1 Corinthians 11:23

To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in the reformation of all abuses.

I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them, Co1 11:23. He had the knowledge of this matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated, without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.

II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,

1. Of the author - our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the church only has power to institute sacraments.

2. The time of the institution: It was the very night wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which are therein to be commemorated.

3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Mat 26:26), he broke, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me, Co1 11:24, Co1 11:25. Here observe,

(1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bade them all drink of it (Mat 26:27), as if he would, by this expression, lay in a caveat against the papists' depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour, though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide Lightfoot on Mt. 26. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by these outward signs; they are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his blood.

(2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour's actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples, and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life, Col 3:4.

(3.) We have here an account of the ends of this institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ's death, to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.

(4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, etc. Our bodily meals return often; we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord's day, if not every day when they assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord's will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father's glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.

III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (Co1 11:27), of violating this sacred institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb 10:29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment to themselves, Co1 11:29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery. Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord's table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord's body - not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord's supper may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world, Co1 11:32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Heb 12:6), especially with so merciful a purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is kindness to use the rod to prevent the child's ruin. He will visit such iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves; at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.

IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the Lord's table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (Co1 11:28), try and approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who would be welcome at this marriage-feast-grace in habit, and grace in exercise. 2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, Co1 11:31. If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Mat 7:1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but should be very candid in judging others.

V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (Co1 11:33, Co1 11:34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord's table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God's worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co_11:23-26

For I have received of the Lord Jesus that which also I delivered unto you.

Giving as we receive

At a sailors meeting a seaman prayed, Lord, make us ships with two hatchways; one to take in cargo, and the other to give it out. A good prayer; Paul knew its answer, I have received of the Lord that which, also I delivered unto you (1Co_11:23). We are not storehouses; we are ships intended to trade with the heavenly country and bring supplies for a needy world. Always loading ends in overloading; if we unload, we shall soon be reloaded. He who keeps his talent in a napkin, will lose both napkin and talent; one will rot, and the other rust.

The Lords Supper

Four things strike us with amazement:--

I. That any should doubt the genuineness of Christianity. Here is an institution that was started the night previous to our Saviours crucifixion, and which from that to this hour, through eighteen long centuries, has been attended to by all the branches of the true Church. Since its origin thousands of generations have passed away, many systems have risen and disappeared, nations have been organised, flourished, and broken up, but this ordinance continues. And what for? To commemorate the great central fact of the gospel, viz., that Christ died. Is there any other fact in history sustained by evidence half so powerful as this?

II. That any should misinterpret this ordinance. It is to show forth the Lords death. There are three abuses of this institution which imply the grossest misinterpretation.

1. The gustatory. The Corinthians thus abused it. Hence, in the preceding verses he says, When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper, etc. They had been accustomed, in their heathen festivals, to give way to gluttony and intemperance. Many of them, from the force of old habits, were tempted to use the Lords Supper in this way, hence they were guilty of profaning the institution. Thus, they ate and drank unworthily, and by so doing ate and drank condemnation to themselves.

2. The superstitious. There are some who believe that after the words of consecration pronounced by the priest over these elements, the elements become carnally the body and blood of the Lord. This is transubstantiation.

3. The formalistic. There are those who partake of the bread and wine merely as a matter of ceremony. It is regarded as the proper thing to be done, and is done mechanically. We evangelical Christians are not guilty of the first nor the second, but we may be of the third. Let us examine ourselves; so let us eat, etc.

III. That any should say the institution is not permanent in its obligation. The apostle tells us distinctly that it was to show forth the Lords death till He come. On to that distant point the obligation is binding. There are some professing Christians who think themselves too spiritual to observe such an ordinance. These very spiritual ones, to be consistent, should avoid all scientific studies, for science has to do with material forms. They should also avoid all Biblical studies, for Biblical truths are, for the most part, embodied in material facts. Christ Himself was flesh and blood.

IV. That any acquainted with the biography of Christ should neglect it. Consider--

1. That it is to commemorate the worlds greatest Benefactor that has served the world--

(1) In the highest way, effected its deliverance from sin and hell.

(2) By the most unparalleled sacrifice.

(3) With the most disinterested love.

2. It is enjoined by the worlds greatest Benefactor, under the most touching circumstances. How amazing it is that men should neglect it!

Conclusion: The excuses that men make for neglecting this are singularly absurd.

1. A man will sometimes say, I can be saved without it. We ask, who told you so? What is damnation? What but disobedience to Christ? And he who neglects this institution disobeys Him.

2. Another man will say, I am unfit for it. We say, if you are unfit for this you are unfit for any other religious observance; unfit to read the Bible, sing, or pray, nor can you ever become fit by neglecting your duty. (D. Thomas, D.D.)

The sacrament of the Lords Supper of Divine institution

I. What is a sacrament? In general, the visible sign of an invisible grace.

1. As God hath used covenants, so also sacraments always.

2. They are part, not of His natural, but instituted worship.

3. They are all pledges of the covenant of grace.

4. They all represent Christ the Mediator--

(1) To suffer.

(2) Or having suffered.

5. In all sacraments there are two parts.

(1) The thing signified.

II. What is the Lords supper? A sacrament, wherein the outward signs are bread and wine.

III. What are we to understand by Divine institution? That it was instituted of God, as the others were not, which the Church of Rome maintains to be sacraments, viz., confirmation, orders, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.

IV. How does it appear to be of Divine institution (Luk_22:19-20).

V. Wherefore was it instituted by God?

1. When God had made man, He entered into a covenant of works with him (Lev_18:5).

2. This covenant man broke, and so became miserable.

3. Hence God, of His mercy, enters into a covenant of grace (Jer_31:33).

4. This covenant of grace was established in Christ (Heb_12:21; 2Co_1:20).

5. This covenant man is also apt to miscarry in; so as--

(1) To be forgetful of it.

(2) Not to believe in it.

(3) To receive no benefit from it.

6. Hence God instituted this sacrament.

(1) To make us mindful of this covenant and Christ (Luk_22:19).

(2) To confirm and seal it to us (Rom_4:11).

(3) To convey the benefits of it to us.

Conclusion:

1. Be thankful for this sacrament.

2. Do not neglect the use of it.

3. Prepare yourselves for it.

(1) Acquaint yourselves with the nature of it.

(2) Repent.

(3) Act faith in Christ. (Bp. Beveridge.)

The doctrine of the Holy Communion

I. It is a memorial of the sacrifice of the death of Christ.

1. See how closely it is connected with that death. Consider--

(1) The time; Christ and His apostles had met for the last time before He died.

(2) The action; the breaking being a sign of the dissolution of the body, the separation of body and soul in death, and also that His death was an act of free-will. He had power over His life to take it up and lay it down, just as of His own accord He took up from the table the bread, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples to eat.

2. To this picture the three Evangelists and St. Paul all describe the Lord as blessing, or giving thanks, as He brake the bread. And so this also afterwards passed as a synonym for the sacrament. St. Paul calls it the cup of blessing, and among us it has the name of Eucharist.

3. Since the sacrifice of the death of Christ is the cause of our justification, our chief concern must be to make sure of our partaking of it. It is one thing to say Christ died for all; another, Christ died for me. Therefore every man for himself must stretch forth this hand of faith and take to himself, appropriate, his part in the atoning sacrifice. The sacrament is an instrument for such an appropriation.

II. A means of present communion with Christ. As it was the work of Christ of His own free-will and grace to offer His body upon the Cross, so now every fruit of that sacrifice which we gather in His Church comes fresh from His living hand, and His work, and is nothing less. Lo, I am with you always, is the secret of our life in the Church; and nowhere more effectually than in the holy sacrament is His presence made real and true to the eye of faith. The manner of our Lords presence cannot be explained, but His presence in some supernatural form is there, or the text has no proper sense.

III. The highest act of worship in the Church.

1. The faithful Christian, in preparation for this holy act, examines himself, and confesses his unworthiness.

2. Then we make an offering of our stores, which, though small, is at least a symbol of homage.

3. Then the oblation of bread and wine is blessed and taken into His service--an offering of the first-fruits, in acknowledgment that lifes bounties are His gift.

4. Then comes an oblation of greater significance. The worshipper offers himself with a free heart to receive Christ, and in return gives himself to God.

5. Above all, we come nearest to the work of heaven itself, where the Church worships God in the presence of the Lamb as it had been slain. So in the Church below our highest act of worship is celebrated in that place, where the Lamb of God and His sacrifice is brought most near to us. (C. W. Furse, M.A.)

This do in remembrance of Me

If Christ had said, Build Me some fine cathedral that shall stand as a memorial to Me, how we would have poured out our contributions that somewhere in this world there might stand some central temple, over which the cross on which He hung should tower throughout the ages! But the cathedral would have passed into hands of men corrupted by ambition. He made His monument of loving hearts. Only this do: Sometimes sit down together; sometimes remember that last occasion when I grasped the hands of those I loved, looked into their faces, and heard their voices. He longs to be remembered as love always longs to be remembered. He wanted not His name to be blotted out of human memory, nor His personality to be forgotten from throbbing hearts. He commands and guides you in many things. He gives you opportunity to serve His children, His poor, in many ways; but there is only one personal request He makes of you, that now and again, at some supper table, with simply bread and wine, you shall, as they that love Him have throughout all ages, perpetuate His memory and show your love for Him. (Lyman Abbott.)

The remembrance of Christ

I saw behind an hotel in Switzerland a fine garden, and I unexpectedly found there American flowers, and being far away from home, and half homesick, they afforded me great pleasure. Every one of them seemed like a message to me full of affection by association. So the remembrance of Christ in the Lords Supper rekindles our love to Him. (H. W. Beecher.)

Expressive symbols

I cannot bring back my little child, but I can take a locket and look at his face, and he springs to life in my inward thought. There are scenes in my childhood that I cannot tread again, but a very simple memorial, a little dried flower, or some little yellow faded note brings back again the sweet sense of an early experience. And so, by some such very simple symbol, we can bring again before us the Saviour broken for us, His blood shed for us, His love so great, dying to give us life. (H. W. Beecher.)

The purpose of the Lords Supper

We soon forget objects which are removed from our sight; and our Lord, who knows and pities this weakness of our nature, has given us an abiding memorial of Himself. He has appointed an ordinance for this very purpose, to remind us of His love. All our fresh springs are in our crucified Lord, and therefore He brings Himself frequently before us as our crucified Lord that we may go to Him as the great source of our mercies, and take of His blessings. (Dean Bradley.)

The Lords Supper, a simple memorial

We need not look for great things in order to discover great truths. To those who reach after God, He will reveal His deepest secrets through things insignificant in themselves, within the routine of common lives. No event occurs more regularly than the daily meal, none, perhaps, gathers around it so many pleasant associations. Its simplest form, in Christs time, consisted in eating bread and drinking a cup of wine. Into this act, one evening, He gathered all the meaning of the ancient sacrifices, all sacred and tender relation between Himself and His followers, and all the prophecies of His perfected kingdom.

