Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 22:19

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

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

See the notes at Mat 26:26-28.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

And he took bread and gave thanks,…. Or blessed it, as in Mt 26:26. Here begins the account of the Lord’s supper after the passover was eaten;

and brake it, and gave unto them; the disciples, as is expressed in

Mt 26:26

saying, this is my body;

[See comments on Mt 26:26]

which is given for you; or will be given for you, as an offering for sin in your room and stead; and accordingly it was given into the hands of men, and of justice, and unto death. The phrase denotes the substitution and sacrifice of Christ in the room of his people, and the voluntariness of it; and is only mentioned by Luke in this account: the Apostle Paul writes, which is broken for you, 1Co 11:24 alluding to the breaking of the bread in the ordinance, and as expressing the bruises, wounds, sufferings, and death of Christ: the Ethiopic version here adds, “for the redemption of many”.

This do in remembrance of me; that is, eat this bread in remembrance of my love to you, and in commemoration of my body being offered up for you. Observe this ordinance in the manner I now institute it, in time to come, in memory of what I am about to do for you; for this direction does not only regard the present time and action, but is intended as a rule to be observed by the churches of Christ in all ages, to his second coming: and it is to be observed, that the Lord’s supper is not a reiteration, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ. This phrase is only mentioned by Luke here, and by the Apostle Paul, who adds it also at the drinking of the cup,

1Co 11:24. The Persic version here reads, “do this perpetually in remembrance of me”.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Which is given for you ( ). Some MSS. omit these verses though probably genuine. The correct text in 1Co 11:24 has “which is for you,” not “which is broken for you.” It is curious to find the word “broken” here preserved and justified so often, even by Easton in his commentary on Luke, p. 320.

In remembrance of me ( ). Objective use of the possessive pronoun , not the subjective.

This do ( ). Present active indicative, repetition, keep on doing this.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Bread [] . Better, a loaf.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

THE BEGINNING (INSTITUTION) OF THE ‘LORD’S SUPPER V. 19, 20

1) “And he took bread, and gave thanks,” (kai labon arton eucharistesas) “And having given thanks he took a loaf (of bread),” of the unleavened bread. He took it, and offered thanks to His Father for it, and what it symbolized, Mat 16:16; Mar 14:22; 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:23.

2) “And brake it, and gave unto them, saying,” (eklasen kai edoken autois legon) “And broke and gave it to them, saying;” He gave His body to be broken, willingly, Joh 10:18; Tit 2:14. Commenting, informing, and directing them, His disciples as a church company who had followed Him from the baptism of John, Joh 15:16; Joh 15:27; Act 1:21-22; Mat 26:26.

3) “This is my body,” (touto estin to soma mou) “This is (exists as, similar to, a symbol of) my body,” my body that is to be wounded and broken for you, for, your sins, Isa 53:4-11; 1Pe 2:24; Mat 26:26. The bread was not changed into His literal body.

4) “Which is given for you:” (to huper humon didomenon) “Which is being given on your behalf,” or “being broken for you,” 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:24; Eph 5:25-27.

5) “This do in remembrance of me,” (touto poieiti eis ten emen anamnesin) “You all do this with reference to a memorial-remembrance of me,” not to receive remittal of sins, 1Co 11:24. This memorial has outlived all other monuments.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Luk 22:19

. Which is given for you. The other two Evangelists leave out this clause, which, however, is far from being superfluous; for the reason why the flesh of Christ becomes bread to us is, that by it salvation was once procured for us. And as the crucified flesh itself is of no advantage but to those who eat it by faith, so, on the other hand, the eating of it would be unmeaning, and of hardly any value, were it not in reference to the sacrifice which was once offered. Whoever then desires that the flesh of Christ should afford nourishment to him, let him look at it as having been offered on the cross, that it might be the price of our reconciliation with God. But what Matthew and Mark leave out in reference to the symbol of bread, they express in reference to the cup, saying, that the blood was to be shed for the remission of sins; and this observation must be extended to both clauses. So then, in order that we may feed aright on the flesh of Christ, we must contemplate the sacrifice of it, because it was necessary that it should have been once given for our salvation, that it might every day be given to us.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(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. Pauls account, in 1Co. 11:23, agrees on this point with St. Lukes.

Which is given for you.Literally, which is now in the act of being given. The sacrifice was already inchoate in will. St. Pauls 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. Lukes report, attaching the word memorial sometimes to the bread, sometimes to the cup, sometimes to both.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me.” And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”

And then Jesus came to the second part of what He wanted to convey to His disciples from the Passover feast. For in one sense in taking the Passover bread and breaking it before passing it to them He was treating it like a regular meal (usually the blessing came after the passing out of the Passover bread). He was indicating that what He was doing had a special purpose connected with Himself, that the blessing would flow out from Himself. It was a reminder of the feeding of the multitude (Luk 9:16-17), and a guarantee that He would feed them in the days to come (Luk 24:30-31; Joh 6:53-58). He wanted them to see in this bread His body given for them on which they could feed as they continually came to Him and believed on Him. He wanted them to see Him as the One Who could feed their souls and give them continuingly abundant life (Joh 10:10).

He no doubt had in mind His words in Joh 6:35, ‘I am the bread of life (which had come down from Heaven and gives life to the world – Luk 22:33), he who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst’. And His later words, ‘I am the living bread who came down from Heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live for ever. And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh’ (Joh 6:51). Thus in speaking of the giving of His body He was conveying the fact that through His death He was offering them life, eternal life (Joh 4:10-14) and that they would enjoy that life  as they kept on coming to Him and kept on believing in Him. This was no offer of a semi-magical, mystical method of conveying something inaptly called ‘grace’, but an offer of a living and continual personal relationship with Himself, an abiding in the vine (Joh 15:1-6).

We must remember that eating flesh and drinking blood was a vivid Old Testament way of describing the killing of people. In the Old Testament, when the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psa 14:4; Psa 53:4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil — who eat the flesh of my people’ (Mic 3:3), both were indicating the actions of those who were doing great harm to them, including slaughtering them. To eat flesh is therefore to partake in the benefits resulting from the suffering of another.

By eating the bread they would certainly not be indicating that they themselves would kill Him, at least not directly (although their sins would kill Him), but by their act they were equally certainly indicating their need to partake of His suffering, to receive benefit through His suffering, and that it was their sins which were responsible for His death. They were partaking in His death. Others would kill Him, what they would do was benefit through His death and become a part of it (see Joh 6:54). Thus this was not meant in any quasi-magical sense. It was to be a spiritual act. The bread could not be His body, even by a miracle, for He was Himself at that time there in His body (so those who try to make it more have to call it a ‘mystery’, which in this case means something that not only defies common sense and logic, which might be possible, but is totally self-contradictory, which is not possible. Even the greatest of miracles could not make a piece of bread eaten at a table the same as a human body present there alive at the same table!). In sensible interpretation it had to mean ‘this represents my body’ (compare the use of ‘is’ in Luk 8:11; Gal 4:24; Rev 1:20) just as the bread at the Passover represented the bread of affliction.

When eating the Passover bread the Jews saw themselves as partaking in the sufferings of their ancestors. In a sense they actually saw themselves as one with them in corporate unity. Thus they enjoyed a genuine spiritual experience of oneness with their deliverance (although the bread remained the same). In the same way when Christians eat of this bread they see themselves as partaking in the death of Christ, as having been with Him on the cross (Gal 2:20). So by recognising and acknowledging their close participation with Him in His death by faith they recognise that through it they have received eternal life. But no further lamb is slain or is needed. No further offering is made, or needs to be made. Nothing needs to be done to the bread. He is the one sacrifice for sin for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:14; Joh 4:42; 1Jn 4:14). They rather recognise that His offering of Himself once for all (Heb 9:28) is something that they continually participate in, and that they participate by constantly coming to Him and believing in Him (Joh 6:35). Thus do they eat of His flesh and drink of His blood by benefiting through His death (Joh 6:53-56), just as in the Old Testament men ‘ate flesh’ and ‘drank blood’ when they benefited by their deaths, and just as the Jews became partakers in the blood of the prophets by consenting to their deaths (Mat 23:30).

‘This do in remembrance of Me.’ By these words He was also setting up a means of remembrance and continual participation in what He was to do for them. That was what the Passover had always been to the Jews. As they participated in it they felt that once again they were back in Egypt and God was coming down to deliver them. They recognised that once again they were His people, awaiting His powerful working. They felt as though they were being delivered again. When they ate the bread they said, ‘This is the bread of affliction that we ate in Egypt’. And they really felt that it was, for the ‘we’ represented the whole body of Israel past and present. They felt as though they were there once again, at one with their forefathers, that they were a continuation of their forefathers. It was not just a memorial but a ‘remembrance’ (difference ours, the Greek word could mean either) in which they were taken back in time and participated again with their ancestors of old in the mighty working of God. And it was all with the hope that one day it would happen again and introduce God’s kingly rule.

