Luke 22:19

Luk 22:19-20. And he took bread — Namely, some time after, when the supper was ended, wherein they had eaten the paschal lamb. And gave thanks, and brake it — Matthew and Mark say, Blessed and brake it. They do not say, Blessed it: for the word it, though supplied in our translation in Matthew, is not in the original: for which reason, and because Luke here uses the word ευχαριστησας, he gave thanks, many are of opinion that the word God should be supplied in Matthew; he blessed God. And gave unto them, saying, This is my body — That is, the representation of my body, to be broken on the cross. See the like form of expression, Gen 41:26-27. As our Lord had just now celebrated the paschal supper, which was called the passover, so, in the like figurative language, he calls this bread his body. And this circumstance of itself was sufficient to prevent any such mistake, as that this bread was his real body, any more than the paschal lamb was really the passover. This do in remembrance of me — The passover solemnity was usually concluded with eating a little bread and drinking a cup of wine. Jesus, therefore, when he instituted the Lord’s supper, did not appoint any new rite, but appropriated an old one to a new purpose. Hence the propriety of the expression, This do in remembrance of me. Do it no longer in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt, but in remembrance of me, who, by dying for you, will bring you out of spiritual bondage, a bondage far worse than the Egyptian, under which your fathers groaned, and will establish you in the glorious liberty of God’s children: do it in remembrance of me, who, by laying down my life, will ransom you from sin, and death, and hell; and will set open the gates of heaven to you, that you may enter immortality and triumph. Likewise also the cup after supper — This the Jews termed the cup of thanksgiving, it being the cup usually given by the master of the family to each after supper: and Matthew says, Jesus took this, and gave thanks. For, at the institution of the sacrament, he not only gave thanks before he brake and distributed the bread, but before he delivered the cup, to show how infinitely we are obliged to God for our spiritual food, the flesh and blood of his Son, which nourishes the divine life in the soul. Saying, This cup is the new testament, or covenant, (as the word διαθηκη rather means,) in my blood — Here is an undeniable figure, whereby the cup is put for the wine in the cup. And this is called, the new covenant in Christ’s blood, which could not possibly mean that it was the new covenant itself, but only the seal of it, and the sign of that blood, which was shed to confirm it. In other words, as the expression, this is my body, signifies, This is the representation of my body; so, this is my blood of the new covenant, must signify, This is the representation of my blood. And Christ’s meaning in the passage is: All of you, and all my disciples in all ages, must drink of this cup, because it represents my blood, shed for the remission of men’s sins; my blood, in which the new covenant between God and man is ratified; so that this institution exhibits to your joyful meditation the grand foundation of men’s hopes, and perpetuates the memory of the same to the end of the world.

We here see, then, that it is a primary end of this solemn service, to bring to the devout remembrance of Christians the death of their Master, as the foundation of the remission of their sins; and, in short, the whole mercy of the new covenant, as founded on the shedding of his blood. Therefore, they err who make the keeping up of the memory of Christ’s death in the world, as a simple fact, the only end of the Lord’s supper. We may observe, further, that “from our Lord’s words, here recorded, and from those wherewith the apostle has concluded his account of the Lord’s supper, 1Co 11:26, As often as ye eat this bread, &c., ye do show (καταγγελλετε, ye preach, ye declare) the Lord’s death till he come, it appears this sacrament was instituted, not only to bring Christ’s sufferings, and the consequence thereof, to the remembrance of his disciples, but to demonstrate the truth of these things to the world, in all ages. In this view, the Lord’s supper is the strongest proof of his integrity, and of the truth of his mission; for if he had been an impostor, and was to have suffered death on account of his deluding the people, is it to be imagined that he would have instituted any rite with a view to preserve the memory of his having suffered punishment for the worst of crimes? No: this is beyond all human belief. And therefore, since by this institution he has perpetuated the memory of his own sufferings, it is a strong presumption that he was conscious of his own innocence, that his character was really what the evangelists have represented it to be, and that our faith in him, as the Son of God, is well founded.” — Macknight.

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

§§ 126, 128. THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, Luk_22:19-20.

See notes on Mat_26:26; Mar_14:22.

20. This cup is the new testament—The Greek word for testament should be rendered covenant. And the fruit of the vine is the symbol of the new covenant; that is, the covenant of the new dispensation, in the place of the covenant of Moses. A covenant is a compact by which two parties stipulate mutual things. Covenants were anciently made and ratified by or in the blood of a victim sacrificed by the parties. The old covenant in blood, made by God through Moses, is found in Exo_24:3-8. The blood by which that covenant was sanctioned was the blood of slain beasts. But this is the covenant ratified by or in the blood of the Lamb of God.

Shed for you— The emblem of the death of the Lord’s body substituted in the place of the death of your soul.

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

THE LORD’S SUPPER

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

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

22:19-20 Using the bread and cup as symbols of his body and blood, Jesus instituted the communion service that the disciples were to practice in remembrance of his death. • This is my body, which is given for you: The unleavened bread of the Passover symbolized Jesus’ death as the Passover lamb. His death would pay for the sins of the world (cp. 1 Cor 11:24-25).

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

Luk 22:19. Τοῦτο, this) The form of expression is, this cup, in Luk 22:20; but, in the present instance, there is not added bread to the this; because bread does not so aptly accord with the complex term [which forms the predicate τὸ σῶμα δίδὁμενον] as the cup [accords with its predicate, ἠ καινὴ διαθήκη—ἐκχυνόμενον].—τὸ ὑπὲρ, which is given for you) As in the Old Testament, part of one of the same victim was presented to God, whilst part was eaten by the Israelites: so that one body, which Jesus Christ offered to the Father, is received[231] by Christians in the Holy Supper: ὑπὲρ, for, i.e. ἀντὶ, [a vicarious substitute for. “A ransom for many.”] Mat 20:28.—διδόμενον, which is being given) to death.—ποιεῖτε, do) perform. Do has not in this passage the sacrificial notion. It is a wrong committed against the one and only Priest of the New Testament, to attribute priestly power and dignity before God to the ministers of the Holy Supper.—ἀνάμνησιν, remembrance) See 1Co 11:25-26, note.[232] [In that first act of institution of the Lord’s Supper, they had Jesus still present with them, and therefore there was no occasion, strictly speaking, for remembrance of Him. It is therefore the future which is looked forward to by the use of the term “remembrance.”—V. g.]

[231] True, if received be understood of a spiritual receiving.—E. and T.

[232] ”As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till He come.” The Lord’s Supper, according to Bengel, is a kind of compensating equivalent for our not having the Lord’s corporal presence with us. “What was visible in the Redeemer has passed into the sacraments.” Leo M. Serm. 2 de ascens. This is the Lutheran view.—E. and T.

