Ver. 30,31. Some would have this bread to be sacramental bread, as if our Lord at this time celebrated his supper; and some of the papists are mightily zealous for that interpretation, thinking that they have in it a mighty argument to justify their lame administration of it in one kind (for here is no mention of the cup at all); but they do not consider, that this text will prove (if it be taken with relation to the supper) more than they would have it; as,
1. That priests may consecrate without wine, which themselves will not grant, though they say that, both elements being consecrated, the people sufficiently partake if they share but in one.
2. It will also prove that a priest may consecrate without using those substantial words, This is my body. But it is a most improbable thing, that our Saviour coming just out of his journey should fall upon his administration of this ordinance. The text is certainly to be meant of bodily bread, which our Saviour never took without a previous blessing of it, Matthew 14:19. How their eyes were opened the evangelist tells us. Some think they knew him by his form of blessing. It is a wonder then they did not know him before by his style in three or four hours discourse by the way. Others think they knew him by taking upon him the office of the master of the feast, to bless the table, and to carve to the guests. But all this is vain. He withdrew the veil from their eyes, which alone hindered their discerning him before, for the object was visible, only the medium of their sight was indisposed. And he vanished out of their sight. Our Saviour had now obtained his end, viz. to satisfy them that he was indeed risen; now he disappears, for that he had a power to make his body imperceptible to the disciples senses is out of doubt.