In the same way when the disciples, and those who came to believe on Him through their words, took bread in this way and ate it, they were to feel that they were once again walking with Jesus and supping with Him. They were to feel as though they too were entering personally into His brokenness on the cross. They were being crucified with Him (Gal 2:20). And they were then to sense that they were receiving new life from Him as the branch receives it from its oneness with the vine (Joh 15:1-6), and dying and rising again with Him (Rom 6:4; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:1-6). And if their hearts were rightly disposed towards Him, that is what would happen. And they were to see that they were renewing their covenant with Him, a covenant sealed by His blood, that guaranteed their position before the Father as His children (2Co 6:16-18). This last idea of the covenant is central to the Lord’s Supper. It is to be more than a memorial, it is to be a personal remembrance, a full participation in Him through the Spirit, and a recommitment to His covenant through which full salvation has come. But there would be nothing mysterious about the bread. The bread would not change either physically or spiritually (any more than the Passover bread did). It would rather be the point of contact through which they came in touch with the crucified and living Christ, coming to Him and believing on Him continually, enjoying His presence among them (Mat 18:20; Mat 28:20) and thus enjoying life through His name.

We should note that Jesus said ‘do this’ not ‘offer this’. It was an act of remembrance not an offering. The offering was of Jesus, made once and for all on the cross. The ‘doing’ of this was a remembrance of that offering. The wine did not replace His sacrifice or even mime it. It was a memorial of the blood that had been shed.

It is difficult to overstress the significance of what this change to the Passover ritual meant. Consider the extraordinary fact. Here Jesus was taking over the Passover, as He had taken over the Sabbath (Luk 6:5), and was applying it to Himself. No ordinary prophet would ever have dared to do this. Humanly speaking it was outrageous, unless the One Who did it was God Himself (which is why Jesus made this crystal clear at this time – Joh 14:6-9). For it was to make out that what He was about to do was as great, if not greater, than what God, their Almighty Lord, had done at the Passover. It was to supplant the God-ordained Passover. It was replacing the Passover by the new deliverance being wrought by Him through the cross. In His death and resurrection it would be He Who would ‘pass over’ His people, protecting them from the wrath to come, and making available for them the forgiveness of sins (Luk 24:46-47). It was declaring that in Him was fulfilled all that the Passover had meant to Israel, and more. Here was God’s final and full act of deliverance for all who would shelter beneath His blood. It was the fulfilment of all that the Passover had meant, and to which the Passover had pointed.

‘And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.” ’ And in the same way, when He took what was probably the third cup, (they were all cups of blessing, but this was especially thought of as the cup of blessing), to be taken after eating the Passover meal, He told them that it was the symbol of the new covenant in His blood, a covenant sealed through the death of the Victim, and by participation in the Victim. This took their minds back to the days at Mount Sinai when the covenant had been offered and the people of God had accepted it and had sealed it with the shedding of blood, the blood of His covenant, ‘the blood of the covenant that He has made with you’ (Exo 24:8). Then animals had been offered in substitution and representation, and the blood had been sprinkled on the people. Here then also was the sealing of a covenant in blood, but this time it was in His blood, of which they in symbol ‘drank’ by receiving the wine as they responded spiritually to Him in dependence on His sacrifice. And the covenant was the new covenant by which God guaranteed to do a transforming work in their hearts and lives (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-13), bringing them full forgiveness of sins (Luk 24:46-47; Act 26:18) and inheritance among those who were made holy in Him (Act 26:18).

Thus when they drank wine in the future (or when they participated in the equivalent of the Passover in the future) they were to see in it a remembrance of His death. The redness of the wine would remind them of His blood shed for them. The drinking of the wine would remind them that they partook in the benefits of His death. Just as their fathers had partaken of the blood of the prophets by participating in killing them (Mat 23:30), so they partook of the blood of Jesus because they were participating in His death and receiving forgiveness for their sins (Luk 24:47; 1Jn 1:7), the very sins which had brought about His crucifixion and were therefore responsible for His death. For the cup of the new covenant in His blood was ‘poured out for them’ (so the Greek), as He was, like the Servant of the Lord described of old (Isa 53:12), numbered with the transgressors (Luk 22:37). Thus by coming to Him and believing in Him through participation in the bread and the wine they would be continually enjoying forgiveness and eternal life in His name. They would be abiding in Him (Joh 6:53-56). They would be guaranteeing, as long as their inward hearts were in parallel with their outward action, their participation in the new covenant in His blood.

Once again He was taking a familiar Old Testament metaphor. In Zec 9:15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood (the blood of their enemies) like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies. And David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Furthermore Isaiah brought both metaphors of eating and drinking together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isa 49:26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death.

So as we partake of the Lord’s Supper we are indicating that, as David would have done if he had drunk the water brought to him by those who loved him, we are seeking to benefit by His sacrifice of Himself. We are partaking in His death. We are making His death our own, so that we might enjoy His life springing up within us.

EXCURSUS on the Problems of 22:19-20.

It is sad that at this sacred point in the narrative it is necessary to pause in the midst of having our thoughts fixed on Christ in this way in order to briefly consider some of the problems connected with these verses. (A book could be written on each). Those who are not concerned with the kind of things that we will consider here can pass on and ignore this Excursus. But the first problem that we have is as to whether a part of these verses is actually in the original text of Luke (our conclusion will be a definite ‘yes). The second is as to how Luke’s words tie in with the other Gospels and with Paul’s words in 1Co 11:23-26. And the third is as to whether the bread and the wine are but symbols, or whether they are more than symbols.

1). What part of these verses were not in the original text, if any?

To simplify the matter we can say that there is one important Greek manuscript, and only one, which excludes the latter part of these verses. It excludes the words, ‘which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.” ’ All the other most important Greek manuscripts include the words. Only D does not. D is, however supported by Old Latin versions and other manuscripts of versions (e.g. a b d e ff2 i l). Still others rearrange the verse order (e.g. Syriac s c). And some would argue that it is so unlikely that it would be omitted if it was once there that this must indicate that it was not in the original version of Luke. But paradoxically the actual abundance of it in Old Latin manuscripts, and the lack of the omission elsewhere, rather emphasises a localised omission.

If there had been a number of witnesses on both sides, of a fairly even and general nature, the argument from omission would have seemed conclusive. But against it here is the argument as to how the same words, which are not specifically reproduced from elsewhere word for word, could possibly have found their way into all other Greek manuscripts in approximately the same form, especially considering their widespread nature, apart from D, if it was not there in the original. It is statistically impossible. It would seem logically from the evidence that the omission must only have occurred in a text going to the area where D was prominent, and that the words were present in all others, which would serve to confirm that the original text of Luke, sent everywhere else, included it. Otherwise surely some other Greek texts and versions must have arisen in other areas excluding it. This solidarity of evidence is especially impressive because such an early witness as Justin Martyr (c.150 AD) includes it, even though he may well have been connected with the area in which D arose (D, which has within its pages parallel Greek and Latin texts, is probably a Western text, although this is disputed by some). On balance this is firmly and finally conclusive for the inclusion of it. Those few secondary witnesses which then have it included in a different order may be seen as an attempt to restore the text without having the full information necessary for the restoration, or perhaps as an attempt to fit it to the tradition that they used for the observance of the feast.

Then we must add a further argument and that is the fact that the whole of what is said in these verses is required by the balance of Luke’s account. The first mention of eating and drinking was of ‘not eating and drinking’ by Jesus. In view of His then introducing the bread we would surely then expect some comment on the eating and drinking of the disciples. Thus the verses fit aptly in their place.

