Having established the proposition, The breaking of bread in the communion is an act performed by every communicant, it is not necessary to answer the above question in order to understand what our duty is. We have established the fact that we break (1 Cor. 10:16) and that we are commanded to eat (Matt. 26:26). These two things we must do and whether Christ ate or didn't eat would not change what we must do now. But, since some brethren think the whole issue hinges upon the answer to the above question and argue we must prove that Christ partook in order in order to prove that the breaking of bread is an act performed by every communicant, I will give the scriptural evidence concerning it. Bear in mind, however, that I have already proved from the Scriptures that we all must break. If I prove that Christ partook of the drink element, I think all will admit that he also partook of the bread. I shall prove that Christ partook of the drink element which he called his "blood" and that he partook of it before his disciples did.

(1) The Fact of the Drinking - "And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until

that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mark 14:24-25). This proves that Christ drank since he could not have "more" until had had "some". But this Scripture does not definitely point out when he drank and what fruit of the vine he drank. It does establish the fact of his drinking.

(2) What Fruit of the Vine? - "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29). The fruit of the vine under consideration then was "this fruit of the vine," for which he had just given thanks (verse 27) and concerning which he had just said, "This is my blood" (verse 28), and not some fruit of the vine of which he had partaken in his past life.

(3) The Time of the Drinking - "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying (the "saying" was simultaneous with the giving of the cup to them), Drink ye all of it; For this Is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you (still "saying" as he gave the cup to them), I will not drink henceforth (from this very moment on) of this fruit or the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:27-29). First, we have proved that Christ drank. Second, we have proved he drank of the fruit of the vine which he used in the institution of the communion. Third, the above Scripture proves that this drinking could not have occurred after the disciples drank because Christ made this remark as he gave the cup to them and along with his command to them to drink. The "henceforth" forbids his drinking after the statement on that occasion. The irresistible conclusion is that Christ drank after he gave thanks and before he gave the cup to them. Since, "After the same manner also he took the cup" (1 Cor. 11:25), we must conclude that he also ate of the bread between the giving of thanks and the handing of it to the disciples.

But I think we can find a statement concerning Christ's eating of the bread in the Scriptures. David in a prophecy concerning Judas, who betrayed Christ, says, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalms 41:9). "My bread" must have reference to that bread of which Jesus said, "This is my body" (Matt. 26:26). If we admit that "my church" (Matt. 16:18) was not the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38), that "my kingdom" (Lk. 22:30) was not the "Jewish table," then we should admit that "my bread" was not the "passover bread". Jesus quoted this prophecy, applying it to himself and Judas, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (Jno. 13:18). According to Jesus he and Judas both ate "my bread," the bread of the communion. This prophecy was not fulfilled in Jno. 13 but was quoted by Jesus before its fulfillment, "Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he" (Jno. 13:19). The supper in Jno. 13 was not the Passover, as some mistakenly think, but was the supper in the house of Simon the leper in Bethany (Mk. 14:3) "two days before the passover" (Mk. 14:1) from which Judas first went to make the bargain with the chief priests to betray Christ (Mk. 14:10-11). Jno. 13:19 points out that this prophecy was to be fulfilled later and his disciples, noting the departure of Judas (Jno. 13:30) "thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things which we have need of against the feast" (Jno. 13:29). Judas was present at the institution of the communion for Jesus said, "The hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table" (Lk. 22:21). So Christ must have partaken with Judas because be said, "He that eateth bread with me" (Jno. 13:18), and this bread was "my bread" (Psa. 41:9).

The above Scriptural testimony should be enough to convince the fair minded student. But some, brushing aside this evidence with a careless sweep, ask with an air of triumph, "Would Christ eat his own flesh and drink his own blood?" To this I reply that Christ said he would drink of "this fruit of the vine" "when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29). Is it reasonable to think that Christ would thus contemplate drinking in the future that which he would not drink then? Would it not have been just as "proper" then as in the contemplated future? Some ask, "But why would he drink?" Well, he could be setting an example for us just as he was immersed to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15). And, while you present puzzles, what about the church, "which is his body" (Eph. 1:23), eating the bread, which is his body (Matt. 26:26)? The body of Christ eating the body of Christ.!!