That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread.--

Christ taking bread, and our taking it from Him

I. He took bread.

1. Why did Christ choose so cheap and common a thing to exhibit His body in?

(1) Herein He graciously provided for the poor. Had He appointed some costly recipe, the poor could not procure it for themselves, and the charity of the rich would not purchase it for others.

(2) Had He instituted it in some precious element, people might have imputed the efficacy thereof to its natural worth and working, not to Christs institution. Christ therefore chooseth a thing so mean in itself, that it cannot eclipse God of His glory; none can be so mad as to attribute to plain bread itself such spiritual operation. Let us take heed how we despise the simplicity of Gods ordinance. Say not with Naaman, Are not Abana and Pharpar, etc. Is not the bread at the bakers, and the wine at the vintners, as good as that in the sacrament? And far be it from us to seek with our own inventions to beguard that which God will have plain. Rather let us pray, that our eyes may be anointed with that eye-salve, to see majesty in the meanness, and the state in the simplicity, of the sacraments.

2. But amongst such variety of cheap elements, why was bread preferred? To show our bodies can as well subsist without bread, as our souls without a Saviour. It is called the staff of bread; other meats are but as pretty wands to whisk in our hands. Without bread no feast; with bread no famine.

II. He said unto them, Take, i.e., in their hands, and put it to their mouth; not as the custom lately introduced in the Romish Church, for the priest to put it in the mouth of every communicant. But it is pleaded, that it is unmannerly for laymen to handle Christs body; and therefore it is most reverence to take it with their mouths.

1. There is no such clown in Christianity as he who will be more mannerly than God will have him. It is most reverence for us to do as God commands us. Ahaz tempted God in saying, be would not tempt Him (Isa_7:12). Those do little better who, more nice than wise, strain courtesy not to take Christs body in their hands, when He reaches it.

2. Take it strictly, and our mouths are as unworthy as our hands to receive Christs body. But, seeing it is Christs pleasure to come under the roof of our mouth, let Him also pass through the porch of our hands. The rather because it seemeth that we entertain Christs body in more state, and with more observance towards it, when the more servants attend it, the more members of our body using their service in receiving it.

3. The Romish custom loseth the significancy of the hand of faith. The taking Christs body in our hands mindeth us spiritually by faith to apprehend and lay hold on His mercies and merits. (T. Fuller, D.D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:23. For I have received of the Lord — Doubtless by special revelation; that which also I delivered unto you — In my former preaching on this subject, in which, as in all things else, I have been careful most exactly to adhere to my original instructions. This epistle appears to have been written before any of the gospels, and it is probable from Gal 1:17, &c, that when the apostle wrote it, he had seen none of the apostles. And that the institution of this ordinance should make a part of that immediate revelation, with which Christ honoured this apostle, is both very remarkable, and also affords a strong argument for the perpetuity of it in the church. “For had others of the apostles (as Barclay in his Apology for the Quakers presumes to insinuate) mistaken what passed at the last passover, and founded the observation of the eucharist on that mistake, surely Christ would rather have corrected this error in his new revelation to Paul, than have administered such an occasion of confirming Christians in it.” — Doddridge. That the Lord Jesus — In his own person; the same night in which he was betrayed — That is, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, which circumstance, with the others that follow respecting the nature and design of the sacred ordinance here spoken of, with the appointed form of its administration, Macknight thinks was made known to Paul by Christ himself, as a matter which merited particular attention, because it was a strong proof of his innocence. He knew he was to be crucified the next day as an impostor, for calling himself the Son of God. Having so near a prospect of his punishment, would he, by instituting his supper, have taken care that his punishment, as an impostor, should never be forgotten, if he had really been an impostor? No: such a supposition exceeds all rational belief. But knowing himself to be the Son of God, and being absolutely certain that God would acknowledge him as his Son, by raising him from the dead on the third day, he instituted his supper, to be preserved by his disciples till he should return to judge the world; because he foresaw that his death could not be remembered by his disciples, without recollecting his resurrection, and expecting his return. Further, if Christ did not rise from the dead according to his express promise, frequently repeated, can it be thought that his disciples, who thus must have known him to be a deceiver, would have perpetuated the memory of his punishment as an impostor, and of their own shame, by beginning a service, in which his death, that is, his punishment, would be openly published to the world? Wherefore, since the apostles, and the other first disciples, who were eye-witnesses of their Master’s death and resurrection, by beginning this service, and their successors by continuing it from age to age, have published to the world the death and resurrection of their Master, as matters of fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning; this certainly is an incontrovertible proof of the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection, and consequently it hath fully established his claim to be God’s Son, the true Messiah and Saviour of the world. Also, this ordinance hath been the source of unspeakable consolation to his disciples in every age, by assuring them that all his doctrines are true, and that all his promises shall be performed in their season; particularly his promise of returning to raise the dead, and carry his people into heaven. In this view the institution of the supper, in the night wherein he was betrayed, was a great instance of Christ’s love to men. And we are bound by continuing that excellent service in the world, to hand down to them who come after us those unspeakable consolations which we ourselves enjoy, through the pious care of our fathers, who believed in Christ before us.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. History and nature of the Lord’s Supper, 1Co_11:23-27.

To show the Corinthians what it is they are thus dishonouring, Paul now, with a formal solemnity, repeats the well-known origin of the Lord’s supper.

As the Lord’s supper was a divine institute, and the agape purely a Christian rite, Paul’s history shows only the guilt of desecrating the former. The guilt accompanying the latter was the schisms and disorders produced, and which resulted in the desecration of the supper.

23. Have received of the Lord—The question is raised whether Paul received from the Lord this narration by immediate revelation from Christ, or only mediately through the narration of eyewitnesses. Alford objects that in that case he would have said we rather than I. But he uses the first person singular as the founder-apostle of the Corinthian Church—I received… I delivered unto you. It is clear from these clauses that the Corinthians knew all this history, and that Paul is only calling it impressively to their recollection.

Night—It is wonderful that the large body of Christian brethren who maintain that the word baptize signifies solely immersion, and that the example of Christ demands immersion, do not also insist that deipnon, supper, signifies an evening meal, and that the example of Christ requires his supper to be taken at night. And yet this Christian body excludes from that eucharist, which they perform in violation of the meaning of the word and the original example, all those whom they hold to be baptized in violation of verbal meaning and example. With the same persistence, in the same logic in the former as in the latter case, they could prove that a right supper has seldom been performed since Christ died.

The same night—Full of pathos is the thought that we are re-enacting, the supper scene of the night before the crucifixion. It is an hour for weeping and not for revelry. It demands the purest, calmest thought, instead of the excitement of intoxication. Thought should go back to that solemn hour, should picture to the heart the agonizing scene, and melt us into contrition that our sins have their share in betraying and crucifying Him.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23-25. Here proceeding on from his allusions to the love feast anticipating the sacrament, and which they had woefully perverted into a hilarious festival, like the church suppers of the present day, he now describes the holy Eucharist as instituted by our Savior, following the last supper in the upper room on Mt. Zion.

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19-20; 1Co 11:23-25; Mat 26:26-29. “And while they were eating, Jesus taking bread and blessing it, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, This is My body;” i. e., our Lord’s body in symbol, there being no argument here either for the Romish transubstantiation or the Lutheran consubstantiation. Joseph said, in the interpretation of the dreams of Pharaoh’s chief baker and chief butler, “The three vines are three days,” “The three baskets are three days,” simply signifying that they represent three days. “And taking the cup, and blessing it, He gave to them, saying, Drink you all from this; for this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many unto the remission of sins. And I say unto you, that I shall no more drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I may drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father.” Here you see that the Eucharist, on this occasion instituted by our Lord, was prospective as well as retrospective, looking forward to our Lord’s return in His glorious kingdom, when it will actually be celebrated through all the millennial centuries down to the end of time, our glorified Lord being here with us. Hence you see the deep and thrilling interest of this institution, which our Savior established at this memorable epoch, the very night of His betrayal and arrest; not only retrospecting the tragical scene of Calvary, when He gave His body and His blood a vicarious offering to redeem the whole world, and sustain the spiritual life of the saints by faith drinking His blood — i. e., appropriating perpetually its cleansing and sanctifying efficacy, and feeding on His body each fleeting moment — and by faith apprehending and appropriating the wonderful promises of the resurrection, translation, transfiguration, and assimilation of our mortal bodies to His glorious body; but sweeping on beyond His second advent into the happy centuries of the glorious Millennial Theocracy, when our Lord will again abide with His saints on the earth, enveloping the globe with the glory of His kingdom, Satan having been ejected and imprisoned, and will, as He here says, again celebrate this wonderful Eucharist with His disciples, this memorial institution running on down to the end of time. Now, you must not confound the Passover meal, which they all ate while Judas was with them, with the Eucharist, which our Lord instituted after the supper, Judas having gone away and joined His enemies, — the former being the closing out of the memorable Passover, which they had celebrated fifteen hundred years, now normally evanescing, as all the emblematic lambs are verified in the great Antitype the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world; the latter being a new institution, vividly commemorative of bloody Calvary, and equally and lucidly pointing down to our Lord’s glorious return to this world, when, as He here says, He will again join with His saints in the celebration of this institution, a perpetual and vivid reminder of the stupendous redemption of the whole human race.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For I received of the Lord [Paul did not receive his knowledge as to the supper from the apostles or other witnesses (comp. Gal_1:11-12 ). To be truly an apostle and witness ( Act_1:8 ), it was fitting that Paul should have his knowledge from the fountain source. For a comparison of Paul's account with the three others, and comments upon 1Co_11:23-26 ; see "Fourfold Gospel," p. 657] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed [the solemn and affecting circumstances under which the supper was instituted, as well as the sacred nature of the ordinance itself, should have impressed upon the Corinthians how unbecoming it was to celebrate the memorial of it in a spirit of pride, revelry and disorder] took bread ;

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11:23 I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself: This is one of the few explicit references in Paul’s letters to traditions handed down from Christ (see also 7:10; 9:14; cp. 1 Thes 4:15-17). • On the night when he was betrayed: See Mark 14:43-46.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 11:23. Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον, for I received) by immediate revelation. “We ought therefore with great reverence to approach that most solemn mystery, which the Lord instituted, while He was yet upon the earth, as we are distinctly informed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and which He renewed, besides, when He ascended into heaven, by special revelation to the Apostle Paul.”—Jac. Faber Stapulensis.—ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, from the Lord) Jesus Christ.—παρέδωκα, I delivered) in your presence.—ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, The Lord Jesus) This word Jesus is added with deliberate intention. He had just said from the Lord.—ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ, on the night) Hence it is called the Supper. Comp. Exo 12:6; although in regard to the paschal lamb, the time of the day was expressly appointed; not so in respect to the Eucharist.—ᾗ παρεδίδοτο, on which He was betrayed) This is thus brought forward with evident intention; for His being betrayed broke off the conversation of Jesus with his disciples: comp. note at 1Co 11:26.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:23. Ground of the ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. For I, for my part, have received the following instructions from Christ touching the institution of the Lords Supper,[1848] which I also delivered to you. How should it be possible then that your disorder should meet with praise, so far as I am concerned, at variance as it is with the knowledge of the matter obtained by me from Christ and communicated to you?

ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου] Had Paul written ΠΑΡᾺ Τ. Κ., this would have denoted that he had received the instructions directly from Christ (Gal_1:12; 1Th_2:13; 1Th_4:1; 2Ti_3:14; Act_10:22; Joh_6:45; Joh_8:40; Joh_10:18); ἀπὸ τ. κ., on the other hand, means forth from the Lord, from the Lords side as the source, so that the preposition taken by itself leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect (so generally, including Gal_3:2; Col_3:24) or a direct one (as in Col_1:7; 1Jn_1:5; 3Jn_1:7). And Hofmann does not go further than this indefinite relation, holding the only idea expressed hero to be that of origin from the Lord; comp also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 211. But seeing that, if what Paul had in view had been an immediate reception, it would have been natural for him, and of some importance for his argument, to express this distinctly by using παρά, while yet in point of fact he uses only ἈΠΌ, we are warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed from Christ as originator, but reached him only mediately through another channel. This applies against Calovius, Bengel, Flatt, and others, including Heydenreich, Olshausen, de Wette (assuming a confirmation by special revelation of what he had learned from report), Osiander, who all find here a direct communication from Christ. The argument of Schulz and de Wette, however, against this latter view, on the ground of the word παρέλαβ. being in itself inappropriate, will not hold, especially when we view it as correlative to ΠΑΡΈΔΩΚΑ; comp 1Co_15:3.

[1848] Not merely regarding its design and requirements (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 353 f.); for the special account of the institution itself, which follows, goes beyond that.

The question now remains: Does Paul, in asserting that his account of the institution proceeded from the Lord, mean to say simply that he received what follows by a tradition descending from Christ,[1851] or by a revelation issuing from Christ? The latter alternative, which Rückert also adopts (Abendm. p. 194 f.), is not to be rejected on the ground of the following narrative being something with which all were familiar. For it is quite possible that it was wholly unknown to the apostle at the time of his conversion; and even apart from that, it was so important for his apostolic vocation that he should have a sure and accurate knowledge of these facts, and to receive it by way of special revelation was so completely in harmony with Pauls peculiar position as an apostle, since he had not personally been a witness of the first Lords Supper, that there is nothing to forbid our assuming that he received his account of the institution of this ordinance, like his gospel generally, in the way of authentic revelation from Christ. As to the form of mediate communication through which Christ had caused these facts to reach Paul, not appearing to him for this purpose Himself, we must leave that point undecided, since very various kinds of media for divine revelations are possible and are historically attested. It may have been by an utterance of the Spirit, by an angel appearing to him, by seeing and hearing in an ecstatic state. Only the contents of the revelationfrom its essential connection with the gospel, and, in fact, with its fundamental doctrine of the work of reconciliationexclude, according to Gal_1:1; Gal_1:12; Gal_1:15, the possibility of human intervention as regards the apostle in the matter; so that we should not be justified in supposing that the revelation reached him through some man (such as Ananias) commissioned to convey it to him by the Lord. As to the view that we have here a mere tradition, on the other hand, recounted by Paul as originating with Christ, the apostle himself decides against it both by his use of the singular (comp 1Co_15:3), and also by the significant prominence given to the ἘΓΏ, whereby he puts forward with the whole strength of conscious apostolic authority the communication made to himself, to him personally, by the Lord, over-against the abuse, contrasting with it, of the Holy Supper among the Corinthians. Had he meant simply to say: I know it through a tradition proceeding from Christ, then his ἐγώ would have been on the same level with every other, and the emphatic prominence which he gives to the ἘΓΏ, as well as the sing. ΠΑΡΈΛΑΒΟΝ, would be quite unsuitable, because without any specific historical basis; he would in that case have written: ΠΑΡΕΛΆΒΟΜΕΝ ΓᾺΡ ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ΚΥΡΊΟΥ. We have certainly therefore in this passage not merely the oldest account of the Lords Supper, but even an authentic explanation given by the risen Christ regarding His sacrament (Olshausen); not one directly from His lips indeed, but conveyed through some medium of revelation, the precise form of which it is impossible for us now to determine, whereby we have a guarantee for the essential contents of the narrative independently of the Gospels, although not necessarily an absolute ultimate authority establishing the literal form of the words of institution (even in opposition to Matthew and Mark), since a revelation of the history, nature, and meaning of the institution might be given even without any verbal communication of the words spoken in connection with it.

ὃ καὶ παρέδ.] which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you. Conversely in 1Co_15:3. Instances of παραλαμβ. and ΠΑΡΑΔΟῦΝΑΙ, in the sense of discere and tradere, may be seen in Kypke.

ὅτι] that, as in 1Co_15:3, not for, as Luther and Hofmann render it. The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had received and delivered, in spite of the importance of the matter in question; and it derives no support from the repetition of the subject, ὁ Κύριος, since that, with the addition of the sacred name Ἰησοῦς, gives a solemn emphasis to the statement. It is the full doctrine of the Lords Supper, which they owe to him, that he is now setting before his readers.

ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδοτο (imperfectum adumbrativum, see Kühner, II. p. 73): in the night in which His betrayal was going on (hence not the aorist). It is a deeply solemn and arresting thought, contrasted with the frivolity displayed among the Corinthians at the Agapae. The preposition is not repeated before the relative. Comp Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with Kühner thereon; Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in loc[1854]

ἌΡΤΟΝ] bread (a cake of bread), which lay on the table.

[1851] So Neander and Keim in the Jahrb. für Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 69.

[1854] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

REMARK.

The agreement which prevails between Pauls account of the Supper and that of Luke, is not to be explained by a dependence of Paul upon Luke (Grotius, comp also Beza), but conversely. See on Luk_22:20, remark.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:23-34 . § 38. UNWORTHY PARTICIPANTS OF THE LORD’S BREAD AND CUP. The behaviour of the wealthier Cor [1740] at the Church Supper is scandalous in itself; viewed in the light of the institution and meaning of the Eucharistic ordinance, their culpability is extreme (1Co 11:23-27 ). The sense of this should set the readers on self-examination (1Co 11:28 f.). The sickness and mortality rife amongst them are a sign of the Lord’s displeasure in this very matter, and a loud call to amendment (1Co 11:30-32 ). Two practical directions are finally given: that the members of the Church should wait until all are gathered before commencing supper; and that where hunger forbids delay, food should first be taken at home (1Co 11:33 f.).

[1740] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

1Co 11:23-24 . Amongst the things the Ap. had “delivered” to his readers, that they professed to be “holding fast” (1Co 11:2 ), was the story of the Last Supper of the Lord Jesus, which the Church perpetuates in its communion-feast. ἐγώ antithetical to ὑμῖν : I the imparter, you the receivers, of these solemn facts. ἀπὸ neither excludes, nor suggests ( cf. 1Co 1:30 , 1Co 14:36 , etc.) as παρὰ might have done (Gal 1:12 , 1Th 2:13 ), independent impartation to P.; “it marks the whence of the communication, in a wide and general sense” (El [1741] ); the Ap. vouches for it that what he related came authentically from the Lord . Παραλαμβάνω denotes “receiving a deposit or trust” (Ed [1742] ). “The Lord Jesus,” see 1Co 1:8 . The allusion to “the night in which He was betrayed” (graphic impf [1743] , “while the betrayal went on”), is no mere note of time ; it throws into relief the fidelity of Jesus in the covenant (1Co 11:25 ) thus made with His people, and enhances the holy pathos of the recollection; behind the Saviour lurks the Traitor. Incidentally, it shows how detailed and matter-of-fact was the account of the Passion given to Paul’s converts. For the irreg. impf [1744] , παρεδίδετο , see Wr [1745] , p. 95, note 3. ἔλαβεν ἄρτον , “took a loaf” ( ein Brod: cf . the εἶς ἄρτος of 1Co 10:17 ) one of the flat and brittle unleavened cakes of the Passover Table. καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν κ . τ . λ ., “and after pronouncing the blessing, broke it and said, etc.” This εὐχαριστία was apparently the blessing inaugurating the meal, which was followed by the symbolic bread-breaking, whereas “the cup” was administered μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι (1Co 11:25 ); cf. Luk 22:17 ff. (see notes ad loc [1746] in vol. i.), whose account is nearly the same as Paul’s, differing in some important particulars from that of Matt. and Mark. Luke, however, introduces a preparatory cup of renunciation on the part of Jesus, “prolusio cœnæ” (Bg [1747] ). The fractio panis , the sign of the commencement of a household or social meal (Luk 24:30 ; Act 2:42 ), is prominent in each narrative; this act supplied another name for the Sacrament. Regarding the words pronounced over the broken loaf, we bear in mind (1) that Jesus said of the bread “This is my body,” Himself sitting there in His visible person, when the identification of substance could not occur to any one; (2) that the parl [1748] saying concerning “the cup” expounds by the word “covenant” ( covenant in my blood , in Luke and P.; my blood of the covenant in Matt, and Mark) the connexion of symbol and thing symbolised, linking the cup and blood, and by analogy the loaf and body, as one not by confusion of substance but by correspondence of relation: what the blood effects, the cup sets forth and seals. The bread, standing for the body, “is the body” representatively; broken for Christ’s disciples, it serves materially in the Supper the part which His slain body is about to serve spiritually “for the life of the world”. Our Lord thus puts into an acted parable the doctrine taught by figurative speech in Joh 6:48 ff. “ ἐστὶν is here the copula of symbolic being ; otherwise the identity of subject and predicate would form a conception equally impossible to Speaker and hearers” (Mr [1749] ). τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ( κλώμενον an early gloss), “that is for you ” in all its relations subsisting for men; for our advantage He wore the σῶμα σαρκός (2Co 8:9 , Phi 2:7 , Heb 2:14 ff., etc.). The τοῦτο ποιεῖτε clause is peculiar to Luke and Paul: their witness is good evidence that the words are ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου (1Co 11:23 ). The sacrificial sense put on ποιεῖτε by many “Catholic” exegetes (as though syn [1750] with the Homeric ῥέζειν , and ‘ asah of Exo 29:39 , etc.) is without lexical warrant, and “plane præter mentem Scripturæ” as the R.C [1751] Estius honestly says; see also El [1752] ad loc [1753] εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ( cf. ὑμετέραν , 1Co 15:31 ) ἀνάμνησιν , in mei memoriam (Cv [1754] ); Ed [1755] reads it “ My commemoration” in contrast to that of Moses (1Co 10:2 ), making τ . ἐμὴν correspond to καινὴν of 1Co 11:25 .