But why should D have excluded it? Various possible suggestions can be made. Clearly the first possibility is that it happened in a very early manuscript, (from which it was then copied in the area to which it went), through the carelessness and sleepiness of an official scribe. Even today great scholars can very occasionally make the most enormous howlers simply because their attention has slipped for a brief moment in the complexity of what they are dealing with and they never catch up on their error, and that in spite of the facilities that they enjoy that early copyists never dreamed of. It is true that it was a huge mistake to make, but it could have happened. Perhaps he got so caught up in the words that he actually forgot to write them down, and then thought that he had done so, and carelessly continued as though they were there. Copying was a long, laborious and tiring task, and checking almost equally laborious. It was not unusual for a dedicated scribe to end up absolutely exhausted, and in such a state anything could happen. Secondly it may have been copied from a manuscript of Luke’s Gospel which had had the words deliberately excised in order to prevent the ‘sacred and most secret’ words of the most sacred Christian ceremony being publicised to outsiders in the area to which it went. (Or possibly for this reason Luke’s copy to Theophilus omitted it). Or it may have been omitted because it did not agree with the tradition that the copyist’s church used in the observance of the Communion/Lord’s Supper (the Didache omits the sacrificial reference when describing their tradition of the Lord’s Supper) People can do funny things when they regard something as ‘sacred’. That would, of course, raise the questions to why it was not also done in Matthew and Mark. But the answer to that may be that it was because the alteration took place in the separate manuscript of Luke that the later copyist used, or because his church actually used the version in Matthew and Mark. Thirdly, not knowing much about the Passover feast, he may have been concerned at the mention of two cups, and having already entered in about one cup, decided to omit the second. But if that were the case we would not have expected him to end quite as abruptly as he did. Or his decision may have been the result of the fact that he was unhappy that Luke’s version did not seem quite to conform with Matthew and Mark, and was therefore better left out. For the scribe would know that the church for whom he wrote the manuscript would be well aware of the words used in their own communion services and could include them themselves, and would have Matthew and Mark to work from. This might especially be the case if he knew of fierce disputes about which words were correct. Thus he may have decided to leave the solution to the question up to them. And in considering any of these arguments we should note how abruptly the shorter reading ends. It requires a concluding comment which does not appear in the shorter reading. Something certainly seems to be missing in the shorter version, especially to anyone who did observe Communion/the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps this copyist wanted each church to fill in the gap with their own traditional version of the sacred words. Another possibility is that having already written about the wine and the bread his mind might have temporarily ‘switched off’ so that when he picked up again he did so after the (second) giving of the wine. If this manuscript was then widely used in Old Latin areas (a copy of it was after all preserved, which suggests that it may have been an ‘official’ text) it would explain the comparative ‘abundance’ of Old Latin Texts which had the omission in them, as compared with those found elsewhere. So all in all there are many possible explanations and the facts would in our view seem to suggest very strongly that in this case the longer reading is correct, while the shorter one arose from an early copying error, mainly because of the impossibility of it otherwise being contained in all other Greek manuscripts.

2). Why are their different versions of the words in the Gospels and in Paul?

In answering this question we shall first consider the breaking of the bread passages, putting in capitals the words which are exactly the same. And in doing so we must remember that none of the writers record all Jesus’ words. Each is translating, and each selects what is suitable to the point that he is getting over. It is not therefore in the main a choice between either/or but of both/and.

Mat 26:26 ‘And as they were eating, Jesus TOOK BREAD, and blessed, and BROKE IT, and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY.’

Mar 14:22 ‘And as they were eating, he TOOK BREAD, and when he had blessed, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, and said, Take you, THIS IS MY BODY.’

Luk 22:19 ‘And he TOOK BREAD, and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.’

1Co 11:23-24 ‘For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed TOOK BREAD, and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and said, “THIS IS MY BODY, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” ‘

Common to all is that HE TOOK BREAD, BROKE IT AND SAID, ‘THIS IS MY BODY’, stressing the essential unity of the passages. Matthew adds to Jesus’ words, ‘Take you, eat’, Mark adds ‘Take you’. Luke and Paul omit this but it is clearly implied. Luke adds, ‘Which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me,’ and Paul adds, ‘which is for you, Do this in remembrance of me’. Paul’s ‘which is for you’ parallels Matthew’s ‘take, eat’ and especially Mark’s ‘take you’. Luke’s ‘given for you’ simply amplifies the idea. Thus the basic idea is the same in all, with small differences of presentation in order to bring out particular points. The additional words, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ are, of course, really required in order to explain the perpetuation of the feast throughout the early church. Thus even if we had not been told about it we would have had to assume it. Indeed, while ‘This is my body’ would certainly be impressive standing alone, it does require extra words for it to make sense to the hearers. It is possibly the writers and ministers who like dramatic pauses, and not the original speaker, who wish it to stand in its starkness, knowing that the readers/recipients would know its deeper significance. Of course, what His exact words were in Aramaic can only be postulated, for we only have the Greek translations. But the Greek in each case gives the true essential meaning of what He was saying.

Slightly more complicated are the words about the cup.

Mat 26:27-28 ‘And he took a CUP, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink you all of it, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many to remission of sins.’

Mar 14:23-24 ‘And he took a CUP, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many.’

Luk 22:20 And the CUP in like manner after supper, saying, THIS cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD, even that which is poured out for you.’

1Co 11:25 ‘In the same way also the CUP, after supper, saying, “THIS cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’

In each Jesus takes a cup and says either, ‘This is the covenant in my blood’, or alternatively the more stark equivalent in Hebrew form, ‘This is my blood of the covenant’. The former is interpretive of the latter. The ‘new’ may have dropped out in Matthew and Mark because it was felt to be superfluous, or Luke and Paul, in interpreting, may have added that it was a ‘new’ covenant, because they wanted their Gentile readers to know that it was not just the old Jewish covenant renewed. But all would be aware that it was in fact a new covenant, partly in accordance with God’s promise in Jer 31:31, and partly because it was ‘in His blood’ and looked to the cross, and Jesus’ very words and actions thus demanded it even if He did not say it. Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that He said, ‘which is poured out for —‘. Mark simply adds, ‘for many’, Luke adds. ‘for you’ and Matthew adds ‘for many to remission of sins’. Paul omits this but adds, ‘Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’, which is actually required to be said by Jesus (or something like it) to establish the permanence of it as a symbol. As Mark’s ‘for many’ probably has Isaiah 53, 11, 12 in mind it has the same significance as Matthew’s longer phrase ‘for many to remission of sins’. ‘Luke’s ‘you’ simply personalises it, recognising that the ‘you’ is by then being spoken to the whole church who are the ‘many’ for whom Christ died. Thus the essential meaning is again the same. And as with the bread the importance of doing it in remembrance must at some time have been said by Jesus for the Apostles to take up the feast and perpetuate it as they did. The slight overall differences emphasise the point each is seeking to bring out as they translate or paraphrase from the Aramaic, without altering the basic sense. Essentially all are saying the same.

3). Are the bread and wine symbols only, even though very important ones, or do they become more than that?

To some extent we have already dealt with this question, but we must now expand on it. The bread and wine were never intended to be ‘dispensed’ by some authoritative figure as though divine favour could be dispensed. No human person was ever intended to take control over them. There is never any suggestion of that in Scripture. Each person who ate and drank the bread and wine was intended to look directly to God as they ate and drank it together with the fellow-members of their church. The whole point of the Passover meal was that it was a ‘family and friends’ occasion. While the head of the household might call on God for blessing while distributing the bread, there was no thought of priestly ministry.

But as always eventually human beings had to take control of them. At first it was genuinely in order to protect them from being used casually (compare the need in 1Co 11:27-30). But it was not long before those who thought of themselves more highly than they ought to think began to use them as a means of control. They began to give the impression that by dispensing them or withholding them they could control men’s salvation. And then they even began to entrap God within them and hang Him up in a casket for all to see, and to speak of the bread and wine as though it actually became the body and blood of Christ. So easily can such a sacred ceremony be turned into something which it was never intended to be. Fallen man has an innate tendency to bastardise pure religion, especially if by it he can control people. (The same thing happened originally in primitive religion in exactly the same way, where the basic idea of the All-father gradually became debased into polytheism and magic).

For, as we have pointed out above, the bread at the actual Last Supper could never have become His body in any real sense at all whether physical or spiritual. When he said, ‘this is my body’, it could not possibly have been taken literally. (For the use of ‘is’ in this way see Luk 8:11; Gal 4:24; Rev 1:20 where representation is clearly intended. In the Aramaic ‘is’ would probably be lacking, as in Gen 40:12 where again the idea is representative). For He was still using His body, and they were still looking at Him in it. His words at that stage could only possibly mean ‘this represents My body’ for they could see his real body standing in front of them. To say that God somehow made it His body, when His body was actually there among them, is so clearly self-contradictory, that we could never suggest it of God. God is never self-contradictory. The early Christians would know that the wine could not have literally become His blood, for they knew that at the time when this was instituted His blood still flowed through His veins. Even if they had been literally turned into flesh and blood before them, it would still not have been  His  flesh and blood. And this is so even if we had had no other grounds for seeing otherwise. Those who insist, ‘but He said “This is my body” ’ and want to take it literally do but make fools of themselves, and sadly of others. While He was in His body there could be no way at all, even by a miracle, for the bread to be His body. That is the one certainty.

But when we recognise that this phrase, ‘This  is  my body’ replaces ‘this  is  the bread of affliction which our father’s ate’, the last phrase clearly symbolic even though in a powerful way (there was no way in which it could be the bread in question), the issue is settled. Both phrases refer to something that represents what is spoken about, not the thing itself. Thus we have a second reason why it should not be taken literally.

Are the bread and wine then ‘merely symbolic’? We must certainly remove the ‘merely’. They were symbolic in a deep and genuine way. They were a symbol to be entered into and experienced through the Holy Spirit. Thus when we eat and drink our spirits rise up to the One Whom they represent and have spiritual communion with Him. In our spirits we are united with Him in His death and resurrection (Rom 6:5). We recognise again that we have been made one with Him, and we recognise that we are participating in all that He is for us.

