1 Corinthians 11:24

1Co_11:24

And when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take, eat.

The Lords Supper

1. It is remarkable that we are indebted to Paul for the most particular account of this service, because he was not one of those who were present on the night of its institution. Nor did he derive his knowledge from those who were present (Gal_1:11-12). The striking agreement between this report and that of those who were present is one of the evidences of the truth of Scripture.

2. Thoughtful men know the value of particular customs, medals and inscriptions, to certify any historical event. Now, the observance of the Lords Supper is a standing historical evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. It is to be traced backwards for hundreds of years to the night in which Christ was betrayed; but no farther. There we lose the clue, because the institution then had its origin.

I. The nature of the ordinance. It is commemorative.

1. Who is it that is to be particularly remembered? Christ claims our grateful recollection on the ground of--

(1) His dignity. Rank and power impress all beings: but there never was such rank on earth as that which attached to the person of Christ. He was in possession of the attributes of Godhead.

(2) His condescension. He passed by the nature of angels, and was found in fashion as a man.

(3) His love. A love that passeth knowledge. Christs love has been compared with the love of Jonathan to David. But that was love for a friend: this is love for enemies. That was love for love: this is love for hatred.

2. What is it that is commemorated?

(1) The death of Christ--a death entitled to this distinction. Many men are remembered who are not entitled to that honour; many have had monuments raised to them, whose name ought to have been blotted out. I find the death of Christ observed by God the Father. My Father loveth Me because I lay down My life. And we are told that in heaven the great event which is celebrated is the death upon Calvary. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain. We may well, therefore, celebrate that death.

(2) The second coming of Christ. Just as Israel had manna so long as they were in the wilderness, but when once they came into Canaan, the manna ceased; so when Christ comes we shall not want anything to remind us of Him.

II. The temper in which this service should be observed by us.

1. We are called to remember the person of Christ, and the great events connected with His person, in a manner corresponding with the dignity of His person; and the vastness of the benefits flowing from His sacrifice, as expected by us at His second coming.

2. We are to draw near with fervour and lively gratitude. The ordinance itself is a eucharistical one. Hence we find our Saviour Himself, when He had instituted the supper, sung a hymn. (J. Beaumont, M.D.)

The Lords Supper: its end and our duty

I. The author of the institution. In every action it is good to know by what authority we do it. For what can reason see in bread and wine to quicken or raise a soul? (1Co_8:8). The outward elements are indifferent in themselves, but authority giveth them efficacy. He that put virtue into the clay and spittle to cure a bodily eye, may do the same to bread and wine to heal our spiritual blindness. The outward elements of themselves have no more power than the water of Jordan had to cure a leper; their virtue is from above.

II. The duty enjoined. To take bread, and to give thanks, and eat it; and so of the cup. And if this be done with a lively faith in Christ, this is all. To do this is not barely to take the bread and eat it: this Judas himself might do; this he doeth that doeth it to his own damnation. And that we may do it, besides the authority and love of the Author, we have all those motives which use to incite us unto action.

1. Its fitness to our present condition. As God sent Adam a help meet for him, so He affordeth us helps attempered to our infirmity. As Laban said to Jacob, when they made a covenant, This stone shall be witness between us, so God doth say to thy soul by these outward elements, This covenant have I made with thee, and this that thou seest shall witness between thee and Me.

2. Its profitableness--a will extended, a love exalted, hope increased, faith quickened, more earnest looking on God, more compassion on our brethren, more light in our understanding, more heat in our affections, more constancy in our patience; every vicious inclination weakened, every virtue established. What is but brass it refineth into gold; raiseth the earthy man to the participation of a Divine nature.

3. Its delightfulness. In the action of worthy receiving is the joy of a conqueror; for here we vanquish our enemy: the joy of a prisoner set at liberty; for this is our jubilee. Here is Christ, here is heaven itself.

4. Its necessity. For if this sacrament could have been spared, our Lord, who came to beat down the ceremonies of the law, would not have raised up this. He calleth and commandeth us to His table, to feed on the body and blood of Christ, and in the strength thereof to walk before Him and be perfect.

III. When are we to do it? As oft as ye do it implies that you do it often. It is not necessary to say how often. Every mans want in this should be a law unto him. If we come like unmannerly guests, once is too often; but if we come prepared we cannot come too often. The truth is, the sacrament is fit for every day, but we are not every day fit for it. A great shame it is that any man should be dragged to a feast. And if we loved the cup of blessing, we should not fear how oft it came into our hands.

IV. Its end. In remembrance of Me. We must open the register of our soul, and enrol Christ there in deep and living characters. For the memory is a preserver of that which she receiveth. But we must inquire whether we remember Christ as we should: whether Christ be hung up in this gallery of our soul only as a picture, or whether He be a living Christ, and dwelleth in us of a truth. For can he remember a meek Christ, who will be angry without a cause? Can he remember a poor Christ that maketh mammon his God? Can he remember Christ, who is as ready to betray Him as Judas, and nail Him to the cross as Pilate? Better never to have known Him, than to know and put Him to shame! (A. Farindon, B.D.)

Sacramental grace

The outward part of the sacrament is not only a sign of the inward part or thing signified, but a sign that the inward grace is given to us, the means whereby it is given, and the pledge or seal to assure us of its being given. The elements are not the sign of a hostelry, like a painted board that reminds the weary pilgrim of the comforts he may enjoy within, if he can obtain them; but they are the signed and stamped conveyance of that which makes him rich and purchases repose, the note of one who will never fail, in receiving which we receive that which it is appointed to represent by him who offers it. In taking a note of the bank, he who receives it is assured that he receives the value it represents; and that bit of paper, worthless in itself, may be worth to him a large estate. (G. D. Hill.)

The Lords Supper, a symbol

Do you then, men ask, reduce this sacrament to make it only a symbol? I confess my inability to appreciate the force of the depreciatory innuendo. Does not a symbol mean all that it symbolises? Has it not the same honour and sanctity attaching to it as that which it represents? Are not symbols the most sacred things on earth? Why is it that men will take a tattered piece of silk and nail it to the mast, and blow themselves and the ship to atoms rather than any enemys hand should touch that flag? It is only a symbol. Why is it that in one corner of the battle-field the swords flash is brightest, and the pistols ring is loudest round a blood-stained banner? It is only a symbol--but a symbol of England, and of all the freedom, the honour, the truth, the heroism, that that word England means! Thus, for the eye of faith and the heart of love these symbols mean all that they recall and represent. We are to eat that bread and drink that wine in remembrance that His body was given, and that His blood was shed for us. (T. T. Shore, M.A.)

The Lords Supper the sample of the Christian life

(Text, and Col_3:17):--One of the saddest things about the Christian life is that it seems to be split into two parts. Is the distinction between sacred and secular a valid one? is there any reason why a mans prayers should be more devout than his business? Look at these two passages. The same consecration is claimed for the most trivial acts of daily life, as is claimed for the sacred communion.

I. All the objects around us are to be regarded as symbols and memorials of our Lord. Bread and wine are common things: the act of eating and drinking is not an elevated one; a supper-table is not a very holy place. And when Christ selected them He showed us that all material things were fitted and intended to impart the same teaching. The unity of the Maker, the all-pervading influence of one Divine Spirit, make everything sacred, and put every object to witness to some Divine truth. Every day we walk amidst the outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace, and this wonderful world is one great sacrament.

1. All the elements stand as types of spiritual things--the sunshine of the light of the world, the wind of the Spirit, the water of the stream of life and drink for thirsty souls, and the fire of His purity and of His wrath.

2. All objects are consecrated to Him. The trees of the field speak of the root of David, and the vine of which we are all branches. The everlasting mountains are His righteousness, the mighty deep His judgments.

3. All the processes of nature have been laid hold of by Him. The gentle dew falls a promise, and the lashing rain forebodes a storm, when many a sand-built house shall be swept away. Every spring is a prophecy of the resurrection, every harvest a promise of the coming of His kingdom.

4. All living things testify of Him. He is Lord over the fish, the fowls, the beasts.

5. All occupations of men are consecrated to reveal Him. He laid His hand upon the sower, the vine-dresser, the shepherd, etc., as being emblems of Himself.

6. All relations between men testify of Him--father, mother, brother, friend, etc. In a word, every act of our life sets forth some aspect of our Lord and of our relation to Him, from the moment when we open our eyes in the morning, up to the hour when night falls, and sleep, the image of death, speaks to us of the last solemn moment, when we shall close the eyes of our body on earth, to open those of our soul on the realities of eternity. If you would know the meaning of the world, read Christ in it.

II. Every act of our life is to be done from the same motive as that holy communion. This do in remembrance of Me … discerning the Lords body. Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, i.e., for the sake of the character, as revealed to you, of Him whom you love.

1. Is that sacred motive one which we keep for select occasions and special acts of worship? I am afraid that the most do with that Divine reason, the love of Christ constraineth me, as the old Franks with their long-haired kings--they keep them in the palace at all ordinary times, only now and then bring them out to grace a procession. There is no action of life which is too great to bow to the influence of This do in remembrance of Me; and there is no action of life which is too small to be turned into a solemn sacrament by the operation of the same motive. Do you and I keep our religion as princes do their crown jewels--only wearing them on festive occasions, and have we another dress for working days?

2. Is it not something to have a principle which prevents anything from degenerating into triviality, or from pressing upon us with an overwhelming weight? Would it not be grand if we could so go through life, as that all should be not one dead level, but one high plateau, because all rested upon Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus? Ah! it is possible--not to our weak faith, perhaps; but the weakness of the faith is not inevitable. It is possible, and therefore it is duty; and therefore the opposite is sin. To have my life with one high, diffusive influence through it all, is like one of those applications of power where a huge hammer is lifted up, and comes down with a crash that breaks the granite in pieces, or may be allowed to fall so gently and so true that it touches without cracking a tiny nut beneath it; or it is like that mighty power that holds a planet in its orbit, and yet binds down the sand-grain and dust-mote to its place.

III. All life, like the communion of the Lords Supper, may be, and ought to he, a showing-forth of Christs death. The death of Christ, which is shown forth in the holy communion, as a death for us, and the ground of our hope, is to be shown forth in our daily walk, as a death working in us, and the ground of our conduct (2Co_4:10-11). There is not only the atoning aspect in Christs death, but the example of the way by which we are to mortify our members which are upon earth, because we are dead with Him, and our life is hid with Christ in God. No man manifests the death of Christ by any outward act of worship, who is not feeling it daily in his own soul. It is in vain for us to say that we are relying on Christ, unless Christ be in us, slaying the old man and quickening the new. You do show forth the Lords death till He come when you crucify the old man with his affections and lusts, and rise again into newness of life. The fact is better than the symbol--the inward communion more true than the outward participation.

IV. This communion is in itself one of the mightiest means for making the whole of life like itself. In this ordinance, as it were, is the reservoir: out of it there come the streams that freshen and gladden the piety of daily life. Only remember, not the outward act, but the emotions which it kindles, are the reservoir. Not the taking that cup in your hand, but the deeper glow of feeling which is legitimately kindled then, and the intenser faith which springs therefrom; these are the fountains which will nourish verdure and life through our dusty days. And so, if you want to live in this world, doing the duty of life, knowing the blessings of it, doing your work heartily, and yet not absorbed by it; remember that the one power whereby you can so act is, that all shall be consecrated to Christ, and done for His salve! (A. Maclaren, D.D.)

Take, eat

I. Take--

1. Knowingly (1Co_11:29).

(1) What it is in itself: bread (1Co_10:16).

(2) What it represents unto us: the body of Christ.

2. Humbly. Considering--

(1) Gods greatness that gives.

(2) Our vileness that do receive (Isa_6:5).

3. Believingly.

(1) That Christ is really present with us (Mat_18:20.

(2) Doth really offer His body to us.

(3) That if we worthily receive, we are really partakers of all the merits of His death and passion (1Co_10:16).

So that--

(a) Our sins shall be pardoned (Mat_26:28).

(b) Our natures cleansed (Act_3:26).

4. Thankfully.

(1) That He was pleased to offer Himself for us.

(2) That He is now pleased to offer Himself to us.

