in the Passover in the first century.)
69. J. H. Srawley, The Early History of the Liturgy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949), 234, referring to Cyprian’s De Lapsis, 25; Augustine, De Peccat. Merit, i.20; Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 12. See more fully David Holeton, Infant Communion—Then and Now (Grove Liturgical Studies 27; Bramcote, Nottinghamshire: Grove Books, 1981).
70. See Henri Cazelles, “L’Anaphore et l’Ancien Testament,” in Eucharisties d’Orient et d’Occident (ed. B. Botte; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1970), 16–17; Tillard (“Une crux oecumenistarum,” 278–80) draws heavily on this. See also Dennis R. Lindsay (“Todah and Eucharist: The Celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘Thank Offering’ in the Early Church,” ResQ 39:2 [1997]: 83-100) who observes that Aquila’s Greek OT used εὐχαριστία for the thank offering.
71. For example, Lev 7:12, 13, 15; Ps 50:14, 23 (LXX 49:14, 23); 107:22 (LXX 106:22); 116:17 (LXX 115:8); 2 Chr 29:31; 33:16. See also 1 Mace 4:56, θυσία σωτηρίου καὶ αἰνέσεως “a sacrifice of salvation and praise” (θυσία σωτηρίου is a common rendering of “peace offering”); and Sir 35:2 θυσιάζων αἰνέσεως “a sacrificer of praise.” Lev 22:29 has εὐχὴ χαρμοσύνης “vow offering of joy” (εὐχή commonly renders the vow offering—another kind of peace offering—in the LXX). It would be worthwhile to explore whether Heb 13:15 refers to the thank offering, since it is in a context of corporate worship, and the author had mentioned an “altar” (θυσιαστήριον) that Christians have, in verse 10. (Daly, [Christian Sacrifice, 281–285] surveys some of the difficulties, leaving a Eucharistic reference possible.)
72. E.g., Ps 56:13 (LXX 55:13); Jer 17:26; and possibly Jonah 2:10.
73. E.g., in Sacr. 52, 63.
74. E.g., in Spec. 1:169, referring to the daily offerings of Num 28:1–8, which are burnt offerings (v. 6). Cazelles mentioned θυσία εὐχαριστίας “sacrifice of thanks” in Philo, but in Spec. 1:297 he uses that expression of the lamps of Lev 24:3–4.
75. Ledogar, Acknowledgment, 96 (he discusses Philo on pp. 94-97).
76. It is the neuter of the adjective χαριστήριος “pertaining to thanksgiving,” used substantially. Both terms are related to χάρις, one of whose meanings is “gratitude.” See LSJM, 704b, on εὐ- in compounds: it expresses such ideas as abundance.
77. Josephus’s words: καὶ τότε μὲν ἐπ᾿ εὐχαριστίας καὶ θυσίας ὁ βασιλεὺς τρέπεται τοῦ θεοῦ “and thereupon the king betakes himself to giving thanks and sacrifices to God”—and one wonders if, in context, “thanks and sacrifices” are a hendiadys referring to some kind of peace offering, since the account goes on to speak of Jehoshaphat’s subsequent good works.
78. In Ant. 3:224–257, he describes the sacrifices in general. From the description he gives, it is clear that χαριστήριον is his general term for the peace offering, in an account aimed at a Gentile audience.
79. There is some discussion among OT scholars regarding to what extent the consecration of the firstborn is a peace offering: Num 18:15–18 make this the priests’portion, while Deut 15:19–23 make it a kind of peace offering (though it does not speak of the human firstborn). We may decide that the two passages are at odds with each other; or we may look for some harmonization, such as that of Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the OT, 443: these were the priests’ peace offerings. But the key for us is, what did Philo think of them? Philo is speaking of the consecration of human firstborn (Exod 13:2; 22:28 [ET 22:29]), likening them to the firstfruits (ἀπαρχή)—as the LXX does in Exod 22:28 (but not the MT). In view of this, and Deut 12:6, 11, 17 LXX, which treat the firstfruits (ἀπαρχαί) along with the peace offerings, we may conclude that Philo is treating the consecration of the firstborn as some kind of peace offering (see also Spec. 1:152 on the firstfruits as a thank-offering). At Spec. 1:183–185, Philo also writes of thank-offerings at the Feast of Weeks (and see Deut 16:9–12).
80. See the usage in Ezek, where τὰ ὑπὲρ τῇς ἁμαρτίας alternates with τὰ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας for the “sin offering,” e.g., 40:39; 42:13.
81. Other renderings include καθαρισμὸς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Exod 30:10); ἁμάρτημα (Lev 4:29a); ἅγνισμα (Num 19:9, 17); ἱλασμός and ἐξιλασμός (Ezek 44:27; 45:19); and εἰς ἁμαρτίαν for לחטאת Num 6:14).
82. It is also possible that ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν in 1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4 (cf. Heb 7:27; 10:12) and καθαρισμὸς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (Heb 1:3) employ sin offering imagery.
83. A reference to Ps 34:20, whose wording is similar, is not impossible, though the Passover setting of the crucifixion makes the Exodus reference more likely.
84. The MT has the order “lamb. .. sheep,” while the LXX has the order “sheep. .. lamb.” Acts 8:32 also applies this text from Isaiah to Jesus’ death.
85. See, e.g, John 12:38.