For Jesus’ whole point was that we should see in the bread and wine pictures of what He was here to do, and of the benefits that we could receive through Him. It was fallen man who then recognised that he could use these ideas in order to manipulate gullible people, and once the ideas had taken hold and were held fanatically they were difficult to get rid of.

END OF EXCURSUS.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

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.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Luk 22:19. This do, &c. From our Lord’s words here recorded, and from those wherewith the apostle has concluded his account of the sacrament, 1Co 11:26. (for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come, , ye preach,ye declare the Lord’s death, ye assure the world of the truth of it,)it appears that the sacrament of the supper was instituted, not only to bring Christ’s sufferings, and the happy consequences thereof, to the remembranceof his disciples, but to demonstrate the truth of these things to the world in all ages. In this view the sacrament of the last supper is a most strong proof of our Lord’s 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. 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 proof (though such proofs are not wanted) 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.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

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 . . ., which is not found at all in Matthew and Mark.

] 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 . 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: , and similar passages.

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

.] for the remembrance of me . [249] See Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 192]. It is a mistake to say that this purpose of the Lord’s 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 of that which the symbols represent, is in keeping with the symbolic character of the celebration (Plat. Phaed . p. 74 A: ). Comp. Justin, Ap . I. 66, where it is said of the cup: .

Luk 22:20 . ] to wit, .

] the cup before them.

] “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 .

. . .] 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 covenant a 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 after , and consequently also, in so far as the passage before us is concerned, forbids the affixing to , as many of the older (not Luther [251] ) and of the more recent writers (not Kahnis, Osiander, Rckert, p. 232) do. So also even Ebrard ( d. Dogma vom heil. Abendm . I. p. 113), who, besides, lays an emphasis upon 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.”

] opposed to the old Mosaic covenant, whose condition was the fulfilling of the law (in the new: faith). See on 1Co 11:25 .

] belongs, although in the nominative, to , 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 is applied to because 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 ( .) than would be the case if it were joined on in the dative. Comp. Jas 3:8 (where is joined to the logical subject , which, however, is not the grammatical subject); Rev 3:12 ; Rev 8:9 ; Mar 12:40 ; Joh 1:14 ; Khner, 677; Winer, pp. 471, 473 [E. T. 668 670 f.]. According to Baur’s view, . comes back to a very awkward transposition of the words from Mat 26:28 . Comp. also Rckert, 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 ( 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 Rckert, 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 Lord’s 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 Dllinger, Christenth. und Kirche , p. 38, and Schegg.

[251] In his Gr. Bekenntn .: “for the reason that Christ’s 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 , 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 Lord’s 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 Paul’s having made use of a written Gospel; neither in particular is the passage in 1Co 11:23 , , in any way favourable to that supposition.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

19, 20. ] INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. Mat 26:26-29 . Mar 14:22-24 . 1Co 11:23-25 . See notes on Matthew.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 22:19-20 . The Supper .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 22:19 . , 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. . . : 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

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

And He, &c. Compare Mat 26:26-29. Mar 14:22-26. 1Co 11:23-25.

bread. A thin flat hard biscuit, which was broken, and not cut.

gave thanks. Greek. eucharisteo.

This is My body. See App-159.

is given = is being given.

for = on your behalf. Greek. huper. App-104.

in = for. Greek. eis. App-104.

in remembrance, &c. = for My memorial.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

19, 20.] INSTITUTION OF THE LORDS SUPPER. Mat 26:26-29. Mar 14:22-24. 1Co 11:23-25. See notes on Matthew.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Luk 22:19. , 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 ] as the cup [accords with its predicate, -].- , 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: , for, i.e. , [a vicarious substitute for. A ransom for many.] Mat 20:28.-, which is being given) to death.-, 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.-, remembrance) See 1Co 11:25-26, note.[232] [In that first act of institution of the Lords 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 Lords death till He come. The Lords Supper, according to Bengel, is a kind of compensating equivalent for our not having the Lords 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.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

In Remembrance

This do in remembrance of me.Luk 22:19.

1. There are many ways in which we may think of the Holy Communion. For it is many-sided and rich in meaning. There are at least five aspects in which it may be profitably regarded.

(1) It is a command.It is something that we are bidden to do. This do. We obey our Lords explicit command in meeting and celebrating the Holy Communion, by partaking of bread and wine together in memory of Him. There can be no sort of doubt that He did command His disciples to do this; and they have obeyed His command from the very beginning down to the present day. Whatever are its benefits, whatever other purpose it serves, it is an act of obedience, and as such it makes appeal to us.

(2) It is a commemoration.We do this in remembrance of Christ. This is the aspect of the Holy Communion most strongly and prominently brought out in the Prayer-Book. It is the Lords Supper; this is its first title. We remind ourselves in the consecration prayer that our Lord instituted, and in His holy gospel commanded us to continue a perpetual memory of His precious death. When the bread is given to each one, he is bidden to take and eat in remembrance that Christ died for him. When the wine is given he is bidden to drink this in remembrance that Christs blood was shed for him. And as a commemoration it keeps ever before us the life and death of our Lord, it reminds us of His teaching, of His words, of His example, of His work for us.

(3) It is a thanksgiving.This is expressed in the name Eucharist, which means thanksgiving. Our Lord in instituting this Sacrament began by giving thanks. He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it. So from the very beginning we read that they brake bread, and did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God. By the very earliest writers outside the New Testament, if not in the New Testament itself, this service is called the Thanksgiving, the Eucharist.

(4) It is a fellowship.This is implied in the very name Holy Communion. It ought to be to us a constant reminder that our Christian life is an association, not an isolated life; that some day the whole world shall be bound together with one heart and one mind, and jealousies, rivalries and competitions shall utterly cease. Every Christian congregation, and most of all its communicants, pledge themselves to strive to realize this temper, crushing out all the little quarrels and huffs and coldnesses and alienations that so often mar the peace of a congregation, merging minor differences of opinion in the grand unity of love and worship of Christ.

(5) There is also another fellowship.We have, says St. John, a fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. This fellowship or communion with God through Jesus Christ is by no means limited to the Holy Communion. Over and over again it is spoken of independently of that rite. The communion with God through Christ Jesus is having the same mind in us which was also in Christ Jesus. He is the Vine, and we are the branches; He is the Head, and we are the members. When we are called to be Christians, we are called into the fellowship of Christ; we are incorporated into Him. This union with God through Christ is a spiritual state, the slowly won result of prayer and self-denial, and of the love and following of Christ. But it is equally plainly taught that this fellowship with God is specially realized in the Holy Communion.

I do believe that you have partly misunderstood the meaning of the Holy Communion. Certainly it should be, it must come to be, the most intimate act of love between man and God; but it has also, surely, two other aspects at least for which one should cling to it through years even of uncertainty. First, it is offered to us as the vehicle of a spiritual Presence coming to work in us and for us, bound by no laws save those of Spirit, and so able to act as mysteriously as love (which indeed it is). It is not merely laid upon us as a duty, but let down to us as a hope; in it God meets us while we are yet a great way off, and teaches and changes us in ways we do not stop to notice and could not, perhaps, understand. And, secondly, it is the great means whereby we all realize our unity and fellowship one with another, in which we try to put aside for a little while our own special needs and difficulties and peculiarities, and throw ourselves into the wide stream of life with which the world is moving towards God. For these two uses I would cling, I believe, to the Eucharist, by Gods grace, through the loss of almost all else, even though mists and doubts were thick about me.1 [Note: Bishop Paget, in Life by S. Paget and J. M. Crum, 66.]

2. It is the second of these five ways of regarding the Supper that we are to consider at present. The Holy Communion is a commemoration. It is done in remembrance.

The desire to be remembered after death is almost universal in human nature. There may be some who can say

Thus let me live unseen, unknown,

Thus unlamented let me die;

Steal from the world, and not a stone

Tell where I lie.

Or like Howard, who said, place a sun dial on my grave, and let me be forgotten. But nearly all men have the wish to live, after they are gone, in the thoughts and memories of others. They would fain have some kindly remembrances of themselves in some human bosoms, would fain know that those they leave behind think of them and remember them with some regret and esteem. There are few who

To dumb Forgetfulness a prey,

This pleasing anxious being eer resigned,

Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,

Nor cast one longing, lingering look behind.

On some fond breast the parting soul relies,

Some pious drops the closing eye requires,

Evn from the tomb the voice of Nature cries.2 [Note: R. Stephen, Divine and Human Influence, ii. 65.]

In being conscious of the greatness of His act He differed, says Carlyle, from all other men in the world. How true also, once more, it is that no man or Nation of men, conscious of doing a great thing, was ever, in that thing, doing other than a small one! O Champ-de-Mars Federation, with three hundred drummers, twelve hundred wind-musicians, and artillery planted on height after height to boom the tidings of the revolution all over France, in few minutes! Could no Atheist-Naigeon contrive to discern, eighteen centuries off, those Thirteen most poor mean-dressed men, at frugal Supper, in a mean Jewish dwelling, with no symbol but hearts god-initiated into the Divine depth of Sorrow, and a Do this in remembrance of me;and so cease that small difficult crowing of his, if he were not doomed to it?1 [Note: Carlyle, French Revolution, ii. bk. i. ch. ix.]