II. Eat, not take and lay up; not take and carry about; not take and worship; but take and eat. Take and eat bread, but yet My body--

1. With repentance (Exo_12:8).

2. Faith.

3. Thanksgiving (1Ti_4:4-5).

III. Uses.

1. Prepare yourselves for this spiritual banquet.

2. Receive it with faith.

3. Feed with thankfulness.

4. Endeavour to get that nourishment from it, as to serve God better hereafter. (Bp. Beveridge.)

This is My body.--

The body of Christ in the sacrament

What are we to understand by this?

I. Negatively. Not that it is transubstantiated. This error was broached by Damascene and Amalarius; opposed by a synod at Constantinople of 338 bishops, in the East; Paschasius Radbertus, Bertramnus, Johannes Scotus Erigena, and Berengarius, in the West. The word transubstantiation was coined in the Lateran Council. This--

1. Is not grounded on Scripture.

(1) Not on Joh_6:55. For this--

(a) Was said before the sacrament was instituted (verse 4).

(b) Does not prove bread to be turned into Christs body, but Christs body into flesh.

(c) Is to be understood spiritually (verses 50, 51, 56).

(2) Not on the text (see Gen_41:26; Dan_2:38; 1Co_10:4).

2. Is contrary to the Scriptures. When Christ said this there could be nothing but bread; for His body was not yet offered (see 1Co_10:16; 1Co_11:25; Mat_26:20).

3. It takes away the nature of the sacrament, there being no sign.

II. Positively.

1. This is My body; that is, the sign and sacrament of My body (see Gen_17:10-11; Exo_12:11).

2. Which was broken for you.

(1) How broken? Bruised, pierced (Joh_19:33-34). He suffered torment.

(2) For what?

(a) God our Governor has given us laws to observe (Gen_26:5), and annexed promises and threatenings (Lev_18:5; Gal_3:10-12).

(b) Man has broken these laws (Psa_14:1-3), and so is obliged to the punishments.

(c) These punishments he cannot bear, without being entirely miserable (Mat_25:46). Hence Christ, the Son of God, undertakes to bear them for him (Isa_53:4; Isa_53:6). This He could not do, unless He became man. Neither must He be man only, but He must suffer (Heb_9:22). These His sufferings are the things represented by the bread and wine.

(3) For whom? Believers (Joh_3:16).

(4) What benefits bare we by these sufferings? It is only by them--

(a) Our sins can be pardoned (Mat_26:28).

(b) God reconciled (Rom_5:1). Our natures renewed (Act_3:26). Our souls saved (Heb_2:10; Heb_5:9).

Conclusion:

1. Admire the love of Christ in dying for us.

2. Be always mindful of it.

3. Frequent the sacraments, especially appointed to put us in mind of it, but come preparedly.

(1) Penitently.

(2) Believingly.

(3) Charitably. (Bp. Beveridge.)

Which is broken for you.--

The broken Christ

I. A manifestation of the power of sin. When once threatened with being broken by the stones that malice would have hurled at Him, He asks, For which of these good works do ye stone Me? It was because of His good works that an evil world hated Him, and hates Him still. There is an innate antagonism between selfishness and love. Moses in hot anger broke the two tables of stone on which the law of God had just been inscribed; but the Jews, with fixed and relentless purpose, broke Him who was the living embodiment of the law. And that achievement reveals how sin stands at nothing, though it is most Divine. Our conflict with sin is conflict with the powers by which Christ was broken.

II. A model for our self-sacrifice. He was broken thus, not in pursuit of any dream of ambition, or struggle for any personal satisfaction. It was in the one peerless work of redeeming the world.

1. Selfishness is ever seeking to keep what it has whole. Health must never be broken for neighbourliness, patriotism, or religion. Home must never be broken by giving up of sons or daughters to missions. Property must on no account be broken for distribution in charity or maintenance of worship. The Church must not be broken to help to form the nucleus of some other church much needed.

2. And yet what is broken is often the most beautiful. When is light more rich and varied than when it is broken in the prism? And is the ocean more beautiful when it ripples tamely upon the sandy shore, or when the crested billows break in wild majesty upon some rockbound coast? So with the self-denials that mean brokenness--brokenness of tastes, desires, comforts, possessions, and even affections.

3. What is broken is often the most useful. When the bark is bruised the balm is poured forth for healing; when the wheat is ground it becomes an element of nourishment; when the spices are pounded their odours fill the air. So self-denial has given to science, patriotism, and religion their apostles and martyrs.

4. For beauty and usefulness in mans individual character, there must be brokenness. What is there for imperious temper, hard indifference, stubborn resistance to Gods will, but brokenness?

III. An emblem of the universality of His mission,

1. He was broken that He might be distributed, that His teachings, influence, grace, might eventually pervade the whole human race. By giving broken bread, as an emblem of His broken Self, to all His disciples, He taught them that His love, life, grace, are designed for the nourishment of all.

2. And in our dealings with Him and His system, we must ever remember this. The true Church can never be a mere treasure-house for hoarding up privileges and graces. Like its Lord and Master, it must suffer much brokenness.

IV. The highest expression of the love of God. Our language has no words to describe Giver or Gift. But its influence testifies to the worth of the Gift. The woman who broke the alabaster box on her Lord gave unreservedly the best she had, and the whole house was filled with fragrance. So, when Gods gift was broken, His influence, like the odours of a very precious ointment, began to fill the whole world. (U. R. Thomas.)

This do in remembrance of Me.--

In remembrance

I. Other memories will come, but must not crowd out the one memory. The following remembrances may be natural, and profitable, but they must be kept in a secondary place:--

1. Of ourselves when we were strangers and foreigners.

2. Of our former onlooking and wishing to be at the table.

3. Of our first time of coming, and the grace received since then.

4. Of the dear departed who once were with us at the table.

5. Of beloved ones who cannot be with us at this time because they are kept at home by sickness.

6. Of many present with us, and what grace has done in their cases. We may think of their needs and of their holy lives, etc.

7. Of the apostates who have proved their falseness, like Judas. However these memories may press upon us, we must mainly remember Him for whose honour the feast is ordained.

II. The ordinance is helpful to that one sacred memory.

1. Set forth, the signs display the person of our Lord as really man, substantial flesh and blood.

2. Placed on the table, their presence betokens our Lords clear familiarity with us, and our nearness to Him.

3. Broken and poured forth, they show His sufferings.

4. Separated, bread apart from wine, the flesh divided from the blood, they declare His death for us.

5. Eating, we symbolise the life-sustaining power of Jesus and our reception of Him into our innermost selves.

6. Remaining when the Supper is ended, the fragments suggest that there is yet more bread and wine for other feasts; anti, even so, our Lord is all-sufficient for all time. Every particle of the ordinance points at Jesus, and we must therein behold the Lamb of God.

III. That sacred memory is is itself most needful for us. It is--

1. The continual sustenance of faith.

2. The stimulus of love.

3. The fountain of hope.

4. A recall, from the world, from self, from controversy, from labour, from our fellows--to our Lord.

5. The reveille, the up-and-away.

It is the prelude of the marriage supper, and makes us long for the bridal feast above. Above all things, it behoves us to keep the name of our Lord engraven on our hearts.

IV. This symbolic festival is highly beneficial in refreshing our memories, and in others ways.

1. We are yet in the body, and materialism is a most real and potent force; we need that there be a set sign and form to incarnate the spiritual and make it vivid to the mind. Moreover, as the Lord actually took upon Him our flesh and blood, and as He means to save even the material part of us, He gives us this link with materialism, lest we spirit things away as well as spiritualise them.

2. Jesus, who knew our forgetfulness, appointed this festival of love; and we may be sure He will bless it to the end designed.

3. Experience has ofttimes proved its eminent value.

4. While reviving the memories of the saints, it has also been sealed by the Holy Spirit; for He has very frequently used it to arouse and convince the spectators of our solemn feast. Conclusion:

1. To observe the Supper is binding on all believers, to the extent of oft.

2. Only as it assists remembrance can it be useful. Seek grace lovingly to remember your Lord. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The nature and importance of the Lords Supper

I. The different names descriptive of this ordinance.

1. Breaking of bread. Bread is considered the chief support of life, and, among the Jews, breaking of bread was a sign of mutual friendship. Thus Christs body was broken for the sins of men.

2. Communion--which may signify either a participation or communion between the receivers themselves, or between the receivers and the thing received. In both senses it is applicable to the Lords Supper (1Co_10:16).

3. Eucharist--which signifies thankfulness or thanksgiving, and frequently occurs in the New Testament as a general expression of gratitude. Taking this view of the ordinance, how should our hearts overflow with adoring gratitude, love, and praise, whenever We approach the Lords Table!

4. Sacrament--which originally signified a religious oath which the Roman soldiers took to their commanders. So does every Christian solemnly engage to maintain irreconcilable warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

5. There are two other terms often applied to this ordinance, both of Levitical origin. They are oblation and sacrifice.

II. In celebrating the Lords Supper, according to His last solemn command, This do in remembrance of Me, we view Christ as the great atonement, and the only sacrifice for sin. In this sacred ordinance the Church invites the attention of men to behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world.

III. Our obligation duty, and interest all combine to enforce obedience to this last, solemn, and dying command of christ. (N. Meeres, B.D.)

The Supper of the Lord

I. It affords a visible and permanent testimony to the truth of the gospel.

II. It calls in the senses to the aid of other powers and faculties for the promotion of piety.

III. It provides a public test of our religious sincerity.

IV. It tends to increase our love of that Saviour to whose memory it is especially dedicated.

V. How well calculated is it to humble the impenitent sinner!

VI. It cheers the heart of the true believer. (J. W. Cunningham, M.A.)

In remembrance of Me

1. Were a stranger, who had never heard of Christ, to come into church while we are seated at the Lords table, he would naturally ask, What does this observance mean? And the answer, no doubt, would rise to the lips readily enough, We commemorate the dying of Him whom we call Lord and Saviour. And yet, would not much remain still unexplained? Would it not still seem strange that our highest act of worship should centre in a memory of one whose death was a dishonoured death? There is no other religion whose believers can look back to a founder who was content to say, Be true to My memory. That is all I command. Let your most solemn worship embody the expression of this remembrance.

2. You may have heard of the power of a pure and noble memory of, e.g., a well-loved home, to keep back the foot from falling and the soul from death; or of a generous and trustful love which has been a breastplate to the heart tempted to unworthy ways. But in that remembrance of Christ of which the sacrament is the visible expression, there is something more than we find in the best human memory.

I. Let us see what Christs memory is, what is implied in remembrance of Him. The sacrament is a memorial of--

1. One who lived a human life, and yet a life such as none else has ever lived.

2. Who, at a time when the world was full of darkness and unrest, came into it with a message from God for all whose hearts were weary, whose minds were dark. His life was one that gladdened other lives, and bore about with it one living message of peace and goodwill. And is it not well, amid all the worldliness, and selfishness, and untruth of mans society, to be able to look back to a life in which these evil principles had no place, in which all was truth, honesty, earnestness and Love?

3. Who revealed God the Father. Think of what the world would be to us without this truth, and of what it will be to us, when we come to lie at the last low verge of life; and as you think of this, and remember that all our knowledge of this blessed truth comes from Christ, do you not feel that there is an unequalled urgency and solemnity in that last charge to us, This do in remembrance of Me?

4. One who closed His perfect life by the sacrifice of Himself. It is indeed this, more than aught else, that the sacramental symbols bring home to us. Think, then, how but for that we had been without hope and without God in the world.

II. If such then be His memory, shall we not remember Him as He has given us commandment? But is that commandment altogether fulfilled when we have eaten the bread and drunk the wine?

1. If we would be really true to the memory of the Master, it must be by showing forth, in our whole life, the power of His Divine example. There are stately tombs, on which in the lapse of ages the graven record of love and sorrow has waxed dim, and the very name recorded has been lost, and the tomb stands there a dumb witness to an unknown memory; and just such, no better, would be our remembrance of our Lord, if it were professed only while we celebrate the sacrament of His body and blood. But if it expresses a real union with our Lord, a real devotion to Him, a real sharing of His spirit, then in this sacrament we indeed eat of the Bread of Heaven and drink of the Water of Life.

2. Now suppose the stranger mentioned at the beginning had got his answer, and gone away, and were to return after a time and see us going about our daily works, might he not be inclined to say to us, What has become of that sacred memory of which you spoke to me? I see no trace of it among you. I understood He was one who was pure and true and unselfish; and I see you serving your own ends. You told me that He died for you; and I look about for the memorials of such a love as that, and cannot find it. Let us be careful not to bring reproach upon our Masters name.