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

Luk_22:19-20. See on Mat_26:26-28; Mar_14:22 f.; 1Co_11:23 ff. Luke agrees with Paul, not, however, repeating, in the case of the cup, the expression τοῦτο ποιεῖτε κ.τ.λ., which is not found at all in Matthew and Mark.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον] which for your advantage (to procure your reconciliation and justification, and your Messianic salvation, comp. on Mat_20:28) is given up. The entire context suggests the qualifying clause εἰς θάνατον. Comp. Gal_1:4; Rom_8:32; 1Ti_2:6; Tit_2:15. In respect of the expression, Wetstein justly compares Libanius, Orat. 35, p. 705: καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπέδωκεν, and similar passages.

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to wit, the breaking of the bread after thanksgiving, and the distribution and partaking of the same. On ποιεῖν, occupying the place of more definite verbs, which the context suggests, see Bornemann, and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 8. 2; Schoemann, ad Is. de Ap. her. 35.

εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμν.] for the remembrance of me.[249] See Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 192]. It is a mistake to say that this purpose of the Lords Supper must be appropriate only to the partaking of the real body and blood of Christ (see Kahnis, Lehre v. Abendm. p. 87). Rather in respect of such a partaking that statement of purpose appears too disproportioned and weak,[250] since it would already certify far more than the remembrance; in opposition to which the idea of the ἀνάμνησις of that which the symbols represent, is in keeping with the symbolic character of the celebration (Plat. Phaed. p. 74 A: τὴν ἀνάμνησιν εἶναι μὲν ἀφʼ ὁμοίων). Comp. Justin, Ap. I. 66, where it is said of the cup: εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ.

Luk_22:20. ὡσαύτως] to wit, λαβὼν εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς.

τὸ ποτήριον] the cup before them.

μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι] facto transitu ad majora et ultima, Bengel. It was, to wit, the fourth cup which made the conclusion of the whole meal. See on Mat_26:27.

τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον κ.τ.λ.] this cup is the new covenant by means of my blood, i.e. it is the new covenant by the fact that it contains my blood, which is shed for your salvation. Comp. on 1Co_11:25. In the wine which is poured into the cup Jesus sees His (atoning, Rom_3:25; Rom_5:3) blood, which is on the point of being shed; and because through this shedding of His blood the new covenant is to be established, he explains the cup, by virtue of its contents, as the new covenanta symbolism natural to the deeply-moved, solemn state of mind, to which no greater wrong can be done than is perpetrated by the controversies about the est, which Luke has not at all! Paul, in 1Co_11:25, inserts ἐστίν after διαθήκη, and consequently also, in so far as the passage before us is concerned, forbids the affixing ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου to ἡκαινὴ διαθήκη, as many of the older (not Luther[251]) and of the more recent writers (not Kahnis, Osiander, Rückert, p. 232) do. So also even Ebrard (d. Dogma vom heil. Abendm. I. p. 113), who, besides, lays an emphasis upon μου not belonging to it, at least according to the expression of Luke, when he interprets the passage: the new covenant made in my blood, not in the sacrificial blood of the Old Testament.

ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη] opposed to the old Mosaic covenant, whose condition was the fulfilling of the law (in the new: faith). See on 1Co_11:25.

τὸ … ἐκχυνόμενον] belongs, although in the nominative, to τῷ αἵματί μου, as an epexegetical clause. The abnormal use of the case is occasioned by the fact that, according to Luk_22:19, the idea prevails: that the cup (in respect of its contents) is the blood of the new covenant which is shed. Consequently τὸ … ἐκχυνόμενον is applied to τῷ αἵματί μου because τὸ αἷμά μου has floated before the mind of the speaker as the logical predicate, even although it did not become the grammatical predicate. Thus the nominatival expression more emphatically brings into prominence what is declared of the blood (τὸ … ἐκχυν.) than would be the case if it were joined on in the dative. Comp. Jam_3:8 (where μεστὴ ἰοῦ is joined to the logical subject γλῶσσα, which, however, is not the grammatical subject); Rev_3:12; Rev_8:9; Mar_12:40; Joh_1:14; Kühner, § 677; Winer, pp. 471, 473 [E. T. 668670 f.]. According to Baurs view, τὸ … ἐκχυνόμ. comes back to a very awkward transposition of the words from Mat_26:28. Comp. also Rückert, p. 208, and Bleek and Holtzmann. Erroneously Euthymius Zigabenus, Calovius, Jansen, Michaelis, and others, including Bornemann, read: poculum, quod in vestram salutem effunditur. What is this supposed to mean? Calovius answers: Dicitur effusum pro nobis propter sanguinem, quem Christus mediante poculo praebebat. A forcible dislocation which, moreover, occurs in other old dogmatical writers, Chemnitz, Gerhard, and others. See Kahnis, Abendm. p. 103. This reference to the cup appeared to give a support to the explanation of the actual blood.

[249] To lay a contrasted emphasis on ἐμήν (not in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt; so Lindner, Abendm. p. 91 f., and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 218) is mistaken, because not suggested in the context. See Rückert, Abendm. p. 200 f.

[250] Kahnis says: Only when body and blood are essentially present and essentially living can the remembrance of the death which they have passed through and swallowed up in victory and life be made prominent as a separate point, without giving rise to a feeble and bungling tautology. But the point on which stress is laid in this assertion, which they have passed through and swallowed up in victory and life, does not in reality appear at all there, but is added in thought and read into the passage. Rightly does Keim bring forward in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 94, that the significance of the last supper as a remembrance cannot be maintained together with the orthodox interpretation of the words of institution. He aptly shows that the symbolical understanding of the words of institution, this is, etc., is the correct one, and comes to the conclusion that the essential actual body was spiritually represented by the word to faith, but was not bodily given in corporeal presence to every recipient. Comp. on Mat_26:26, and on 1Co_11:24. How even Kahnis subsequently gave up the orthodox doctrine of the Lords Supper, see in his Dogmat. I. p. 616 ff. But how even to this day the Catholics make out the continuity of the sacrifice of Jesus by the priests, see in Döllinger, Christenth. und Kirche, p. 38, and Schegg.

[251] In his Gr. Bekenntn.: for the reason that Christs blood is there.

REMARK.

