Eucharist - Revision history

David Persyn: /* “This is My Body” (Sōma) */ tag typo

2015-01-08T15:58:39Z

‎“This is My Body” (Sōma): tag typo

David Persyn: /* “Poured Out for Many” */ Footnotes and Formats

2015-01-08T15:52:36Z

‎“Poured Out for Many”: Footnotes and Formats

David Persyn: /* “Do this in Remembrance of Me” */

2015-01-08T15:44:07Z

‎“Do this in Remembrance of Me”

David Persyn: /* “Do this in Remembrance of Me” */ Formats and Footnotes

2015-01-08T15:43:28Z

‎“Do this in Remembrance of Me”: Formats and Footnotes

David Persyn: /* “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” */ Format

2015-01-08T15:39:18Z

‎“This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood”: Format

David Persyn: /* “This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood” */ Footnotes and Formats

2015-01-08T15:38:15Z

‎“This Cup is the Covenant in My Blood”: Footnotes and Formats

Show changes

David Persyn: /* “This is My Body” (Sōma) */ Footnotes and Formats

2015-01-08T15:20:44Z

‎“This is My Body” (Sōma): Footnotes and Formats

Show changes

David Persyn: /* Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb */ Footnotes and Formats

2015-01-08T15:00:30Z

‎Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb: Footnotes and Formats

David Persyn: /* Jesus as Suffering Servant */ Footnotes and Formats

2015-01-08T14:51:23Z

‎Jesus as Suffering Servant: Footnotes and Formats

Show changes

David Persyn: /* The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions */ Formats and Footnotes

2015-01-08T14:34:34Z

‎The Meaning of Jesus’ Eucharistic Words and Actions: Formats and Footnotes

@@ Line 230: / Line 230: @@
 It seems that by “participation” Paul means more than participating in the historical self-sacrificed body of Jesus; He means participation in the presently existing body of Jesus which is capable of effecting unity among believers through unity with God.  McKenzie notes in this regard:
-<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet.  Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion.  Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body.  The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. …  The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers].  But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.''  Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim.  The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.</ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251.  Italics mine.</ref></blockquote
+<blockquote>The sacrificial element prominent in this passage of 1 Co and implicit in the formulae of institution is communion with the deity in the sacrificial banquet.  Through the Eucharist the deity is rendered present in a striking and unique fashion.  Communion is achieved only through Jesus Christ, who is man, and as man is body.  The body is therefore rendered really present; the language of the four sources…leaves no room for mere symbolism in this respect. …  The body which is present is the glorified body; we seem justified in believing that the NT implies that it is through His resurrection and exaltation that the body of Jesus becomes the Church [the unity of believers].  But this is the body “which was delivered for you,” one and the same Lord Jesus who ''died, rose, and sits at the right hand of the Father.''  Communion is achieved through the ''participation'' of the body and the blood of the victim.  The salvation of the NT is not directed to the soul, but to the man, and man in Hebrew thought is body; if salvation is to reach man, his communion with the Savior must be a communication of body.<ref>McKenzie 1965, p. 251.  Italics mine.</ref></blockquote
 Paul’s view of the “body of Christ” cannot be retroactively put into the mind of Christ, for Paul is speaking in the light of having witnessed the risen Jesus.  Nevertheless, one cannot altogether delete Paul’s interpretation from the mind of Jesus, for Jesus associated His “body” with His risen life with the Father, and this risen life would have been the vehicle through which the full meaning of the new covenant (which He viewed as “the kingdom of God” or communion with God) would be effected.