3. If there be one here who is burdened with the consciousness of sin, who hears the voice which is saying to us now, This do in remembrance of Me, speaking to him in sorrow because of his faithlessness, let him be warned and recalled to a better spirit, and truer life; and he will find that that voice will change its tone of sorrow and reproach for one of encouragement and consolation, that will say, Abide in Me, and I in you; let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. (R. H. Story, D.D.)

In remembrance of Me

1. This Epistle is prior in date to any of the Gospels, consequently we have the earliest account of the institution of the Lords Supper. More than that, the account is entirely independent of any oral tradition, for the apostle distinctly affirms that he received this narrative from none of the guests in that upper chamber, but from the Host Himself. We can therefore trace the celebration to a period very near to the death of Christ, and thus we have a strong presumption of the historical accuracy of the story, and a view of the aspect in which it was regarded by the primitive belief of Christendom.

2. The occasion for the utterance is characteristic of Paul, and instructive to us. Had it not been for some abuses in Corinth we should never have had one word about this ordinance; and in that event there would have been scarcely any reference to it outside the Gospels. Let us regard the Lords Supper as--

I. A memorial.

1. The words are used in the institution of that Passover which our Lord, with sovereign authority, brushed aside in order to make room for His own rite. This day shall be unto you for a memorial. The text therefore has reference to the Exodus, and is meant to substitute for the memories so stirring to Jewish national pride and devout feeling the remembrance of Christ as the one thing needful.

2. This is Christs distinct statement of the purpose of the Lords Supper, and you will find nothing additional to it in the New Testament.

3. Notice of what the Lords Supper is a memorial--of Me. You have remembered Moses and his deliverance; forget him! The shadow passes, and here I stand, the substance! Do this; never mind about your old Passover--that is done with. Do this in remembrance--no longer of dead Pharaohs and exhausted deliverances, but of an everloving friend and helper; and of a redemption that shall never pass away.

(1) What a marvellous, majestic prevision that was, that looked all down the ages and expected that to the end of time men would turn to Him with passionate thankfulness! And more wonderful still, the forecast has been true.

(2) And as majestic as is the authority, so tender and gracious is the condescension. He does not rely upon His mighty love and sacrifice far the remembrance, but He consents to trust some portion of our remembrance of Him to mere outward things. Surely we need all the help we can get to keep His memory vivid and fresh in spite of the pressure of the visible and temporal.

II. As a means of grace.

1. I know only one way by which grace can get into mens souls, and that is through the occupation of a mans understanding, heart, and will, with Christ and the gospel that tells of Him. And the good that any outward thing does us is that it brings before us the truth on which our hopes depend, and knits to our heart the Christ and His love.

2. This Communion is obedience to a definite command, and so has the blessing which always follows upon obedience. And this blessing, and the one that comes from having our thoughts turned to Him, and faith and hope kindled towards Him, exhaust the whole of the good that the service does to any man.

3. All that is confirmed by the remarks in the context about the mischief that it sometimes does to people. We read about an unworthy partaking, which is defined: Whoso eateth and drinketh (not unworthily, for that is an unauthorised supplement)

, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lords body, i.e., unworthy participation is one which does not use the external symbols as a means of turning thought and feeling to Christ and His death; and unworthy participation does a man harm, as unworthy handling of any outward rite does. I try with words to lead men to look to Christ. If my words come between you and Him rather as an obscuring medium, then my sermon does you harm. You read a hymn. The hymn is meant to lead you up to Christ; if it does not do that, then it does you harm. If through the outward ritual we see Christ, we get all the good that the outward ritual can do us. If through the outward rite we do not see Him, if the coloured glass stay the eye instead of leading it on, then the rite does us harm.

III. A witness for Christian truth.

1. Christ Himself has appointed this institution and selected for us the part of His mission which He considers the vital and all-important centre--This is My body, broken for you. This is the new covenant in My blood, shed for the remission of sins. Not His words, not His loving deeds, not His tenderness, does He point us to; but to His violent death, as if He said, There is the thing that is to touch hearts and change lives, and bind men to Me.

2. Forms of Christianity which have let go the Incarnation and the Atonement do not know what to make of the Lords Supper. They who do not feel that Christs death is their peace, do not feel that this rite is the centre of Christian worship. I may be speaking to some who regard it as unnecessary. My brother, Christ knew what He meant by His work quite as well as you do, and He thought, that that the part of it which most concerns us to remember was this: that He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.

3. And as plain as the teaching is of this ordinance in reference to what is the living heart of Christs work for us, so plain is it in reference to what is our way of making that work ours. We eat that we may live. We take Christ, the fact of His death, love, personal life for us to-day, and by faith we partake of Him, and the body is assimilated to the food, and so in that higher region we live. (A. Maclaren, D.D.)

The remembrance of Christ

1. Christians may forget Christ. It seems at first sight too gross a crime to lay at the door of converted men; but if startling to the ear, it is, alas! too apparent to the eye. Forget Him who never forgot us! Who loved us even to the death! The incessant round of world, world, world; the constant din of earth, earth, earth, takes away the soul from Christ. While memory will preserve a poisoned weed, it suffereth the Rose of Sharon to wither.

2. The cause is apparent. We forget Christ, because regenerate as we are, still corruption remains. Consider--

I. The glorious and precious object of memory.

1. Christians have many treasures to lock up in the cabinet of memory. They ought to remember their election, their extraction, their effectual calling, their special deliverances. But there is one whom they should embalm in their souls with the most costly spices. One I said, for I mean not an act, but a Person.

2. But how can we remember Christs person, when we never saw it? Well, it is true we cannot remember the visible appearance, but even the apostle said, though he had known Christ after the flesh, yet, thenceforth after the flesh he would know Christ no more. You may know Him after the spirit; in this manner you can remember Jesus as much now as any of those favoured ones who once walked side by side with Him.

3. Let us remember Him in His baptism, in the wilderness, in all His daily temptations and hourly trials, in Gethsemane, in Pilates hall, at Calvary. You can very well carry all this away, because you have read it often; but you cannot spiritually remember anything about Christ, if you never had Him manifested to you. What we have never known, we cannot remember.

II. The benefits to be derived from a loving remembrance of Christ. It will tend to give you--

1. Hope when you are under the burden of your sins.

2. Patience under persecution.

3. Strength in temptation.

4. Victory in death.

III. A sweet aid to memory. Behold the whole mystery of the sacred Eucharist.

1. The power to excite remembrance consists in the appeal made to the senses. Here the eye, the hand, the mouth, find joyful work, and thus the senses, which are usually clogs to the soul, become wings to lift the mind in contemplation.

2. Much of the influence in this ordinance is found in its simplicity. Here is nothing to burden the memory. He must have no memory at all who cannot remember that he has eaten bread, and that he has been drinking wine.

3. Note--The mighty pregnancy of these signs. Bread broken--so was your Saviour broken. Bread to be eaten--so His flesh is meat indeed. Wine poured out, the pressed juice of the grape--so was your Saviour crushed. Wine to cheer your heart--so does the blood of Christ. Wine to strengthen and invigorate you--so does the blood of the mighty sacrifice.

4. But before you can remember Christ, you must ask the assistance of the Holy Spirit. There ought to be a preparation before the Lords Supper. Take heed to yourselves (verse 27); mind what you arc doing! Do not do it carelessly; for of all the sacred things on earth, it is the most solemn.

IV. A sweet command. It is important to answer this question--This do ye. Who are intended? Ye who put your trust in Me. This do ye in remembrance of Me. Christ watches you at the door. Some of you go home, and Christ says, I thought I said, This do ye in remembrance of Me. Some of you keep your seats as spectators. Christ sits with you, and He says, I thought I said, This do ye in remembrance of Me. ( C. H. Spurgeon.)

The commemoration of Christs death

We are to remember--

I. What He was from eternity: God (Rom_9:5).

II. What He became: Man (Joh_1:4).

III. What He did, and how He lived.

1. Humbly (Mat_11:29).

2. Charitably.

3. Righteously (1Pe_2:22; Mat_3:15).

4. Inoffensively (Mat_17:27).

5. Obediently.

IV. What He suffered.

1. Contempt (Isa_53:3).

2. Pain in His body (Isa_53:3).

3. Grief of heart (Mat_26:37; Luk_22:44).

4. Death.

(1) A shameful,

(2) A painful,

(3) A cursed, death (Gal_3:13).

V. Whom He suffered so much for: for us (Isa_53:5-6).

VI. What benefit we have by it.

1. Pardon (Rom_5:1).

2. Reconciliation to God (2Co_5:11).

3. Mortification of sin (Rom_8:1-2; Mat_1:21).

4. Grace here.

5. Glory hereafter (Joh_3:16).

VII. What He did after His death.

1. He rose again (Rom_4:25).

2. Ascended (Act_1:11).

3. Sits at the right hand of God (Rom_8:34).

4. Maketh intercession for us (1Jn_2:1-2).

5. Will, ere long, come and judge us (2Co_5:10).

Conclusion: For preparation--

1. Review your lives.

2. Examine your hearts (1Co_11:28).

(1) The strength of your sins.

(2) The growth of your graces.

3. Pray God for His assistance. (Bp.Beveridge.)

Christ remembered at His table

Remember--

1. Your guilt and wretchedness, which rendered His interference for your deliverance so absolutely necessary.

2. The amazing magnitude of that love and compassion which induced Him to undertake our cause.

3. The holiness of the doctrines which He taught, and the purifying tendency of the precepts which He inculcated.

4. The sufferings He underwent, and the death He endured for you.

5. The position which He now occupies, and the glorious rewards which He has provided for all His faithful followers. (R. Cameron.)

The sacrament a feast of alliance

This idea must be--

I. Explained. This feast is one of--

1. Reconciliation.

2. Friendship.

3. Union.

II. Limited. It is a feast, but a solemn feast.

III. Justified. It is a feast of sacrifice.

IV. Improved:

1. Come with a contrite heart to this feast.

2. Let it be a source of consolation to you. (I. S. Spencer, D.D.)

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

1Co 11:24. And when he had given thanks — The word ευχαριστησας, thus rendered, is the term used also by Luke, whence Macknight infers, that the word ευλογησας, used by Matthew and Mark, ought to be understood, not of Christ’s blessing the bread, but of his blessing God for saving sinners through his death, See on Luk 22:19. He brake it — Into several pieces; and — Distributing it to his disciples who were present, said — With great sweetness and solemnity, This is my body which is broken for you — “As the clause, which is broken, cannot be taken literally, because it would imply that Christ’s body was broken, or put to death on the cross, at the time he said this, contrary to truth; so the clause, this is my body, cannot be taken literally: for the two clauses making but one proposition, if the clause, this is my body, which is the subject of the proposition, be interpreted literally, the predicate, which is broken for you, must be so likewise. Consequently the proposition will import, that the bread in our Lord’s hands was converted into a thing which at that time had no existence. Both the doctrine of the Papists, and that of the Lutherans, therefore, [on this head,] ought to be rejected, as implying an evident falsehood; namely, that Christ’s body, at the time he spake, was broken, or put to death.” In other passages of Scripture, we frequently find expressions perfectly similar to, this is my body, as is proved in the note on Mat 26:26, which see. The evident meaning of our Lord is, This bread is the representation of my body, which is to be broken for you. “The Papists contend, that in every age, by the priests pronouncing what they call the words of consecration, the same change is made in the bread and wine, which they affirm was made in these elements by Christ’s saying, This is my body, &c. But, to gain credit to their doctrine, they ought to show from Scripture, that the power of working that miracle was promised by Christ to all his faithful servants in the ministry to the end of the world. But this they cannot do. Besides, that St. Paul did not possess any such power is evident from 1Co 11:26-28 of this chapter, where he calls the elements bread and wine after their consecration, as he had named them before.” — Macknight. This do in remembrance of me — In an humble, thankful, obedient remembrance of my dying love, of the extremity of my sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you, and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.

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

1 Corinthians

‘IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME’

1Co 11:24.

The account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, contained in this context, is very much the oldest extant narrative of that event. It dates long before any of the Gospels, and goes up, probably, to somewhere about five and twenty years after the Crucifixion. It presupposes a previous narrative which had been orally delivered to the Corinthians, and, as the Apostle alleges, was derived by him from Christ Himself. It is intended to correct corruptions in the administration of the rite which must have taken some time to develop themselves. And so we are carried back to a period very close indeed to the first institution of the rite, by the words before us.