In the words of institution all four narrators vary from one another, although not essentially, which serves to prove that a mode of formulating them had not yet taken any fixed shape. Luke agrees the most closely with Paul, which is explained by his relation to him. The Pauline narrative, however, attains great weight, indeed, through his ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, 1Co_11:23 (see on the passage), and the ministry of the apostle makes it conceivable how his formula might fix itself liturgically; this, however, does not prevent our recovering the most primitive form of the words of Jesus in the simple narrative of Mark, which gradually underwent expansions. Wilke, Urevang. p. 142, is wrong in regarding Luk_22:20 in Luke as a later addition. The first distribution of the cup, Luk_22:17, does not indeed yet belong entirely to the Lords Supper, and as yet has no symbolism. According to Ewald (see his Jahrb. II. p. 194 f.), the agreement between Luke and Paul is explained by the fact that both have in this particular used one source (the oldest Gospel, probably composed by Philip the evangelist). But in general there is no proof of Pauls having made use of a written Gospel; neither in particular is the passage in 1Co_11:23, ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, in any way favourable to that supposition.

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.

Luk 22:19-20 . The Supper .

Luk 22:19 . τὸ σῶμά μου , my body, broken like the bread, implying blood-shedding, though that is passed over in silence if the reading of [185] be accepted. Note that in Act 2:46 the communion of the faithful is called breaking bread. τὸ ὑ . ὑ . διδόμενον : what follows from these words to the end of Luk 22:20 resembles closely St. Paul’s account in 1Co 11:23-25 . This resemblance is one of the arguments of W. and H [186] against the genuineness of the passage. On the whole subject consult J. Weiss (Meyer, eighth edition) and Wendt, L. J. , i., 173, both of whom adopt the reading of [187] .

[185] Codex Bezae

[186] Westcott and Hort.

[187] Codex Bezae

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

2 d. Luk 22:19-20. The time when the Holy Supper was instituted seems to us to correspond to the second and third steps of the Paschal feast taken together. With the explanation which the head of the house gave of the meaning of the ceremony, Jesus connected that which He had to give regarding the substitution of His person for the Paschal lamb as the means of salvation, and regarding the difference between the two deliverances. And when the time came at which the father took the unleavened cakes and consecrated them by thanksgiving, to make them, along with the lamb, the memorial of the deliverance from Egypt, Jesus also took the bread, and by a similar consecration, made it the memorial of that salvation which He was about to procure for us. In the expression, This is my body, the supposed relation between the body and the bread should not be sought in their substance. The appendix: given for you, in Luke; broken for you, in Paul (1Co 11:24), indicates the true point of correspondence. No doubt, in Paul, this participle might be a gloss. But an interpolation would have been taken from Luke; they would not have invented this Hapax-legomenon κλώμενον. Are we not accustomed to the arbitrary or purely negligent omissions of the Alex. text? I think, therefore, that this participle of Paul, as well as the given of Luke, are in the Greek text the necessary paraphrase of the literal Aramaic form, This is my body for you, a form which the Greek ear could as little bear as ours. The idea of this κλώμενον is, in any case, taken from the preceding ἔκλασε, and determines the meaning of the formula, This is my body. As to the word is, which has been so much insisted on, it was not uttered by Jesus, who must have said in Aramaic, Haggouschmi, “This here [behold] my body!” The exact meaning of the notion of being, which logically connects this subject with this attribute, can only be determined by the context. Is the point in question an identity of substance, physical or spiritual, or a relation purely symbolical? From the exegetical point of view, if what we have said above about the real point of comparison is well founded, it would be difficult to avoid the latter conclusion. It is confirmed by the meaning of the τοῦτο which follows: “Do this in remembrance of me.” This pron. can denote nothing but the act of breaking, and thus precisely the point which appeared to us the natural link of connection between the bread and the body.

The last words, which contain the institution properly so called of a permanent rite, are wanting in Matthew and Mark. But the certified fact of the regular celebration of the Holy Supper as a feast commemorating the death of Jesus from the most primitive times of the Church, supposes a command of Jesus to this effect, and fully confirms the formula of Paul and Luke. Jesus meant to preserve the Passover, but by renewing its meaning. Matthew and Mark preserved of the words of institution only that which referred to the new meaning given to the ceremony. As to the command of Jesus, it had not been preserved in the liturgical formula, because it was implied in the very act of celebrating the rite.

A certain interval must have separated the second act of the institution from the first; for Luke says: After they had supped (Luk 22:20), exactly as Paul. Jesus, according to custom, let conversation take free course for some time. After this free interval, He resumed the solemn attitude which He had taken in breaking the bread. So we explain the ὡσαύτως, likewise.

The word τὸ ποτήριον, the cup, is the object of the two verbs λαβών...ἔδωκεν at the beginning of Luk 22:19. The art. τό is here added, because the cup is already known (Luk 22:17). This cup certainly corresponded to the third of the Paschal Feast, which bore the name of cup of blessing. So St. Paul calls it (1Co 10:16): the cup of blessing (εὐλογίας) which we bless. In this expression of the apostle the word bless is repeated, because it is taken in two different senses. In the first instance, it refers to God, whom the Church, like the Israelitish family of old, blesses and adores; in the second, to the cup which the Church consecrates, and which by this religious act becomes to the conscience of believers the memorial of the blood of Jesus Christ. What this cup represents, according to the terms of Paul and Luke, is the new covenant between God and man, founded on the shedding of Jesus’ blood. In Matthew and Mark, it is the blood itself. Jesus can hardly have placed the two forms in juxtaposition, as Langen supposes, who thinks that He said: “Drink ye all of this cup; for it is the cup which contains my blood, the blood of the new covenant.” Such a periphrasis is incompatible with the style proper to the institution of a rite, which has always something concise and monumental. There is thus room to choose between the form of Matthew and Mark and that of Paul and Luke. Now, is it not probable that oral tradition and ecclesiastical custom would tend to make the second formula, relative to the wine, uniform with the first, which refers to the bread, rather than to diversify them? Hence it follows, that the greatest historical probability is in favour of the form in which the two sayings of Jesus least resemble one another, that is to say, in favour of that of Paul and Luke.

Every covenant among the ancients was sealed by some symbolic act. The new covenant, which on God’s side rests on the free gift of salvation, and on man’s side on its acceptance by faith, has henceforth, as its permanent symbol in the Church, this cup which Jesus holds out to His own, and which each of them freely takes and brings to his lips. The O. T. had also been founded on blood (Gen 15:8 et seq.). It had been renewed in Egypt by the same means (Exo 12:22-23; Exo 24:8). The participle understood between διαθήκη and ἐν τῷ αἵματι is the verbal idea taken from the subst. διαθήκη (διατιθεμένη): the covenant [covenanted] in my blood. Baur, Volkmar, and Keim think that it is Paul who has here introduced the idea of the new covenant. For it would never have entered into the thought of Judeo-Christianity thus to repudiate the old covenant, and proclaim a new one. Mark, even while copying Paul, designedly weakened this expression, they say, by rejecting the too offensive epithet new. Luke, a bolder Paulinist, restored it, thus reproducing Paul’s complete formula. And how, we must ask, did Jesus express Himself? Was He incapable, He also, of rising to the idea of a new covenant thenceforth substituted for the old? He, incapable of doing what had already been done so grandly six centuries before by a simple prophet (Jer 31:31 et seq.)! And when we think of it, is not Mark’s formula (which is probably also the text in Matthew) far from being weaker than that of Paul—is it not even more forcible? If the expression of Mark is translated: “This is my blood, that of the covenant,” is not the very name covenant thereby refused to the old? And if it is translated: “This is the blood of my covenant,” does not this saying contrast the two covenants with one another as profoundly as is done by the epithet new in Paul and Luke?