Let us remember Him (1) for what He has been, (2) for what He has done, and (3) for what He is.

I

For what He has Been

1. First of all, and in its simplest aspect, His memory is the memory of One who lived, among men, a human life like their own, and yet a life such as none else had ever lived before, or has ever lived since. Of that life the Sacrament is a memorial. It is a memorial of One who, at a time when the world was full of darkness and unrest, came into it saying that He came from God, and had a message from God for all whose hearts were weary, whose minds were dark, whose souls were full of doubts and fears; One who seemed to prove, by the very nature of His life, that what He said of Himself was true, for it was a life which shed a brightness and gladness around it, as from a light shining in a dark place. The little children came gladly to His side. The humble household brightened as He came, and bestirred itself to give Him heartiest welcome. Sickness and disease disappeared at His gracious presence; the blind eyes were opened to behold Him; the deaf ears were unstopped, so that their first sound of human speech should be His kindly words. Even the dead arose at His command, and re-entered the homes that they had left lonely, and went out and in among those whom their loss had made desolate and afflicted. His life was one that gladdened other lives, and bore about with it one living message of peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

When you recall the memory of the dead, it is their life you chiefly recallall they were, how they looked and worked, what they said, and what they did, and what they were, all the incidents connected with them during the years you were together, the happy times you had in each others company, the sweet intercourse you enjoyed, the bright scenes and seasons of communion and pleasure, or the sad sorrowful times of suffering in your histories, all your hours of joy, or your hours of sadness and sorrow, all they did for you, all their ministries of thoughtfulness and kindness for your comfort and happiness, all that made them helpful to you, all that made them dear to you, all their gentleness and sweetness and tenderness, all their love, all their affection, all about them that made them lovable and beloved, and endeared and bound them to your heart.

Thus marvellous has been the power and influence of the memory of His life over men and the world. Down through eighteen hundred years, it has been the loftiest inspiration, and the greatest hope and comfort for human souls. The world has been made wiser and better and richer and nobler by it, for it has enlightened it, and reformed its laws and its institutions and its manners. Men and women have been made holier and purer by it, for it has exerted a transforming power over their whole-natures. The inner life it has cleansed, and the outward it has adorned. It has entered into and purified mens hearts and feelings and desires and thoughts and tempers and dispositions. It has put down pride and vanity, and envy and jealousy, expelled impurity, and made untruth ashamed. It has cast out evil, and enthroned beauty and goodness in the soul, and made harsh and rugged and unseemly natures sweet and lovely with gentleness and meekness and patience and kindness and charity. It has sweetened enjoyments and brightened and given a new zest to pleasures. It has sanctified and glorified common work and duties. It has given patience and fortitude to endure persecutions and sufferings and martyrdom and death in all its awful forms. It has cheered men amidst struggles, and upheld them in difficulties and depressions. It has soothed in pain and sickness and weakness, and in agony of body and mind. It has sustained and calmed human nature in the bitterest and most heartrending sorrows. It has consoled amid disappointments and failures and baffled hopes, and given relief amid racking cares and anxieties. It has brightened the terrible separations of death with the hope and promise of immortality. In all the worst anguish of life it has been the power, and the only one, to save from despair; and in the last struggles of death it has taken out deaths sting, given solace and calmness and hope and peace, and made the night of mortality radiant with the splendours of redeeming love.

2. It is not simply that Christ is about to die and desires to be remembered. He has a great Messianic purpose in saying This do in remembrance of me. The law of the Passover had run, This day shall be unto you for a memorial; and our Lord simply puts Himself or His death in the place of the Passover and bids His followers remember Him. The confidence with which He does so is nothing short of majestic, Divine. In the popular mind He is a failure. His enemies consider that they have defeated Him and extinguished His pretensions and His hopes. His best friends are nervous and trembling with forebodings. In His own mind alone is there a clear perception of the actual state of matters; in Him alone is there neither misgiving nor hesitation. Far from hiding from His followers the ignominious end that awaits Him, He speaks of it freely. He knows they will in a few hours be scattered. He tells them so; and yet, so far from apologizing for leading them into difficult and discreditable circumstances, so far from bidding them forgive and forget Him, He actually bids them set aside the event which was most memorable to them as Jews, and remember Him instead. His death is to be more to them than their emancipation from slavery in Egypt. By their connexion with Him they were to have so complete and all-sufficing a life that they, prouder of their nationality than any other people, might forget they were Jews. The Passover had done its work and served its purpose, and now it was to give place and make way for the celebration of the real deliverance of the race. Picture Him standing there on the eve of His death, knowing that His influence on the world in all time to come depended on His being remembered by these half-enlightened, incompetent, timorous men, and you see that nothing short of a Divine confidence could have enabled Him to put aside the very core and symbol of the Jewish religion and present Himself as the hope of the world.

When I muse upon the Blest

Who have left me for their rest,

When the solitary heart

Weeps within itself apart,

When all thoughts and longings fail

Een to touch the dark thin veil

Hanging motionless to screen

That fair place we have not seen;

Then I bless the Friend who left,

For the traveller bereft,

First, the Promise to His own,

Thou shalt be where I am gone;

Thou, when I return to reign,

Shalt be brought with me again;

Then, the sacramental Seal

Of their present, endless weal;

Of Himself, the living Bond

Twixt us here and them beyond;

And of all the joys that burn

Round the hope of His Return:

Tis the Feast of Heaven and Home

Do ye this, until He come.1 [Note: H. C. G. Moule, In the House of the Pilgrimage, 64.]

3. But the memory of Christ is the memory of more than His beautiful and gracious human life. It is the memory of One who through that life revealed God; of One, who said, I do not stand before you alone, and speak to you by My own wisdom merely. One is with Meone whom you know noteven God, God whom you must know, whom you must love, through knowledge and love of whom your souls must live; and whom, that you may know Him, I have come to reveal to you, and that you may love Him, I have come to reveal to you as your Father who loves you, who forgives all your trespasses, who calls you into fellowship with Himself. His memory is the memory of One who brought these glad tidings to men. They are glad tidings, in the knowledge of which we have been so trained, within the sound of which we have so habitually lived, that we cannot understand their fresh full life for those to whom they were a new revelation.

We live and move amid the glory and beauty of Gods fair worldin the clear air of heaven and the bright shining of the sun on high, and we never think of the priceless blessings of the blowing wind and the joyous sunshine, or of the loss that would be ours were we to be shut up from these in silence and darkness. But bring out the captive from the dungeon, where the air is thick and the light pale, and set him on the mountains brow, and he is unconscious almost of all else, save the glory and freedom of the wind and light. And so, could we whom use has hardened but transport ourselves for one hour from the society of men whose life, whether they will or not, is moulded by the principles of the revelation of Christfrom the atmosphere of a Christian land, from the knowledge of all Christian truth, from the offices of all Christian charity, from the neighbourhood of all Christian law, and custom, and cultureto a land where the name of Christ has never been heard, where the principles of His Church have never had even the feeblest recognition, where the Christian idea of God is utterly unknown, we should be able, in some sort, to realize the sense of light and liberty and confidence which must have filled the hearts of those who, waking from the foul dream of heathen night, or quitting the oppressive rites and ordinances of the Jewish Law, came into the presence of the Messenger of God, who said, God is your Father. He is in Me, and I am in Him. You see Him revealed in Me. He loves you with an everlasting love. Believe this, and your soul shall live.1 [Note: R. H. Story, Creed and Conduct, 114.]

4. How then are we to keep alive the remembrance of Christ? There is only one way that is entirely worthy, and that is to illustrate the noble spirit of the Sacrament in loving service. The best way to honour the memory of those we love is to live lives which they would approve. We are to interpret to the world the sacrifice of Christ by giving ourselves for others in some such way as He gave Himself for us. We best honour the memory of our dead soldiers by making the noblest use of the heritage which they purchased with their blood. Our praise would be hollow if we were false to our country and made merchandise of liberty and patriotism. We best honour the memory of Christ by exemplifying His spirit in our daily conduct.

Our Master was most human in the Upper Room, and with His last wish suggests irresistibly a mothers farewell. She does not remind her children that she has done all things for them at sore cost, for this was her joy. Nor does she make demands of hard service now any more than in the past. But one thing the mother hungereth and thirsteth for, and desireth not with words only but with her eyes as she looketh round on those she can no longer serve, but will ever love. Do not forget mehow few and short the words, how full and strong are they written out at large. Live as I would wish, believe as I have believed; meet me where I go.1 [Note: John Watson, The Upper Room, 78.]