No reasonable doubt can exist, then, that within a very few years of our Lord’s death, the whole body of Christian people believed that Jesus Christ Himself appointed the Lord’s Supper. I do not stay to dwell upon the value of a rite contemporaneous with the fact which it commemorates, and continuously lasting throughout the ages, as a witness of the historical veracity of the alleged fact; but I want to fix upon this thought, that Jesus Christ, who cared very little for rites, who came to establish a religion singularly independent of any outward form, did establish two rites, one of them to be done once in a Christian lifetime, one of them to be repeated with indefinite frequency, and, as it appears, at first repeated daily by the early believers. The reason why these two, and only these two, external ordinances were appointed by Jesus Christ was, that, taken together, they cover the whole ground of revealed fact, and they also cover the whole ground of Christian experience. There is no room for any other rites, because these two, the rite of initiation, which is baptism, and the rite of commemoration, which is the Lord’s Supper, say everything about Christianity as a revelation, and about Christianity as a living experience.

Not only so, but in the simple primitive form of the Lord’s Supper there is contained a reference to the past, the present and the future. It covers all time as well as all revelation and all Christian experience. For the past, as the text shows us, it is a memorial of one Person, and one fact in that Person’s life. For the present, it is the symbol of the Christian life, as that great sixth chapter in John’s gospel sets forth; and for the future, it is a prophecy, as our Lord Himself said on that night in the upper chamber, ‘Till I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,’ and as the Apostle in this context says, ‘Till He come.’ It is to these three aspects of this ordinance, as the embodiment of all essential Christian truth, and as the embodiment of all deep Christian experience, covering the past, the present, and the future, that I wish to turn now. I do not deal so much with the mere words of my text as with this threefold significance of the rite which it appoints.

I. So then, first, we have to think of it as a memorial of the past.

‘Do this,’ is the true meaning of the words, not ‘in remembrance of Me,’ but something far more sweet and pathetic-’do this for the remembering of Me.’ The former expression is equal to ‘Do this because you remember.’ The real meaning of the words is, ‘Do this in case you forget’; do this in order that you may recall to memory what the slippery memory is so apt to lose-the impression of even the sweetest sweetness, of the most loving love, and the most self-abnegating sacrifice, which He offered for us.

There is something to me infinitely pathetic and beautiful in looking at the words not only as the commandment of the Lord, but as the appeal of the Friend, who wished, as we all do, not to be utterly forgotten by those whom He cared for and loved; and who, not only because their remembrance was their salvation, but because their forgetfulness pained His human heart, brings to their hearts the plaintive appeal: ‘Do not forget Me when I am gone away from you; and even if you have no better way of remembering Me, take these poor symbols, to which I am not too proud to entrust the care of My memory, and do this, lest you forget Me.’

But, dear brethren, there are deeper thoughts than this, on which I must dwell briefly. ‘In remembrance of Me’-Jesus Christ, then, takes up an altogether unique and solitary position here, and into the sacredest hours of devotion and the loftiest moments of communion with God, intrudes His personality, and says, ‘When you are most religious, remember Me; and let the highest act of your devout life be a thought turned to Myself.’

Now, I want you to ask, is that thought diverted from God? And if it is not, how comes it not to be? I want you honestly to ask yourselves this question-what did He think about Himself who, at that moment, when all illusions were vanishing, and life was almost at its last ebb, took the most solemn rite of His nation and laid it solemnly aside and said: ‘A greater than Moses is here; a greater deliverance is being wrought’ : ‘Remember Me.’ Is that insisting on His own personality, and making the remembrance of it the very apex and shining summit of all religious aspiration-is that the work of one about whom all that we have to say is, He was the noblest of men? If so, then I want to know how Jesus Christ, in that upper chamber, founding the sole continuous rite of the religion which He established, and making its heart and centre the remembrance of His own personality, can be cleared from the charge of diverting to Himself what belongs to God only, and how you and I, if we obey His commands, escape the crime of idolatry and man-worship? ‘Do this in remembrance,’-not of God-’in remembrance of Me,’ ‘and let memory, with all its tendrils, clasp and cleave to My person.’ What an extraordinary demand! It is obscuring God, unless the ‘Me’ is God manifest in the flesh.

Then, still further, let me remind you that in the appointment of this solitary rite as His memorial to all generations, Jesus Christ Himself designates one part of His whole manifestation as the part into which all its pathos, significance, and power are concentrated. We who believe that the death of Christ is the life of the world, are told that one formidable objection to our belief is that Jesus Christ Himself said so little during His life about His death. I believe His reticence upon that question is much exaggerated, but apart altogether from that, I believe also that there was a necessity in the order of the evolution of divine truth, for the reticence, such as it is, because, whatsoever might be possible to Moses and Elias, on the Mount of Transfiguration, ‘His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem,’ could not be much spoken about in the plain till it had been accomplished. But, apart from both of these considerations, reflect, that whether He said much about His death or not, He said something very much to the purpose about it when He said ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’

It is not His personality only that we are to remember. The whole of the language of the institution of the ritual, as well as the form of the rite, and its connection with the ancient passover, and its connection with the new covenant into connection with which Christ Himself brings it, all point to the significance in His eyes of His death as the Sacrifice for the world’s sin. Wherefore ‘the body’ and ‘the blood’ separately remembered, except to indicate death by violence? Wherefore the language ‘the body broken for you’; ‘the blood shed for many for the remission of sins?’ Wherefore the association with the Passover sacrifice? Wherefore the declaration that ‘this is the blood of the Covenant,’ unless all tended to the one thought-His death is the foundation of all loving relationships possible to us with God; and the condition of the remission of sins-the Sacrifice for the whole world?’

This is the point that He desires us to remember; this is that which He would have live for ever in our grateful hearts.

I say nothing about the absolute exclusion of any other purpose of this memorial rite. If it was the mysterious thing that the superstition of later ages has made of it, how, in the name of common-sense, does it come that not one syllable, looking in that direction, dropped from His lips when He established it? Surely He, in that upper chamber, knew best what He meant, and what He was doing when He established the rite; and I, for my part, am contented to be told that I believe in a poor, bald Zwinglianism, when I say with my Master, that the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is simply the commemoration, and therein the proclamation, of His death. There is no magic, no mystery, no ‘sacrament’ about it. It blesses us when it makes us remember Him. It does the same thing for us which any other means of bringing Him to mind does. It does that through a different vehicle. A sermon does it by words, the Communion does it by symbols. That is the difference to be found between them. And away goes the whole fabric of superstitious Christianity, and all its mischiefs and evils, when once you accept the simple ‘Remember.’ Christ told us what He meant by the rite when He said ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’

II. And now one word or two more about the other particulars which I have suggested. The past, however sweet and precious, is not enough for any soul to live upon. And so this memorial rite, just because it is memorial, is a symbol for the present.

That is taught us in the great chapter-the sixth of John’s Gospel-which was spoken long before the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but expresses in words the same ideas which it expresses by material forms. The Christ who died is the Christ who lives, and must be lived upon by the Christian. If our relation to Jesus Christ were only that ‘Once in the end of the ages He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself’; and if we had to look back through lengthening vistas of distance and thickening folds of oblivion, simply to a historical past, in which He was once offered, the retrospect would not have the sweetness in it which it now has. But when we come to this thought that the Christ who was for us is also the Christ in us, and that He is not the Christ for us unless He is the Christ in us; and His death will never wash away our sins unless we feed upon Him, here and now, by faith and meditation, then the retrospect becomes blessedness. The Christian life is not merely the remembrance of a historical Christ in the past, but it is the present participation in a living Christ, with us now.

He is near each of us that we may make Him the very food of our spirits. We are to live upon Him. He is to be incorporated within us by our own act. This is no mysticism, it is a piece of simple reality. There is no Christian life without it. The true life of the believer is just the feeding of our souls upon Him,-our minds accepting, meditating upon, digesting the truths which are incarnated in Jesus; our hearts feeding upon the love which is so tender, warm, stooping, and close; our wills feeding upon and nourished by the utterance of His will in commandments which to know is joy and to keep is liberty; our hopes feeding upon Him who is our Hope, and in whom they find no chaff and husks of peradventures, but the pure wheat of ‘Verily! verily I say unto you’; the whole nature thus finding its nourishment in Jesus Christ. You are Christians in the measure in which the very strength of your spirits, and sustenance of all your faculties, are found in loving communion with the living Lord.

Remember, too, that all this communion, intimate, sweet, sacred, is possible only, or at all events is in its highest forms and most blessed reality, possible only, to those who approach Him through the gate of His death. The feeding upon the living Christ which will be the strength of our hearts and our portion for ever, must be a feeding upon the whole Christ. We must not only nourish our spirits on the fact that He was incarnated for our salvation, but also on the truth that He was crucified for our acceptance with God. ‘He that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me,’ has for its deepest explanation, ‘He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life.’

My friends, what about the hunger of your souls? Where is it satisfied? With the swine’s husks, or with the ‘Bread of God which came down from Heaven?’

III. Now, lastly, that rite which is a memorial and a symbol is also a prophecy.

In the original words of the institution our Lord Himself makes reference to the future; ‘till I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.’ And in the context here, the Apostle provides for the perpetual continuance, and emphasises the prophetic aspect, of the rite, by that word, ‘till He come.’ His death necessarily implies His coming again. The Cross and the Throne are linked together by an indissoluble bond. Being what it is, the death cannot be the end. Being what He is, if He has once been offered to bear the sins of many, so He must come the second time without sin unto salvation. The rite, just because it is a rite, is the prophecy of a time when the need for it, arising from weak flesh and an intrusive world, shall cease. ‘They shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord; at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord.’ There shall be no temple in that great city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple thereof. So all external worship is a prophecy of the coming of the perfect time, when that which is perfect being come, the external helps and ladders to climb to the loftiest shall be done away.

But more than that, the memorial and symbol is a prophecy. That upper chamber, with its troubled thoughts, its unbidden tears, starting to the eyes of the half-understanding listeners, who only felt that He was going away and the sweet companionship was dissolved, may seem to be but a blurred and a poor image of the better communion of heaven. But though on that sad night the Master bore a burdened heart, and the servants had but partial apprehension and a more partial love; though He went forth to agonise and to die, and they went forth to deny and to betray, and to leave Him alone, still it was a prophecy of Christ’s table in His kingdom. Heaven is to be a feast. That representation promises society to the solitary, rest to the toilers, the oil of joy for mourning, and the full satisfaction of all desires. That heavenly feast surpasses indeed the antitype in the upper chamber, in that there the Master Himself partook not, and yonder we shall sup with Him and He with us, but is prophetic in that, as there He took a towel and girded Himself and washed the disciples’ feet, so yonder He will come forth Himself and serve them. The future is unlike the prophetic past in that ‘we shall go no more out’; there shall be no sequences of sorrow, and struggle, and distance and ignorance; but like it in that we shall feast on Christ, for through eternity the glorified Jesus will be the Bread of our spirits, and the fact of His past sacrifice the foundation of our hopes.

So, dear brethren, though our external celebration of this rite be dashed, as it always is, with much ignorance and with feeble faith; and though we gather round this table as the first generation of Israelites did round the passover, of which it is the successor, with staff in hand and loins girded, and have to eat it often with bitter herbs mingled, and though there be at our sides empty places, yet even in our clouded and partial apprehension, and in the imperfections of this outward type, we may see a gracious shadow of what is waiting for us when we shall go no more out, and all empty places shall be filled, and the bitter herbs shall be changed for the asphodel of Heaven and the sweet flowerage round the throne of God, and we shall feast upon the Christ, and in the loftiest experience of the utmost glories of the Heavens, shall remember the bitter Cross and agony as that which has bought it all. ‘This do in remembrance of Me.’ May it be a symbol of our inmost life, and the prophecy of the Heaven to which we each shall come!

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11:24 Jews and early Christians traditionally gave thanks to God for their food before eating (see study note on Mark 14:22-25). • This is my body: Cp. John 6:32-35, 48-58.