[1741] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[1742] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1743] mpf. imperfect tense.

[1744]mpf. imperfect tense.

[1745] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[1746] ad locum , on this passage.

[1747] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1748] parallel.

[1749] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1750] synonym, synonymous.

[1751].C. Roman Catholic.

[1752] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[1753] ad locum , on this passage.

[1754] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .

[1755] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:23

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the (same) night in which he was betrayed, took bread:

I cannot praise you, for your manner of celebrating the Lords supper is utterly inconsistent with its original institution. They were the more inexcusable in departing from the original mode of celebrating this ordinance, first, because the account of its original institution had been received by Paul from the Lord himself; and secondly, because he had delivered it to them. Their sin was therefore one of irreverent disobedience, without the excuse of ignorance. For I have received of the Lord. Paul asserts that he received from the Lord the account here given. The whole context shows that he intends to claim for this narrative the direct authority of the Lord himself. As with regard to his doctrines generally, so with regard to the institution and design of this ordinance, he disclaims all indebtedness to tradition or to the instructions of men, and asserts the fact of a direct revelation to himself. Of the gospel he says, I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal_1:12. To this interpretation, however, it is objected,

1. That he uses the preposition ἀπό, which properly expresses a mediate derivation (i.e. through the instrumentality of others), and not παρά, which would imply a direct communication. This objection supposes a refinement in the use of the Greek particles, which is not consistent with the character of the Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle John says: This is the message which we have heard of him (ἀπ ̓ αὐτοῦ), 1Jo_1:5, which certainly does not refer to an indirect communication received through others. In this place ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, from the Lord, is evidently opposed to ἀπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων, from men. He received his knowledge from the Lord and not from men. Comp. Gal_1:12. So in Gal_1:1, he says he was an apostle not by men (οὐκ ἀπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων), but by Jesus Christ (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Must it be inferred from this latter expression that Christ was only the medium of Pauls call to the apostleship, because διά expresses the instrumental cause? This would be as reasonable as to infer from the use of ἀπό in the text, that the knowledge of Paul was derived indirectly from the Lord. The apostle however says in Gal_1:1, that he received his apostleship, not only through Jesus Christ, but also through God the Father; must this also mean through the instrumentality of God? is God the Father a mere instrument? No writer uses language with such strict grammatical accuracy as this objection supposes; much less did Jews writing Greek. It is of course important to adhere as far as possible to the exact meaning of the words; but to sacrifice the sense and obvious intent of the writer to such niceties is unreasonable. The use of ἀπό in this case, probably arose from the desire to avoid the triple repetition of παρά; παρέλαβον, παρά, παρέδωκα.

2. It is objected that, as the Lords supper had been celebrated without interruption from the time of its institution, the facts concerning it must have been universally known, and therefore needed no direct revelation. The same objection might be made to a special revelation of the gospel to Paul. Why might he not have been allowed to learn it from the other apostles? Besides, Paul, as he shows in the first and second chapters of his epistle to the Galatians, had no communication with the other apostles for three years after his conversion.

3. It is objected that ideas and truths may be communicated by visions and inward influences, but not historical facts. Then a large part of the prophecies of the Old Testament must be fabulous.

The evidence is so strong from the context, that Paul claims independent authority for what he here says, that many who bow to the force of the Greek preposition, say that the account received by Paul from Christ through others, was authenticated to him by an inward revelation. But this is not what he says. He says he received it from Christ, which, in the connection, can only mean that he received it directly from Christ; for his object is to give authority to his account of the ordinance. It was not only of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole church, to be assured that this account of the Lords supper, was communicated immediately by Christ to the apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordinance.

The account which Paul received was, That the same night in which he was betrayed, i.e. while he was being betrayed while the traitorous scheme was in progress. Under these affecting circumstances the ordinance was instituted. This fact, which Christ saw fit to reveal to Paul, must be of permanent interest to his people. It is not a matter of indifference, that this sacred rite was instituted on the last night of our Redeemers life, and when he knew what the morrow was to bring forth. This fact gives a peculiar solemnity and interest to the institution. Romanists, in answer to the objections made by Protestants to the mass, that it is a departure from the original mode of celebrating the Lords supper, say that if the example of Christ be obligatory, we should celebrate the ordinance at night, after a meal, and at a table covered with provisions, etc. Protestants, however, do not hold that the church in all ages is bound to do whatever Christ and the apostles did, but only what they designed should be afterwards done. It is not apostolic example which is obligatory, but apostolic precept, whether expressed in words or in examples declared or evinced to be preceptive. The example of Christ in celebrating the Lords supper is binding as to every thing which enters into the nature and significancy of the institution; for those are the very things which we are commanded to do. They constitute the ordinance.

Took bread. Mat_26:26, it is said, as they were eating, i.e. during the repast, Jesus took bread, that is, he took of the bread lying on the table; and as it was at the time of the Passover, there is no doubt that the bread used was unleavened. It was the thin Passover bread of the Jews. But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the kind of bread used, as there is no precept on the subject, and as the apostles subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance used ordinary bread, it is evidently a matter of indifference what kind of bread is used. It was however for a long time a subject of bitter controversy. At first the Latins and Greeks used leavened bread; when the Latins introduced the unleavened wafer from superstitious fear of any of the fragments being dropped, the Greeks retained the use of fermented bread, and accused the Latins of Judaizing. Romanists and Lutherans use unleavened wafers; Protestants generally ordinary bread.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We must take a true form of keeping the Lord’s Supper, out of the institution of it, the parts whereof are these, touching the Pastors, to show forth the Lord’s death, by preaching his word: to bless the bread and the wine by calling upon the name of God, and together with prayers to declare the institution thereof, and finally to deliver the bread broken to be eaten, and the cup received to be drunk with thanksgiving. And touching the flock, that every man examine himself, that is to say, to prove both his knowledge, and also faith and repentance: to show forth the Lord’s death, that is, in true faith to yield unto his word and institution: and last of all, to take the bread at the Minister’s hand, and to eat it and to drink the wine, and give God thanks: This was Paul’s and the Apostles’ manner of ministering.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.

I--Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution.

received of the Lord--by immediate revelation (Gal 1:12; compare Act 22:17-18; Co2 12:1-4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.

night--the time fixed for the Passover (Exo 12:6): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed.

betrayed--With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 23. I have received of the Lord] It is possible that several of the people at Corinth did receive the bread and wine of the eucharist as they did the paschal bread and wine, as a mere commemoration of an event. And as our Lord had by this institution consecrated that bread and wine, not to be the means of commemorating the deliverance from Egypt, and their joy on the account, but their deliverance from sin and death by his passion and cross; therefore the apostle states that he had received from the Lord what he delivered; viz. that the eucharistic bread and wine were to be understood of the accomplishment of that of which the paschal lamb was the type-the body broken for them, the blood shed for them.

The Lord Jesus-took bread] See the whole of this account, collated with the parallel passages in the four Gospels, amply explained in my Discourse on the Eucharist, and in the notes on Matt. 26:12.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Hitherto he has been exposing the abuse; now he proceeds to show what is the proper method of rectifying it. For the institution of Christ is a sure rule, so that if you turn aside from it but a very little, you are out of the right course. Hence, as the Corinthians had deviated from this rule, he calls them back to it. It is a passage that ought to be carefully observed, as showing that there is no remedy for correcting and purging out abuses, short of a return to God’s pure institution. Thus the Lord himself — when he was discoursing respecting marriage, (Matthew 19:3,) and the Scribes brought forward custom, and also the permission given by Moses — simply brings forward his Father’s institution, as being an inviolable law. When we do this at the present day, the Papists cry out, that we are leaving nothing untouched. We openly demonstrate, that it is not in one point merely that they have degenerated from our Lord’s first institution, but that they have corrupted it in a thousand ways. Nothing is more manifest than that their Mass is diametrically opposed to the sacred Supper of our Lord. I go farther — we show in the plainest manner, that it is full of wicked abominations: hence there is need of reformation. We demand — what it appears Paul had recourse to — that our Lord’s institution be the common rule, to which we agree on both sides to make our appeal. This they oppose with all their might. Mark then the nature of the controversy at this day in reference to the Lord’s Supper.

23 I received from the Lord. In these words he intimates, that there is no authority that is of any avail in the Church, but that of the Lord alone. “I have not delivered to you an invention of my own: I had not, when I came to you, contrived a new kind of Supper, according to my own humor, but have Christ as my authority, from whom I received what I have delivered unto you, in the way of handing it over.” Return, then, to the original source. Thus, bidding adieu to human laws, the authority of Christ will be maintained in its stability.

That night in which he was betrayed. This circumstance as to time instructs us as to the design of the sacrament — that the benefit of Christ’s death may be ratified in us. For the Lord might have some time previously committed to the Apostles this covenant-seal, but he waited until the time of his oblation, that the Apostles might see soon after accomplished in reality in his body, what he had represented to them in the bread and the wine Should any one infer from this, that the Supper ought, therefore, to be celebrated at night and after a bodily repast, I answer, that, in what our Lord did, we must consider what there is that he would have to be done by us. It is certain, that he did not mean to institute a kind of nightly festival, like that in honor of Ceres, and farther, that it was not his design to invite his people to come to this spiritual banquet with a well-filled stomach. Such actions of Christ as are not intended for our imitation, should not be reckoned as belonging to his institution. In this way, there is no difficulty in setting aside that subtilty of Papists, by which they shift off what I have already stated as to the duty of maintaining and preserving Christ’s institution in its simplicity. “We will, therefore,” say they, “not receive the Lord’s Supper except at night, and we will therefore take it — not when fasting, but after having dined.” All this, I say, is mere trifling; for it is easy to distinguish what our Lord did, in order that we might imitate it, or rather what he did with the view of commanding us to do the like.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(23) For I have received of the Lord.—Better, For I received from the Lord. Do these words imply that St. Paul had a direct revelation from Christ of the words and facts which he now recalls, or merely that he knew from the accounts given him by others who had been present, what took place on that memorable and solemn occasion?

The whole structure of the passage seems to imply that what follows had been received by St. Paul directly from Christ, and that he is not appealing to a well-known tradition, in which case he would scarcely have used the singular, “I received,” nor to something which he had learnt from the other Apostles, in which case he would not have said “I” emphatically (the word being emphasised by expression in the Greek), nor “from the Lord,” for the other Apostles had not received their knowledge of these facts “from the Lord,” but from their own observation and hearing. How Christ thus communicated these truths to His new Apostle we are not told. The method of communication (whether in a trance, or state of ecstasy, or any other supernatural manner) does not appear to cause either doubt or difficulty to those to whom the Apostle conveyed the information thus miraculously bestowed upon him.