When I forget Thee, like a sun-parched land

Which neither rain nor dew from heaven hath wet,

So my soul withers, and I understand

Wherefore Thou gavest me this high command

Not to forget.

When I forget the death which is my life,

How weak I am! how full of fear and fret!

How my heart wavers in a constant strife

With mists and clouds that gather round me rife,

When I forget!

Ah, how can I forget? And yet my heart

By dull oblivious thought is hard beset,

Bred in the street, the meadow, or the mart:

Yet Thou my strength and life and glory art,

Though I forget.

I will remember all Thy Love divine;

Oh meet Thou with me where Thy saints are met,

Revive me with the holy bread and wine,

And may my love, O God, lay hold on Thine,

And neer forget.

And not to-day alone, but evermore

Oh let me feel the burden of the debt

The load of sorrow that the Master bore,

The load of goodness that He keeps in store,

And not forget!2 [Note: Walter C. Smith, Poetical Works, 494.]

II

For what He has Done

The memory of Christ is the memory of One who closed His perfect life by the sacrifice of Himself; who sealed His testimony with His blood. It is indeed this, more than aught else, that the symbols which we use in this Sacrament bring home to us. It is to this that the words Christ uttered at His last supper chiefly point. This, said He, is my body which is given for you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. A death for us, a body wounded, blood poured forththis is what we are especially reminded of here. Why was that body wounded? Why was that blood shed? Does any one ask? He who asks will find plenty of excellent doctrines to give him abundant answer: but what appears always as the living centre of truth within all doctrine, and far above all, is the simple fact that that death was endured, that that sacrifice was offered; the simple fact that He who lived the perfect life and brought to us the saving message of a Fathers love knew that it was needful for our salvation that He should bow His head and die; knew that, without that death, sin in us could not be conquered, and death for us could not be overcome, and that therefore out of His true love to us He was content to die, that we through Him might live, that we, believing in His love and truth and seeing these to be stronger than even death itself, might thereby be rescued from the love and power of our sins, and might be reconciled to the Father, of whose love the Sons self-sacrifice was the Divine expression.

It happened once that a family had a father who was a benefactor to the State and did such service that after his death a statue was erected in a public place to his memory, and on the pedestal his virtues were engraven that all might read his name and revere his memory. His children mingled with the people as they stood in that square and listened to their fathers praise with pride. But their eyes were dry. This figure with civic robes, cut in stone, was not the man they knew and loved. Within the home were other memorials more intimate, more dear, more livinga portrait, a packet of letters, a Bible. As the family looked on such sacred possessions, they remembered him who had laboured for them, had trained them from first years, had counselled, comforted, protected them. All he had done for the big world was as nothing to what he had done for his own. When they gathered round the hearth he built, on certain occasions they spoke of him with gentler voices, with softened eyes while the strangers pass on the street. This Father is Jesus, and we are His children whom He has loved unto death.1 [Note: John Watson, The Upper Room, 84.]

1. We commemorate His death.He gives us as a remembrance of Him that which inevitably recalls Him as He died. It is His body broken, His blood poured out, that He sets before us. He does not give us a picture of Himself as He is now and as John saw Him in vision. He does not appeal to our imagination by setting before us symbols of unearthly majesty. He desires to be remembered as He was upon earth and in the hour of His deepest humiliation. And it is obvious why He does so. It is because in His death His nearness to us and His actual involvement in our life and in all our matters is most distinctly seen. It is because that is His most characteristic action; the action in which He uttered most of Himself, all that was deepest in Him and all that it most concerned men to know. And as we prize that portrait of a friend which brings out the best points in his character, even though it is old and he has changed much since it was taken, so do all the friends and followers of Christ think of Him as He was in His death. They believe He is alive now, and that now He is clothed with such manifest dignity and beauty as must attract boundless regard and admiration; but yet it is to the humble, self-sacrificing, bleeding Christ their thoughts persistently turn. It is there they find most to humble, most to encourage, most to win, most to purify, most to bind them to their Lord.

Those who have seen the Russian Pilgrims at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem have been impressed with the fervour with which they kiss the marble slab of anointing and other sacred objects connected with the Cross and Passion of our Saviour. So also in the shrines and churches at Moscow hundreds of peasants and ordinary business people can be seen at all hours of the day turning in to kneel for a few minutes and kiss some icon or picture of our Lord.1 [Note: F. S. Webster.]

2. We commemorate His death as the supreme act of His whole work of salvation.The Supper is the symbol of Christ giving up His life for us not only as the highest expression of self-sacrificing love, but in a far deeper sense as the ground upon which our sins can be forgiven and the Divine life imparted to the soul. Christs suffering for us differs from our suffering for one another by the whole diameter of human experience. No amount or degree of mere human suffering can atone for sin. Christs suffering was unique in that it was redemptive. Like ours it was an example, but unlike ours it was a dynamic. Christ did not die for the world to show His love for it in the dramatic and useless way that Portia stabbed herself to show her love for Brutus; Christ died to save the world as none other ever did or could. We cannot fathom the depth of the mystery of Christs death for sin, but this we know, that by it our sins are forgiven and we are brought into oneness with God.

What was Christs death? It was a willing surrender of Himself into the hands of the Father, knowing at the same time that it was the Fathers pleasure to bruise Him. It was a willing pouring out of all the hopes of the flesh founded on the idea of the continuance of present things; it was an acknowledgment of the righteousness of the judgment of sorrow and death, which, on account of transgression, God had laid on the flesh of which He had become a partaker. And at the same time, while it was a surrender of Himself in filial confidence into His Fathers hands, it was also in full assurance that He was to be gloriously rewarded, by being raised triumphantly from the dead as the New Head and Fountain of life to the Race, by taking hold of whom every child of Adam might be saved.1 [Note: Letters of Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, i. 250.]

Only to be as the dust that His wounded feet trod,

Only to know and to hear

His love, like the deep-throbbing pulse in the bosom of God,

Slaying my sorrow and fear!

Lord, I remember the sins and the shadows, and yet

I remember the light of Thy face.

Let me but die at Thy feet, and the black trembling horror forget,

And only remember Thy grace

Forgetting the darkness that walked with me all the way,

The shadow that froze me to see,

Only remembering the joy of the breaking of day

When my soul found Thee.2 [Note: L. Maclean Watt, The Communion Table, 16.]

3. We remember Him for what He has done in bringing us home to God.In the Sacrament there is a meeting between God and the soul, and the soul is taught to find its satisfaction in God. It is taught to look out of itself, beyond itself, for all that can change, and bless, and exalt, and ennoble it, and give it happiness. It is not taught to depend upon its own feelings, its earnestness of faith, its power of hope, its strength of love, or even its utter abnegation of self. It is not left to imagine that it can raise itself from its fallen state, and effect its own union with God. No, it is presented as in a state of hunger in this mysterious feast, craving for God, longing for the powers that are in God to be exercised upon it, and depending upon Gods own act to unite Himself to the soul. And the soul knows that this union is possible, that it can be made one with God through God the Son having been made man, and having died, and risen, through the working of His life in itself. The faith of the communicant may be expressed in one single sentence, Christ in me, the hope of glory.

Jesus, in Brownings beautiful phrase, calls the glory from the grey; from the heart of death itself He plucks the promise of life abounding. They shall come to see that His Body has been given for them, that His Blood has been the seal of a new friendship formed between them and their Father in heaven. In that holy feast they shall eat the one, and drink the other. Faith in Him will never die, while they do that.1 [Note: H. L. Goudge, The Holy Eucharist, 14.]

He that dwelleth in me and I in him, eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, that is, becomes Christ Himself, is a faithful repetition of His life and spirit in another and individual personality, is so transformed into His spiritual image that he can say with St. Paul, It is not I that live, but Christ that liveth in me. This is no mysterious, magical statement, but one in deep accordance with the experience of the human heart. No one who has loved another, or lost one he loved, who has felt the profound intertransference that passion makes, but will understand and value it. It gives a real force, a natural meaning to St. Pauls words, the communion of the body of Christ. The observance of the Lords Supper does not make that communion. It is the form among many others in which the idea of that communion is most visibly enshrined. But in enshrining that idea it enshrines another and a higher onecommunion with God.2 [Note: Stopford A. Brooke, Sunshine and Shadow, 214.]

III

For what He Is

1. The mode of remembrance appointed by our Lord reminds us that it is to the same kind of personal connexion with Him as the first disciples enjoyed that we are invited. We have the same symbol of our connexion with Him as they had. We are no more remote from His love, no more out of reach of His influence. All that He was to them He can be to us, and means to be to us. Our outward circumstances are very different from theirs, but the inward significance of Christs work and His power to save remain as they were.