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

1Co 11:24. Ἔκλασε, broke) The very mention of the breaking, involves the distribution, and refutes the Corinthian mode of making it every man his own, 1Co 11:21.—τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον, which is broken for you) In the gospel by Luke the words are, which is given for you. In the Lord’s Supper, with the bread broken, the body of Christ, which was given unto death for us, is taken and eaten, as real food; although no one would be likely to affirm, that the Lord would have used the breaking of bread, if it had not been the common practice at that period. The passion of Christ is [should be] naturally before the eucharist;[99] hence the institution of the Supper took place immediately before the death of Christ. Therefore the body of Christ is said to be given in respect of the passion considered in itself; to be broken, in respect of the passion fitting the Lord’s body for being eaten: and the expression for you shows that the word given is at the same time indicated, so that it is an abbreviated phrase, with this meaning; which is given for you and broken to you. These remarks indeed refer to the common reading κλώμενον, from the verb ἔκλασε immediately preceding; but the Alexandrian reading had not the participle, as is evident from the fourth book of Cyril against Nestorius;[100] whence others have supplied ΔΙΔΌΜΕΝΟΝ from Luke. My body, which for you, is a nervous sentence, as Joh 6:51, in the old copies, my flesh for the life of the world.[101]

[99] Or rather, translate “Passio naturâ prior est quam eucharistia.” The suffering is naturally prior to the thanksgiving.—ED.

[100] Hence also the participle κλώμενον, and the preceding imperatives λάβετε, φάγετε, are reckoned on the margin of Ed. 2, by a change of opinion, as weaker readings, and they are put doubtfully in the Germ. Ver.—E. B.

[101] BCDL Vulg., Theb., Orig., and Cypr. omit the ἢν ἐγὼ δώσω of the Rec. Text.—ED.

Τὸ ὑπʼ ὑμῶν- is the reading of ABC corrected later. G supports the κλώμενον added in Rec. Text. D corr. later fg add θρυπτόμενον. Memph. and Theb. favour διδόμενον. Vulg. Cypr. 107 have “Quod pro vobis tradetur.”—ED.

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

1Co_11:24. Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα] This is my body (the body of me). The emphasis lies not on the enclitic μου, but on τὸ σῶμα. See, further, on Mat_26:26, and see Keim (in the Jahrb. für Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 73), as against Ströbel (in Rudelbachs Zeitschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.), who would have τοῦτο not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward to what is to be designated by the predicate. This τοῦτο can mean nothing else whatever but: this broken bread here, which again necessitates our taking ἐστί as the copula of the symbolic being.

Otherwise the identity of the subject and predicate here expressed would be, alike for the speaker and the hearers, an impossible conception; the body of the Lord was still alive, and His death, which answered to the breaking of the bread, was yet in the future. When we come, therefore, to define ἐστί more precisely in connection with that first celebration of the Supper, it is to be taken as being in the sense of proleptic symbolism; and thereby the very possibility of the Lutheran synecdoche (upon which even Mehring falls back, in the Luther. Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 82) is done away.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] κλώμενον is spurious. We must supply simply ὄν: which is for your behoof, namely, by its being broken (slain[1856]). Christs body was not, indeed, literally broken (Joh_19:33), but in His violent death our Lord sees that accomplished in His body which He had just done with the bread. This is the point of what He beholds in the broken bread looked upon by Him with such direct creative vividness of regard; but in truth the simple τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is more in keeping with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to expound in a more detailed way the symbolism which both presents and interprets itself in the breaking of bread; and Matthew and Mark have not even this for you.

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to wit, what I now do; not merely the breaking of the bread joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but alsoas the action itself became the silent commentary on this τοῦτοthe distribution and eating of the bread; comp 1Co_11:26.

ΕἸς Τ. ἘΜ. ἈΝΆΜΝ.] in remembrance of me, presupposes His absence in body for the future; see on Luk_22:19. We may add that these words also do not occur in Matthew and Mark, whose simple τοῦτό ἐστι τ. σῶμά μου carries with it a presumption of its being the original, unexpanded by any later explanation or reflection. Generally speaking, a like preference must be accorded to the narratives of the Supper by Matthew and Mark (and between those two, again, to that of Mark) over those of Paul and Luke.

[1856] This more precise explanation of the absolute τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμ., sc. ὄν, is to be drawn from the preceding ἔκλασε; and hence the addition of κλώμενον is very correct in point of interpretation. But the word was not spoken by Jesus, only the thought was expressed in the action of breaking the bread. This silent language of lively depicting suits well with the deep emotion of the moment; and there is no ground either for regarding the reading which admits κλώμενον as probable on internal evidence (Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 616), or for characterizing that which rejects it as vaga et frigida (Reiche, Comm. crit.); nor will it do to explain the omission of the word by Joh_19:36 f. (Hofmann). As to Hofmanns making κλώμ. refer only to the violent bending and wrenching, as the term is used of men under torture (see Wetstein) and by physicians, the very fact that the bread was broken should have sufficed of itself to forbid the idea.

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_11:24

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.

Having given thanks. In Mat_26:26, and Mar_14:22, it is, Having blessed it In Luk_22:19, it is as here. The two expressions mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of Gods mercy and invocation of his blessing. See the remarks on 1Co_10:16. He brake it. This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in Pauls. This is one of the significant parts of the service, and ought not to be omitted as is done by Romanists, by the Greek church and by Lutherans. And said. The words uttered by our blessed Lord at this moment are differently reported by the different evangelists. In Mat_26:26, it is, Take, eat. In Mar_14:22, the latter word (according to the best authorities) is omitted. In Luk_22:19, both are omitted. Here, although both are found in the common text, yet, as they are wanting in the oldest MSS., they should probably be omitted; so that Pauls account agrees as to this point with that of Luke. The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered by our Lord; but as the ideas which they express were sufficiently indicated by the gesture of reaching the bread to his disciples, they were omitted by some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, whether expressed by words or gesture, is however of importance. The bread was to be taken and eaten. There must be a distribution of the elements to those participating in the service. Otherwise it is not a communion. This distribution is omitted by Romanists in the ordinary celebration of the Mass. The priest alone eats the consecrated wafer. The next words, this is my body, are found in all the accounts. Probably the history of the world does not furnish a parallel to the controversies occasioned by these simple words. The ordinary and natural interpretation of them is, that the pronoun this refers to the bread. This bread which I hold in my hand, and which I give to you, is my body. That is, is the symbol of my body; precisely as we say of a statue, it is the person which it represents; or as the Scriptures say that the sign is the thing of which it is the symbol, Eze_5:4, Eze_5:5. Gal_4:24; or as our Savior says, I am the vine, ye are the branches. I am the door; or as in the preceding chapter it was said, that rock was Christ; or as in Joh_1:32, the dove is said to be the Holy Ghost; or as baptism is said to be regeneration. This is a usage so familiar to all languages that no one disputes that the words in question will bear this interpretation. That they must have this meaning, would seem to be plain,

1. From the impossibility of the bread in Christs hand being his literal body then seated at the table; and the wine the blood men flowing in his veins.

2. From the still more obvious impossibility of taking the words this cup is the New Testament in a literal sense. In Mat_26:28 it is said, this (cup) is my blood. But Romanists do not hold to a transubstantiation of the cup, but only of the wine. But if the words are to be taken literally, they necessitated the belief of the one as well as of the other.

3. From the utter subversion of all the rules of evidence and laws of belief necessarily involved in the assumption that the bread in the Lords supper is literally the crucified body of Christ.

4. From the infidelity on the one hand, and the superstitious idolatry on the other, which are the unavoidable consequences of calling upon men to believe so glaring a contradiction. It is only by denying all distinction between matter and spirit, and confounding all our ideas of substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is blood, or bread flesh.

The Romish interpretation of these words is, that the bread is the body of Christ, because its whole substance is changed into the substance of his body. The Lutherans say, It is his body, because his body is locally present in and with the bread. Calvin says, It is his body in the same sense that the dove (Joh_1:32) was the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove, which was the pledge of his presence. So the bread is the symbol of Christs body, because with the one we receive the other. What is received, however, and what Calvin calls Christs body, and sometimes the substance of his body, is not the body itself, which, he admits, is in heaven only, but a life-giving power (vim vivificam) which flows to us from the glorified body of our Lord. The only presence of Christs body in the sacrament admitted by Calvin was this presence of power.‹18› The Reformed churches teach that the bread is called the body of Christ in the same sense that the cup is called the new covenant. He who in faith receives the cup, receives the covenant of which it was the pledge; and he who receives in faith in the bread receives the benefits of Christs body as broken for sin. The one is the symbol and pledge of the other.

Broken for you. In Luke it is, given for you. In Matthew and Mark these words are omitted. In some manuscripts‹19› the word (κλώμενον), broken, is wanting in this passage; so that it would read simply for you, leaving the participle to be supplied from the context. Broken or given for you means slain, or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher, or a benefactor, but as a sacrifice; so that if this idea be kept out of view the sacrament loses all its significance and power.

This do in remembrance of me. These words are not found in Matthew or Mark. They occur in Luk_22:19, as they do here. This do, i.e. Do what I have just done; take bread, consecrate it, break it, distribute and eat it. In remembrance of me, i.e. that I may be remembered as he who died for your sins. This is the specific, definite object of the Lords Supper, to which all other ends must be subordinate, because this alone is stated in the words of institution. It is of course involved in this, that we profess faith in him as the sacrifice for our sins; that we receive him as such; that we acknowledge the obligations which rest upon us as those who have been redeemed by his blood; and that we recognize ourselves as constituent members of his church and all believers as our brethren. We are thus, as taught in the preceding chapter, brought into a real communion with Christ and with all his people by the believing participation of this ordinance.

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

This word (Broken) noteth out unto us Christ his manner of death, for although his legs were not broken, as the thieves legs were, yet was his body very sore tormented, and torn, and bruised.

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

brake--The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one taking before other his own supper."

my body . . . broken for you--"given" (Luk 22:19) for you (Greek, "in your behalf"), and "broken," so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit "broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal "body" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, "This is My body." They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest manuscripts.

in remembrance of me--(See on Co1 11:25).

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 24. This do in remembrance of me.] The papists believe the apostles were not ordained priests before these words. Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non instituisse apostolos sacerdotes, anathema sit: "If any one shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of me,' Christ did not ordain his apostles priests, let him be accursed." Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Conc. 2. And he that does believe such an absurdity, on such a ground, is contemptible.

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

24. Having given thanks. Paul observes elsewhere, that every gift that we receive from the hand of God

is sanctified to us by the word and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:5.)

Accordingly, we nowhere read that the Lord tasted bread along with his disciples, but there is mention made of his giving thanks, (John 6:23,) by which example he has assuredly instructed us to do the like. This giving of thanks, however, has a reference to something higher, for Christ gives thanks to the Father for his mercy towards the human race, and the inestimable benefit of redemption; and he invites us, by his example, to raise up our minds as often as we approach the sacred table, to an acknowledgment of the boundless love of God towards us, and to have our minds kindled up to true gratitude.

Take, eat, this is my body As Paul designed here to instruct us in a few words as to the right use of the sacrament, it is our duty to consider attentively what he sets before us, and allow nothing to pass unobserved, inasmuch as he says nothing but what is exceedingly necessary to be known, and worthy of the closest attention. In the first place, we must take notice, that Christ here distributes the bread among the Apostles, that all may partake of it in common, and thus every one may receive his portion, that there may be an equal participation among all. Accordingly, when there is not a table in common prepared for all the pious — where they are not invited to the breaking of bread in common, and where, in fine, believers do not mutually participate, it is to no purpose that the name of the Lord’s Supper is laid claim to.

But for what purpose are the people called to mass, unless it be that they may come away empty from an unmeaning show? It has, therefore, nothing in unison with the supper. Hence, too, we infer that Christ’s promise is no more applicable to the mass than to the feast of the Salii; for when Christ promises that he will give us his body, he at the same time commands us to take and eat of the bread Hence, unless we obey this command, it is to no purpose that we glory in his promise. To explain this more familiarly in other words — the promise is annexed to the commandment in a conditional way, as it were: hence it has its accomplishment only if the condition also is accomplished. For example, it is written, Call upon me; I will answer thee (Psalm 91:15.) It is our part to obey the command of God, that he may accomplish for us what he promises; otherwise we shut ourselves out from the accomplishment of it.