That which also I delivered unto you.—The Apostle was not now for the first time communicating these solemn facts to the Corinthians. He had told them all this before, and therefore they were sinning against knowledge when they degraded a feast which they knew to be so solemn to a purpose so unworthy.

There now follows an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which, as compared with the accounts given in the Gospel narratives (see Mat_26:26-29; Mar_14:22-25; Luk_22:19-20), possesses some noteworthy features. The Evangelists (St. Matthew and St. Mark) wrote their accounts many years after the occurrence, and recorded what they remembered to have observed and heard. St. Paul writes here, within a very few years at all events of his having received it, an account of what had been directly communicated by the Lord. This was also most probably the first written record of what occurred on that solemn night.

The fact that St. Luke’s narrative agrees most closely with St. Paul’s, would imply, not as some rationalising critics insinuate, that St. Paul was indebted to St. Luke; but that St. Luke attached high value to an account which his companion had received directly from the glorified Christ. The only differences of any importance between St. Luke’s and St. Paul’s narrative are—(1) St. Luke writes “given for you;” St. Paul omits the word “given” (see Note on 1Co_11:24). (2) St. Luke omits the words “this do ye as oft as ye drink it,” after the giving of the cup; but he implies them by stating that the cup was given “in like manner” to the bread, in connection with which he records these words. The suggestion that St. Luke copied his account of the Last Supper from this Epistle is a mere speculation, and in the highest degree improbable. If that Evangelist had used this Epistle in writing his Gospel, is it likely that he would have been content with giving the somewhat scanty account of our Lord’s appearances after His resurrection, when he had at hand the much ampler record of the appearance to the 500 brethren and to James, which this Epistle contains? (1 Corinthians 15)

In all the narratives, however, the outlines of the scene are the same. There can be no mistake as to their all being truthful and (as the minor discrepancies prove) honestly independent records of an actual historical scene. It is worthy of remark that in the heated controversies which have raged around the Eucharistic Feast as to its spiritual significance, its evidential value has been frequently lost sight of. If the Betrayal and Crucifixion are not historical facts, how can we account for the existence of the Eucharistic Feast? Here is an Epistle whose authenticity the most searching and ruthless criticism has never disputed. We have evidence of the existence of this feast and its connection with events which occurred only twenty years before. If we bear in mind that the Apostles were Jews, and yet spoke of that wine which they drank as “blood”—that they were lovingly devoted to the person of Christ, and yet spake of that bread which they ate as His “flesh”—can the wildest imagination conceive of that practice having originated with themselves as their most solemn religious rite, and the profoundest expression of their love to their Lord? Could anything but the record given in the Gospel narrative possibly account for such a ceremony holding such a place in a sect composed of Christianised Jews? A dark conspiracy like that of Catiline might have selected the tasting of human blood as the symbol of the conspirators’ sanguinary hate of all human order and life; but such a band of men as the early Christians certainly could not of their own thought have made such a choice, and publicly proclaimed it. And if this be true—if Jesus, the night before an ignominious death, instituted this strange and solemn rite, which has been handed down century after century in unbroken continuity—can that foresight as to the future of His Church be assigned to one who was less than what Christendom claims her Lord to be? When Christ died His Apostles gave up all as lost, and went back sorrowfully to their old work as fishermen; Christendom was not an afterthought of the Apostles, but the forethought of the Lord.

The same night in which he was betrayed.—These words imply that the history of the Betrayal was familiar, and they also solemnly and touchingly remind the Corinthians of the strange contrast between the events of that night and the scenes in which they indulge now on the same night that they partake of that supper.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. For I have received of the Lord] Literally, For I received of the Lord. Reason why St Paul could not praise the Corinthians. Their conduct was a gross profanation of a rite which had been so solemnly instituted by Christ. These words, especially if we notice the emphatic use of the pronoun, seem to imply that St Paul had received from the Risen Lord’s own lips (see ch. 1Co_9:1 and note) the account of the institution of the Holy Communion which he now gives the Corinthians. He does not say ‘from the disciples of the Lord,’ but ‘from the Lord’ (“An authentic explanation given by the Risen Christ concerning His Sacrament,”—Olshausen). And it is remarkable that while it differs in some respects from that given by St Matthew and St Mark, this account by St Paul corresponds closely to that found in his friend and disciple St Luke’s narrative. This circumstance is a strong corroboration of the evidence for the authenticity of both Gospel and Acts, for it confirms the evidence we have that both were written by one closely connected with St Paul. Some have thought that we have here the earliest account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; but the Gospel of St Matthew was possibly in existence by this time, and if we are to regard 2Co_8:18 (see Collect for St Luke’s Day) as referring to the Gospel of St Luke, that, too, must have been in existence before or about the time when this Epistle was written.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when he had given thanks,.... So Luk 22:19, but Mat 26:26 and Mar 14:22 say "he blessed"; not the bread, but his Father; for to bless and give thanks is one and the same thing with the Jews; so we often read of their blessing for the fruits of the earth, for wine and bread; concerning which they have these rules (r),

"he that blesseth for the wine, before food, frees the wine that is after food; he that blesseth for the dessert before food, frees the dessert after food; , "he that blesseth for the bread", frees the dessert, for the dessert does not free the bread;''

or excuse from a blessing for that again;

"if they sit at eating, everyone blesses for himself; if they lie (upon couches) , "one blesses for them all"; when wine is brought to them whilst they are eating, everyone blesses for himself: if after food, "one blesses for them all";''

our Lord conformed to these rules, he blessed and gave thanks for the bread separately, and he afterwards blessed, or gave thanks for the wine; and as he and his disciples lay at table, he blessed and gave thanks for them all; for this is not to be understood of any consecration of the bread by a certain form of words, changing its nature and property, and converting it into the body of Christ; but either of asking a blessing of his Father upon it, that whilst his disciples were caring of it, their faith might be led to him, the bread of life, and to his broken body, and spiritually feed and live on him, and receive spiritual nourishment from him; or else of giving thanks to his Father for what was signified by it, for the true bread he gave unto his people, meaning himself; and for that great love he showed in the gift and mission of him; and for the great work of redemption, and all the benefits of it he had sent him to procure, and which were just on finishing; and for all the might, strength, and assistance, he gave to him as man and Mediator, in completing the business of salvation for his people; which was the joy set before him, and which filled his heart with pleasure and thankfulness; both these senses may be joined together, and may direct us as to the matter of blessing and giving thanks at the supper; for no form of words is pointed out to us; what were the express words our Lord used we know not:

he brake it; as a symbol of his body being wounded, bruised, and broken, through buffetings, scourgings, platting of a crown of thorns, which was put upon his head, and piercing his hands and feet with nails, and his side with a spear; for which reason the right of breaking the bread in this ordinance ought literally and strictly to be observed: Christ himself took the bread and brake it, denoting his willingness to lay down his life, to suffer and die in the room of his people; and this action of breaking the bread was used in order to be distributed, and that everyone might partake, as all the Israelites did at the passover, and not as these Corinthians at their ante-suppers, when one was full and another hungry; but Christ broke the bread, that everyone might have a part, as every believer may and ought, who may eat of this bread, and drink of the wine, and feed by faith on Christ, and take every blessing procured by him to themselves:

and said, take, eat; that is, to his disciples, to whom he gave the bread, when he had took and given thanks and brake it, bidding them take it; receive it into their hands, as an emblem of their receiving him, and the blessings of his grace in a spiritual sense, by the hand of faith; and eat the bread put into their hands, as a symbol of their eating and living by faith on Christ as crucified, as having loved them, and given himself for them;

this is my body; in opposition to, and distinction from, , "the body of the passover", as the lamb was called (s); meaning not his mystical body the church, of which he is head, though this is one bread, and one body, Co1 10:17 but his natural body, and that not properly, as if the bread was really changed into it; for the bread in the supper, after the blessing over it, and thanks given for it, retains its same nature, properties, form, and figure, only is set apart for the use of commemorating the broken body of Christ; and therefore this phrase is to be understood in a figurative sense, that it was a sign and seal of his body; it being broken into pieces represented his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death; just in such sense as the rock is said to be Christ, in Co1 10:4 not that that was really Christ, but was a type and sign of him: which is

broken for you; for though a bone of him was not broken, but inasmuch as his skin and flesh were torn and broken by blows with rods and fists, by whippings and scourgings, by thorns, nails, and spear; and body and soul were torn asunder, or divided from each other by death; and death in Scripture is expressed by "breaking"; see Jer 19:11 his body might be truly said to be broken, and that for his people; not merely to confirm his doctrine, or set an example of patience, or only for their good; but in their room and stead, as their surety and substitute:

this do in remembrance of me; signifying that it was not a passover commemoration, or a remembrance of the Israelites going out of Egypt; which because done in the night, as that was, and following upon the passover, the judaizing Christians among the Corinthians took it to be in remembrance of that; having imbibed that notion which the Jews then had, and still retain, that their deliverance from Egypt will be remembered in the days of the Messiah (t);

"Nyrykzm, "they commemorate" the going out of Egypt in the nights; says R. Eleazer ben Azariah, lo, I am about seventy years of age, and I never was worthy to say, that the going out of Egypt was recited in nights, till Ben Zoma expounded what is said, Deu 16:3 "that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt; all the days of thy life; days of thy life", mean days; "all the days of thy life", nights; but the wise men say, "the days of thy life"; mean this world, and "all the days of thy life" include the days of the Messiah:''

now the apostle mentions these words of our Lord, to show that the design of the institution of this ordinance of the supper was not in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews out of Egypt; but it was in remembrance of himself, of what he did and suffered on the behalf of his people: particularly the eating of the bread was intended to bring to remembrance how the body of Christ was wounded, bruised, and broken for them; how he bore their sins in his own body on the tree, and suffered, and made satisfaction for them; and which was spiritual food for their faith when they reflected on it, and could not fail of bringing to their remembrance the love of Christ in all, when this was the case.

(r) Misn. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 5, 6. (s) Misn. Pesachim, c. 10. sect. 3. (t) Misn. Beracot, c. 1. sect. 5.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

Ver. 23. For I have received] Rectum est regula sui et obliqui. The apostle seems to rectify them, by reducing them to the first institution; and by letting them know that he had his authority from heaven; he received what he delivered, and delivered what he received, keeping nothing back, Act 20:27.

The same night, &c.] It was his last bequeath to his Church, for a καθαρτηριον αλεξικακον, as Ignatius hath it, a sovereign both purgative and preservative.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For ... - In order most effectually to check the evils which existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lord’s Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the particular object which it had in view - the commemoration of the death of the Redeemer, and the purpose which it was designed to subserve, which was not that of a festival, but to keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus until he should again return, 1Co 11:26. By this means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent, vituperative language, but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as the followers of the Lord Jesus.