@@ Line 334: / Line 334: @@
 === “Poured Out for Many” ===
-As noted above, the notion of pollōn (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew rabbim which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning.  When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.”  Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:
+As noted above, the notion of ''pollōn'' (many) in Jesus’ logion “poured out for many” is a translation of the Hebrew ''rabbim'' which can have an exclusive or inclusive meaning.  When it has the inclusive meaning, it signifies “all.”  Jeremias summarizes these linguistic issues as follows:
-While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”).  This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.
+<blockquote>While “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (“many, but not all”), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (“the whole, comprising many individuals”).  This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for “all”.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 179.</ref></blockquote>
-This inclusive sense of rabbim was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature.   When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.
+This inclusive sense of ''rabbim'' was very common in Old Testament and intertestamental literature.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, pp. 179-182.</ref>  When it is accompanied by the definite article in Talmudic and even New Testament texts, it almost always has an inclusive meaning (“all”); but, as Jeremias points out, it can frequently have an inclusive meaning even without the definite article.<ref>See Jeremias 1966, p. 180.</ref>
-In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses pollōn in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.”  This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (pantōn) instead of “many” (pollōn).  According to Jeremias:
+In the New Testament (with respect to Jesus’ self-sacrificial passion), Mark 10:45 uses ''pollōn'' in the inclusive sense to refer to Jesus’ “ransom for many.”  This passage refers back to the Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 53:10-12 which is interpreted in 1Timothy 2:6 by using the Greek word “all” (''pantōn'') instead of “many” (''pollōn'').  According to Jeremias:
-Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., lutron anti pollōn “a ransom for many”.  That polloi has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6:  antilutron huper pantōn, “a ransom for all”.  Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense.  Pollōn is therefore a Semitism.  ¶  14.24 to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn (“the[blood] poured out for many”).  The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order.  That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.
+<blockquote>Of especial importance for our passage is Mark 10.45 par., ''lutron anti pollōn'' “a ransom for many”.  That ''polloi'' has here the inclusive meaning “all” is shown by the reference in Mark 10.45 to Isa. 53.10-12, as well as by the parallel in I Tim. 2.6:  ''antilutron huper pantōn'', “a ransom for all”.  Just as Mark 10.45, so also our passage Mark 14.24 [Jesus’ eucharistic words] is to be interpreted in the inclusive sense.  ''Pollōn'' is therefore a Semitism.  14.24 ''to ekchunnomenon huper pollōn'' (“the[blood] poured out for many”).  The placing of the prepositional phrase at the end corresponds to Semitic word order.  That it is placed between the article and the participle independently of each other in Matthew as well as in Luke shows that the position at the end sounds harsh in Greek.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 181-82.</ref></blockquote>
-This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both pollōn (many) and pantōn (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ rabbim was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).
+This remarkable parallel which shows the rabbim in Isaiah 53:10-12 to be translated by both ''pollōn'' (many) and ''pantōn'' (all) in Mark and 1Timothy, respectively, and the very uncharacteristically Greek (but characteristically Semitic) expressions of the eucharistic words in Mark and Matthew offer strong evidence that Jesus’ ''rabbim'' was meant in an inclusive sense, and therefore, as “all” (all human beings).
 Once again, the unconditional nature of Jesus’ love emerges.  His sacrificial act is not for a chosen few, but rather for all humankind.  He offers this not only to His generation, but all future generations.  His gift of Himself is total and universal.  His love is unconditional.

@@ Line 328: / Line 328: @@
 If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated.  Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:
-<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind.  It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship.  Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality.  The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows:  do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref>
+<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind.  It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship.  Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality.  The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows:  do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref></blockquote>
 We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence.  This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