The nom. abs. τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, by rendering the idea of the shedding of the blood grammatically independent, serves to bring it more strongly into relief. This appendix, which is wanting in Paul, connects Luke’s formula with that of the other two evangelists. Instead of for you, the latter say, for many. It is the בּיםרַ,ִ many, of Isa 53:12, the ים רְִַבּים גּוֹoִf Isa 52:15, those many nations which are to be sprinkled with the blood of the slain Messiah. Jesus contemplates them in spirit, those myriads of Jewish and Gentile believers who in future ages shall press to the banquet which He is instituting.

Paul here repeats the command: Do this..., on which rests the permanent celebration of the rite. In this point, too, Luke’s formula corresponds more nearly to that of the Syn. than to his.

If there is a passage in respect to which it is morally impossible to assert that the narrators—if they be regarded ever so little as seriously believing—arbitrarily modified the tenor of the sayings of Jesus, it is this. How, then, are we to account for the differences which exist between the four forms? There must have existed from the beginning, in the Judeo-Christian Churches, a generally received liturgical formula for the celebration of the Holy Supper. This is certainly what has been preserved to us by Matthew and Mark. Only, the differences which exist between them prove that they have not used a written document, and that as little has the one copied the other; thus the command of Jesus: “Drink ye all of it” (Matthew), which appears in Mark in the form of a positive fact: “And they all drank of it;” thus, again, in Mark, the omission of the appendix: “for the remission of sins” (Matthew). We therefore find in them what is substantially one and the same tradition, but slightly modified by oral transmission.

The very different form of Paul and Luke obliges us to seek another original. This source is indicated by Paul himself: “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (1Co 11:23). The expression: I have received, admits of no view but that of a communication which is personal to him; and the words: of the Lord, only of an immediate revelation from Jesus Himself (a true philologist will not object to the use of ἀπό instead of παρά). If Paul had had no other authority to allege than oral tradition emanating from the apostles, and known universally in the Church, the form used by him: “I have received (ἐγὼ γάρ) of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you...,” could not be exonerated from the charge of deception. This circumstance, as well as the difference between the two formulae, decides in favour of the form of Paul and Luke. In the slight differences which exist between them, we can, besides, trace the influence exercised on Luke by the traditional-liturgical form as it has been preserved to us by Matthew and Mark.

As to St. John, the deliberate omission which is imputed to him would have been useless at the time when he wrote; still more in the second century, for the ceremony of the Holy Supper was then celebrated in all the churches of the world. A forger would have taken care not to overthrow the authority of his narrative in the minds of his readers by such an omission.

About the meaning of the Holy Supper, we shall say only a few words. This ceremony seems to us to represent the totality of salvation; the bread, the communication of the life of Christ; the wine, the gift of pardon; in other words, according to Paul’s language, sanctification and justification. In instituting the rite, Jesus naturally began with the bread; for the shedding of the blood supposes the breaking of the vessel which contains it, the body. But as in the believer’s obtaining of salvation it is by justification that we come into possession of the life of Christ, St. Paul, 1Co 10:16 et seq., follows the opposite order, and begins with the cup, which represents the first grace which faith lays hold of, that of pardon.

In the act itself there are represented the two aspects of the work—the divine offer, and human acceptance. The side of human acceptance is clear to the consciousness of the partaker. His business is simply, as Paul says, “to show the Lord’s death,” 1Co 11:26. It is not so with the divine side; it is unfathomable and mysterious: “The communion of the blood, and of the body of Christ!” 1Co 10:16. Here, therefore, we are called to apply the saying: “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law,” Deu 29:29. We know already what we have to do to celebrate a true communion. We may leave to God the secret of what He gives us in a right communion. Is it necessary to go further in search of the formula of union?

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.

Christ establisheth his new Covenant, and his communicating with us with new signs.

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

Verse 19. Took bread] See the nature and design of the Lord's Supper explained in Clarke's notes on Mt 26:26-29.

This do in remembrance of me.] That the Jews, in eating the passover, did it to represent the sufferings of the Messiah, as evident from the tract Pesachim, fol. 119, quoted by Schoettgen. Why do we call this the great hallel? (i.e. the hymn composed of several psalms, which they sung after the paschal supper.) Ans. Because in it these five things are contained:

1. The exodus from Egypt.

2. The dividing of the Red Sea.

3. The promulgation of the law.

4. The resurrection of the dead. And,

5. The sufferings of the Messiah.

The first is referred to, Ps 114:1, When Israel went out of Egypt, c. The second in Ps 114:3, The sea saw it and fled. The third in Ps 114:4, The mountains skipped like rams, &c. The fourth in Ps 116:9, I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living. The fifth in Ps 115:1, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory for thy mercy and thy truth's sake. See Clarke on Mt 26:30.

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

(19, 20) He took bread, and gave thanks.—See Notes on Mat_26:26-28; Mar_14:22-25. The other two reports give “He blessed,” instead of “He gave thanks.” There is, of course, no real difference between them. Thanksgiving and blessing both entered into what we may call the Jewish “Grace,” and were so far convertible terms. It is noticeable that St. Paul’s account, in 1Co_11:23, agrees on this point with St. Luke’s.

Which is given for you.—Literally, which is now in the act of being given. The sacrifice was already inchoate in will. St. Paul’s report omits the participle.

This do in remembrance of me.—Literally, as My memorial, or, as your memorial of Me. The words are common to St. Luke and St. Paul, but are not found in the other two reports. The word for “remembrance” occurs, in the New Testament, only here and in Heb_10:3. In the Greek version of the Old Testament it is applied to the shew-bread (Lev_24:7), to the blowing of trumpets (Num_10:10), in the titles of Psa_38:1 (“to bring to remembrance,”) and Psa_70:1. The word had thus acquired the associations connected with a religious memorial, and might be applied to a sacrifice as commemorative, though it did not in itself involve the idea of sacrificing. The fact that our Lord and His disciples had been eating of a sacrifice which was also a memorial, gives a special force to the words thus used. In time to come, they were to remember Him as having given Himself, sacrificed Himself, for them, and this was to be the memorial in which memory was to express itself, and by which it was to be quickened. It may be noted that the early Liturgies, as a rule, follow St. Luke’s report, attaching the word “memorial” sometimes to the bread, sometimes to the cup, sometimes to both.