I have received of the Lord - This cannot refer to tradition, or mean that it had been communicated to him through the medium of the other apostles; but the whole spirit and scope of the passage seems to mean that he had derived the knowledge of the institution of the Lord’s supper “directly” from the Lord himself. This might have been when on the road to Damascus, though that does not seem probable, or it may have been among the numerous revelations which at various times had been made to him; compare 2Co 12:7. The reason why he here says that he had received it directly from the Lord is, doubtless, that he might show them that it was of divine authority. “The institution to which I refer is what I myself received an account of “from personal and direct communication with the Lord Jesus himself, who appointed it.” It is not, therefore, of human authority. It is not of my devising, but is of divine warrant, and is holy in its nature, and is to be observed in the exact manner prescribed by the Lord himself.”

That which also I delivered ... - Paul founded the church at Corinth; and of course he first instituted the observance of the Lord’s Supper there.

The same night in which he was betrayed - By Judas; see Mat 26:23-25, Mat 26:48-50. Paul seems to have mentioned the fact that it was on the very night on which he was betrayed, in order to throw around it the idea of greater solemnity. He wished evidently to bring before their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of his death; and thus to show them the utter impropriety of their celebrating the ordinance with riot and disorder, The idea is, that in order to celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful “to throw themselves as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was instituted;” and one of these circumstances most suited to affect the mind deeply was the fact that he was betrayed by a professed friend and follower. It is also a circumstance the memory of which is eminently suited to prepare the mind for a proper celebration of the ordinance now.

Took bread - Evidently the bread which was used at the celebration of the paschal supper. He took the bread which happened to be before him - such as was commonly used. It was not a “wafer” such as the papists now use; but was the ordinary bread which was eaten on such occasions; see the note on Mat 26:26.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I have received from the Lord. That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him, that which also I delivered to you by word of mouth, &c. Here he speaks of the holy sacrament itself, of the words of consecration, as the evangelists had done, and of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood. --- Which shall be delivered for you. In the common Greek copies, which is broken for you, to wit, on the cross. --- You shall shew the death of the Lord. As often as you receive, it shall be with a devout and grateful remembrance of his sufferings and death for your sake. He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (ver. 27.) so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (ver. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats, and not considering it to be truly the body of the Lord. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xxvii. If the words of our Saviour, this is my body, &c. were to be understood in a metaphorical and figurative sense only, is it probable that St. Paul, writing twenty-four years afterwards, to the new converted Gentiles at Corinth, would have used words, which full as clearly express a true and real presence of Christ’s body in the eucharist, without one word to signify that this was to be understood in a figurative sense only? (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

About these love feasts preceding the Lord’s supper, I have received nothing from the Lord, you have taken the practice up from the Jews or heathens: I do not know that it is unlawful for you civilly to feast, and eat and drink in your private houses; but to come to make such feasts immediately before you religiously eat and drink at the Lord’s table, I have received no order from the Lord for any such practice. I have told you what I received from the Lord, which is no more than:

That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: see this in the evangelists, Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19; where all these words are opened. Some think that Paul received this from the Lord by immediate revelation (as it is thought Moses received the history we have in Genesis and part of Exodus, which relates to a time before he was born, or arrived at man’s estate). Others think that he received it from St. Luke’s writings (for the words are quoted according to his Gospel). Others think he received it from some other of the apostles. Certain it is, that he did receive it from the Lord; how, is uncertain.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

I have received; rather, I received. He thus refers the revelation to some special time, and this seems to point to the conclusion that he is not referring to any account of the institution of the Lord"s Supper, which may have been given him by St. Peter or one of the twelve, but to some immediate revelation from Christ. The terms in which he describes the institution of the Eucharist resemble most nearly those of St. Luke, who may very probably have derived his information from St. Paul. This passage should be compared with Mat_26:26-29; Mar_14:22-25; Luk_22:19, Luk_22:20. Was betrayed; rather, was being betrayed.

Vers. 23-34.

The Lord"s Supper.

I have received," etc. These verses give an account of what is called the Lord"s Supper. This supper was instituted by Christ himself the night in which he was betrayed, while he was observing the Passover with his disciples. On that night he virtually directed the minds of men from all Jewish ritualism and centred them on himself. "Do this in remembrance of me. True religion now has to do with a Person, and that Person is Christ. In reading the words of the apostle here, there are four things which strike us with amazement.

I THAT ANY SHOULD DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF CHRISTIANITY. Here is an institution that was started the night previous to our Saviour"s crucifixion, which was attended to by the Church at Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost, celebrated by various other apostolic Churches as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and which Paul says here he "received from the Lord." From the apostolic age down to this hour, through eighteen long centuries, it has been attended to by all the branches of the true Church. Since its origin hundreds of generations have passed away, many systems have risen and disappeared, nations have been organized, flourished, and broken up; but this ordinance continues; what for? To commemorate the great central fact of the gospel, viz. that Christ died. Is there any other fact in history sustained by evidence half so powerful as this?

II THAT ANY SHOULD MISINTERPRET THE ORDINANCE. Here we are distinctly told that it is to "show the Lord"s death." No language can more clearly show that it is purely commemorative. There are three abuses of this institution.

1. The gustatory. Some of the Corinthians thus used it. They introduced a love feast to immediately precede it, probably because a Jewish feast preceded its first celebration. This led to gluttony and other evils. The members of the Corinthian Church were converts from heathenism, and they had been accustomed in their heathen festivals to give way to gluttony and intemperance, Many of them, from the force of old habits, were tempted to use the Lord"s Supper in this way.

2. The superstitious. There are some who believe that, after the words of consecration are pronounced by the priest over these elements, the elements become literally the "body and blood of the Lord." This is transubstantiation. Others who would not go thus far still superstitiously regard the ordinance as a mystic medium through which grace is poured into the soul of the recipient. Fearful abuse this!

3. The formalistic. There are those who partake of the bread and wine merely as a matter of form and ceremony. We evangelical Christians are not guilty of the first nor of the second, but we may be of the third. The text tells us it is to "show or to teach; it is an educational ordinance.

III THAT ANY SHOULD SAY THE INSTITUTION IS NOT PERMANENT IN ITS OBLIGATION. The apostle tells us distinctly that it was to "show the Lord"s death till he come." When will that be? Not just yet. The human world seems to be only in its infancy, and Christianity only just beginning its work. The billows of a thousand ages may break on our shore before he comes. On to that distant point the obligation is binding. There are some professing Christians who think themselves too spiritual to observe such an ordinance. These very spiritual ones, to be consistent, should avoid all scientific studies, for science has to do with material forms; its principles are all embodied, are made palpable to the eye and ear. They should also avoid all Biblical studies, for Biblical truths are for the most part embodied in material facts and forms. Christ himself was "flesh and blood.

IV THAT ANY ACQUAINTED WITH THE BIOGRAPHY OF CHRIST SHOULD NEGLECT IT. Consider:

1. That it is to commemorate the world"s greatest Benefactor. It is to keep Christ in the memory of man. Here is a Benefactor that has:

(1) Served the world in the highest way. He has delivered it from sin and death.

(2) Served it by the most unparalleled sacrifice. He sacrificed his life to the work.

(3) Served it with the most disinterested love.

2. That it is enjoined by the world"s greatest Benefactor. He himself has enjoined it: "Do this in remembrance of me.

Vers. 23-26.

The sacred feast.

Paul"s description is singularly beautiful. His information apparently came directly from Christ. (Gal_1:12) Additional importance attaches to the observance of the Lord"s Supper, since an express revelation was made to the great apostle of the Gentiles. The supper was for the Gentile worm as well as the Jewish. Its institution was associated with the preaching of the gospel throughout the world.

I ITS INSTITUTION. By the Lord Jesus (ver. 23).

1. Personally. Evidently important in his eyes. Specially precious to us because instituted personally by our Master. Appropriate; for he in his great redemptive work is set forth. Christ is "all in all" at his table. As Christ was present at the first celebration, he should be looked for at every celebration.

2. Under most affecting circumstances. "The same night in which he was betrayed;" whilst betrayal was proceeding and this known to him.

(1) He thought of others rather than of himself. Might have been expected to think of his sufferings; he thought of our needs. He had sorrow, but no selfish sorrow. The unselfishness of Christ is here shown in unrivalled beauty.

(2) His love was not quenched by treachery. The betrayal by Judas did not dry up his fount of affection. When treachery was at its height, love was at its height also. When men are most anxious to injure us, we should be most anxious to do them good.

(3) His sacrifice was not arrested by hate. The multitude were hotly against him when he prepared to give himself for them. Outside the upper room and inside in the breast of Judas there was bitter hate, but Christ was not checked in his purpose for an instant. He resolved to go on and to fulfil all that had been foretold respecting him, and so he quietly and calmly instituted the supper which should in every after age testify to incomparable self sacrifice under all adverse conditions. If we would be like Christ, hostility must not hinder sacrifice.

II ITS MODE.

1. Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for the bread and wine. We should not "say grace" but really "give thanks." Perhaps to teach us that our thanksgivings should ascend for what the bread and wine typify.

2. Bread.

(1) Symbolic of Christ"s body. Not actually his body, seeing that that was intact and before the eyes of the disciples. If Rome"s teaching were true, the disciples would have required a very lengthy explanation to enable them to grasp the meaning. We have no such explanation recorded; we might have expected it in this place, if anywhere.

(2) Broken. Many see in this a symbol of the violent death of Christ. But the better rendering of ver. 24 is, "This is my body which is for you." Breaking the bread was, I rather think, the mere adoption of a custom suited to the kind of bread used at that time in Palestine. We read, "A bone of him shall not be broken.

(3) Eaten. Indicating that we are to feed upon Christ spiritually, to appropriate, to assimilate, him.

3. Wine. Symbolic of Christ"s blood shed for the remission of sins. Partaken of to indicate the application of the blood of Christ to our hearts and consciences. The blood must not only be shed, it must be applied.

III ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

1. Remembrance of Christ. Of his dying love specially; and of his life, lordship, etc.

2. Communion with Christ and with each other. (See ch. 10:16, 17.)

3. A feast. We feed upon Christ spiritually. As bread and wine support the body, so he supports the soul. There is a physical symbol and a spiritual reality. Joy should be one element in the observance; it is a feast, not a funeral.

4. A covenant. We enter into covenant with God for pardon, peace, service, and the covenant is ratified by the blood of Christ typified by wine: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." The Hebrews entered into covenant with God when the blood of the heifer was sprinkled upon them; they bound themselves to obedience, and God bound himself to bestow the promised blessings; so when we receive the cup, we commemorate the covenant which we have entered into with God through the shed blood of Christ and the covenant which he has entered into with us.

5. Proclamation of Christ"s death. Christ"s death is the great central fact shadowed forth. The cross is exalted. Not a new sacrifice offered, but the old yet ever new sacrifice of Calvary commemorated and shown forth.

6. A pledge of the Lord"s second coming. "Till he come." He will come, and it is not for us to any, "My Lord delayeth his coming." He will come not too soon and not too late. "Till he come" we must be watching.