What do Papists do? They neglect participation, and consecrate the bread for a totally different purpose, and in the meantime they boast that they have the Lord’s body. While, by a wicked divorce, they

put asunder those things which Christ has joined together, (Matthew 19:6,)

it is manifest that their boasting is vain. Hence, whenever they bring forward the clause — This is my body, we must retort upon them the one that immediately precedes it — Take and eat For the meaning of the words is: “By participating in the breaking of bread, according to the order and observance which I have prescribed, you shall be participants also in my body.” Hence, when an individual eats of it by himself, the promise in that case goes for nothing. Besides, we are taught in these words what the Lord would have us do. Take, says he. Hence those that offer a sacrifice to God have some other than Christ as their authority, for we are not instructed in these words to perform a sacrifice.

But what do Papists say as to their mass? At first they were so impudent as to maintain, that it was truly and properly called a sacrifice. Now, however, they admit that it is indeed a commemorative sacrifice, but in such a way, that the benefit of redemption is, through means of their daily oblation, applied to the living and the dead. However that may be, they present the appearance of a sacrifice. In the first place, there is rashness in this, as being without any command from Christ; but there is a still more serious error involved in it — that, while Christ appointed the Supper for this purpose, that we might take and eat, they pervert it to a totally different use.

This is my body I shall not recount the unhappy contests that have tried the Church in our times as to the meaning of these words. Nay rather, would to God that we could bury the remembrance of them in perpetual oblivion! I shall state, first of all, sincerely and without disguise, and then farther, I shall state freely (as I am wont to do) what my views are. Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes, for it immediately follows — This cup is the New Testament in my blood Let us regard it then as beyond all controversy that Christ is here speaking of the bread. Now the question is — “In what sense?” That we may elicit the true meaning, we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny this is exceedingly dishonest. Why then is the term body applied to the bread? All, I think, will allow that it is for the same reason that John calls the Holy Spirit a dove (John 1:32.) Thus far we are agreed. Now the reason why the Spirit was so called was this — that he had appeared in the form of a dove. Hence the name of the Spirit is transferred to the visible sign. Why should we not maintain that there is here a similar instance of metonymy, and that the term body is applied to the bread, as being the sign and symbol of it? If any are of a different opinion they will forgive me; but it appears to me to be an evidence of a contentious spirit, to dispute pertinaciously on this point. I lay it down, then, as a settled point, that there is here a sacramental form of expression, in which the Lord gives to the sign the name of the thing signified.

We must now proceed farther, and inquire as to the reason of the metonymy. Here I reply, that the name of the thing signified is not applied to the sign simply as being a representation of it, but rather as being a symbol of it, by which the reality is presented to us. For I do not allow the force of those comparisons which some borrow from profane or earthly things; for there is a material difference between them and the sacraments of our Lord. The statue of Hercules is called Hercules, but what have we there but a bare, empty representation? On the other hand the Spirit is called a dove, as being a sure pledge of the invisible presence of the Spirit. Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. Hence it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread.

We must now discuss the manner. Papists hold forth to us their system of transubstantiation: they allege that, when the act of consecration has been gone through, the substance of the bread no longer exists, and that nothing remains but the accidents. To this contrivance we oppose — not merely the plain words of Scripture, but the very nature of the sacraments. For what is the meaning of the supper, if there is no correspondence between the visible sign and the spiritual reality? They would have the sign to be a false and delusive appearance of bread. What then will the thing signified be, but a mere imagination? Hence, if there must be a correspondence between the sign and its reality, it is necessary that the bread be real — not imaginary — to represent Christ’s real body. Besides, Christ’s body is here given us not simply, but as food. Now it is not by any means the color of the bread that nourishes us, but the substance. In fine, if we would have reality in the thing itself, there must be no deception in the sign.

Rejecting then the dream of Papists, let us see in what manner Christ’s body is given to us. Some explain, that it is given to us, when we are made partakers of all the blessings which Christ has procured for us in his body — when, I say, we by faith embrace Christ as crucified for us, and raised up from the dead, and in this way are effectually made partakers of all his benefits. As for those who are of this opinion, I have no objection to their holding such a view. As for myself, I acknowledge, that it is only when we obtain Christ himself, that we come to partake of Christ’s benefits. He is, however, obtained, I affirm, not only when we believe that he was made an offering for us, but when he dwells in us — when he is one with us — when we are members of his flesh, (Ephesians 5:30,) — when, in fine, we are incorporated with him (so to speak) into one life and substance. Besides, I attend to the import of the words, for Christ does not simply present to us the benefit of his death and resurrection, but the very body in which he suffered and rose again. I conclude, that Christ’s body is really, (as the common expression is,) — that is, truly given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome food for our souls. I use the common form of expression, but my meaning is, that our souls are nourished by the substance of the body, that we may truly be made one with him, or, what amounts to the same thing, that a life-giving virtue from Christ’s flesh is poured into us by the Spirit, though it is at a great distance from us, and is not mixed with us.

There now remains but one difficulty — how is it possible that his body, which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24,) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ, they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.

But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding. “In the meantime, however, drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking beyond the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, that he may thence communicate himself to thee.” These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite.

Which is broken for you Some explain this as referring to the distribution of the bread, because it was necessary that Christ’s body should remain entire, as it had been predicted, (Exodus 12:46,) A bone of him shall not be broken As for myself — while I acknowledge that Paul makes an allusion to the breaking of bread, yet I understand the word broken as used here for sacrificed — not, indeed, with strict propriety, but at the same time without any absurdity. For although no bone was broken, yet the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many tortures and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most cruel form, cannot be said to have been uninjured. This is what Paul means by its being broken This, however, is the second clause of the promise, which ought not to be passed over slightly. For the Lord does not present his body to us simply, and without any additional consideration, but as having been sacrificed for us. The first clause, then, intimates, that the body is presented to us: this second clause teaches us, what advantage we derive from it — that we are partakers of redemption, and the benefit of his sacrifice is applied to us. Hence the Supper is a mirror which represents to us Christ crucified, so that no one can profitably and advantageously receive the supper, but the man who embraces Christ crucified.

Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the Supper is a memorial, (μνημόσυνον ) appointed as a help to our weakness; for if we were sufficiently mindful of the death of Christ, this help would be unnecessary. This is common to all sacraments, for they are helps to our weakness. What is the nature of that remembrance which Christ would have us cherish with regard to him, we shall hear presently. As to the inference, however, which some draw from this — that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance applies to something that is absent; the answer is easy — that Christ is absent from it in the sense in which the Supper is a commemoration. For Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. In short, in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place, but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh, as though it were present.

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.

(24) And when he had given thanks . . .—Better, and having given thanks, He brake it, and said, “This is My body which is for you.” The insertion of the words, “take, eat,” and “broken” is not supported by MS. evidence. The former were probably inserted so as to produce a verbal identity with St. Matthew’s account, and the word “broken” possibly as explanatory. At the institution the act of breaking the bread explained sufficiently what was meant. The Master, while in the act of breaking it, said, “This is My body, which is for you.”

This do in remembrance of me—i.e., all that was done then. Bless the bread, break it, distribute it, eat it. When I am no longer with you bodily, these acts will make memory grow into realisation of My presence in your midst. If the soft music of those words could reach us now, disentangled from the theological discords of intervening ages, surely they would come to us with some such significance. To those who first heard them they certainly must have implied not that a physical presence was about to be perpetuated, but rather that there was now something for them which would in after ages console them for a physical absence.

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

24. and when he had given thanks] St Mark has ‘blessed,’ St Matthew, according to some copies, ‘blessed,’ to others, ‘gave thanks.’ St Luke agrees with St Paul. From the Greek word used here this sacrament derives its name of Eucharist, or thanksgiving.

and said] Inasmuch as the words of institution have been the occasion of one of the longest and bitterest controversies that have ever divided the Church of Christ, it is well to inquire very closely what He said. And first, there are varieties in the reading here, occasioned by the practice, so common among the early transcribers of the N. T., of endeavouring to assimilate the various historical passages to one another. Thus the majority of MSS. omit ‘Take, eat,’ here, and it is probably introduced from St Mat_26:26. Then some MSS. omit the word broken, but the majority of MSS. retain it, and its omission renders the sentence rather harsh. Thus, then, the words of institution, as recorded by St Paul, are as follows: ‘This is My body, which is [being broken] for you; this do in remembrance of Me, i.e. to serve as a memorial of Me, or to preserve My memory. Let us next take St Luke’s account of it, derived either from St Paul or from the same source as his. ‘This is My body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me.’ St Matthew and St Mark simply give the words, ‘Take, eat: this is My body.’

in remembrance of me] The word here translated remembrance signifies (1) the act of recollection, and (2) that which enables us to recollect, reminds us of a thing. In the Septuagint it is used in the heading of the 38th and 70th Psalms as a translation of ‘to bring to remembrance.’ In Num_10:10 the Septuagint uses it (3) to translate a Hebrew word signifying memorial, i.e. some visible and tangible object which exists in order to bring to mind a past event. Cf. Heb_10:3.

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.

After the same manner also he took the cup,.... That is, off from the table, or out of the hands of the master of the house, and blessed or gave thanks, as he did before when he took the bread; see Mat 26:27, "when he had supped"; the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, read, "when they had supped"; which give a true sense, though not a literal translation; for both Christ and his disciples had supped, having both eaten the passover supper, and the bread, the principal part in the Lord's supper, when he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them:

saying, this cup is the New Testament, or covenant,

in my blood; alluding to the old covenant, which was ratified and confirmed by the blood of bulls, and which was called "the blood of the covenant", Exo 24:8 but the new covenant was established with Christ's own blood, of which the wine in the cup was a sign and symbol; for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for it was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but it is so called in distinction from the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it, under the Mosaic economy; and it is always new, and will be succeeded by no other; and it provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others. Now this is said to be "in the blood" of Christ; that is, it is ratified, and all its blessings and promises are confirmed by his blood: hence his blood is called "the blood of the everlasting covenant", Heb 13:20, pardon and righteousness, peace and reconciliation, and entrance into the holiest of all, all come through this blood, and are secured by the same; and to which the faith of the saints is directed in this ordinance, to observe, receive, and enjoy for themselves:

this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me; of his soul's being poured out unto death; of his blood being shed for the remission of sins; and of his great love in giving himself an atoning sacrifice to divine justice, and laying such a foundation for solid peace and joy in the hearts of his people.

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

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.

Ver. 24. This is my body] En praeclaram illam consecrationem, Behold that goodly consecration (saith Beza) for the which the shavelings say that they are more holy than the very Virgin Mary; for that Mary only conceived Christ, but they create him. Whereunto the Virgin might well reply, that she carefully nourished Christ, whom they cruelly devour. Dost thou believe (said the doctor to the martyr) that Christ’s body and blood is in the eucharist really and substantially? I believe, saith he, that that is a real lie, and substantial lie. When Cranmer was brought forth to dispute in Oxford, Dr Weston, Prolocutor, thus began the disputation, Convenistis hodie, fratres, profligaturi detestandam illam haeresin de veritate corporis Christi in Sacramento, &c. We are gathered today, brothers to overthrow that wicked heresy concerning the truth of the body of Christ in the sacrament, At which mistake, various learned men burst out into a great laughter.

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.

And when he had given thanks - See the note on Mat 26:26. Matthew reads it, “and blessed it.” The words used here are, however, substantially the same as there; and this fact shows that since this was communicated to Paul “directly” by the Saviour, and in a manner distinct from that by which Matthew learned the mode of the institution, the Saviour designed that the exact form of the words should be used in its observance, and should thus be constantly borne in mind by his people.

Take eat ... - 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.

Juvenius, a native of Spain, and a priest, who flourished under Constantine the Great, about the year 329, has left us the life of Christ in hexameter verse, where speaking of the institution of the eucharist, he says, "Christ taught his disciples, that he delivered to them his own body;" and when he gave them the chalice, "he taught them that he had distributed to them his blood: and said, this blood remits the sins of the people: drink this, it is mine." (Bibl. Max. P. P. T. iv. p. 74) Discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus,

Edocuitque suum se divisisse cruorem.

Atque ait: Hic sanguis populi delicta remittit:

Hunc potate meum.

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).

These words we also met with, Luk 22:19,20, and in the other evangelists’ narration of the institution of the supper. See Poole on "Luk 22:19". See Poole on "Luk 22:20".