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

19. he took bread] The account in St Luke closely agrees with that given by St Paul (1Co_11:23-26), which he ‘received from the Lord.’

This is my body] Comp. “I am the door,” Joh_10:7. “That rock was Christ,” 1Co_10:4. “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” 1Co_10:16. All the fierce theological debates between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, &c. might have been avoided if men had borne in mind the warning of Jesus, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” Joh_6:63.

in remembrance of me] The emphasis is on the latter words. The Christian Passover was no more to be in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt, but of that far greater deliverance wrought by Christ.

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.

Likewise also the cup after supper,.... Both after the passover, and the Lord's supper; that is, he took the cup after they had eaten the bread, and gave thanks over it, and gave it to his disciples, bidding them drink of it, as in Mat 26:27, See Gill on Mat 26:27,

saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. The Ethiopic version reads, "for many"; as in Mat 26:28 where it is added, "for the remission of sins"; See Gill on Mat 26:28.

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

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Ver. 19. See Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22.

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.

See the notes at Mat 26:26-28.

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

THIS IS MY BODY. See the annotations on the same words of consecration, Matthew xxvi. 26.; Mark xiv. 22. and 1 Corinthians xi. 24. --- Do this for a commemoration of me. By these words he gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer. It is Christ that chiefly consecrates and changes the elements of bread and wine into his own body and blood; it is he that chiefly and principally forgiveth sins in the sacraments of baptism, penance, &c. It is what St. Augustine so often repeats against the Donatists, that it is Christ that baptizeth, though the instrumental minister be a sinner or a heretic; and this is what all Catholics confess and profess. --- The holy sacrifice and sacrament is to be offered and received with a devout and grateful remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and especially of his sufferings and death for all mankind. But to teach that it is a bare, though devout memorial, or a remembrance only, so as to exclude the real presence of Christ, under the outward appearances of bread and wine, is inconsistent with the constant belief and consent of all Christian churches, both of the west and east, and contradicts the plain words of Christ. The learned bishop of Meaux, in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, desires all Christians to take notice, that Christ does not command them to remember him, but to take his body and blood with a remembrance of him, and his benefits: this is the import of all the words, put together. This is my body: this is my blood: do this in, for, or with a remembrance of me. (Witham) --- This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the Church to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed. (Challoner) --- Which is given, &c. He does not say, which shall be offered for you, but which is offered;[2] because it was already a true sacrifice, in which Christ was truly present which he offered in advance to his eternal Father, before that which he was going to offer the next day, in a different manner, on the cross. This sacrifice was the consummation of the figurative Pasch, and the promise or pledge of the bloody offering, which Christ would make on the cross. ... It was not the mere figure of his body, which was crucified, but the true body and the true blood. In the same manner it is both the one and the other which are given, and really present, in the Eucharist. (Calmet) --- To renew the memory of what I have this day done, in giving you my body; and what I shall do to-morrow, in delivering my blood and my life for the whole world, do you hereafter what you now see me do. Take bread, break it, sand say, This is my body; and it will become so really and truly, as it now is in my hands. (Calmet)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In the original, the present tense is used in this and in the following verse. Greek: Touto esti to soma mou, to uper umon didomenon. And, Greek: Touto to poterion, ... to uper umon ekchunomenon. Here we must also remark, that the relative Greek: To, which, is not governed or ruled (as some would perhaps think) by the noun, blood, but by the word chalice, or cup; (Greek: poterion) which evidently sheweth that the blood, as the contents of the chalice, or as in the chalice, is shed for us: (in the present tense, for so the Greek hath it, and not only as upon the cross) And, therefore, as it followeth hence evidently, that it is no bare figure, but his blood indeed, so it followeth necessarily that it is a sacrifice and propitiatory, as shed for our sins. For all who know Scripture phraseology, know also that blood to be shed for sin, is to be sacrificed in atonement for sin. --- Beza, in his Annot. Nov. Test. an. 1556, [erroneously] says this cannot be truly said either of the chalice, or of the contents of the chalice; which is to give the lie to the evangelist, or to deny it to be true Scripture, though he declares the words are found in all both Greek and Latin copies. (Bristow)

====================

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).

Vers. 19, 20. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gays unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. Around these words, and the parallel passages in St. Matthew and Mark, for more than a thousand years fierce theological disputes have raged. Men have gone gladly to prison and to death rather than renounce what they believed to be the true interpretation. Now, a brief exegetical commentary is not the place to enter into these sad controversies. It will be sufficient here to indicate some of the lines of thought which the prayerful earnest reader might wisely follow out so as to attain certain just ideas respecting the blessed rite here instituted ideas which may suffice for a practical religious life. Now, we possess a Divine commentary on this sacrament instituted by our Lord. It is noticeable that St. John, whose Gospel was the latest or well-nigh the latest of the canonical writings of the New Testament, when at great length he relates the story of the last Passover evening and its teaching, does not allude to the institution of that famous service, which, when he wrote his Gospel, had become part of the settled experience of Church life. He presupposes it; for it had passed then into the ordinary life of the Church. In another and earlier portion of his Gospel, however, St. John (Joh_6:32-58) gives us a record of the Lord"s discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum, in which Jesus, while speaking plainly to those who heard him at the time, gave by anticipation a commentary on the sacrament which he afterwards instituted. The truth which was taught in thin discourse is presented in a specific act and in a concrete form in the Holy Communion. In the fifty-third verse of that sixth chapter we read, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." How is this now to be done? We reply that our Lord has clothed these ideas and brought them near to us in this sacrament; while, by his teaching in the sixth chapter of St. John, he guards this sacrament from being regarded on the one hand as an end in itself, or on the other as a mere symbol. Certain truths, great landmarks laid down in this discourse, have to be borne in mind.

