On the New Testament usage:
We get still further confirmation
of our view that the Eucharistic elements were offered as consecrated,
not as mere bread and wine, from the prevalent sacrificial interpretation of ποιειτε in the
Institution Narrative. . . . Let us note that as soon as we take ποιετε to mean “offer” instead of “do”
we automatically change the meaning of τουτο from “this action” to “this objection.” Now this at once makes it
refer to the object just declared “be” Christ’s body or blood.
We get this sequence: “This is my
body. Offer this, etc.” (Felix L. Cirlot, The Early Eucharist [London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1939], 108, italics in original)
The Evidence from Justin Martyr:
Justin three times uses the verb ποιειν with the Eucharistic elements as
the direct object, in contexts where neither the translation “do” or “make” is
satisfactory. “Offer” seems to be the only translation that at all fits the
context. Thus in Trypho., 4, Justin says: “The meal offering . . . was a
type of bread of the Eucharist . . . which Jesus Christ our Lord delivered to
be offered (ποιειν), etc.”
Again, in Tryph., 70,
reference is made to “the bread which our Christ delivered to us offer (ποιειν) . . . and to the chalice which
he delivered (to us) making Eucharist to offer (ποιειν) for a memorial of His blood.”
And Tryph., 117, although the object is not “the bread and wine of the Eucharist,”
seems to attest the sacrificial meaning of ποιειν, and in connection with the
Eucharist.
In view of this use of ποιειν and the fact that Justin shows in
1 Apol., 66, that he realizes this word was used by Jesus in commanding
the Eucharist to be observed, it is hard to resist the conclusion that he would
understand the word to mean “offer,” even in the Institution Narrative. In
fact, since he not only says that Christians “offer” (ποιειν) the Eucharistic elements, but
that Jesus “delivered” them “to be offered,” and the Christians “received”
(the prayers of thanksgivings of the Eucharist) “to offer” along with the
Eucharistic food “as a memorial,” it does not seem to the present writer that
it can be avoided even by straining. (Ibid., 222, italics in original)
The Evidence from Irenaeus of Lyons:
Twice St. Irenaeus in the very act
of calling the Eucharist a sacrifice attributes its institution to our Lord
Himself. In IV. xviii. 1 he says: “Therefore the church’s oblation which
the Lord taught to be offered (offerri) throughout the world,
etc.” Now we saw just above that Justin Martyr apparently interpreted the ποιειτε of the words “Words of
Institution” as meaning not “do” but “offer.” Hence it is simple and obvious
here to hold that St. Irenaeus has interpreted the word the same as did Justin.
It seems clear that if we can find a saying of our Lord in which on one
interpretation He can be said to have taught what St. Irenaeus says He taught,
then we ought to suppose he had that saying in mind, and put that interpretation
on it.
But we have another passage which
is even more favourable to the same conclusion. In IV.xvii. 5 he says: “Moreover,
giving counsel to His disciples to offer (offerre) firstfruits
to God . . . He took bread which is of creation and gave thanks saying, ‘This
is My Body.’ And the cup, similarly, which is of the same creation as
ourselves, he declared to be his blood, and taught the new oblation of
the New Covenant, etc.” Here even less than in the former passage can there be
any doubt that he has in mind τουτο ποιειτε interpreted as
a command to offer. He says the Lord gave counsel to offer; he uses the
precise words “This is My body”; he avoids the precise words over the chalice,
because of the variant versions, giving instead what he is confident that they all
really amount to; and then immediately after the chalice he adds “and taught
the new oblation of the New Covenant,” just in the very place where
the Pauline account puts the command τουτο ποιειτε κ.τ.λ. Once we know that ποιειτε
admits of a sacrificial interpretation, and still more since it actually
received it at least sometimes in the early church, we cannot doubt, it seems
to be, that St. Irenaeus here puts the same meaning, i.e. the sacrificial meaning,
on the word. St. Irenaeus believed our Lord Himself instituted the Eucharist as
a sacrifice, and bases that belief on the Words of Institution themselves.
The probability seems very great that he must be simply following the
traditional interpretation of these words. (Ibid., 223, italics in original)