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

24. This and the following verse have so many phrases identical with Luk_22:19 as to show them to be the same tradition. In regard to the passover consult our note, Mat_26:2 : in regard to the Lord’s supper, notes on Mat_26:20-30. Yet it must be noted that this epistle and this passage may have been written before the gospel of Luke. Whether this is the earliest existing narrative of the Lord’s supper, as Stanley says, may he doubted. At any rate, we believe that the original Hebrew of Matthew’s gospel was written before this; and that the Greek Matthew is a translation of that document.

Given thanks—From this giving thanks, eucharistia, the Lord’s supper has been called the eucharist.

Brake—Note on Mat_26:26. Matthew adds “and gave it to the disciples.”

Take—This, with the analogy of the head of the family at the passover, implies that an administrator of the elements, who would be an apostle or presbyter, is one of the essentials to a proper communion.

Body—See note on Mat_26:26.

In remembrance of me—With the Christian individual this remembrance appeals to the heart, touching his feelings with thoughts of Him who spake these words to his own soul—the dying Jesus. With the Church and the world they are an appeal to the intellect to demonstrate the historical truth of Christianity. There are several lines of evidence that fasten the belief to the historical Christ, the existence of which cannot be accounted for except upon the truth of the New Testament history. The rite of baptism can be traced from the present time to John the Baptist. The Christian sabbath forms line from the present to the resurrection of Christ. The succession of Christian bishops carries us, even on the loosest theory, through the great Churches to the apostolic age. These various lines all verify each other: they converge in the Christ history; and no other origin can be assigned. Baptism indicates the beginning of Christ’s mission; the eucharist his death; the Sunday-sabbath his resurrection; the line of bishops, the historic Church.

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

When he had given thanks. The same word is used in St. Luke eujcaristhsav), and is the origin of the name Eucharist. St. Mark and perhaps St. Matthew have "having blessed it" (eulogesas). Hence the Eucharist is "this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." Take, eat. These words are omitted by all the best uncials, Which is broken for you. The word "broken" is of doubtful authenticity. Some manuscripts have "given," and one (D) a milder word for "broken," as though to avoid any contradiction of Joh_19:36, where, however, the word is "shall not be crushed. Since the participle is omitted altogether by a, A, B, C, there can be no doubt that it is a gloss, and accordingly the Revised Version reads, "which is for you." The "broken" is nevertheless involved in the "he brake it," which was a part of the ceremony as originally illustrated. The breaking of the bread ought not, therefore, to be abandoned, as in the case when "wafers" are used. This do. St. Luke also has this clause, which is not found in St. Matthew or St. Mark. The variations show that it was the main fact which was essential, not the exact words spoken. In remembrance of me. The words may also be rendered, for a memorial of me, or to bring me to your remembrance.

Remembering Christ.

The Lord"s Supper is very specially a feast of remembrance. Is there in it a suggestion that we are very prone to forget Christ? This is, alas! our tendency, and here we are in strange contrast to our Lord. He needs nothing to keep us in his remembrance; he ever thinks of his people. In the institution of the Lord"s Supper he thinks of our forgetfulness, of its perils, of its certain sorrows. He remembers that we are prone not to remember him. What should we remember concerning Christ?

I HIS HOLY SPOTLESS LIFE. What a life that was! The greatest and best of human leaders have been marked by defects, but our Leader was "without blemish." In the lives of heroes there is always something which we should be glad to forget; but there is nothing in the life of Christ. Jealousy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness could find in him "no fault." Many great men have grown small, many holy men questionable in character, many honoured men dishonourable, under the ruthless criticism of modern times; but not Jesus of Nazareth. The fiercest light has been focussed upon his earthly course; the brains of sceptic and of scoffer have been racked in prolonged endeavour to discover the flaw; but it has not been discovered yet! The voices of all the centuries cry, "Without fault!" "Holy and undefiled!" "Separate from sinners!" Well may we remember that life.

II HIS TEACHING. When compared with Christ, all the other teachers of the world seem to have nothing to teach upon matters of high moment. At best they guess, and often they guess folly. He teaches with the authority of knowledge; all other teachers seem hidden in the valley, imagining what the landscape may be. He alone has climbed the hill and beholds what he speaks about. We need to remember, more than we are accustomed to do, the utterances of the world"s great Teacher. Seekers after knowledge should be careful lest after all they miss the richest mine of truth. Learned scoffings and atheistical ribaldries are naught but devil blinds to hide from our view the beautiful form of truth as it is in Christ. In him "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge". (Col_2:3) When God broke the dread silence upon the Mount of Transfiguration it was to exclaim, "This is my beloved Son: hear him ." The Holy Ghost was promised as One who would "bring to remembrance" what Christ had declared. Through the Lord"s Supper, as a means, the Divine Spirit works now for this end.

III HIS MIRACLES. These speak eloquently of his power. Nature bows before her God. How weak the mightiest of the earth are compared with this mighty One! When the kingdom of Christ is about to be overwhelmed and shattered and generally annihilated by blatant wiseacre warriors, with their sceptical pea shooters and atheistical popguns, I laugh as I remember that it is the kingdom of Christ which is being assailed! We do well to bear in mind what Christ did when he was upon earth, and then to say quietly to ourselves, "The same yesterday, today, and forever." What he did, he can do; what he was, he is. His miracles illustrated his beneficence. They meant the supply of human need, the binding up of wounds, the restoration of the outcast, the arrest of sorrow, the wiping away of tears, the cheer of lonely hearts. We must remember his miracles; they show so truly what the Christ was. With all his omnipotence, how gentle and tender!

IV HIS DEATH. This was the grand culmination of his life; it gave to him the great title of Saviour; to it the Lord"s Supper specially points. We must remember him as the One who laid down his life for us, who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, who was wounded for our trangressions and bruised for our iniquities, who died the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God. The Lord"s Supper leads us to Calvary through the motley crowd, past the weeping Marys, beyond the penitent thief, to the central figure in the Judaean tragedy, and there we see salvation! "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other". (Psa_85:10) Remembrance of Christ"s death will mean remembrance of our sinfulness. And when we remember that "he endured the cross, despising the shame," we may ask ourselves the suggestive question, "What would be our present condition and prospect if he had not done so?

V HIS RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION. The Lord"s Supper was for the remembrance of Christ both after he had died and after he had risen from the dead. We must not forget the dying Christ; but neither must we forget the triumphing Christ. The resurrection of Christ is the counterpart of the cross; one is not without the other, The Lord died, but the Lord is risen indeed. He came to this world in abasement; he lived so, he died so, but he did not depart so. He rose from the dead, and ever liveth. We remember the dying Christ, but we remember also the living Christ, exalted at God"s right hand, our Advocate, preparing our heavenly home, looking down upon us, present with us by his Spirit. We remember the reigning Christ, the One who has completed his glorious redemptive work, who has triumphed openly, and we remember him thus "till he come.

VI HIS MARVELLOUS LOVE. Shown in every incident and every instant of his course. In his coming; in his words, deeds, spirit; and preeminently in his sufferings and death. God is love; Christ is God; Christ is love.

VII HIS PERSONALITY. Not only what he said and what he did, but what he was. All his acts and words of beneficence and love were only expressions of himself. They were but manifestations of what dwells in perpetual fulness in his heart. Remember him. "This do in remembrance of me." This is a dying request. Are we observing it? The dying request of him who "gave himself for us. H.

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

This is my body, which is broken for you - That is, this broken bread is the sign of my body, which is even now to be pierced and wounded for your iniquities. Take then, and eat of, this bread, in an humble, thankful, obediential remembrance of my dying love; of the extremity of my sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you, and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.

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

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 . [The Greek word for giving thanks is eucharistia, and from it many call the Lord's Supper the Eucharist. But the "Lord's supper" and the "Lord's table" ( 1Co_10:21 ) and the "communion" ( 1Co_10:16 ) are three Bible terms for it. Many ancient authorities read: "This is my body, which is broken for you" etc. Some regard this as a contradiction of John's assertion that no bone of him was broken ( Joh_19:36 ). But the word differs from that used by John, which may be properly translated "crushed." "Broken" is involved in the phrase "he brake it," used here, and in the three other accounts of the supper, and hence they err who use the unbroken wafer.]

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.

24. This is my body. Is this literal? “I am the true vine,” “These women are the two covenants” (Gal. 4:24), etc. are kindred expressions. The idea is: “This represents my body.” The eating of the bread is not to literally eat the Lord's flesh, but is done in remembrance. It is a token that reminds of his body.

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.

24. [λάβετε φάγετε] after εἶπεν. The student of the Gospels is familiar with the constant efforts on the part of the copyists to assimilate the language of the various narratives. It need surprise no one, therefore, if such attempts appear also here. The familiarity with the words as used in the Church service would increase the tendency. Perhaps on account of the great interest attaching to the question a fuller account than usual may here be given of the evidence. אABCDEFG support the omission. KLP are against it. The Vetus Lat. (the oldest translation) is in favour of omitting the words, as are the Sahidic and Coptic. The MSS. of the Vulg. are divided, but the words are retained in the authorized edition. The Syriac versions have the words. No very early Father seems to have cited the passage. It is worth noticing that the omission of Luk 22:19-20, which (see Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament) is considered doubtful by modern critics, has the support of the newly found ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’ which places the consecration (or what is regarded by some as such) of the cup before that of the bread. If the passage in St Luke be really spurious it makes it still more probable that the additions to the text in the present verse are also examples of the tendency to assimilate the various accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

[κλώμενον] after ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, rec. with EFGKLP, Peshito and some copies of the Vetus Lat. אABC support the text. D has θρυπτόμενον. The Sahidic, Coptic, and Armenian have διδόμενον which has the support of the Vulg., a copy of the Vetus Lat. and Cyprian. The evidence makes for the text having been considered deficient in early times, and for various additions having been considered necessary to complete it.

24. εὐχαριστήσας. St Mark has ‘blessed,’ St Matthew, according to some copies, ‘blessed,’ according to others, ‘gave thanks.’ St Luke agrees with St Paul. From this word the sacrament derives its name of Eucharist, or thanksgiving.

εἶπεν. Inasmuch as the words of institution have been the occasion of one of the longest and bitterest controversies that have ever divided the Church of Christ, it is well to inquire very closely what He said. See Critical Note. The words of institution, as recorded by St Paul, are as follows: ‘This is My body, which is [being broken] for you; this do in remembrance of Me,’ i.e. to serve as a memorial of Me, or to preserve My memory. Let us next take St Luke’s account of it, derived either from St Paul or from the same source as his. ‘This is My body, [which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me.]’ (Westcott and Hort put the latter words in brackets.) St Matthew and St Mark simply give the words, ‘Take, [eat]: this is My body,’ the word ‘eat’ being omitted in St Mark by many of the best MSS.

ἀνάμνησιν. The word here translated ‘remembrance’ signifies (1) the act of recollection, and (2) that which enables us to recollect, reminds us of a thing. In the Septuagint it is used in the heading of the 38th and 70th Psalms as a translation of the Hebrew word signifying ‘to bring to remembrance.’ In Num 10:10 the Septuagint uses it (3) to translate a Hebrew word signifying memorial, i.e. some visible and tangible object which exists in order to bring to mind a past event. Cf. Heb 10:3. Both (2) and (3) are included here.

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.

24.] On εὐχ. ἔκλασεν, see note, Mat 26:26. Meyer well remarks, that “the filling up of τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is to be sought in the foregoing ἔκλασεν.” Hence the insertion of κλώμενον.

τοῦτο ποι …] See note on Matt. ut supra.

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

24. εὐχαριστήσας ἒκλασεν. All four accounts of the Institution have ἒκλασεν here, a detail of Divinely-appointed ritual. Luke also has εὐχαριστήσας, for which Mark and Matthew substitute εὐλογήσας. The two words doubtless refer to the same utterance of Christ, in which He gave thanks and blessed God, and both contain the significant εὖ: comp. εὐαγγέλιον, εὐδοκία, and see T. S. Evans ad loc. Mark has these features, which are omitted here; ‘as they were eating,’ ‘Take ye,’ ‘they all drank of it,’ ‘which is shed for many.’ For the third of these Matthew substitutes ‘Drink ye all of it’; he has the other three. Luke has none of them. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have εὐχαριστήσας, of the cup also, and here ὡσαύτως covers it. The three, moreover, give, what is omitted here, ‘I say to you I will in no wise drink of the fruit of the vine until’ … ‘the Kingdom.’ The details which are common to all four accounts are (1) the taking bread, (2) the giving thanks, (3) the breaking, (4) the words, ‘This is My Body,’ (5) the cup; and, if the disputed passage in Luke be retained, (6) the words ‘blood’ and ‘covenant.’ The disputed passage is almost verbatim as vv. 24, 25 here, from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν … αἵματι.