(1) The separation of the flesh of the Son of man into flesh and blood (Joh_6:53) presupposes a violent death submitted to for the sake of others. (Joh_6:51)

(2) Both these elements, the flesh and the blood, are to be appropriated individually by the believer. (Joh_6:56)

(3) How appropriated? St. Bernard well answers the question which he asks: "What is it to eat his flesh and to drink his blood, but to share in his sufferings and to imitate the life he lived when with us in the flesh? " (St. Bernard, on Psa_3:3) "If ye suffer with him, ye shall also reign with him." The Holy Eucharist is from one point of view a great truth dramatized, instituted for the.purpose of bringing before men in a vivid manner the great truths above alluded to. But it is something more. It brings to the believer, to the faithful communicant, to the one who in humble adoring faith carries out to the best of his ability his Master"s dying charge it brings a blessing too great for us to measure by earthly language, too deep for us to fathom with human inquiry. For the partaking of this Holy Communion is, first, the Christian"s solemn public confession of his faith in Christ crucified; his solemn private declaration that it is his deliberate wish to suffer with his Lord and for his Lord"s sake; that it is, too, his firm purpose to imitate the earthly life lived by his Lord. The partaking of this Holy Communion, too, is the Christian"s most solemn prayer for strength thus to suffer and to live. It is, too, his fervent expression of belief that this strength will be surely given to him. Further, the partaking of this Holy Communion is, above all, the Christian"s most solemn prayer for living union with Christ Christ may dwell in his heart by faith." It is, too, his fervent expression of belief that "then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with. Christ, and Christ with us." This confession, declaration, and prayer he constantly renews in obedience to the dying command of his Master. It is difficult to understand how any belief in a physical change in the elements of bread and wine, such as is involved in the theory of transubstantiation held in the Roman Church, or of consubstantiation in the Lutheran community, can be supposed to enhance the reverence of the communicant, or to augment the blessing promised. The words of the Lord, "This is my body... my blood," cannot surely be pressed, seeing that the same Divine Speaker was in his discourses in the habit of using imagery which could not literally be pressed, such as "I am the Bread of life," "I am the Door of the sheep," "I am the true Vine," etc. Nothing that can be conceived is more solemn than the simple rite, more awful in its grandeur, more Divine and far-reaching in its promises to the faithful believer. Human imaginings add nothing to this Divine mystery, which is connected at once with the Incarnation and the Atonement. They only serve to envelop it in a shroud of earth-born mist and cloud, and thus to dim if not to veil its Divine glory.

Vers. 19, 20. The Lord"s Supper.

A very simple rite as first observed was the Lord"s Supper. But for certain passages in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, we should not have known that Jesus Christ intended to create a permanent institution. But though the simpler the ceremony is the more scriptural it is, yet are the ideas associated with it and suggested by it many and important. They are these

I THE NEAR PRESENCE OF OUR LORD. Not in the elements but presiding over the company. It is a table at which he entertains his friends; and can he, the Divine Host, himself be absent? "Around a table, not a tomb, He willed our gathering-place should be; When going to prepare our home, The Savior said, "Remember me.

And at that table, meeting and communing with his friends, we may feel sure and can realize forcibly that our living Lord is, in spirit and in truth, "in the midst of us.

II CHRIST OUR STRENGTH AND OUR JOY. The chosen elements are bread and wine, the sources of strength and of gladness. He, our Lord, is the one constant Source of our spiritual nourishment and strength, of the joy with which our hearts are for ever glad.

III CHRIST OUR PROPITIATION. The broken bread, the outpoured wine of what do these speak to our hearts? Of the "marred visage," of the weariness, of the poverty and privation, of the toilfulness and loneliness of that troubled life, of the griefs and pains of that burdened and broken heart, of the shame and the darkness and the death of the last closing scene. We stand with bowed head and reverent spirit at that cross and see"Sorrow and love flow mingled down.

And our hearts are full as we ask"Did e"er such love and sorrow meet; Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

And we realize that that sorrow was borne, that death died for us. "This is my body, "given for you;" my blood, "shed for you. It is the Propitiation for our sins.

IV OUR INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATION OF OUR LORD"S GREAT WORK. Each one eats of that bread and drinks of that cup. As he does so, in and by that act he declares his own personal need of a Divine Savior; he affirms his conviction that the sacrifice was offered for him; he renews his faith in the Divine Redeemer; he recognizes the claim of him that loved him unto death; he rededicates himself to Jesus Christ and to his service; he rejoices, in spirit, in his reconciled Father, in his Divine Lord and Friend.

V HAPPY AND HOLY COMMUNION WITH ONE ANOTHER. Gathered round one table, in the felt presence of our common Lord, all invited to drink of the same cup, (Mat_26:27) we are drawn to one another in the bonds of Christian love. We realize our oneness in him as a strong bond which triumphs over all the separating influences of the world. Faith, joy, love, are kindled and" burn within us;" and we are strengthened and sanctified, built up, enabled to "abide in him. C.

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

And he took bread - Namely, some time after, when supper was ended, wherein they had eaten the paschal lamb. This is my body - As he had just now celebrated the paschal supper, which was called the passover, so in like figurative language, he calls this bread his body. And this circumstance of itself was sufficient to prevent any mistake, as if this bread was his real body, any more than the paschal lamb was really the passover.

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

The institution of the Lord’s Supper:

v. 19. And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me.

v. 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you.

The meal proper was drawing to a close. The Lord had fulfilled the obligations and responsibilities of the old law and its worship. He had observed the sacrament of the Old Testament for the last time. But now Jesus instituted anew and wonderful meal, in which the glorious fruit of His suffering was bequeathed to His disciples and all believers of the New Testament. While they were still at the table, the Lord took some of the bread which had remained, consecrated it with a prayer of thanksgiving, broke it, and gave it to them with the words: This is My body, which is given for you; this do for My remembrance. In going from one to the other, He varied the formula, but the content, the substance of His words, remained the same. Then He took the cup, very likely the third cup of the Passover meal, the cup of thanksgiving, saying: This cup is the new covenant, or testament, in My blood, which is shed for you. In and through the blood of the Savior the New Testament is established. He has removed the wall of separation between the holy, righteous God and the sinful world by the shedding of His blood, and wants to give the glorious benefits of His atonement to all that believe on Him, in the Sacrament. Through the eating and drinking of His body and blood the forgiveness of sins is assured, sealed to the believers. We Christians believe and confess that the Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself. Our reason indeed cannot understand how the miracle is possible; it is inclined to believe either in the transubstantiation of the Catholics, according to which the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or in the reasonable explanation of the Reformed churches, according to which the body and blood of Christ are not at all present, but are merely pictured symbolically. But the words of Christ are clear and true, and we know from Scriptures that the body of Christ, the vessel of His deity, even in the days of His humiliation, in addition to the circumscribed existence, had a higher, super sensual being, Joh 3:13, and that the exalted Christ, who has ascended to the right hand of God, is not confined to one certain place in heaven, but as the God-man has the fullness that filleth all in all, Eph 1:23. Therefore we take our reason captive under the obedience of Christ and do not rack our brains over the difficulty, but rather thank the Lord for the blessing of this Sacrament, out of which we gain ever again the certainty of the forgiveness of sins.

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

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXX. Lord's Supper Instituted].