IV ITS INCUMBENCY. "This do in remembrance of me." A dying command. Some believers have many excuses for not coming to the Lord"s table; they do not find one here: This do. Last requests of loved ones are held precious: should not the request of this loved One be also? In this command our welfare is consulted as in all Divine commands laid upon us. We lose much if we refrain from doing this in remembrance of our Master much spiritual joy, enlightenment, strengthening, and not a littleusefulness. The Lord"s table is the Elim of Christians; we act foolishly if we fail to embrace opportunities of resting beneath its palm trees and drinking from its many wells of living water. H.

St. Paul"s claim to direct revelation

I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." "The whole structure of the passage seems to imply that what follows had been received by St. Paul directly from Christ, and that he is not appealing to a well known tradition." "The method of communication (whether in a trance, or state of ecstasy, or any other supernatural manner) does not appear to cause either doubt or difficulty to those to whom the apostle conveyed the information thus miraculously bestowed on him." Illustrate St. Paul"s distinct claim to apostleship on the ground of a direct call and revelation from the Lord Jesus. If St. Paul had a distinct revelation on the matter of the Lord"s Supper, we must regard it as a divinely instituted ordinance or sacrament. The verses following our text become for us an authentic explanation, given by the risen Christ, concerning his sacrament. We fix attention on the proofs that St. Paul had received a direct Divine revelation. Three points may be dealt with in illustration.

I THE BEGINNING OF HIS CHRISTIAN LIFE WAS A REVELATION. See the remarkable vision and communication on his approaching Damascus.

II THERE WERE TIMES DURING HIS LIFE OF DIRECT REVELATION. As at Troas; on the journey to Jerusalem; when in prison; during the storm and shipwreck; and as narrated in 2Co 12.

III HE RECOGNIZED HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS OF CHRIST"S LIFE AS DIRECTLY COMMUNICATED. He had no personal acquaintance with Christ; he was not dependent on the narratives of apostles and disciples, save in part. Christ told him his story by vision and revelation. And St. Paul goes even further, and declares that the gospel which he preached, the views of truth and duty which were characteristic of him, he received from no man; all came by direct revelation of the Lord. A special interest, therefore, attaches to the Pauline teachings. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I received - By an immediate Revelation.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Lord’s revelation of the institution of the Eucharist:

v. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread;

v. 24. and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me.

v. 25. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

See Mat 26:26-28; Mar 14:22-24; Luk 22:19-20. The apostle would have been fully

justified in saying that he had received the doctrine concerning the Holy Communion even if he had merely heard the story from the mouths of the apostles that had been present at its institution. But his purpose in mentioning a direct and immediate communication of God is to emphasize his apostolic call and the authenticity and authority of his preaching. The Lord had given him the information by direct revelation, and in this sense they were to accept his teaching. See Gal 1:12. He had taught them thus while he was with them in Corinth, and he was here recording the facts as the Lord had made them known to him. It was in the night when He was betrayed, literally, while the betrayal was going on, that the Lord instituted the wonderful meal of His body and blood. While His enemies were busily engaged in preparations for His capture, the Savior was preparing the heavenly meal for the comfort of believers. He took bread, one of the pieces of unleavened bread which was used at the Passover meal. And having given thanks, not merely the usual prayer of grace which Jewish custom had fixed for this meal, but a special blessing over the bread as the bearer of heavenly gifts. Then, as He walked from one to the other among His disciples, He broke off pieces of bread of convenient size and distributed them, bidding them to take and eat, and declaring that this bread which they were receiving was His body, the same body which was broken or given for them, in their stead and for their benefit. The bread carried, offered, and imparted to the disciples then, as now, the body of the Savior and sealed to the believers all the benefits of His salvation.

And in the very same manner, as an essential part of the new Sacrament, Jesus took the cup, after they had supped, after the paschal lamb and the chief course of the supper had been served. As he walked from one disciple to the next, he varied the formula of distribution but little, as we see from the close agreement between the four accounts. He called the cup with the wine contained therein the new testament in His blood, the new covenant established by the shedding of His blood; through it He entered into a covenant of mercy with all the partakers of this new sacrament. One fact stands out with undeniable force, namely, that all those present partook of the cup as well as of the bread, and that there can be no true Eucharist unless both elements are received by all communicants. Mark that in either case the Lord says: This do in remembrance of Me, for the commemoration of Me. And in the case of the cup He adds: As many times as you drink it. As often as a believer has a longing and desire for the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, and no matter how often, that certainty is his in the Holy Communion. Surely it ought not require more than this definite promise to induce a Christian to receive the Sacrament frequently. "And now consider, my dear friend, what we must think of such people as boast of their being Christians and yet probably go a whole year, two, three years, and still longer, and do not receive the reverend Sacrament. Surely the devil has possessed them to such an extent that they either pay no attention to their sins and therefore do not think about getting rid of them, or they find more pleasure in this present life than in the eternal. In either case it is a terrible thing to hear. Therefore he that wants to be a Christian and also wants to conduct himself, in accordance with his name, in a Christian manner, should not abstain from this Supper, but use it very often. For we are in great need of it, as we are here informed."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How the apostle, for reforming those abuses which were crept into the church amongst them, relating to the holy sacrament, reduces them to the first institution of that sacred ordinance; I have delivered unto you what I have received of the Lord.

Mark, the apostle, did receive and deliver, but not institute and appoint, this venerable ordinance. Had he not received, he had wanted authority; and had he not delivered what he received, he had wanted integrity.

Observe, 2. The author of this institution, the Lord Jesus. To institute sacraments is an act of Christ’s regal power and royal authority. The church has no power to appoint, but only to execute and administer what Christ appoints.

Observe, 3. The time of the institution: the same night in which he was betrayed. It is a night much to be remembered, in which he settles an ordinance in the church for the confirmation and consolation of his people to the end of the world.

Lord! what an evidence was here of thy tender care and affectionate concern for thy church and people, in spending so much of that little, very little time thou hadst left, upon their account!

Observe, 4. The sacramental elements, or the commemorative, significative, and instructive signs: and they are bread and wine, shadowing forth the body and blood of the crucified Jesus.

Where note, St. Paul calls it bread five times over, which Christ calls his own body, because it was a sign and representation of his body; not his real body, for then Christ ate his own body whilst he was alive, his disciples devouring that body over night which hung upon the cross next morning, with a thousand such absurdities which the doctrine of transubstantiation carries along with it.

Observe, 5. The ministerial actions: the breaking of the bread, and blessing of the cup.

The bread must be broken, to represent the breaking of Christ’s body upon the cross, which comprehended all the sufferings of his human nature, all which were consummated in his crucifixion; and this broken bread must be taken and eaten by us, to intimate that all his breakings, bruisings, and woundings, both in soul and body, were for our sins, and for our benefits, and that the sole intention of all his sufferings was for us.

Wine also is poured forth, because as no liquor like wine doth cheer a sad and drooping spirit, in like manner nothing doth so glad and cheer the soul as faith in a crucified Saviour.

That spiritual life which a soul is raised to, by the death of Christ, is a life of the greatest delight and joy which we can conceive.

Observe, 6. The great design and end of this institution: Do it in remembrance of me, or for a memorial of me. Christ knew how apt our base hearts would be to forget him, amidst such a throng of sensible objects as we here converse with: and how much our forgetfulness of him and his sufferings would tend to our prejudice and disadvantage; and therefore doth he appoint this ordinance to bring him to remembrance.

Observe, 7. The strict mandate or charge given for the frequent celebration of this ordinance; Do this as oft as ye drink it; that is, do it often. We can no more live and thrive without our spiritual, than we can without our corporal food; as the body must be often fed, so the soul must have its frequent repast.

Observe, 8. The reason assigned for the frequent celebration of this ordinance: For as oft as ye do this, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come: that is, by frequenting this ordinance we commemorate the death of Christ during his absence from us. As the end of the ordinance was to be a standing memorial, so the obligation that lies upon all Christians to observe it is perpetual. Christians are, by this ordinance, to represent the sacrificing of Christ for their sins, till he come again in glory.

Learn from the whole, 1. That the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was instituted by Christ as a standing memorial of his death and sufferings for us.

Here we ought to remember the painfulness of his death, the meritoriousness of his death, the voluntariness of his death to ourselves. And the manner how we should remember Christ and his death in the sacrament is various; with judgment and understanding, with reverence and humility, with sorrow and grief of heart for our sins; yet with joy and thankfulness for the sufferings of a Saviour, with faith and affiance, with live and affection, with resolutions for a new and better obedience.

Learn, 2. That the command of Christ lays it as a law upon, and makes it the standing duty of, all Christians, to commemorate his death at his holy table. Do this in remembrance of me.

Here it deserves our notice what kind of command this is; it is a sovereign and supreme command: it is a positive and express command: it is a permanent and lasting command; it is the command of a Saviour, yea, of a dying Saviour; it is a command of love; it is such a command as, if we duly observe, will be a blessed means to enable us to observe all the commands of God better.

Lastly, It is such a command, as whoever lives in the wilful neglect of it, cannot be called a Christian, but will be treated by Christ at the great day as an enemy and despiser of his dying love.

Learn, 3. That it is a Christian’s duty not barely to do this, but to do it often: frequent communicating is a great duty. The primitive Christians received every Lord’s day, yea, it is believed oftener than every Lord’s day.

This is agreeable to the nature of the ordinance, which is a spiritual repast, banquet, and feast, and therefore to be received frequently. It is also agreeable to the Author of the ordinance; it is a feast of God’s own providing, therefore to neglect it is to fly in the face of God: it is agreeable to the end of the ordinance, which is to renew our covenant, and that cannot be done too often.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23–26. For I have received of the Lord. While at Corinth he had told the church the solemn history of the institution of the supper, an account that he had received directly by inspiration from the Lord. Such a sacred event was utterly inconsistent with strife, revelry or disorder. The history is repeated to show this.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord

"For it was from the Lord that I heard what I told you, and it was this: the Lord"

on the night when he was betrayed

This can be stated in active form. AT: "on the night that Judas Iscariot betrayed him" (See: Active or Passive)

he broke it

"he pulled pieces from it"

This is my body

"The bread I am holding is my body"

translationWords

receive

lord

betray

body

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

23. ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου. Literally, For I received from the Lord. Reason why St Paul could not praise the Corinthians. Their conduct was a gross profanation of a rite which had been so solemnly instituted by Christ. These words, especially if we notice the emphatic use of the pronoun, seem to imply that St Paul had received from the Risen Lord’s own lips (see ch. 1Co 9:1 and note) the account of the institution of the Holy Communion which he now gives the Corinthians. He does not say ‘from the disciples of the Lord,’ but ‘from the Lord’ (‘an authentic explanation given by the Risen Christ concerning His Sacrament.’ Olshausen). And it is remarkable that while it differs in some respects from that given by St Matthew and St Mark, this account by St Paul corresponds closely to that found in his friend and disciple St Luke’s narrative. This circumstance is a strong corroboration of the evidence for the authenticity of both Gospel and Acts, for it confirms the evidence we have that both-were written by one closely connected with St Paul. Some have thought that we have here the earliest account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; but if, with some, we suppose the Gospel of St Matthew to have been in existence by this time, and if, which is very doubtful, we are to regard 2Co 8:18 (see Collect for St Luke’s Day) as referring to the Gospel of St Luke, that, too, must have been in existence before or about the time when this Epistle was written.