Of the four accounts of the Institution this is the earliest that has come down to us, and the words of our Lord which are contained in it are the earliest record of any of His utterances; for this Epistle was written before any of the Gospels. It is, however, possible that Mark used a document in giving his account, and this document might be earlier than this Epistle.

Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. All carnal ideas respecting these much-discussed words are excluded by the fact that the Institution took place before the Passion. Our Lord’s human Body was present, and His Blood was not yet shed. What is certain is that those who rightly receive the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist receive spiritually the Body and the Blood of Christ. How this takes place is beyond our comprehension, and it is vain to claim knowledge which cannot be possessed, or to attempt to explain what cannot be explained. “If there is a point on which the witness of Scripture, of the purest ecclesiastical tradition, and of our own Church, is more express and uniform than another, it is the peculiar and transcendent quality of the blessing which this Sacrament both represents and exhibits, and consequently of the Presence by which that blessing is conferred. How this Presence differs from that of which we are assured by our Lord’s promise, where two or three are gathered together in His name—whether only in degree or in kind—it is beyond the power of human language to define and of human thought to conceive. It is a subject fit, not for curious speculation, but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling; and it is one in which there is a certainty that the highest flight of contemplation will always fall short of the Divine reality” (Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, vol. i. p. 278; see also pp. 245, 246). “I could not consent to make our Church answerable for a dogma committing those who hold it to the belief that, in the institution of the Supper, that which our Lord held in His hand, and gave to His disciples, was nothing less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and Godhead” (Ibid. vol. ii. P. 251; see also the appendix on Transubstantiation, pp. 281 f.). The notes of Ellicott and Evans ad loc., with Gould on Mar 14:22; Westcott on Joh_6 and 18; Gore, Dissertations, pp. 230 f.; Hastings, DB. iii. pp. 148 f., with the bibliography there given, may be consulted. Excellent remarks and summaries of doctrine will be found in Beet, A Manual of Theology, pp. 380-96. Happily, no theory of the manner of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist is necessary for the fruitful reception of it, and to have this demonstrated would not make us better Christians, any more than a knowledge of the chemical properties of bread makes us better able to digest it. Stanley, Christian Institutions, ch. vi.

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. ‘Perform this action (continue to take bread, give thanks, and break it) in remembrance of Me’ (Num 10:10; Psa 38:1, Psa 70:1). This implies that hereafter He is to be absent from sight. The words are not in Mark or Matthew, nor in Luke, except in the disputed verses. Therefore the command to continue the celebration of the Lord’s Supper rests upon the testimony of St Paul. This, however, does not for a moment imply that he was the first to repeat the celebration, or the first to teach Christians to do so. This passage plainly implies that repeated celebrations were already a firmly established practice. The authority of St Paul was quite inadequate to this immense result. Nothing less than the authority of Christ would have sufficed to produce it. See Knowling, pp. 279 f.

The proposal to give to τοῦτο ποιεῖτε the meaning ‘sacrifice this’ must be abandoned. As the Romanist commentator Estius says, it is plane praeter mentem Scripturae.* So also Westcott; “I have not the least doubt that τοῦτο ποιεῖτε can mean only do this act (including the whole action of hands and lips), and not sacrifice this; and that the Latin also can have only the same rendering” (in a letter quoted in his Life, II. p. 353): and Bachmann, τοῦτο geht auf die ganze Handlung, wie sie durch das Tun Jesu und seiner Jünger dargestellt ist: and Herveius; ‘Hoc facite,’ id est, corpus meum accipite et manducate per successionem temporis usque in finem saeculi, in memoriam passionis meae. See Ellicott and Goudge ad loc.; Expositor, 3rd series, 7:441; T. K. Abbott, Essays on the Original Texts of O. and N.T. p. 110; A Reply to Mr. Supple’s and other Criticisms; and notes on Luk 22:19 in the Int. Crit. Com. p. 497.

Edwards translates τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, ‘My commemoration,’ in contrast to that of Moses (10:2), thus making τὴν ἐμήν parallel to καινή (v. 25). See Blass, Gr. § 48. 7. The Eucharist perpetually calls to mind the redemption by Christ from the bondage of sin, as the Passover recalled the redemption from the bondage of Egypt. Christ did not say, ‘in remembrance of My death.’ The recorded words, ‘as My memorial,’ are of wider import; they imply ‘in remembrance of all that I have done for you and all that I am to you.’ The early Christians seem to have regarded the Eucharist as a commemoration of the Resurrection as well as the Death, for they selected the first day of the week for this memorial. Wetstein compares the address of T. Manlius to the troops after his colleague Decius had devoted himself to secure their success; Consurgite nunc, memores consulis pro vestra victoria morte occumbentis (Livy, 8:10).

Λάβετε, φάγετε (C3 K L P, Syrr. Aeth.) are an interpolation from Mat 26:26; א A B C* D E F G, Lat-Vet. Aegyptt. Arm. omit. After τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, א3 C3 E F G K L P insert κλώμενον D* inserts θρυπτόμενον, Vulg. (quod … tradetur) and some other versions have a rendering which implies διδόμενον. א* A B C* 17 and other witnesses omit. The interpolation of any of these words weakens the neruosa sententia (Beng.), τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμων, which means ‘for your salvation’ (Mar 10:45). AV. inserts ‘Take, eat,’ and ‘broken’; RV. gives the latter a place in the margin.

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

Had given thanks [ευχαριστης] . Eucharistesas. Hence in post - apostolic and patristic writers, Eucharist was the technical term for the Lord 's Supper as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for all the gifts of God, especially for the "unspeakable gift," Jesus Christ. By some of the fathers of the second century the term was sometimes applied to the consecrated elements. The formula of thanksgiving cited in "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" is, for the cup first, 'We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant : to Thee be the glory forever. "And for the bread :" We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant : to Thee be the glory forever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and, gathered together, became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. "

Brake. Bengel says : "The very mention of the breaking involves distribution and refutes the Corinthian plan - every man his own" (ver. 21).

Do [ποιειε] . Be doing or continue doing.

In remembrance [εις] . Strictly, for or with a view to, denoting purpose. These words do not occur in Matthew and Mark. Paul 's account agrees with Luke's. Remembrance implies Christ 's bodily absence in the future.

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

Vv. 24. The thanksgiving of the father of the family at the Paschal feast, referred to the blessings of creation and to those of the deliverance from Egypt. That of Jesus no doubt referred to the blessings of salvation, and the founding of the New Covenant.

Though the breaking of the bread was necessary to its distribution, Jesus nevertheless performed this act as a symbol of what awaited Himself.

The words of the T. R.: λάβετε, φάγετε, take, eat, are an interpolation taken from the accounts of Matthew and Mark. This order is here implied in the act of breaking the bread and holding out the piece.

The τοῦτο, this, denotes the piece which He has in His hand. What is the relation between this bread and the body of Jesus? Does the word is denote homogeneity of substance, so that the material of bread gave place at that moment to that of the body of Jesus, as Catholics understand it? But if it is the earthly body of Jesus which is in question, it is difficult to conceive how the bread could have become the very substance of the hand which offered it. Or might it be His glorified body? But this body was not yet in existence. It must therefore be said, on this view, that the first Holy Supper was as yet only the institution of the rite, not the real rite, and that now it is the invisible and glorified body of the Lord which takes the place of the bread, or, according to the Lutheran idea, accompanies the bread. But how is it possible to apply either of these two notions to the blood of the Lord? We know from 1Co 15:50 that blood is not an element which can belong to a spiritual and glorified body, whether the Lord’s or ours (1Co 15:49). In any case the Lord would have required to say, not: This is, but: “This will be My body, when the time comes.” And even so the Lutheran conception would not be justified, for being, in the present or future, does not signify accompanying. The simplest explanation is this: Jesus takes the bread which is before Him, and presenting it to His disciples, He gives it to them as the symbol of His body which is about to be given up for them on the cross, and to become the means of their salvation; the verb be is taken in the same sense as that in which we say, as we look at a portrait: it is so and so!

The reading of the T. R. κλώμενον, broken, which is found in the Greco-Lats. and the Byzs., seems at first sight probable; it is defended by Hofmann. In the other reading: My body which is for you, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, there is something extremely bare. But is it not probable that this very bareness, which is more tolerable moreover in Aramaic than in Greek, is that which occasioned the interpolation of the participle? It was so natural to borrow it from the preceding verb ἔκλασε. This view is confirmed by the readings διδόμενον, given, and θρυπτόμενον, bruised, which are found in some documents. There has evidently been a wish to supply either from Luke (διδόμενον), or freely (θρυπτόμενον), the participle which seemed to be wanting.

If the Alex. reading is adopted, the meaning is this: “My body, which is there for you,” for your salvation, like this bread placed on the table for your nourishment.

The following words: This do in remembrance of Me, are only found in Luke’s account of the institution; they are wanting in Matthew and Mark. But these words are of great importance, for it is really on them alone that the idea of the Holy Supper, as a permanent rite, is based. Without them this act might be regarded as having been done by Jesus once for all. Evidently the apostles did not so understand it, for from the first they introduced the regular celebration of the sacrament (Act 2:42). We do not the less on that account maintain the importance of Paul’s independence, and of the originality of his narrative. — The τοῦτο, this, cannot refer, like the previous one, to the piece of bread; what would be meant by the ποιεῖτε, do? It embraces the whole preceding action: the breaking of the bread on the part of Jesus, and the eating on the part of the disciples. This act in its entirety is to be constantly repeated in the gatherings of believers.

The word do applies to the apostles, not merely as apostles, but also as believers; they are present both as founders of the Church, commissioned to give over this ceremony to it, and as its representatives, who shall soon be called to celebrate the feast with it.

The words: in remembrance of Me, certainly contain an allusion to the lamb slain in Egypt, the blood of which had saved the people, and in memory of which the Passover was celebrated. In Exo 12:14, it was said: “This day shall be to thee for a memorial (lezikkaron).” Jesus therefore means: “When you shall hereafter celebrate this sacred feast, do it no longer in memory of the lamb whose blood saved your fathers, but in memory of Me and of the sacrifice which I am about to make for your salvation.” There is ineffable tenderness in the expression of Jesus: in remembrance of Me. As Darby finely observes (in his little work on Public Worship), the expression: memory of Me, twice repeated, makes the Holy Supper still more a memorial of our Saviour than of our salvation. Each time this feast is celebrated, the assembly of the disciples of Jesus anew presses around His beloved person. It is clear that the Holy Supper is, as Zwingle thought, a commemorative feast, and that it was most unjust on Luther’s part to pronounce on him a moral judgment of condemnation for this view, which might be perfectly sincere. The believing and grateful remembrance of Jesus is most certainly the part of man in this feast. His ποιεῖν, His doing, in this holy action, is the inward disposition of grateful remembrance. This is what was wanting in the frivolous and empty religious demonstrations of the Corinthians. But while recognising this side of the truth in Zwingle’s idea, we at the same time put our finger on his error. Side by side with the human doing, there is in the Holy Supper the Divine doing. In the religion of spirit and life, a ceremony of pure commemoration cannot exist. Every rite celebrated according to its spirit must contain a grace, a Divine gift. And what could be the gift bestowed on the believer in the Holy Supper, if not that which the rite so strikingly symbolizes, the most intimate union with the Lord Himself? How could He who said: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am in the midst of them,” fail to communicate Himself spiritually to His own in a feast which so sensibly represents the indissoluble union formed by redemption between Him and them? I say: spiritually; but the word implies the whole fulness of His person; for His person is indivisible. If the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily, σωματικῶς (Col 2:9), His spiritual body cannot be separated from His Spirit; comp. 1Co 15:49.

Thus to man’s part in the sacrament, as it is expressed in the words: in remembrance of Me, there necessarily corresponds the part of God, which is not referred to here, but which is pointed out in other passages, such as 1Co 10:16, Joh 6:53-58, and Eph 5:30-32; not that these last two refer specially to the Holy Supper, they concern at the same time the believer’s whole life.

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.