As, when our Blessed Lord made Mary Magdalene feel and know that He was really present with her, she poured out her whole heart in the burning fervour of that acknowledgment, Rabboni.my Master, my Lord, my Allso by our every act and word we try to express to the Blessed Jesus what He is to us. Our whole soul fastens on Him. Our spirit has no eye for any one, or anything else. Our gaze is fixed on Him. He is with us, and we are with Him. We know what He is in Himself, how pure, how fair, how holy, how perfect. We know what He has been to us, how loving, how tender, how compassionate, how full of healing, and pardon, and peace. And so every hymn is full of His praises; and every gesture is an act of loving reverence to Him; and every sacred rite speaks of Him. We are in His court, and under His eye, and there is an interchange of love between Him and us. On our side there is the love of reverence. On His side there is the love of a gentle, fostering, soothing protection.

Above all, it was necessary for a right understanding, not only of Dr. Arnolds religious opinions, but of his whole character to enter into the peculiar feeling of love and adoration which he entertained towards our Lord Jesus Christpeculiar in the distinctness and intensity which, as it characterized almost all his common impressions, so in this case gave additional strength and meaning to those feelings with which he regarded not only His work of Redemption but Himself, as a living Friend and Master. In that unknown world in which our thoughts become instantly lost, it was (as he says in his third volume of sermons) his real support and delight to remember that still there is one object on which our thoughts and imaginations may fasten, no less than our affections; that amidst the light, dark from excess of brilliance, which surrounds the throne of God, we may yet discern the gracious form of the Son of Man.1 [Note: A. P. Stanley, Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, i. 32.]

2. Again, He bids us Do this, to remind us that we must daily renew our connexion with Him. He desires to be remembered under the symbol of food, of that which we must continually take by our own appetite, choice, and acceptance. We do not gather at the Lords Table to look at a crown, the symbol of a king who governs by delegates and laws and a crowd of officials, and with whom we have no direct connexion. We do not assemble to view the portrait of a father, who gave us life, but of whom we are now independent. We do not come to garland a tomb which contains the mortal part of one who was dear to us and who once saved our life. But we come to renew our connexion with One who seeks to enter into the closest relations with us, to win our love, to purify our nature, to influence our will. It is by maintaining this connexion with Him that we maintain spiritual life; by taking Him as truly into our spirit by our affections, by our choice, and by our faith as we take bread into our body.

Soon, all too soon, from this blest Sacrament

Back to the glare of day our feet are bent;

Soon wakes the week-day sun, and brings along

The cares and clamours of our human throng;

The worlds loud laughter, threats, or whisperd spells,

Lifes battles, burthens, weeping, songs, and knells.

But we who from that Paschal Chamber come

Still in its shadows find our quiet home,

Safe in its precincts, near our Masters heart,

Midst all the stress of travel, school, and mart.

And still that Cross goes with us on our way;

We feast on that great Sacrifice all day.

The sealing Symbol comes but then and there;

The Truth is ever ours, and everywhere;

Faith needs but stretch her hand and lift her eyes,

And ready still for use her Banquet always lies.2 [Note: H. C. G. Moule, In the House of the Pilgrimage, 68.]

3. And the Holy Supper had its heavenly counterpart. The Jews were wont to picture the felicity of the Kingdom of Heaven under the image of a glad feast. This world, said the Rabbi Jacob, is like a vestibule before the world to come: prepare thyself in the vestibule that thou mayest be admitted into the festal chamber. And it is written: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they which are bidden to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And the feast of the Passover was a foreshadowing of that heavenly banquet. It commemorated the exodus from the land of bondage, but it was more than a commemoration. It was a prophecy, and when the worshippers sat at the holy table, they thought not merely of the ancient deliverance but of the final home-gathering.

It is an ancient and abiding thought that the visible world is the shadow of the invisible, and everything which it contains has its eternal counterpart. This thought runs all through the Holy Scriptures. It finds its highest expression in the teaching of our Blessed Lord. In His eyes earth was a symbol of Heaven. He pointed to human fatherhood and said: See there an image of the Fatherhood of God. If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? And each familiar thingthe lamp, the net, the seed, the flowers, the birds, the wandering sheepserved Him as a parable.

For, nowise else,

Taught He the people; since a light is set

Safest in lanterns; and the things of earth

Are copies of the things in Heaven, more close,

More clear, more intricately linked,

More subtly than men guess. Mysterious,

Finger on lip,whispering to wistful ears,

Nature doth shadow Spirit.1 [Note: D. Smith, The Feast of the Covenant, 177.]

From Mentone, where he spent the first winter of his illness, Dr. Robertson wrote to his congregation at home:

By the time this may be read to you, your Spring Communion will be over. Again, from the hands of the officiating elders, or rather, as I trust, from Christs own pierced hand, you will have received the symbols of His sacrifice, and said, as you received Himself afresh into your hearts, This we do in remembrance of Thee. Again, the Great High Priest, King of Righteousness, and therefore also King of Peace, has brought down the bread and wine from the altar of His atonement to feed you, returning, weary from the battle, but I trust victorious over the evil; and in the strength of that meat may you go onward, conquering the evil, and battling for the right, and good and true, so as at last to have an entrance administered to you abundantly into the Kingdom, as part of the victorious Sacramental host of Gods Elect. 1 [Note: A. Guthrie, Robertson of Irvine, 287.]

In Remembrance

Literature

Armstrong (R. A.), Memoir with Sermons, 259.

Baring-Gould (S.), Our Parish Church, 153.

Coote (C.), At His Table, 7.

Davies (D.), Talks with Men, Women and Children, ii. 52.

Dawson (G.), Sermons on Disputed Points, 117.

Dods (M.), Christ and Man, 107.

Goudge (H. L.), The Holy Eucharist, 11.

Greenhough (J. G.), in Eden and Gethsemane, 115.

Grimley (H. N.), The Temple of Humanity, 213.

Hankey (W. B.), The Church and the Saints, 78.

Hannan (F. W.), in Drew Sermons for 1910, 265.

Hepworth (G. H.), in Sermons for Boys and Girls, ii. 347.

Horton (R. F.), The Commandments of Jesus, 297.

Hutton (R. E.), The Crown of Christ, ii. 343.

Ingram (A. F. W.), The Call of the Father, 230.

Ives (E. J.), The Pledges of His Love, 47.

Jeffrey (R. T.), Visits to Calvary, 1.

Jerdan (C.), For the Lords Table, 95. 135.

Macaskill (M.), A Highland Pulpit, 1.

McKim (R. H.), The Gospel in the Christian Year, 309.

Maclaren (A.), Sermons Preached in Manchester, i. 13.

Maclaren (A.), A Years Ministry, i. 99.

Macleod (D.), The Child Jesus, 83.

Mortimer (A. G.), Meditations on the Passion, i. 50.

Moule (H. C. G.), The Pledges of His Love, i. 79.

Randall (R. W.), Life in the Catholic Church, 186.

Smith (D.), The Feast of the Covenant, 173.

Smith (G. A.), The Forgiveness of Sins, 254.

Stephen (R.), Divine and Human Influence, ii. 65.

Story (R. H.), Creed and Conduct, 108.

Walpole (G. H. S.), Vital Religion, 101.

Watson (J.), The Upper Room, 77.

Watt (L. M.), The Communion Table, 13, 51.

Webster (F. S.), In Remembrance of Me, 1.

Wilson (J. M.), Truths New and Old, 94.

Woodward (H.), Sermons, 281, 293.

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

he took: Mat 26:26-28, Mar 14:22-24, 1Co 10:16, 1Co 11:23-29

gave thanks: Luk 22:17, Luk 24:30, Joh 6:23, 1Th 5:18

is my: Luk 22:20, Gen 41:26, Gen 41:27, Eze 37:11, Dan 2:38, Dan 4:22-24, Zec 5:7, Zec 5:8, 1Co 10:4, Gal 4:25

given: Joh 6:51, Gal 1:4, Eph 5:2, Tit 2:14, 1Pe 2:24

this do: Psa 78:4-6, Psa 111:4, Son 1:4, 1Co 11:24

Reciprocal: Gen 47:7 – And Jacob Exo 12:14 – memorial Exo 13:3 – Remember Exo 16:32 – General Exo 30:16 – a memorial Num 31:54 – a memorial Deu 16:3 – mayest Psa 48:9 – lovingkindness Psa 105:5 – Remember Eze 5:5 – This Mat 14:19 – he blessed Mat 15:36 – and gave thanks Mat 26:28 – my Luk 9:16 – he blessed Act 20:7 – to break Gal 4:24 – for Eph 5:25 – loved

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME

This do in remembrance of Me.

Luk 22:19

We may, perhaps, obtain clear views of the nature of this central rite of the Christian Church if we regard it from four standpoints. Let us look upon it as

I.An act of obedience.

II.A feast of thanksgiving.

III.A service of allegiance.

IV.A season of refreshment.