@@ Line 320: / Line 320: @@
 If Jeremias’ extensive study of ''anamnesis'' (remembrance) within Semitic cult is correct, then Jesus’ command of repetition (“Do this in remembrance of me”) has the double function of (1) asking God to recall something of religious significance, and (2) asking God to make that blessing really present (to recreate that blessing in the present).
-With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember:  “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers.  In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated:  ‘This do, that God may remember me’”
+With respect to the first point, Jeremias shows that in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Mark 14:9, Matt 26:13, and Acts 10:4) a ritual remembrance is not so much directed at the human subject but at God so that He might remember:  “…[I]n the Old Testament and Palestinian memorial formulae it is almost always God who remembers.  In accordance with this the command for repetition may be translated:  ‘This do, that God may remember me’”<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 251-52.</ref>
 With respect to the second point, Jeremias notes:
-This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective.  It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something:  that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly.  God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.”  When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.
+<blockquote>This calling into the presence of God [remembrance – anamnesis], this bringing to life before God, this recalling of the past, this is, on the other side, effective.  It has a purpose, it is intended to effect something:  that God may remember – mercifully or punishingly.  God’s remembrance is, namely (this is an important fact to which O. Michel called attention), never a simple remembering of something, but always and without exception “an effecting and creating event.”  When Luke 1.72 says that God remembers his covenant, this means that he is now fulfilling the eschatological covenant promise.<ref>Jeremias 1966, pp. 248-49.  Italics mine on “effecting and creating” and “now fulfilling.”</ref></blockquote>
 If we combine all these elements, it would seem that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” He expected that He and His self-sacrificial action would be presented to God (the Father) to be made present (real) in the blessed and distributed bread whenever the words of institution were repeated.  Johannes Betz summarizes the work of Michel, Jeremias, and others as follows:
-Anamnesis in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind.  It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship.  Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality.  ¶  The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows:  do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.
+<blockquote>''Anamnesis'' in the biblical sense means not only the subjective representation of something in the consciousness and as an act of the remembering mind.  It is also the objective effectiveness and presence of one reality in another, especially the effectiveness and presence of the salvific actions of God, in the liturgical worship.  Even in the OT, the liturgy is the privileged medium in which the covenant attains actuality.  The meaning of the logion may perhaps be paraphrased as follows:  do this (what I have done) in order to bring about my presence, to make really present the salvation wrought in me.<ref>Betz 1968-70, v. 2, p. 260.</ref>
 We may here see Jesus’ intention to extend His self-sacrificial gift, His whole self, and the covenant in His blood to all future generations through a ritual which recreates the efficacy of His passion through His real presence.  This desire to share in perpetuity is yet another manifestation of the unconditional nature of Jesus’ self-sacrificial covenant love.

@@ Line 274: / Line 274: @@
 Recall that Jesus anticipated a violent death to be followed by His resurrection,<ref>“…[W]e can see from the simile and from the use of ekchunnomenon that Jesus did expect a violent death.  Mark 14.25 par. makes it clear that Jesus was certain that God would vindicate his death by his resurrection and the establishment of the kingdom” (Jeremias 1966, p. 225).</ref> and that He separated the rituals of the bread and wine indicating a sacrifice (or in this case, a self-sacrifice).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref>
-  Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion).  Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews).  McKenzie notes in this regard that:
+Thus, the blood He refers to in the eucharistic ritual is His future sacrificial blood (the blood of the passion).  Jesus intended this to be a sacrifice of atonement (as implied by His allusions to the suffering servant and the paschal lamb) which was understood and deeply appreciated by the early Church (and reflected in the Pauline epistles and the Letter to the Hebrews).  McKenzie notes in this regard that:
 <blockquote>[Jesus] is a propitiatory offering in His blood (Rm 3:25), through which we are made righteous (Rm 5:9).  We are redeemed through His blood (Eph 1:7) and through it we draw near to God (Eph 2:13), and by His blood He has made peace (between man and God; Col 1:20).  The contrast and analogy between the blood of Jesus and the blood of sacrificial victims is drawn out at length in Heb.  His blood excels that of animals (Heb 9:12 ff).  Blood is the only effective agent of purification (Heb 9:20 ff) and of the remission of sins (9:22).  But the blood of animals cannot remove sins (10:4); Christ has effected eternal redemption by His own blood (9:12), through which we have access to the sanctuary (10:19).<ref>“For this purpose he used the twin concept [of body-blood] baśar wadam [Hebrew] or biśra udema [Aramaic] … [designating] the two component parts of the body, especially of sacrificial animals, which are separated when it is killed” (Jeremias 1966, pp. 221-22).</ref></blockquote>