CXX. THE LORD'S SUPPER INSTITUTED. (Jerusalem. Evening before the crucifixion.) aMATT. XXVI. 26-29; bMARK XIV. 22-25; cLUKE XXII. 19, 20; fI. COR. XI. 23-26.

a26 And as they were eating, fthe Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, bblessed, fhe brake it, aand he [657] gave to the disciples, and said, bTake ye: aTake, eat; this is my body. fwhich is cgiven ffor you: this do in remembrance of me. [As only unleavened bread was eaten during the paschal supper, that kind of bread must have been used by our Lord, and it is fitting that it should still be used by us in keeping the Lord's Supper, not only for propriety's sake, but because that bread which is emblematic of purity is most suitable to represent the body of the sinless Christ. The Catholics and some few others take our Lord's words literally when he says, "This is my body." On this they found the doctrine of transubstantiation, i. e., that the bread and the wine become literal body and blood when blessed by the priest. There are many weighty arguments against such a doctrine, but the main one for it is found in the words of our Lord. But Jesus could not have meant them literally, for his body was untouched and his blood unshed on this occasion when he spoke them. Moreover, in the Jer_31:31-34. It was the practice of Eastern [658] peoples to use blood in making any pact or covenant ( Exo_24:6-8). Christ represents himself as the victim from whence the blood was to be taken to ratify or seal the new covenant, and he makes the cup the symbol of that blood. A full discussion of the old and new covenants will be found in the Book of Hebrews. We may, however, sum them up by saying that the old covenant promised the land of Canaan and Christ in the flesh to the Israelites, while the new covenant promises heaven and Christ in glory to the Christian], bwhich is poured out for many. [It is explicitly stated elsewhere that Christ died for all ( Heb_2:9, 2Co_5:14, 2Co_5:15), and the word "many" is used, not to contradict, but to emphasize the fact. When the persons included are contemplated individually, the term many is employed on account of the vast number of them; for no man can number the individuals for whom Christ died. But when they are contemplated under the feebler conception of the whole, the term all is employed.] aunto remission of sins. ceven that which is poured out for you. [The prime object of Christ's death is here declared. It was to accomplish the forgiveness of sins. All other purposes which it served are subordinate to this, and all other blessings which it secures are consequent upon this-- Joh_1:29, Eph_5:2, Heb_7:27, 1Jo_2:2, 1Jo_4:10, Isa_53:10, Rom_8:2, 1Co_15:3.] fthis do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [The word "remembrance" comes as a refrain after both the loaf and the cup. The central purpose of the supper is to bring the sacrifice of Christ and all its blessed results vividly to mind.] 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come. [This verse is a comment of Paul's upon the nature of the supper. In keeping the Lord's Supper we proclaim to our own souls and to the world our trust in the death of Christ, and our hope that he will return and fulfill the expectations begotten in us by it.] a29 But b25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink ashall not drink henceforth bof the athis fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in bthe kingdom of [659] God. amy Father's kingdom. band they all drank of it. [In speaking of this future drinking of the fruit of the vine Jesus does not mean literal wine, for he does not drink literal wine with his disciples in the kingdom as it now is, nor will he do so in the eternal kingdom. The term "drink," therefore, is used figuratively for that communion which Jesus has with his disciples while they are drinking the wine of the Lord's Supper. The term new is most naturally understood as modifying wine, but as the wine of the supper is not necessarily new wine, we think it rather indicates the new method of drinking wine just described.]

[FFG 657-660]

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.

bread

This bread did not have yeast in it, so it was flat.

he broke it

"he ripped it" or "he tore it." He may have divided it into many pieces or he may have divided it into two pieces and given them to the apostles to divide among themselves. If possible, use an expression that would apply to either situation.

This is my body

Possible meanings are 1) "This bread is my body" and 2) "This bread represents my body."

my body which is given for you

This can be stated in active form. AT: "my body, which I will give for you" or "my body, which I will sacrifice for you" (See: Active or Passive)

Do this

"Eat this bread"

in remembrance of me

"in order to remember me"

This cup

The word "cup" refers to the wine in the cup. AT: "The wine in this cup" or "This cup of wine" (See: Metonymy)

the new covenant in my blood

This new covenant will take effect as soon his blood is shed. AT: "the new covenant that will be ratified through my blood"

which is poured out for you

Jesus speaks of his death by referring to his blood being poured out. AT: "which is poured out in death for you" or "which will flow out of my wounds for you when I die" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

bread

body

covenant

blood

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

19, 20. These verses after διδόμενον are omitted in D, and some versions substitute 17, 18 for them.

19. λαβὼν ἄρτον. The account in St Luke closely agrees with that given by St Paul (1Co 11:23-26), which he ‘received from the Lord.’

τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. Comp. “I am the door,” Joh 10:7. “That rock was Christ,” 1Co 10:4. “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” 1Co 10:16. All the fierce theological debates between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, &c. might have been avoided if men had borne in mind the warning of Jesus, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” Joh 6:63. As for the word “is” on which so much stress has been laid, if Jesus spoke in Aramaic he would not have used the verb at all.

διδόμενον. St Paul uses κλώμενον instead. 1Co 11:24.

εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Only here and in 1Co 11:24. The emphasis is on the latter words. The Christian Passover was no more to be in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt, but of that far greater deliverance wrought by Christ.

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.

19, 20. In connexion with what follows we have these points to consider. (1) Are the words from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον to τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον Part of the original text? (2) If they are, is τὸ ποτήριον in ver. 20 the same as ποτήριον in ver. 17?

Assuming provisionally that the overwhelming external evidence of almost all MSS. and Versions in favour of the words in question is to be accepted, we may discuss the second point. As in the other case. neither view is free from Serious difficulty. If the cup of ver. 20 is not the same as that of ver. 17, then Lk. not only states that Jesus did not drink of the eucharistic cup (for οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν excludes the partaking of any subsequent cup), but he also records that Jesus charged the Apostles to partake of the earlier cup, while he is silent as to any charge to partake of the eucharistic cup. So far as this report of the Institution goes, therefore, we are expressly told that the Celebrant refused the cup Himself, and we are not told that He handed it to the disciples. If, on the other hand, we identify the two cups, and regard vv. 17, 18 as the premature mention of what should have been given in one piece a ver. 20, mean its severance into two portions, and the insertion of the distribution of the bread between the two portions. are inexplicable. Of the two difficulties, this seems to be the greater, and it is better not to identify the two cups. It is some confirmation of this that in ver. 17 ποτήριον is without the article, “a cup,” while in ver. 20 it is “the cup.” But τὸ ποτήριον need not mean more than “the cup just mentioned.” In Mt. and Mk. ποτήριον has no article: and in all three ἄρτον has no article: so that is absence in ver. 17 and presence in ver. 20 is not of much weight in deciding between the two difficulties. The only way to avoid both these difficulties is to surrender the passage as an interpolation.