Illustration

How often should we come to the Lords Table? The Bible lays down no rule upon this point, and our Prayer Book only mentions three times a year, of which Easter shall be one, as a minimum. The service is one of free, spontaneous gratitude and love. The moment we begin to ask How often? we begin to forget its essential character. We then seek to impose hard and fast rules which tend to rob it of the spontaneity of love which should be its chief characteristic. But let us remember one thing: just in proportion as our hearts are set upon Christ and our lives are surrendered to Him, just in proportion as He occupies the centre of our affections, so shall we welcome with joy the opportunities of being the Kings guests at the Kings Table. The invitation, Draw near with faith, will never find us ready to make excuse. Our love for Him will be an elastic cord stretched between us, drawing us near to our Lord by its own tension.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

THE COMMUNION FEAST

The Blessed Sacrament is loves memorial.

I. It is a Communion.It is an occasion for praising God for dear ones gone before, on whom the light perpetual shines. In some human faces we have seen the reflection of the Divine: we have seen the face of God. And these faces come back to us in a fair vision at Communion times, when we bless Gods holy Name for all His servants departed this life in His faith and fear.

II. The Holy Supper speaks of Christ dying.As oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death (1Co 11:26). It points back to that meritorious Cross and Passion whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins. It brings afresh to our minds the Divinest scene in the Divinest Life.

III. The Holy Supper speaks of Christs coming.The table is to be spread till He come, and then there will be one flock and one Shepherd. So Christ promised (Joh 10:16). So Christ prayed (Joh 17:21). So Christ purposed, for to that end He died (Joh 11:52).

The Holy Supper is a connecting link between the first and Second Coming of Christ: like a rainbow having one end on Ascension Day and the other stretched out to the Second Advent.

Rev. F. Harper.

Illustrations

(1) My poor Romola, mourned her father Bernardo, I have only to die, but thou hast to live, and I shall not be there to help thee. Yes, replied Romola, you will help mealwaysbecause I shall remember you.

(2) Long ago in the Teaching of the Apostles they prayed: As this broken bread was once scattered in grains upon the mountains, and, being gathered together, became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

9

Jesus is now instituting his supper that is to become the weekly “breaking of bread” in the church (Act 20:7). This is my body was not said while they were in the Passover activities (see the notes in Matthew cited above). This do in remembrance of me could not apply to the Jewish feast.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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.

[This is my body.] The words of the institution of the holy eucharist throughout the whole contain a reflection, partly by way of antithesis, partly by way of allusion.

I. This is my body. Upon the account of their present celebration of the Passover, these words might very well have some reference to the body of the Paschal lamb: the body (I say) of the Paschal lamb. For the Jews use this very phrase concerning it: “They bring in a table spread, on which are bitter herbs, with other herbs, unleavened bread, pottage, and the body of the Paschal Lamb.” And a little after: he eateth of the body of the Passover. From whence our Saviour’s meaning may be well enough discerned; viz. That by the same signification that the Paschal lamb was my body hitherto, from henceforward let this bread be my body.

II. Which is given for you. But the apostle adds, “Which is broken for you”: which, indeed, doth not so well agree with the Paschal lamb as with the lamb for the daily sacrifice. For as to the Paschal lamb, there was not a bone of it broken; but that of the daily sacrifice was broken and cut into several parts; and yet they are both of them the body of Christ in a figure. And although, besides the breaking of it, there are these further instances wherein the Paschal lamb and that of the daily sacrifice did differ, viz., 1. that the daily sacrifice was for all Israel, but the Paschal for this or that family: 2. the daily sacrifice was for the atonement of sin; the Passover not so: 3. the daily sacrifice was burnt, but the Passover eaten: yet in this they agreed, that under both the body of our Saviour was figured and shadowed out, though in a different notion.

III. This do in remembrance of me. As you kept the Passover in remembrance of your going out of Egypt. “Thou shalt remember the day of thy going out of Egypt all the days of thy life. Ben Zuma thus explains it; The days of thy life, that is, in the day time: all the days of thy life, that is, in the night time too. But the wise men say, The days of thy life, that is, in this age: all the days of thy life, that the days of the Messiah may be included too.” But whereas, in the days of the Messiah there was a greater and more illustrious redemption and deliverance than that out of Egypt brought about; with the Jews’ good leave, it is highly requisite, that both the thing itself and he that accomplished it should be remembered. We suspect in our notes upon 1 Corinthians_11, as if some of the Corinthians, in their very participation of the holy eucharist, did so far Judaize, that what had been instituted for the commemoration of their redemption by the death of Christ, they perverted to the commemoration of the going out of Egypt; and that they did not at all ‘discern the Lord’s body’ in the sacrament.

Under the law there were several eatings of holy things. The first was that which Siphra mentions, when the priests eat of the sacrifice, and atonement is made for him that brings it. There were other eatings, viz., of the festival sacrifices of the tenths, thanksgiving-offerings, etc., which were to be eaten by those that brought them; but these all now have their period: and now, Do ye this; and do it in remembrance of me.

IV. This cup…which is shed for you. This seems to have reference to that cup of wine that was every day poured out in the drink offerings with the daily sacrifice; for that also was poured out for the remission of sins. So that the bread may have reference to the body of the daily sacrifice, and the cup to the wine of the drink offering.

V. My blood of the new testament. So St. Matthew and St. Mark with reference to “the blood of bulls and of goats,” with which the old testament was confirmed, Exodus_24; Heb 9:19.

VI. The new testament in my blood. So our evangelist and so the apostle, 1 Corinthians_11 with reference to the whole ministry of the altar, where blood was poured out; nay, with respect to the whole Jewish religion, for here was the beginning or entry of the new covenant. And indeed it seems that the design of that frequent communion of the Lord’s supper in the first ages of the church, among other things, was, that those who were converted from Judaism might be sealed and confirmed against Judaism; the sacrament itself being the mark of the cessation of the old testament and the beginning of the new.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Luk 22:19. Given. Given to death, as the sequel shows, and as Luk 22:20 involves.

For you. This may mean in behalf of you, but such a surrender to death had necessarily a vicarious character.

This do in remembrance of me. Peculiar to Luke and Paul, and pointing to the establishment of a permanent feast. Whatever else the Lords Supper may be, this passage proves that it is a memorial service, commemorating the atoning death of our Master.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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 , 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 Lords 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 Gods 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 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 Christs 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 Christs 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 mens 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 mens 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 Christs death in the world, as a simple fact, the only end of the Lords supper. We may observe, further, that from our Lords words, here recorded, and from those wherewith the apostle has concluded his account of the Lords supper, 1Co 11:26, As often as ye eat this bread, &c., ye do show (, ye preach, ye declare) the Lords death till he come, it appears this sacrament was instituted, not only to bring Christs 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 Lords 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.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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 . 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 is, in any case, taken from the preceding , 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 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 , likewise.

The word , the cup, is the object of the two verbs … at the beginning of Luk 22:19. The art. 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 () 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 and is the verbal idea taken from the subst. (): 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 Paulis 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. , 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 , many, of Isa 53:12, the of 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 narratorsif they be regarded ever so little as seriously believingarbitrarily 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 instead of ). 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 ( ) 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 workthe 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?

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

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]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

THE LORDS 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 Lords 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 Pharaohs 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 Lords 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 Lords 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.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

22:19 {5} 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.

(5) Christ establishes his new covenant and his communication with us by new symbols.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

2. The institution of the Lord’s Supper 22:19-20 (cf. Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Luke’s account stresses Jesus’ linking of His self-giving with the bread and His giving Himself for the disciples specifically, instead of for the "many" generally (Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24; cf. Jer 31:31-34; Jer 32:37-40). According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus announced that He would not drink the fruit of the vine until He did so in the kingdom after instituting the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:29; Mar 14:25). Perhaps Jesus repeated this announcement then. If so, this would have been Jesus’ third reference to the coming kingdom (cf. Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18). On the other hand, Luke probably rearranged the order of events and recorded Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper after His promise not to drink again.

Luke’s account is more similar to Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 11 than it is to Matthew or Mark’s. This seems to be one indication that Paul influenced Luke as he wrote his Gospel as well as Acts. Alternatively Luke may have influenced Paul.

Jesus invested the common elements of unleavened bread and diluted wine with new significance. The bread represented His body given sacrificially for His disciples. The disciples were to eat it, as He did, symbolizing their appropriation of Him and their consequent union with Him. The cup, representing what was in it, symbolized the ratification of the New Covenant with Jesus’ blood (Jer 31:31-34; cf. Exo 24:8). [Note: See Rodney J. Decker, "The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.]

". . . Jesus meant that the new covenant would take effect through that which the contents of the cup signified, namely, his sacrificial death." [Note: Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 126. Cf. Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p. 806.]

Much of the New Testament is an exposition of the significance of Jesus’ sacrificial death to which He referred so cogently here. Luke stressed that Jesus gave His body and poured out His blood "for you." However "in remembrance of me" encouraged the disciples to focus on the person of Jesus Christ and not just the benefits of His death for them. [Note: See Eugene H. Merrill, "Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):27-36.] Jesus commanded His disciples to remember Him. This is not optional for us (cf. 1Co 11:24-26).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)