@@ Line 176: / Line 176: @@
 === Jesus as the New Sacrificial Paschal Lamb ===
-As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan.  So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist?  Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:
+As noted above, it is likely that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper within the context of a Passover meal – perhaps an adapted Passover meal (without a lamb) on the eve of the 14th of Nisan.  So why would Jesus have chosen the Passover celebration to make His sacrifice and institute the Eucharist?  Jeremias believes that He wanted to compare Himself to the paschal lamb, or perhaps better, He wanted to be the eschatological paschal lamb – the one who was to initiate the new covenant (which He correlated with the kingdom of God) in His blood:<ref>Jeremias sees Jesus’ identification of Himself with the paschal lamb as correlative with His identification of the bread and wine with His own person.  He also notes that the early Pauline community commonly understood Jesus to be the paschal lamb.  See Jeremias 1966, p. 222-23.</ref>
-With the words den biśri, “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and den idmi, “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb.  He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.
+<blockquote>With the words ''den biśri'', “this is my (sacrificial) flesh”, and ''den idmi'', “this is my (sacrificial) blood”, Jesus is therefore most probably speaking of himself as the paschal lamb.  He is the eschatological paschal lamb, representing the fulfillment of all that of which the Egyptian paschal lamb and all the subsequent sacrificial paschal lambs were the prototype.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 223.</ref></blockquote>
 It should not be thought that the absence of a lamb at an adapted Passover meal (on the eve of the 14th of Nisan) militates against Jeremias’ thesis that Jesus associated Himself with the eschatological paschal lamb, for if Jesus did celebrate the Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, His own passion would have begun at the time that the paschal lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the feast celebrated on the eve of the 15th of Nisan.  This would correlate well with the Last Supper’s anticipation of the impending self-sacrifice which might have been Jesus’ very intention.
@@ Line 184: / Line 184: @@
 The lamb is a simile for two essential dimensions of the Eucharist:  (1) the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, and (2) the sacrifice initiating the covenant (leading out of slavery into a new life of freedom in the “promised land”).  With respect to the forgiveness of sins, Jeremias notes:
-By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death.  … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites.  The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power….
+<blockquote>By comparing himself with the eschatological paschal lamb Jesus describes his death as a saving death.  … [A]t the passover meal the attention was directed…to the one “passover of the exodus” for the sake of which God had mercifully “passed over” the houses of the Israelites.  The blood of the lambs slaughtered at the exodus from Egypt had redemptive power…<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 225.</ref></blockquote>
 This “redemptive power,” this atonement for sins, protects from death and leads to everlasting life:
-As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses.  For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said:  “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.”  In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.
+<blockquote>As a reward for the Israelites’ obedience to the commandment to spread blood on their doors, God manifested himself and spared them, “passing over” their houses.  For the sake of the passover blood God revoked the death sentence against Israel; he said:  “I will see the blood of the passover and make atonement for you.”  In the same way the people of God of the End time will be redeemed by the merits of the Passover blood.<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>
 Jesus sees His blood not only as a protection from death in this world (in imitation of the blood of the lamb at the Passover), but also as an eschatological protection (that is, a protection from death itself) which opens upon an eternal life of communion with Him and the Father:
-Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice:  his vicarious (huper) death brings into operation the final deliverance, the new covenant of God.  Diathēkē (“covenant”) is a correlate of basileia tōn ouranōn (“kingdom of heaven”).  The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).
+<blockquote>Jesus describes his death as this eschatological passover sacrifice:  his vicarious (''huper'') ''death brings into operation the final deliverance'', the new covenant of God.  ''Diathēkē'' (“covenant”) is a correlate of ''basileia tōn ouranōn'' (“kingdom of heaven”).  The content of this gracious institution which is mediated by Jesus’ death is perfect communion with God (Jer. 31.33-34a) in his reign, based upon the remission of sins (31.34b).<ref>Jeremias 1966, p. 226.</ref></blockquote>
-Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a sacrificial  death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.
+Thus, Jesus’ selection of the Passover (whether this was celebrated on the eve of the 14th or 15th of Nisan) as the context for His death was a deliberate attempt to manifest a ''sacrificial''<ref>As noted above, the separation of the word over the bread and the word over the wine by a Passover supper separates Jesus’ flesh from Jesus’ blood which would have been commonly understood by His audience to signify His self-sacrifice (reminiscent of all sacrifices which separate the flesh and blood of the gifts offered).</ref>  death, and therefore, His institution of the Eucharist at this time established Him as the new Passover sacrifice for the atonement of sins and the initiation of the new covenant unto eternal communion with Him and His Father.<ref>This is why the tradition used by Matthew which references the forgiveness of sins (“Drink from it, all of you.  This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” – Mt 26:28), though unique in the texts of the eucharistic words and therefore probably not original, is compatible with Jesus’ intentions at the last supper.  This is further confirmed by Jesus’ references to the suffering servant who atones for the sins of many by his self-sacrificial act (see above, II.A).</ref>
-There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape.  Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV).  Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God.  Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant ) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice.  By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.
+There is one more element to be discussed about Jesus’ identification of Himself with the Passover lamb, namely, its correlation with agape.  Recall that there is a natural correlation between Jesus’ view of love and the beatitudes (see Unit II-J, Section IV).  Love is humble-hearted, gentle-hearted, peace-making, merciful (forgiving), and accepting of persecution for the kingdom of God.  Jesus’ identification of Himself with the unblemished (innocent) lamb (correlative with the suffering servant<ref>“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Is 53:7).</ref>) brings to mind the humility and gentleness of the paschal lamb, as well as the forgiveness, reconciliation, and “endurance of persecution” intrinsic to its sacrifice.  By making Himself a self-sacrificial Passover offering, Jesus revealed Himself to be Unconditional Love.
 Thus, it is not only the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ self-offering which has the redemptive power to atone for sins and establish a covenant of eternal communion with God, but also the unconditional Love intrinsic to that sacrifice.  Jesus’ first-century audience would have probably noticed the redemptive power in the sacrifice more readily than in His unconditional Love, but subsequent generations, reflecting on Jesus’ words of love, began to realize that the unconditional Love intrinsic to the self-sacrifice is the sacrifice’s redemptive power.  Jesus was not using sacrifice in some kind of magical-mystical way to elicit God’s power; neither did He believe that God the Father was demanding that He sacrifice Himself in a mechanical way to atone for sins (“I will put my Son on one side of the scale to balance off all the negatives on your side”); Jesus sacrificed Himself to concretely actualize unconditional self-sacrificial gift (unconditional Love) in the world, which is the redemptive power overcoming all hatred, darkness, emptiness, and evil.  Notice that the Son’s self-sacrifice in unconditional Love was also the Father’s self-sacrifice, for the Father had to give His Son as much as the Son had to give Himself.