παρεδίδετο. He was being betrayed, i.e. while the scheme for the betrayal was being carried out. Contrast the imperfect here with the aorists in the next verse.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23-25.] To shew them the solemnity of the ordinance which they thus set at nought, he reminds them of the account which he had before given them, of its institution by the Lord. Mat 26:26-29, Mar 14:22-25.Luk 22:19Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20.

23.] For I (see ch. 7:28; Php 4:11) received from the Lord (by special revelation, see Gal 1:12. Meyer attempts to deny that this revelation was made to Paul himself, on the strength of ἀπό meaning ‘indirect,’ παρά ‘direct’ reception from any one: but this distinction is fallacious: e.g. 1Jn 1:5, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ. He supposes that it was made to Ananias or some other, and communicated to Paul. But the sole reason for this somewhat clumsy hypothesis is the supposed force of the preposition, which has no existence. If the Apostle had referred only to the Evangelic tradition or writings (?) he would not have used the first person singular, but παρελάβομεν. I may remark, that the similarity between this account of the Institution and that in Luke’s Gospel, is only what might be expected on the supposition of a special revelation made to Paul, of which that Evangelist, being Paul’s companion, in certain parts of his history availed himself) that which I also delivered (in my apostolic testimony) to you, (viz.) that the Lord Jesus, &c.

παρεδίδετο] the imperf.: He was being betrayed. “There is an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula.” Stanley.

ἄρτον] not, as Meyer, ‘a loaf,’ but bread: cf. the common expression, φαγεῖν ἄρτον.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυριου. ‘I cannot praise you, for what I received from the Lord, and also delivered to you, was this.’ We cannot tell how St Paul received this. Neither does the ἐγώ imply that the communication was direct, nor does the ἀπό that it was not direct, although, if it was direct, we should probably have had παρά (Gal 1:12; 1Th 2:13, 1Th 2:4:1; etc.). The ἐγώ balances ὑμῖν: the Apostle received and transmitted to them this very thing, so that both know exactly what took place. He was a sure link in a chain which reached from the Lord Himself to them. They did not receive it from the Lord, but they received it from one who had so received it, and therefore they have no excuse. This is one of the παραδόσεις which they professed to be holding fast (v. 2). See Ramsay, Exp. Times, April 1910; Jülicher, Paulus u. Jesus, p.30.

It is urged that in a matter of such moment a direct revelation to the Apostle is not incredible. On the other hand, why assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was ready at hand? It would be easy for St Paul to learn everything from some of the Twelve. But what is important is, not the mode of the communication, but the source. In some way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authenticity cannot be gainsaid; but his adding ἀπὸ ταῦ Κυρίου is no guide as to the way in which he received it. More important also than the mode are the contents of the communication, and it is to them that παραλαμβάνειν frequently points (1Th 2:13; 2Th 3:6; 1Co 15:1, 1Co 15:3): see Lightfoot on Gal 1:1, Gal 1:13. It certainly does not point to anything written: St Paul does not say that he had read what he delivered to them. See Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, pp. 275 f. Zahn and Schmiedel are here agreed that St Paul is appealing to historical tradition. See also Camb. Bibl. Ess. pp. 336 f.; Mansfield College Essays, pp. 48 f.

ὄ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν. ‘Which I also delivered to you.’ He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to have made these disorders impossible. This would be St Paul’s own reply to the assertion that he, and not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity.

ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο. ‘In the night in which He was being delivered up.’ St Paul mentions the sad solemnity of the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Corinthians. Neither AV. nor RV. keeps the same translations for παραδίδωμι in this verse, nor marks the imperfect. The delivery to His enemies had already begun and was going on at the very time when the Lord instituted the Eucharist. Moreover, to translate ‘was betrayed’ confines the meaning to the action of Judas; whereas the Father’s surrender of the Son is included, and perhaps is chiefly meant, and the Son’s self-sacrifice may also be included (E. A. Abbott, Paradosis, §§ 1155, 1202, 1417). It is plain that St Paul assumes that his readers are acquainted with the details of the Passion; and the precision with which he writes here and 15:3-8 is evidence that “he is drawing from a well-furnished store” (Sanday, DCG. 11. p. 888). He himself is well acquainted with the chief facts in the life of Christ (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, p. 89; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, pp. 55 f.).

ἒλαβεν ἄρτον. ‘Took a loaf,’ one of the thin cakes of bread used for the Paschal meal. It was perhaps more like our biscuit or oatcake than ordinary loaves. Hastings, DCG. 1. pp. 230 f.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I received [εγω παρελαβον] . I is emphatic, giving the weight of personal authority to the statement. The question whether Paul means that he received directly from Christ, or mediately through the apostles or tradition, turns on a difference between two prepositions. Strictly, ajpo from or of, with the Lord, would imply the more remote source, from the Lord, through the apostles; but Paul does not always observe the distinction between this and para, from the preposition of the nearer source (see Greek, Col 1:7; Col 3:24); and this latter preposition compounded with the verb received, the emphatic I, and the mention of the fact itself, are decisive of the sense of an immediate communication from Christ to Paul. 119 Also [και] . Important as expressing the identity of the account of Jesus with his own.

He was betrayed [παρεδιδετο] . Imperfect tense, and very graphic. he was being betrayed. He instituted the Eucharist while His betrayal was going on.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 23-25. “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the night in which He was betrayed, took bread: 24. and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My body [which is] for you; this do in remembrance of Me. 25. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The for shows that the account of the institution, which follows, is meant to justify the various rebukes expressed in 1Co 11:22. First of all, Paul establishes on an immovable foundation the authority of his narrative. It comes from the Lord, and without any other middle party than the apostle himself.

The ἐγώ, I, is put at the head to give the readers an assurance of the truth of the narrative: This is what I hold, I from a good source, from the Lord Himself.

But it is asked in what way this account could have been delivered by the Lord to the Apostle Paul, who was not of the number of the Twelve present at the institution of the Supper. The usual answer is this: The apostle had knowledge of the fact from the apostolical tradition; and to prove this mode of transmission, reliance is placed on the use of the preposition ἀπό, which does not denote, as παρά would do, direct transmission, but which simply points to the first source from which the account proceeded. Thus, according to Reuss, “Paul here speaks of a communication made to him by older disciples, but not of an immediate revelation.” But the question arises in this case, what means the I placed first in the sentence: “I, even I have received of the Lord”? If he is speaking of no other communication from the Lord than that which he gave as the author of the rite in question, or that which, through the apostles as its channels, conveyed this account to Paul, thousands of Christians, and hundreds of evangelists, might have said as much as St. Paul; and instead of saying: “I have received,” Paul, if he was not to be guilty of charlatanism, ought simply to have said: “We have received of the Lord.” In the passage 1Co 15:3, where he is really summing up the apostolical tradition, he avoids using the pronoun ἐγώ which characterizes our passage. If the account of the institution of the Supper really came to Paul from the Lord, it could only be in the way of direct revelation. The preposition ἀπό, which strictly denotes the first origin, is not opposed, as is constantly repeated, to this interpretation; comp. Col 1:7; Col 3:24; 1Jn 1:5, where the communication implied in the ἀπό is as direct and personal as possible. And if it is objected, that to express this last idea παρά would have been necessary, which specially denotes direct transmission, it is forgotten that this preposition is virtually found in the verb παρέλαβον, I received from.By using the two prepositions ἀπό and παρά the apostle brings out at once the purity of the origin and the purity of the transmission of his account. Heinrici quotes several passages in which the term παραλαμβάνειν is applied to initiation into the mysteries, for example in Porphyry: παραλαμβάνειν τὰ Μιθριακά, to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras. This meaning would certainly suit here. The apostle then would say that the Lord Himself initiated him into the knowledge of this important act of his life. But we have no need of such a comparison to account for the choice of the term used by the apostle.

Bengel, Olshausen, Rückert, Meyer, de Wette, Osiander, have recognised that the only possible meaning of the passage was that of direct instruction given to the apostle by the Lord; comp. Gal 1:12. It is objected that revelation bears on doctrines, not on historical facts, and it is asked what purpose such a miracle would have served, since Paul could know from ecclesiastical tradition the fact which he here relates. But we find in the Acts a revelation, containing at least the sketch of a historical fact (Act 9:12), and several visions in which the Lord conversed with Paul, as friend with friend (Act 22:17 seq., Act 23:11). If these accounts are not mere tales, we should conclude from them that revelation may also bear on particular historical facts. Now in the present case such a communication was a necessary condition of the apostle’s independence and dignity. For he was not a simple evangelist, delegated by men (Gal 1:1), but a founder of Churches, the apostle chosen for the heathen world, as the Twelve were for the Jewish people, and consequently dependent only on the Lord; and when he instituted in his Churches a rite of such decisive importance as the Supper was, he required to be able to do so without appealing to any human authority, but supported, like the Twelve, by the Lord Himself. As we study the account immediately following, we shall prove the truth of this observation. The manner in which the Lord communicated this fact to him, we know not, and can only refer to Gal 1:11-12.

The words: that which also I delivered unto you, guarantee the purity of transmission. The καί, also, expresses the identity between the accounts of Jesus to Paul, and of Paul to the Corinthians.

As he enters on the narrative, Paul adds to the title Lord the name Jesus, to carry back the thought of his readers to His earthly person, and so call up the scene of the institution.

If Paul mentions the detail, that it was night when Jesus instituted the Supper, it was no doubt to compare with that time the hour when the Church celebrated the rite. Every similar night which shall follow should reproduce the emotions of that original night, and borrow from it something of its deep solemnity. The sad character of that night is brought out by the words: in which He was betrayed. Nine Mjj., belonging to the three families, read the verb in the form of παρεδίδετο, which is adopted by Tischendorf. In fact, the later Greek writers tended more and more to assimilate the conjugation of the other classes of verbs in μι to the conjugation of verbs in ημι; or should we see in this strange form the imperfect of a compound of δίδημι (formed from δέω, to bïnd), a word which appears once in the Anabasis? The sense would be: “on the night on which they bound Him.” But neither the imperfect nor the preposition παρά agrees with such a meaning.

The article introduced by the Greco-Lat. reading before ἄρτον must be rejected. The word literally signifies a bread; one of the cakes of unleavened bread placed on the table.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.