D a d ff2, i l omit from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to ἐκχυννόμενον, and Syr-Cur. omits ver. 20, while b e Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin.place ver. 19 before ver. 17, an arrangement which has been elaborately advocated by Dean Blakesley (Prælectio in Scholis. Feb. 14, 1850). The possibility of the whole being an importation from 1Co 11:24, 1Co 11:25 may be admitted on the evidence; but the probability of ver. 19 either to τὸ σῶμά μου (b e Syr-Cur.), or to the end (Syr-Sin.), having stood originally before ver. 17 is almost infinitesimal. In what way can we account for so simple an arrangement (harmonizing with Mt. and Mk.) becoming almost universally disturbed? “These difficulties, added to the suspicious coincidence with 1Co 11:24f., and the Transcriptional evidence given above, leave no moral doubt (see Introd. § 240) that the words in question were absent from the original text of Lc, notwithstanding the purely Western ancestry of the documents which omit them” (WH, ii. App. p. 64). For the other view see Scrivener; also R. A. Hoffmann, Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, Pp. 5-25.

19. λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐξαριστήσας ἔκλασεν. The taking bread (or a loaf), breaking, giving thanks. and the declaration. “This is My Body,” are in all four accounts. But for εὐχαριστήσας here and 1Co 11:24 Mt. and Mk. have εὐλογήσας and both here and 1 Cor. Λάβετε is omitted. Mt. alone has φάγετε with ΛάΒετε of the bread, and Lk. alone has Λάβετε of the cup (ver. 17); but perhaps this is not the eucharistic cup (see above).

τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. Not much is gained by pointing out that the ἐστιν would not be expressed in Aramaic. It must be understood; and the meaning of τοῦτο, and its relation to τὸ σῶμάμου must be discussed. The τοῦτο cannot mean the act of breaking and eating, nor anything else excepting “this bread.” For the meaning of ἐστι see ver. 20. where the ποτήριον is identified with ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, and comp. εἰμι in Joh 8:12, Joh 8:9:5, Joh 8:14:6, Joh 8:15:1, Joh 8:5. In taking this bread they in some real sense take His Body. See Thirlwall’s Charges, vol. i. Charges v. and vi.; vol. ii. Charge x and esp. p. 25, e d. Perowne, 1877; also Gould on Mar 14:22.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον. Peculiar to this account: “which is being given for your advantage.” The κλώμενον which many texts add to τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in 1Co 11:24, is not genuine.

τοῦτο ποιρῖτε. The proposal to give these words a sacrificial meaning, and translate them “Offer this, Sacrifice this, Offer this sacrifice,” cannot be maintained. It has against it (1) the ordinary meaning of ποιεῖν in N.T., in LXX, and in Greek literature generally; (2) the authority of all the Greek Fathers, 1 who knew their own language. knew the N.T. and the LXX, and understood the words as having the ordinary meaning, “Perform this action”; (3) the authority of the Early Liturgies. which do not use ποιεῖν or facere when the bread and wine are offered. but προσφέρειν or offerre, although the words of institution precede the oblation, and thus suggest ποιεῖν or facere; (4) the authority of a large majority of commentators, ancient and modern, of the most various schools. who either make no comment, as if the ordinary meaning were too obvious to need stating: or give the ordinary meaning without mentioning any other as worthy of consideration; or expressly reject the sacrificial meaning; (5) the testimony of the Septuagint, in which the various and frequent Hebrew words which mean “offer” or “Sacrifice” are translated, not by ποιεῖν, but by προσφέρειν or ἀναφέρειν or the like; (6) the fact that here and in 1Co 11:24 the writer might easily have made the sacrificial meaning clear by using προσφέρειν or ἀναφέρειν. He has not even suggested such a meaning, as he might have done by writing ποιεῖτε τοῦτον, i.e. τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον. He has given as a translation of Christ’s words neither “Offer this bread,” nor “Offer this,” nor “Do this bread” (which might have suggested “Offer this bread”), but “Do this thing.” See Expositor, 3rd series, vii. 441; T. K. Abbott, Essays on the Original Texts of O. & N.T., Longmans, 1893, p. 110; A Reply to Mr. Supple’s and other Criticisms, Longmans, 1893; Mason, Faith of the Gospel, Rivingtons, 1888, p. 309.

εἰς τῆν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. “With a view to a calling to mind, a recollection, of Me.” The word means more than a mere record or memorial, and is in harmony with the pres. imperat. ποιεῖτε: “Continually do this in order to bring Me to mind,” i.e. “to remind yourselves and others of the redemption which I have won by My death.” The eucharist is to be a continual calling to mind of Him who redeemed men from the bondage of sin, as the Passover was an annual calling to mind of redemption from the bondage of Egypt (Exo 12:24-27, Exo 12:13:8, Exo 12:14). In N.T. ἀνάμνησιν occurs only here, 1Co 11:24, 1Co 11:25, and Heb 10:3, where see Wsctt. Comp. 1Co 4:17; 2Ti 1:6. In LXX it occurs Lev 24:7; Num 10:10; Wisd. 16:6; the titles of Psa_37. and 69. T. K. Abbott has shown that a sacrificial meaning cannot be obtained from ἀνάμνησιν any more than from ποιεῖτε (Essays, etc. P 122; A Reply, etc. p. 34).

The εἰς corresponds to ἵνα, rather than to ὡς, and indicates the purport of the new institution. For the possessive pronoun used objectively comp. Rom 11:31; 1Co 15:31, 1Co 16:17.

The omission of this charge, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, κ.τ.λ., in Mt and Mk. has attracted attention. DR. C. A. Briggs says, “Jülicher (Zur Gesch. der Abendmahlsfeier in der ällesten Kirche, in the Theolog. Abhandlungen Weizsäcker gewidment, 1892, s. 238 seq.) and Spitta (Urchristenthum, i. S. 238 seq.) are doubtless correct in their opinion that the earliest Christian tradition. represented by Mark and Matthew. knew nothing of an institution of the Lord’s Supper by Jesus on the night of His betrayal, as a sacrament to be observed continuously in the future. But they admit that Paul and Luke are sustained by the earliest Christian usage in representing it as a permanent institution. It is easier to suppose that the risen Lord in connection with these manifestations commanded the perpetual observance of the holy supper. Just as He gave the Apostles their commission to preach and baptize, and explained the mystery of His life and death (Luk 24:25-49). Paul and Luke would then combine the words of Jesus on two different occasions” (The Messiah of the Gospels, T. & T. Clark, 1894, p. 123). See Schaefer, Das Herrenmahlnach Ursprung und Bedeutung, Gütersloh, 1897.

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

Bread [αρτον] . Better, a loaf.

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