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 (1) His view of Himself as “suffering servant” (Is 52:13-53:12 – see Section II.B.1);
 (2) Jesus as the new sacrificial paschal lamb (II.B.2);
 (3) “This is my body” (soma – II.B.3);
 (4) “This cup is the covenant in my blood” (II.B.4);
 (5) “Do this in remembrance of me” (II.B5); and
 (6) “poured out for many” (II.B.6).
-As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.  The following diagram gives an overview of how this conclusion is manifest.
+As will become evident, the synthesis of these six elements (in their proper interpretation) points strongly to Jesus’ action as one of unconditional Love, which reveals a heart of unconditional Love.
 === Jesus as Suffering Servant ===
@@ Line 117: / Line 122: @@
 It may be helpful to here set out the whole Suffering Servant song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12, because reference will be made to it throughout this Unit on the Eucharist as well as the forthcoming Unit on the passion of Jesus:
-See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.  Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him.  For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).
+<blockquote>See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.  Just as there were many who were appalled at him – his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness – so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him.  For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand (52:13-15).
 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?  He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.  He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him (53:1-2).
@@ Line 137: / Line 142: @@
 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities (53:10-11).
-Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.  For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).
+Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.  For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (53:12 – italics mine).</blockquote>
 The obvious tie-in between the suffering servant song and Jesus’ eucharistic words occurs at 53:12.  The phrase “poured out for many,” which is a part of the oldest tradition of the eucharistic words, has a remarkable parallel with Isaiah 53:12 which states: