Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
23. For I have received of the Lord ] Literally, For I received of the Lord. Reason why St Paul could not praise the Corinthians. Their conduct was a gross profanation of a rite which had been so solemnly instituted by Christ. These words, especially if we notice the emphatic use of the pronoun, seem to imply that St Paul had received from the Risen Lord’s own lips (see ch. 1Co 9:1 and note) the account of the institution of the Holy Communion which he now gives the Corinthians. He does not say ‘from the disciples of the Lord,’ but ‘from the Lord’ (“An authentic explanation given by the Risen Christ concerning His Sacrament,” Olshausen). And it is remarkable that while it differs in some respects from that given by St Matthew and St Mark, this account by St Paul corresponds closely to that found in his friend and disciple St Luke’s narrative. This circumstance is a strong corroboration of the evidence for the authenticity of both Gospel and Acts, for it confirms the evidence we have that both were written by one closely connected with St Paul. Some have thought that we have here the earliest account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; but the Gospel of St Matthew was possibly in existence by this time, and if we are to regard 2Co 8:18 (see Collect for St Luke’s Day) as referring to the Gospel of St Luke, that, too, must have been in existence before or about the time when this Epistle was written.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For … – In order most effectually to check the evils which existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lords Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the particular object which it had in view – the commemoration of the death of the Redeemer, and the purpose which it was designed to subserve, which was not that of a festival, but to keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus until he should again return, 1Co 11:26. By this means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent, vituperative language, but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as the followers of the Lord Jesus.
I have received of the Lord – This cannot refer to tradition, or mean that it had been communicated to him through the medium of the other apostles; but the whole spirit and scope of the passage seems to mean that he had derived the knowledge of the institution of the Lords supper directly from the Lord himself. This might have been when on the road to Damascus, though that does not seem probable, or it may have been among the numerous revelations which at various times had been made to him; compare 2Co 12:7. The reason why he here says that he had received it directly from the Lord is, doubtless, that he might show them that it was of divine authority. The institution to which I refer is what I myself received an account of from personal and direct communication with the Lord Jesus himself, who appointed it. It is not, therefore, of human authority. It is not of my devising, but is of divine warrant, and is holy in its nature, and is to be observed in the exact manner prescribed by the Lord himself.
That which also I delivered … – Paul founded the church at Corinth; and of course he first instituted the observance of the Lords Supper there.
The same night in which he was betrayed – By Judas; see Mat 26:23-25, Mat 26:48-50. Paul seems to have mentioned the fact that it was on the very night on which he was betrayed, in order to throw around it the idea of greater solemnity. He wished evidently to bring before their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of his death; and thus to show them the utter impropriety of their celebrating the ordinance with riot and disorder, The idea is, that in order to celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful to throw themselves as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was instituted; and one of these circumstances most suited to affect the mind deeply was the fact that he was betrayed by a professed friend and follower. It is also a circumstance the memory of which is eminently suited to prepare the mind for a proper celebration of the ordinance now.
Took bread – Evidently the bread which was used at the celebration of the paschal supper. He took the bread which happened to be before him – such as was commonly used. It was not a wafer such as the papists now use; but was the ordinary bread which was eaten on such occasions; see the note on Mat 26:26.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord Jesus that which also I delivered unto you.
Giving as we receive
At a sailors meeting a seaman prayed, Lord, make us ships with two hatchways; one to take in cargo, and the other to give it out. A good prayer; Paul knew its answer, I have received of the Lord that which, also I delivered unto you (1Co 11:23). We are not storehouses; we are ships intended to trade with the heavenly country and bring supplies for a needy world. Always loading ends in overloading; if we unload, we shall soon be reloaded. He who keeps his talent in a napkin, will lose both napkin and talent; one will rot, and the other rust.
The Lords Supper
Four things strike us with amazement:–
I. That any should doubt the genuineness of Christianity. Here is an institution that was started the night previous to our Saviours crucifixion, and which from that to this hour, through eighteen long centuries, has been attended to by all the branches of the true Church. Since its origin thousands of generations have passed away, many systems have risen and disappeared, nations have been organised, flourished, and broken up, but this ordinance continues. And what for? To commemorate the great central fact of the gospel, viz., that Christ died. Is there any other fact in history sustained by evidence half so powerful as this?
II. That any should misinterpret this ordinance. It is to show forth the Lords death. There are three abuses of this institution which imply the grossest misinterpretation.
1. The gustatory. The Corinthians thus abused it. Hence, in the preceding verses he says, When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper, etc. They had been accustomed, in their heathen festivals, to give way to gluttony and intemperance. Many of them, from the force of old habits, were tempted to use the Lords Supper in this way, hence they were guilty of profaning the institution. Thus, they ate and drank unworthily, and by so doing ate and drank condemnation to themselves.
2. The superstitious. There are some who believe that after the words of consecration pronounced by the priest over these elements, the elements become carnally the body and blood of the Lord. This is transubstantiation.
3. The formalistic. There are those who partake of the bread and wine merely as a matter of ceremony. It is regarded as the proper thing to be done, and is done mechanically. We evangelical Christians are not guilty of the first nor the second, but we may be of the third. Let us examine ourselves; so let us eat, etc.
III. That any should say the institution is not permanent in its obligation. The apostle tells us distinctly that it was to show forth the Lords death till He come. On to that distant point the obligation is binding. There are some professing Christians who think themselves too spiritual to observe such an ordinance. These very spiritual ones, to be consistent, should avoid all scientific studies, for science has to do with material forms. They should also avoid all Biblical studies, for Biblical truths are, for the most part, embodied in material facts. Christ Himself was flesh and blood.
IV. That any acquainted with the biography of Christ should neglect it. Consider–
1. That it is to commemorate the worlds greatest Benefactor that has served the world–
(1) In the highest way, effected its deliverance from sin and hell.
(2) By the most unparalleled sacrifice.
(3) With the most disinterested love.
2. It is enjoined by the worlds greatest Benefactor, under the most touching circumstances. How amazing it is that men should neglect it!
Conclusion: The excuses that men make for neglecting this are singularly absurd.
1. A man will sometimes say, I can be saved without it. We ask, who told you so? What is damnation? What but disobedience to Christ? And he who neglects this institution disobeys Him.
2. Another man will say, I am unfit for it. We say, if you are unfit for this you are unfit for any other religious observance; unfit to read the Bible, sing, or pray, nor can you ever become fit by neglecting your duty. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
The sacrament of the Lords Supper of Divine institution
I. What is a sacrament? In general, the visible sign of an invisible grace.
1. As God hath used covenants, so also sacraments always.
2. They are part, not of His natural, but instituted worship.
3. They are all pledges of the covenant of grace.
4. They all represent Christ the Mediator–
(1) To suffer.
(2) Or having suffered.
5. In all sacraments there are two parts.
(1) The thing signified.
II. What is the Lords supper? A sacrament, wherein the outward signs are bread and wine.
III. What are we to understand by Divine institution? That it was instituted of God, as the others were not, which the Church of Rome maintains to be sacraments, viz., confirmation, orders, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.
IV. How does it appear to be of Divine institution (Luk 22:19-20).
V. Wherefore was it instituted by God?
1. When God had made man, He entered into a covenant of works with him (Lev 18:5).
2. This covenant man broke, and so became miserable.
3. Hence God, of His mercy, enters into a covenant of grace (Jer 31:33).
4. This covenant of grace was established in Christ (Heb 12:21; 2Co 1:20).
5. This covenant man is also apt to miscarry in; so as–
(1) To be forgetful of it.
(2) Not to believe in it.
(3) To receive no benefit from it.
6. Hence God instituted this sacrament.
(1) To make us mindful of this covenant and Christ (Luk 22:19).
(2) To confirm and seal it to us (Rom 4:11).
(3) To convey the benefits of it to us.
Conclusion:
1. Be thankful for this sacrament.
2. Do not neglect the use of it.
3. Prepare yourselves for it.
(1) Acquaint yourselves with the nature of it.
(2) Repent.
(3) Act faith in Christ. (Bp. Beveridge.)
The doctrine of the Holy Communion
I. It is a memorial of the sacrifice of the death of Christ.
1. See how closely it is connected with that death. Consider–
(1) The time; Christ and His apostles had met for the last time before He died.
(2) The action; the breaking being a sign of the dissolution of the body, the separation of body and soul in death, and also that His death was an act of free-will. He had power over His life to take it up and lay it down, just as of His own accord He took up from the table the bread, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples to eat.
2. To this picture the three Evangelists and St. Paul all describe the Lord as blessing, or giving thanks, as He brake the bread. And so this also afterwards passed as a synonym for the sacrament. St. Paul calls it the cup of blessing, and among us it has the name of Eucharist.
3. Since the sacrifice of the death of Christ is the cause of our justification, our chief concern must be to make sure of our partaking of it. It is one thing to say Christ died for all; another, Christ died for me. Therefore every man for himself must stretch forth this hand of faith and take to himself, appropriate, his part in the atoning sacrifice. The sacrament is an instrument for such an appropriation.
II. A means of present communion with Christ. As it was the work of Christ of His own free-will and grace to offer His body upon the Cross, so now every fruit of that sacrifice which we gather in His Church comes fresh from His living hand, and His work, and is nothing less. Lo, I am with you always, is the secret of our life in the Church; and nowhere more effectually than in the holy sacrament is His presence made real and true to the eye of faith. The manner of our Lords presence cannot be explained, but His presence in some supernatural form is there, or the text has no proper sense.
III. The highest act of worship in the Church.
1. The faithful Christian, in preparation for this holy act, examines himself, and confesses his unworthiness.
2. Then we make an offering of our stores, which, though small, is at least a symbol of homage.
3. Then the oblation of bread and wine is blessed and taken into His service–an offering of the first-fruits, in acknowledgment that lifes bounties are His gift.
4. Then comes an oblation of greater significance. The worshipper offers himself with a free heart to receive Christ, and in return gives himself to God.
5. Above all, we come nearest to the work of heaven itself, where the Church worships God in the presence of the Lamb as it had been slain. So in the Church below our highest act of worship is celebrated in that place, where the Lamb of God and His sacrifice is brought most near to us. (C. W. Furse, M.A.)
This do in remembrance of Me
If Christ had said, Build Me some fine cathedral that shall stand as a memorial to Me, how we would have poured out our contributions that somewhere in this world there might stand some central temple, over which the cross on which He hung should tower throughout the ages! But the cathedral would have passed into hands of men corrupted by ambition. He made His monument of loving hearts. Only this do: Sometimes sit down together; sometimes remember that last occasion when I grasped the hands of those I loved, looked into their faces, and heard their voices. He longs to be remembered as love always longs to be remembered. He wanted not His name to be blotted out of human memory, nor His personality to be forgotten from throbbing hearts. He commands and guides you in many things. He gives you opportunity to serve His children, His poor, in many ways; but there is only one personal request He makes of you, that now and again, at some supper table, with simply bread and wine, you shall, as they that love Him have throughout all ages, perpetuate His memory and show your love for Him. (Lyman Abbott.)
The remembrance of Christ
I saw behind an hotel in Switzerland a fine garden, and I unexpectedly found there American flowers, and being far away from home, and half homesick, they afforded me great pleasure. Every one of them seemed like a message to me full of affection by association. So the remembrance of Christ in the Lords Supper rekindles our love to Him. (H. W. Beecher.)
Expressive symbols
I cannot bring back my little child, but I can take a locket and look at his face, and he springs to life in my inward thought. There are scenes in my childhood that I cannot tread again, but a very simple memorial, a little dried flower, or some little yellow faded note brings back again the sweet sense of an early experience. And so, by some such very simple symbol, we can bring again before us the Saviour broken for us, His blood shed for us, His love so great, dying to give us life. (H. W. Beecher.)
The purpose of the Lords Supper
We soon forget objects which are removed from our sight; and our Lord, who knows and pities this weakness of our nature, has given us an abiding memorial of Himself. He has appointed an ordinance for this very purpose, to remind us of His love. All our fresh springs are in our crucified Lord, and therefore He brings Himself frequently before us as our crucified Lord that we may go to Him as the great source of our mercies, and take of His blessings. (Dean Bradley.)
The Lords Supper, a simple memorial
We need not look for great things in order to discover great truths. To those who reach after God, He will reveal His deepest secrets through things insignificant in themselves, within the routine of common lives. No event occurs more regularly than the daily meal, none, perhaps, gathers around it so many pleasant associations. Its simplest form, in Christs time, consisted in eating bread and drinking a cup of wine. Into this act, one evening, He gathered all the meaning of the ancient sacrifices, all sacred and tender relation between Himself and His followers, and all the prophecies of His perfected kingdom.
That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread.—
Christ taking bread, and our taking it from Him
I. He took bread.
1. Why did Christ choose so cheap and common a thing to exhibit His body in?
(1) Herein He graciously provided for the poor. Had He appointed some costly recipe, the poor could not procure it for themselves, and the charity of the rich would not purchase it for others.
(2) Had He instituted it in some precious element, people might have imputed the efficacy thereof to its natural worth and working, not to Christs institution. Christ therefore chooseth a thing so mean in itself, that it cannot eclipse God of His glory; none can be so mad as to attribute to plain bread itself such spiritual operation. Let us take heed how we despise the simplicity of Gods ordinance. Say not with Naaman, Are not Abana and Pharpar, etc. Is not the bread at the bakers, and the wine at the vintners, as good as that in the sacrament? And far be it from us to seek with our own inventions to beguard that which God will have plain. Rather let us pray, that our eyes may be anointed with that eye-salve, to see majesty in the meanness, and the state in the simplicity, of the sacraments.
2. But amongst such variety of cheap elements, why was bread preferred? To show our bodies can as well subsist without bread, as our souls without a Saviour. It is called the staff of bread; other meats are but as pretty wands to whisk in our hands. Without bread no feast; with bread no famine.
II. He said unto them, Take, i.e., in their hands, and put it to their mouth; not as the custom lately introduced in the Romish Church, for the priest to put it in the mouth of every communicant. But it is pleaded, that it is unmannerly for laymen to handle Christs body; and therefore it is most reverence to take it with their mouths.
1. There is no such clown in Christianity as he who will be more mannerly than God will have him. It is most reverence for us to do as God commands us. Ahaz tempted God in saying, be would not tempt Him (Isa 7:12). Those do little better who, more nice than wise, strain courtesy not to take Christs body in their hands, when He reaches it.
2. Take it strictly, and our mouths are as unworthy as our hands to receive Christs body. But, seeing it is Christs pleasure to come under the roof of our mouth, let Him also pass through the porch of our hands. The rather because it seemeth that we entertain Christs body in more state, and with more observance towards it, when the more servants attend it, the more members of our body using their service in receiving it.
3. The Romish custom loseth the significancy of the hand of faith. The taking Christs body in our hands mindeth us spiritually by faith to apprehend and lay hold on His mercies and merits. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 23. I have received of the Lord] It is possible that several of the people at Corinth did receive the bread and wine of the eucharist as they did the paschal bread and wine, as a mere commemoration of an event. And as our Lord had by this institution consecrated that bread and wine, not to be the means of commemorating the deliverance from Egypt, and their joy on the account, but their deliverance from sin and death by his passion and cross; therefore the apostle states that he had received from the Lord what he delivered; viz. that the eucharistic bread and wine were to be understood of the accomplishment of that of which the paschal lamb was the type-the body broken for them, the blood shed for them.
The Lord Jesus-took bread] See the whole of this account, collated with the parallel passages in the four Gospels, amply explained in my Discourse on the Eucharist, and in the notes on Matt. 26:12.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
About these love feasts preceding the Lords supper, I have received nothing from the Lord, you have taken the practice up from the Jews or heathens: I do not know that it is unlawful for you civilly to feast, and eat and drink in your private houses; but to come to make such feasts immediately before you religiously eat and drink at the Lords table, I have received no order from the Lord for any such practice. I have told you what I received from the Lord, which is no more than:
That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: see this in the evangelists, Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19; where all these words are opened. Some think that Paul received this from the Lord by immediate revelation (as it is thought Moses received the history we have in Genesis and part of Exodus, which relates to a time before he was born, or arrived at mans estate). Others think that he received it from St. Lukes writings (for the words are quoted according to his Gospel). Others think he received it from some other of the apostles. Certain it is, that he did receive it from the Lord; how, is uncertain.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
23. His object is to show theunworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.
IEmphatic in theGreek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord’sinstitution.
received of the Lordbyimmediate revelation (Ga 1:12;compare Act 22:17; Act 22:18;2Co 12:1-4). The renewal ofthe institution of the Lord’s Supper by special revelation to Paulenhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke’s and Paul’saccount of the institution, favors the supposition that the formerdrew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel hewas. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.
nightthe time fixedfor the Passover (Ex 12:6):though the time for the Lord’s Supper is not fixed.
betrayedWith thetraitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left thisordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Thoughabout to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of Hisamazing love to man.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For I have received of the Lord,…. The apostle observes unto them the rule, use, and end of the Lord’s supper; his view in it is, to correct the disorders among them, and to bring them to a strict regard to the rule which had such a divine authority stamped upon it; and to observe to them, that in that supper all equally ate and drank; and that the end of it was not a paschal commemoration, but a remembrance of Christ, and a declaration of his sufferings and death. The divine authority of the Lord’s supper is here expressed; it was not only instituted by him as Lord, having all power and authority in and over his churches, to appoint what ordinances he pleases; but the plan and form of administration of it were received from him by the apostle. This was not a device of his, nor an invention of any man’s, nor did he receive the account from men, no not from the apostles; but he had it by revelation from Christ, either when he appeared to him at his first conversion, and made him a minister of the Gospel; or when he was caught up into the third heaven, and heard things unspeakable and unutterable:
that which also I delivered unto you; for whatever he received from Christ, whether a doctrine or an ordinance, he faithfully delivered to the churches, from whom he kept back nothing that was profitable, but declared the whole counsel of God unto them: now this he refers the Corinthians to, as a sure rule to go by, and from which they should never swerve; and whatever stands on divine record as received from Christ, and delivered by his apostles, should be the rule of our faith and practice, and such only;
that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed; or delivered; as he was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God the Father, and as he was by himself, who voluntarily gave himself up into the hands of men, justice and death, for our offences; and so the Arabic version reads it here, “in the night in which he delivered up himself”; as he did in the garden to Judas and his company: it was in the night when he came in search of him with officers, and a band of soldiers, and when he betrayed him and delivered him into their hands; and that same night, a little before, our Lord instituted and celebrated the ordinance of the supper with his disciples. The time is mentioned partly with regard to the passover it followed, which was killed in the evening and ate the same night in commemoration of God’s sparing the firstborn of Israel, when at midnight he destroyed all the firstborn of Egypt, and so was a night to be observed in all generations; and because this feast was to be a supper, and therefore it is best to observe it in the evening, or decline of the day. The circumstance of Judas’s betraying him is mentioned, not only because it was in the night, and a work of darkness; but being in the same night he instituted the supper, shows the knowledge he had of his death by the means of the betrayer, and his great love to his disciples, his church and people, in appointing such an ordinance in remembrance of him, and his death, when he was just about to leave them:
took bread; from off the table, out of the dish, or from the hands of the master of the house; an emblem of his body, and of his assumption of human nature; of his taking upon him the nature of the seed of Abraham, of that body which his Father prepared for him, in order to its being broken; or that he might in it endure sufferings and death for his people.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Design of the Lord’s Supper. | A. D. 57. |
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in the reformation of all abuses.
I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them, v. 23. He had the knowledge of this matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated, without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.
II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,
1. Of the author–our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the church only has power to institute sacraments.
2. The time of the institution: It was the very night wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which are therein to be commemorated.
3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Matt. xxvi. 26), he broke, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me,Rom 11:24; Rom 11:25. Here observe,
(1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bade them all drink of it (ch. xxvi. 27), as if he would, by this expression, lay in a caveat against the papists’ depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour, though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide Lightfoot on Matt. xxvi. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by these outward signs; they are Christ’s body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his blood.
(2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour’s actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples, and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life, Col. iii. 4.
(3.) We have here an account of the ends of this institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his death, at God’s right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ’s death, to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.
(4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, c. Our bodily meals return often we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord’s day, if not every day when they assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord’s will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father’s glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord’s supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.
III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27), of violating this sacred institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb. x. 29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment to themselves, v. 29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery. Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord’s table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord’s body–not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord’s supper may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world, v. 32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Heb. xii. 6), especially with so merciful a purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is kindness to use the rod to prevent the child’s ruin. He will visit such iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves; at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.
IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the Lord’s table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (v. 28), try and approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who would be welcome at this marriage-feast–grace in habit, and grace in exercise. 2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, v. 31. If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Matt. vii. 1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but should be very candid in judging others.
V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (Rom 11:33; Rom 11:34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord’s table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God’s worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
For I received of the Lord ( ). Direct claim to revelation from the Lord Jesus on the origin of the Lord’s Supper. Luke’s account (Lu 22:17-20) is almost identical with this one. He could easily have read I Corinthians before he wrote his Gospel. See 15:3 for use of both and . Note in both verbs. Paul received the account from (—) the Lord and passed it on from himself to them, a true (tradition) as in 11:2.
He was betrayed (). Imperfect passive indicative (irregular form for , Robertson, Grammar, p. 340). Same verb as (first aorist active indicative just used for “I delivered”).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I received [ ] . I is emphatic, giving the weight of personal authority to the statement. The question whether Paul means that he received directly from Christ, or mediately through the apostles or tradition, turns on a difference between two prepositions. Strictly, ajpo from or of, with the Lord, would imply the more remote source, from the Lord, through the apostles; but Paul does not always observe the distinction between this and para, from the preposition of the nearer source (see Greek, Col 1:7; Col 3:24); and this latter preposition compounded with the verb received, the emphatic I, and the mention of the fact itself, are decisive of the sense of an immediate communication from Christ to Paul. 119 Also [] . Important as expressing the identity of the account of Jesus with his own.
He was betrayed [] . Imperfect tense, and very graphic. he was being betrayed. He instituted the Eucharist while His betrayal was going on.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For I have received of the Lord.” (ego gar paralabon apo tou kuriou) “For I took or received (intimately, alongside of) from the Lord.” This instruction regarding the Lord’s Supper was not merely second-hand, received from others, Gal 1:11-12; Gal 1:16; Eph 3:3-5.
2) “That which also I delivered unto you.” (ho kai paredoka humin) “What also I delivered over or gave to your trust.” The matter of the Lord’s Supper had been personally explained, given over, or committed to the Corinth church by Paul while he had formerly been with them.
3) “That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.” (hoti ho kurios iesous en te nukti he paredidoto elaben arton) “That the Lord Jesus in the very night He was betrayed took bread.” The scripture is clear, specific regarding the night-time and which night he took bread for this ordinance-establishing event.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Hitherto he has been exposing the abuse; (667) now he proceeds to show what is the proper method of rectifying it. For the institution of Christ is a sure rule, so that if you turn aside from it but a very little, you are out of the right course. Hence, as the Corinthians had deviated from this rule, he calls them back to it. It is a passage that ought to be carefully observed, as showing that there is no remedy for correcting and purging out abuses, short of a return to God’s pure institution. Thus the Lord himself — when he was discoursing respecting marriage, (Mat 19:3,) and the Scribes brought forward custom, and also the permission given by Moses — simply brings forward his Father’s institution, as being an inviolable law. When we do this at the present day, the Papists cry out, that we are leaving nothing untouched. (668) We openly demonstrate, that it is not in one point merely that they have degenerated from our Lord’s first institution, but that they have corrupted it in a thousand ways. Nothing is more manifest than that their Mass is diametrically opposed to the sacred Supper of our Lord. I go farther — we show in the plainest manner, that it is full of wicked abominations: hence there is need of reformation. We demand — what it appears Paul had recourse to — that our Lord’s institution be the common rule, to which we agree on both sides to make our appeal. This they oppose with all their might. Mark then the nature of the controversy at this day in reference to the Lord’s Supper.
23 I received from the Lord. In these words he intimates, that there is no authority that is of any avail in the Church, but that of the Lord alone. “ I have not delivered to you an invention of my own: I had not, when I came to you, contrived a new kind of Supper, according to my own humor, but have Christ as my authority, from whom I received what I have delivered unto you, in the way of handing it over.” (669) Return, then, to the original source. Thus, bidding adieu to human laws, the authority of Christ will be maintained in its stability.
That night in which he was betrayed. This circumstance as to time instructs us as to the design of the sacrament — that the benefit of Christ’s death may be ratified in us. For the Lord might have some time previously committed to the Apostles this covenant-seal, (670) but he waited until the time of his oblation, that the Apostles might see soon after accomplished in reality in his body, what he had represented to them in the bread and the wine Should any one infer from this, that the Supper ought, therefore, to be celebrated at night and after a bodily repast, I answer, that, in what our Lord did, we must consider what there is that he would have to be done by us. It is certain, that he did not mean to institute a kind of nightly festival, like that in honor of Ceres, (671) and farther, that it was not his design to invite his people to come to this spiritual banquet with a well-filled stomach. Such actions of Christ as are not intended for our imitation, should not be reckoned as belonging to his institution. (672) In this way, there is no difficulty in setting aside that subtilty of Papists, by which they shift off (673) what I have already stated as to the duty of maintaining and preserving Christ’s institution in its simplicity. “We will, therefore,” say they, “ not receive the Lord’s Supper except at night, and we will therefore take it — not when fasting, but after having dined.” All this, I say, is mere trifling; for it is easy to distinguish what our Lord did, in order that we might imitate it, or rather what he did with the view of commanding us to do the like.
(667) “ Qu’ils commettoyent en la Cene;” — “Which they had fallen into as to the Supper.”
(668) “ Que nous gastons tout, et ne laissons rien en son entier;” — “That we are destroying everything, and are leaving nothing entire.”
(669) Our Author seems to allude here to what he had said previously, when commenting on 1Co 4:1, as to the duty devolving on stewards of the mysteries of God. — Ed.
(670) “ Car le Seigneur pouuoit bien quelque temps deuant ordonner a ses Apostres l’obseruation de ce Sacrement;” — “For the Lord might have on some previous occasion appointed to his Apostles the observance of this Sacrament.”
(671) “ Vne ceremonie, qui ne peust faire que de nuit, comme les Payens auoyent la feste de Ceres;” — “A ceremony which could only be observed at night, as the heathens held the festival of Ceres.” The time when the festival was held, was in accordance with the peculiar secrecy with which its rites were observed. — Ed.
(672) “ Pour partie, ou de la substance de son institution;” — “As a part of his institution, or of the essence of it.”
(673) “ Ils se mocquent;” — “They deride.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(23) For I have received of the Lord.Better, For I received from the Lord. Do these words imply that St. Paul had a direct revelation from Christ of the words and facts which he now recalls, or merely that he knew from the accounts given him by others who had been present, what took place on that memorable and solemn occasion?
The whole structure of the passage seems to imply that what follows had been received by St. Paul directly from Christ, and that he is not appealing to a well-known tradition, in which case he would scarcely have used the singular, I received, nor to something which he had learnt from the other Apostles, in which case he would not have said I emphatically (the word being emphasised by expression in the Greek), nor from the Lord, for the other Apostles had not received their knowledge of these facts from the Lord, but from their own observation and hearing. How Christ thus communicated these truths to His new Apostle we are not told. The method of communication (whether in a trance, or state of ecstasy, or any other supernatural manner) does not appear to cause either doubt or difficulty to those to whom the Apostle conveyed the information thus miraculously bestowed upon him.
That which also I delivered unto you.The Apostle was not now for the first time communicating these solemn facts to the Corinthians. He had told them all this before, and therefore they were sinning against knowledge when they degraded a feast which they knew to be so solemn to a purpose so unworthy.
There now follows an account of the institution of the Lords Supper, which, as compared with the accounts given in the Gospel narratives (see Mat. 26:26-29; Mar. 14:22-25; Luk. 22:19-20), possesses some noteworthy features. The Evangelists (St. Matthew and St. Mark) wrote their accounts many years after the occurrence, and recorded what they remembered to have observed and heard. St. Paul writes here, within a very few years at all events of his having received it, an account of what had been directly communicated by the Lord. This was also most probably the first written record of what occurred on that solemn night.
The fact that St. Lukes narrative agrees most closely with St. Pauls, would imply, not as some rationalising critics insinuate, that St. Paul was indebted to St. Luke; but that St. Luke attached high value to an account which his companion had received directly from the glorified Christ. The only differences of any importance between St. Lukes and St. Pauls narrative are(1) St. Luke writes given for you; St. Paul omits the word given (see Note on 1Co. 11:24). (2) St. Luke omits the words this do ye as oft as ye drink it, after the giving of the cup; but he implies them by stating that the cup was given in like manner to the bread, in connection with which he records these words. The suggestion that St. Luke copied his account of the Last Supper from this Epistle is a mere speculation, and in the highest degree improbable. If that Evangelist had used this Epistle in writing his Gospel, is it likely that he would have been content with giving the somewhat scanty account of our Lords appearances after His resurrection, when he had at hand the much ampler record of the appearance to the 500 brethren and to James, which this Epistle contains? (1 Corinthians 15)
In all the narratives, however, the outlines of the scene are the same. There can be no mistake as to their all being truthful and (as the minor discrepancies prove) honestly independent records of an actual historical scene. It is worthy of remark that in the heated controversies which have raged around the Eucharistic Feast as to its spiritual significance, its evidential value has been frequently lost sight of. If the Betrayal and Crucifixion are not historical facts, how can we account for the existence of the Eucharistic Feast? Here is an Epistle whose authenticity the most searching and ruthless criticism has never disputed. We have evidence of the existence of this feast and its connection with events which occurred only twenty years before. If we bear in mind that the Apostles were Jews, and yet spoke of that wine which they drank as bloodthat they were lovingly devoted to the person of Christ, and yet spake of that bread which they ate as His fleshcan the wildest imagination conceive of that practice having originated with themselves as their most solemn religious rite, and the profoundest expression of their love to their Lord? Could anything but the record given in the Gospel narrative possibly account for such a ceremony holding such a place in a sect composed of Christianised Jews? A dark conspiracy like that of Catiline might have selected the tasting of human blood as the symbol of the conspirators sanguinary hate of all human order and life; but such a band of men as the early Christians certainly could not of their own thought have made such a choice, and publicly proclaimed it. And if this be trueif Jesus, the night before an ignominious death, instituted this strange and solemn rite, which has been handed down century after century in unbroken continuitycan that foresight as to the future of His Church be assigned to one who was less than what Christendom claims her Lord to be? When Christ died His Apostles gave up all as lost, and went back sorrowfully to their old work as fishermen; Christendom was not an afterthought of the Apostles, but the forethought of the Lord.
The same night in which he was betrayed.These words imply that the history of the Betrayal was familiar, and they also solemnly and touchingly remind the Corinthians of the strange contrast between the events of that night and the scenes in which they indulge now on the same night that they partake of that supper.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. History and nature of the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 11:23-27.
To show the Corinthians what it is they are thus dishonouring, Paul now, with a formal solemnity, repeats the well-known origin of the Lord’s supper.
As the Lord’s supper was a divine institute, and the agape purely a Christian rite, Paul’s history shows only the guilt of desecrating the former. The guilt accompanying the latter was the schisms and disorders produced, and which resulted in the desecration of the supper.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
23. Have received of the Lord The question is raised whether Paul received from the Lord this narration by immediate revelation from Christ, or only mediately through the narration of eyewitnesses. Alford objects that in that case he would have said we rather than I. But he uses the first person singular as the founder-apostle of the Corinthian Church I received I delivered unto you. It is clear from these clauses that the Corinthians knew all this history, and that Paul is only calling it impressively to their recollection.
Night It is wonderful that the large body of Christian brethren who maintain that the word baptize signifies solely immersion, and that the example of Christ demands immersion, do not also insist that deipnon, supper, signifies an evening meal, and that the example of Christ requires his supper to be taken at night. And yet this Christian body excludes from that eucharist, which they perform in violation of the meaning of the word and the original example, all those whom they hold to be baptized in violation of verbal meaning and example. With the same persistence, in the same logic in the former as in the latter case, they could prove that a right supper has seldom been performed since Christ died.
The same night Full of pathos is the thought that we are re-enacting, the supper scene of the night before the crucifixion. It is an hour for weeping and not for revelry. It demands the purest, calmest thought, instead of the excitement of intoxication. Thought should go back to that solemn hour, should picture to the heart the agonizing scene, and melt us into contrition that our sins have their share in betraying and crucifying Him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘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.” ‘
This should be read in the light of 1Co 10:16-17 where the uniting influence of the bread is stressed and where it is seen as representing the oneness of the body of Christ. Note there the stress on the fact that all concentration is to be on the breaking and giving of the bread as a united people, a concentration which must have been lacking in the way the Corinthians were behaving, sitting apart from each other with no sense of oneness, and in some cases quite merry. Their minds should have been set on the Lord, and the one bread being broken, and the one body of Christ that it represented, and the giving of thanks, and the solemn remembrance of what it all represented in terms of the broken body of the Lord Jesus, dying to make them one in Him. But they were not.
It is often suggested that the church is the body of Christ on earth, but that is not the real idea or significance of the church as ‘the body’. What it represents is that we are united with Him as it were in His body in Heaven. We are raised and seated with Him in heavenly places (Eph 2:6). We are one with Him in His death and resurrection. There is a spiritual union. Thus it is from Heaven, and as one with Him, that we operate as His body. We must not separate Christ from His body (even as its head) we must recognise the essential unity of Christ with His body and His body with Him, so that both operate as one.
‘For I received of the Lord.’ Some would see this as an assertion that Paul had had a direct revelation from the Lord about this. Others would see it as meaning that he received it from the Lord through the Apostles. The latter point out that tradition was often described as ‘received’, marking its genuine authority, having passed through a number of hands. It would then be ‘delivered’. (These words were regularly used by the Jews of receiving and passing on authoritative tradition). A third alternative is that he is in fact citing the form of words used at a typical service, ‘I received of the Lord’ being the words of the original citer of the words. Different ones see different emphases but the important fact is that he is stressing that however it came this was something directly from the Lord, which was therefore most holy, and therefore a firm requirement of His which could not be argued about. It was something that as Christians they were committed to.
‘That which also I delivered to you.’ He had solemnly delivered it to them exactly as he had received it. The responsibility for it had therefore passed on to them. It had come to them authoritatively from an authoritative source, and he exhorts them to reconsider it.
‘That the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread.’ He wants them to recognise the supreme importance of this event. It was the very night in which their Lord Jesus Himself was betrayed that He did it, stressing its significance. How crucial it therefore was. There may be a hint here that they should consider whether they too were now betraying Him by their behaviour.
It is an open question whether the betrayal in mind here is that by Judas, the disciple who proved to be false, and therefore acts as an especial warning to erring disciples, or that by the Jewish leaders who betrayed Him to Rome, brother betraying brother. Either way it was applicable to this situation.
‘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.” ‘ They should note how, in that solemn time, He took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it, offering it as something by which He, and what He was about to do at the cross, would be remembered. This was done as a reminder that all who ate of that bread were those who had been made one in Christ and had received all the benefits of what He had done for them (‘which is for you’). And as broken bread it was a reminder of His death for them, and what He had suffered for them. But the brokenness also indicated that each one might receive individually the benefit of His death.
‘This is my body.’ As always when interpreting a phrase we should see it in its context. The context of these words was originally the Passover where bread was taken and blessed with the words, ‘this is the bread of affliction which your fathers ate when they came out of Egypt’. In the latter case each generation of Israelites ‘entered in’ to the deliverance in spirit. They did not actually believe that the bread was transformed into the same bread, but that it acted as a memorial which meant that through it they could identify themselves spiritually with the deliverance which reached down to all true Israelites through time. As they partook they recognised that they too were the redeemed of God and could express their gratitude by being faithful to the covenant, recognising that they were united within that covenant, and looking forward to future deliverance that the prophets had promised.
In the same way Jesus was not saying that the bread actually was His body. He was still in His body. No religious manipulation or miracle could make something which was not His body into His body when He was in fact still in His body. But through the bread He was representing what was about to happen to His body, it would be broken, and through the bread and their partaking of it He was stressing that by coming to Him and believing on Him (Joh 6:35) they could partake of Him as the Bread of life. While they were partaking of the memorial they too could again enter into His experience on the cross. Having died with Him and risen with Him (Gal 2:20; Eph 2:4-6), they could recognise their need to die daily with Him and rise in newness of life (Rom 6:11; compare Gal 2:20), being one people together, united in Him and in His covenant.
But how could their thoughts be solemnly attuned to these great words, and their huge significance, and be concentrated on their participation in Him and His cross and resurrection in unity with all who were His, when at the very time of eating they were revealing both their lack of concern for each other, and their lack of oneness by being in separate groups, and by many of them also being in a merry state so that they could not approach the matter seriously and appropriately? This was especially so as the Supper was intended to be emphasising the unity of the body in Him. It was impossible.
‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ This was to be more than just seeing it as a mere memorial. The remembrance was in order to make them active participators in what had happened. As they partook they should themselves feel that they were participating with Him in His cross and resurrection. They should sense themselves as once again dying with Him and rising with Him. They should once more enjoy all the blessings that came to them through that experience by participating in Him by faith (Joh 6:35; Rom 6:11; Gal 2:20; Eph 3:16-19) and continually committing themselves to a life of sacrificial obedience (Rom 12:1-2).
With regard to the differing wording from Matthew, Mark and Luke we should note that different churches may well have used different forms of words, with the central core remaining the same (as it does in each version – see note below), which would help to explain the slight differences between them all, although this latter may equally result from the emphasis each writer is seeking to present as he translates from the Aramaic. Paul is certainly using the words to emphasise what he is saying here. No doubt in fact a number of factors played a part in the differences (see note below).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Purpose of the Lord’s Supper – In 1Co 11:23-26 Paul will explain the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. He has just told them how they are abusing this ordinance (1Co 11:17-22), and he will finally tell them the consequences of abusing it (1Co 11:27-34). In 1Co 11:23-26 Paul explains the meaning of the Lord’s Supper because this sacred ordinance was being abused by the Corinthian church. It was an act of renewing a believer’s covenant with God, which one initially makes at the time of being born again by confession Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord of his life.
Jesus the Passover Lamb – The Lord’ supper is similar to the Old Testament Passover meal. The Jews understood that the Passover Meal was to consist of the Passover lamb and unleavened bread. They understood that the lamb and its shed blood served as an atonement for the sins of the people. Therefore, when Jesus presented the cup and the bread as His blood and body, they could not help but relate this symbolism to the Passover lamb. Under the new covenant, Jesus is our Passover Lamb. The bread (1Co 11:24) represents Jesus’ broken body. According to 1Pe 2:24 the bread represents Jesus’ scourging, which paid for our healing, as well representing as His death on Calvary. The cup (1Co 11:25) represents Jesus’ blood, which was shed for our sins.
1Pe 2:24, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”
1. Reasons: To Renew Our Covenant with God (“this do in remembrance of me”) We partake of the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance or as an acknowledgement that it is not by our works of righteousness that gives us forgiveness of sins and healing to our bodies, but by our faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is our way of taking the focus off of us and putting our faith in Him as our Saviour and Healer. This is why healing was a part of the first Passover in Egypt and is so until today. As we renew our covenant with the Lord we position ourselves to partake of His covenant blessings.
Israel first made her covenant with God at Mount Sinai. We see Israel renewing her covenant under the reigns of King Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah. After the Babylonian Captivity Ezra again renewed Israel’s covenant with God using the Passover.
2. Reasons: To Build Peace and Unity Among the Brethren When we eat together there is a bond that is built between one another. We see a clear example of this when Jacob and Laban made a covenant between one another in order to end their strife.
Gen 31:54, “Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount.”
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Co 11:23
Gal 1:1, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”
Gal 1:12, “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
For Jesus to reveal this truth and teach it to Paul outside the Apostle’s teachings shows its importance in body of Christ.
1Co 11:23 “that which also I delivered unto you” Comments – Paul was exercising his apostolic authority over the Corinthian church by instituting certain ordinances and rules of conduct. He embedded these rules within his Epistles, thus laying down the doctrines of the New Testament Church within his eight Church Epistles, and the rules by which to ordain ministers into Christian service within his four Pastoral Epistles. Paul the apostle was given this unique task under his office as an apostle to the Gentiles.
1Co 11:23 “That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread” Comments – Albert Barnes suggests that the phrase “the same night in which he was betrayed” alludes to the betrayal of the Corinthians who had been “betraying the Lord” by partaking of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner. [144]
[144] Albert Barnes, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on 1 Corinthians 11:23.
1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:24
Comments Jesus’ body was broken “in our behalf,” or “in our place.” Christ became our substitution (Gal 3:13-14, Heb 2:9).
Gal 3:13-14, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Heb 2:9, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
1Co 11:24 “this do in remembrance of me” – Comments We partake of the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance, or as an acknowledgement, that it is not by our works of righteousness that gives us forgiveness of sins and healing to our bodies, but by our faith in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is our way of taking the focus off of us and putting our faith in Him as our Saviour and Healer. This is why healing was a part of the first Passover in Egypt and is so until today. As we renew our covenant with the Lord we position ourselves to partake of His covenant blessings.
1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Co 11:25
Both old and new covenants are sealed by blood (Lev 17:11, Joh 19:34, Heb 9:16-22).
Lev 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
Joh 19:34, “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.”
Heb 9:16-22.
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.
1Co 11:26
[145] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, First Corinthians, in Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on 1 Corinthians 11:26.
[146] Albert Barnes, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on 1 Corinthians 11:26.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Lord’s revelation of the institution of the Eucharist:
v. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread;
v. 24. and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me.
v. 25. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. See Mat 26:26-28; Mar 14:22-24; Luk 22:19-20. The apostle would have been fully
justified in saying that he had received the doctrine concerning the Holy Communion even if he had merely heard the story from the mouths of the apostles that had been present at its institution. But his purpose in mentioning a direct and immediate communication of God is to emphasize his apostolic call and the authenticity and authority of his preaching. The Lord had given him the information by direct revelation, and in this sense they were to accept his teaching. See Gal 1:12. He had taught them thus while he was with them in Corinth, and he was here recording the facts as the Lord had made them known to him. It was in the night when He was betrayed, literally, while the betrayal was going on, that the Lord instituted the wonderful meal of His body and blood. While His enemies were busily engaged in preparations for His capture, the Savior was preparing the heavenly meal for the comfort of believers. He took bread, one of the pieces of unleavened bread which was used at the Passover meal. And having given thanks, not merely the usual prayer of grace which Jewish custom had fixed for this meal, but a special blessing over the bread as the bearer of heavenly gifts. Then, as He walked from one to the other among His disciples, He broke off pieces of bread of convenient size and distributed them, bidding them to take and eat, and declaring that this bread which they were receiving was His body, the same body which was broken or given for them, in their stead and for their benefit. The bread carried, offered, and imparted to the disciples then, as now, the body of the Savior and sealed to the believers all the benefits of His salvation.
And in the very same manner, as an essential part of the new Sacrament, Jesus took the cup, after they had supped, after the paschal lamb and the chief course of the supper had been served. As he walked from one disciple to the next, he varied the formula of distribution but little, as we see from the close agreement between the four accounts. He called the cup with the wine contained therein the new testament in His blood, the new covenant established by the shedding of His blood; through it He entered into a covenant of mercy with all the partakers of this new sacrament. One fact stands out with undeniable force, namely, that all those present partook of the cup as well as of the bread, and that there can be no true Eucharist unless both elements are received by all communicants. Mark that in either case the Lord says: This do in remembrance of Me, for the commemoration of Me. And in the case of the cup He adds: As many times as you drink it. As often as a believer has a longing and desire for the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, and no matter how often, that certainty is his in the Holy Communion. Surely it ought not require more than this definite promise to induce a Christian to receive the Sacrament frequently. “And now consider, my dear friend, what we must think of such people as boast of their being Christians and yet probably go a whole year, two, three years, and still longer, and do not receive the reverend Sacrament. Surely the devil has possessed them to such an extent that they either pay no attention to their sins and therefore do not think about getting rid of them, or they find more pleasure in this present life than in the eternal. In either case it is a terrible thing to hear. Therefore he that wants to be a Christian and also wants to conduct himself, in accordance with his name, in a Christian manner, should not abstain from this Supper, but use it very often. For we are in great need of it, as we are here informed.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 11:23 . Ground of the . For I, for my part, have received the following instructions from Christ touching the institution of the Lord’s Supper , [1848] which I also delivered to you . How should it be possible then that your disorder should meet with praise, so far as I am concerned, at variance as it is with the knowledge of the matter obtained by me from Christ and communicated to you?
] Had Paul written . . , this would have denoted that he had received the instructions directly from Christ ( Gal 1:12 ; 1Th 2:13 ; 1Th 4:1 ; 2Ti 3:14 ; Act 10:22 ; Joh 6:45 ; Joh 8:40 ; Joh 10:18 ); . ., on the other hand, means forth from the Lord, from the Lord’s side as the source , so that the preposition taken by itself leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect (so generally, including Gal 3:2 ; Col 3:24 ) or a direct one (as in Col 1:7 ; 1Jn 1:5 ; 3Jn 1:7 ). And Hofmann does not go further than this indefinite relation, holding the only idea expressed hero to be that of origin from the Lord; comp also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 211. But seeing that, if what Paul had in view had been an immediate reception, it would have been natural for him, and of some importance for his argument, to express this distinctly by using , while yet in point of fact he uses only , we are warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed from Christ as originator, but reached him only mediately through another channel. This applies against Calovius, Bengel, Flatt, and others, including Heydenreich, Olshausen, de Wette (assuming a confirmation by special revelation of what he had learned from report), Osiander, who all find here a direct communication from Christ. The argument of Schulz and de Wette, however, against this latter view, on the ground of the word . being in itself inappropriate, will not hold, especially when we view it as correlative to ; comp 1Co 15:3 .
[1848] Not merely regarding its design and requirements (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 353 f.); for the special account of the institution itself, which follows, goes beyond that.
The question now remains: Does Paul, in asserting that his account of the institution proceeded from the Lord, mean to say simply that he received what follows by a tradition descending from Christ, [1851] or by a revelation issuing from Christ? The latter alternative, which Rckert also adopts ( Abendm. p. 194 f.), is not to be rejected on the ground of the following narrative being something with which all were familiar. For it is quite possible that it was wholly unknown to the apostle at the time of his conversion; and even apart from that, it was so important for his apostolic vocation that he should have a sure and accurate knowledge of these facts, and to receive it by way of special revelation was so completely in harmony with Paul’s peculiar position as an apostle, since he had not personally been a witness of the first Lord’s Supper, that there is nothing to forbid our assuming that he received his account of the institution of this ordinance, like his gospel generally, in the way of authentic revelation from Christ. As to the form of mediate communication through which Christ had caused these facts to reach Paul, not appearing to him for this purpose Himself, we must leave that point undecided, since very various kinds of media for divine revelations are possible and are historically attested. It may have been by an utterance of the Spirit, by an angel appearing to him, by seeing and hearing in an ecstatic state. Only the contents of the revelation from its essential connection with the gospel , and, in fact, with its fundamental doctrine of the work of reconciliation exclude, according to Gal 1:1 ; Gal 1:12 ; Gal 1:15 , the possibility of human intervention as regards the apostle in the matter; so that we should not be justified in supposing that the revelation reached him through some man (such as Ananias) commissioned to convey it to him by the Lord. As to the view that we have here a mere tradition , on the other hand, recounted by Paul as originating with Christ, the apostle himself decides against it both by his use of the singular (comp 1Co 15:3 ), and also by the significant prominence given to the , whereby he puts forward with the whole strength of conscious apostolic authority the communication made to himself, to him personally , by the Lord, over-against the abuse, contrasting with it, of the Holy Supper among the Corinthians. Had he meant simply to say: “I know it through a tradition proceeding from Christ,” then his would have been on the same level with every other, and the emphatic prominence which he gives to the , as well as the sing. , would be quite unsuitable, because without any specific historical basis; he would in that case have written: . We have certainly therefore in this passage not merely the oldest account of the Lord’s Supper, but even “an authentic explanation given by the risen Christ regarding His sacrament” (Olshausen); not one directly from His lips indeed, but conveyed through some medium of revelation, the precise form of which it is impossible for us now to determine, whereby we have a guarantee for the essential contents of the narrative independently of the Gospels, although not necessarily an absolute ultimate authority establishing the literal form of the words of institution (even in opposition to Matthew and Mark), since a revelation of the history, nature, and meaning of the institution might be given even without any verbal communication of the words spoken in connection with it.
.] which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you . Conversely in 1Co 15:3 . Instances of . and , in the sense of discere and tradere , may be seen in Kypke.
] that , as in 1Co 15:3 , not for , as Luther and Hofmann render it. The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had received and delivered, in spite of the importance of the matter in question; and it derives no support from the repetition of the subject, , since that, with the addition of the sacred name , gives a solemn emphasis to the statement. It is the full doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which they owe to him, that he is now setting before his readers.
(imperfectum adumbrativum , see Khner, II. p. 73): in the night in which His betrayal was going on (hence not the aorist). It is a deeply solemn and arresting thought, contrasted with the frivolity displayed among the Corinthians at the Agapae. The preposition is not repeated before the relative. Comp Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with Khner thereon; Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in loc [1854]
] bread (a cake of bread), which lay on the table.
[1851] So Neander and Keim in the Jahrb. fr Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 69.
[1854] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
REMARK.
The agreement which prevails between Paul’s account of the Supper and that of Luke, is not to be explained by a dependence of Paul upon Luke (Grotius, comp also Beza), but conversely. See on Luk 22:20 , remark.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
XXIII
THE LORD’S SUPPER
Harmony, pages 178-179 and Mat 26:26-29
The Passover furnishes the Old Testament analogue of this ordinance. As the Passover commemorated the temporal redemption of the Old Covenant, so this ordinance commemorates the spiritual redemption of the New Covenant. The proof is as follows:
Christ the antitype of the paschal lamb (1Co 5:7 ).
Christ crucified at the Passover feast (Mat 26:2 ; Joh 18:28 ).
This supper instituted at the Passover supper and of its materials.
The analogy discussed by Paul (1Co 5:6-13 ; 1Co 10:1-22 ;.
The preliminary study essential to a full understanding of this institution is the Old Testament teaching concerning the Passover. The principal classes of New Testament scripture to be studied are:
Those which tell of its institution.
Those which tell of its later observance.
Those which discuss its import, correct errors in its observance, and apply its moral and spiritual lessons.
The historians of its institution and observance are: (1) Paul, who derived his knowledge by direct revelation from the risen Lord (1Co 11:23 ); (2) Luke, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Paul, and others who were eyewitnesses (Luk 1:2 ); (3) Mark, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Peter, an eyewitness; (4) Matthew, an inspired eyewitness and participator (Mat 26:20 f).
The record of its institution is found in (1) Mat 26:26-29 ; (2) Mar 14:22-25 ; (3) Luk 22:19-20 ; (4) 1Co 11:23-26 . The three historic observances are recorded in Act 2:42 ; Act 20:7 ; and the case at Corinth, 1Co 11:20-22 . We find the discussions of its import and the application of its teachings in 1Co 5:7-8 ; 1Co 10:14-22 ; 1Co 11:17-34 .
Jesus instituted the ordinance on the night before his death, at the last Passover, in an upper room in Jerusalem. All the apostles, except Judas, were present and participating. Judas was not present because he was sent out by our Lord before its institution (see Mat 26:25 ; Joh 13:23-26 ). The apostles receive it as representing the church. The elements used were unleavened bread and unfermented wine, or grape juice, (1) “bread” meaning one loaf not yet broken; (2) “cup” meaning one vessel of wine not yet poured out. The proof of this rendering is found in 1Co 10:16-17 , the exposition of which is as follows:
The one loaf of unleavened bread represents the one mortal but sinless body of Christ yet living, but appointed and prepared as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:4-9 ). It also represents the mystical (body of Christ, the church) (1Co 10:17 ).
So the one vessel of wine represents the body of Christ yet living, the blood of which is the life and yet in the body. The first scene of the drama displayed in this ordinance then, is what we behold first of all, in each of two succeeding symbols, the loaf and the cup, the appointed and accepted Lamb of sacrifice. Whether we look at the loaf or the cup, we see the same thing, as in the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream (Gen 41:23 ; Gen 41:32 ).
In the second scene we behold the appointed sacrifice “blessed,” or eulogized, and thus consecrated by the benediction, or set apart for the sacrifice (Mat 26:26 ; Mar 14:22 ), with thanksgiving (Luk 22:19 ; 1Co 11:24 ), that an acceptable sacrifice has been found. This second scene is repeated in both “blessing” and “thanksgiving” in the case of the “cup” (Mat 26:27 ; Mar 14:23 ; Luk 20:22 ; 1Co 11:25 ). The import is one, but the scene is double, to show that “God hath established it.”
In the third scene: (1) The consecrated loaf is broken to show the vicarious death, i.e., for them, of the substitutionary Lamb (Mat 26:26 ; Mar 14:22 ; Luk 22:19 ; 1Co 11:24 ). (2) The wine is poured out from the cup into the distributing vessels (Luk 22:20 ) to show the vicarious death of the sacrificial Lamb by the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. The scene is one, but doubled.
In the fourth scene: (1) The distribution of the broken loaf to all the communicants present and their participation, each by eating a fragment, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the vicarious body given for them. (2) The distribution of the outpoured wine to all the communicants present and their participation, each by drinking a sip, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the expiating, sin-remitting blood. The scene is one, but doubled.
This ordinance is pictorial) showing forth by pictures, or scenes, earth’s greatest tragedy. To make the “showing forth” complete, four double scenes must be exhibited, or made visible to the eye: (1) The appointed spotless Lamb; (2) The consecration to sacrifice with thanksgiving; (3) The sacrifice itself of vicarious death “broken” “poured out”; (4) Participation of the beneficiaries, by faith, in the benefits of the sacrifice. The order of the scenes must be observed. The visible consecration and thanksgiving must follow a view of the appointed and suitable substitutionary victim; the visible sacrifice must follow the view of consecration with thanksgiving; the visible participation must follow a view of the sacrifice.
The modern provision of many tiny glasses for sanitary reasons does not violate scriptural order or symbolism: (1) Certainly not in the number of distributing cups. Those cups, like the plates, are for distribution. Whether one plate, two, or a dozen; whether one cup, two, or a hundred are used for distribution is immaterial, a matter of convenience, provided only that there has been one vessel of wine “blessed,” or eulogized, before the outpouring into the distributing vessel or cups. (2) It is against the symbolism if the outpouring into the distributing vessels is private and not visible to the congregation, since the outpouring does not come in its order, the blessing and the thanksgiving coming after the outpouring and not before.
Perhaps this construction of the symbolism is too rigid, yet it is true that the order in the record of the institution best shows forth the successive scenes of the tragedy.
The name of the institution is “The Lord’s Supper”; proof is found in 1Co 11:20 . This title is further shown by the expression, “The cup of the Lord . . . The table of the Lord” (1Co 10:21 ). It follows from this title that if it be The Lord’s Supper, the Table of the Lord, the Cup of the Lord, then he alone has the right to put the table where he will, to prescribe its elements, to impose the order of its observance, to define its import, and to prescribe who shall be invited to its participation, and indeed to fix authoritatively all its rules and conditions.
The import of the word “communion,” in 1Co 10:16 , is as follows: (1) It means participation rather than communion; (2) it is a partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and not communion of the partakers with each other. They do not partake of each other, but of Christ. The design is: (1) To show forth pictorially or to proclaim the Lord’s death for the remission of the sins of his people; (2) to show forth our participation by faith, in the benefits of that death; (3) to show that our spiritual nutrition is in him alone, since he is the meat and the drink of his people; (4) to show our hope of spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; (5) to show our faith in his return to take us to that heavenly home; (6) to show that the communicants constitute one mystical body of Christ.
The nature of the ordinance: (1) It represents a new covenant between Jehovah and a new spiritual Israel (Mat 26:28 ; Mar 14:24 ; Luk 22:20 ; 1Co 11:25 ). (2) It is a memorial ordinance: “This do in remembrance of me. . . . This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1Co 11:24-25 ). (3) It is an emblematic ordinance, representing both spiritual nutrition here, and a heavenly feast with Christ (Mat 26:29 ; Mar 14:25 ). (4) It is a mystical ordinance showing that communicants, though many, constitute one body. (5) It is a church ordinance to be observed by a church assembled and not by an individual (1Co 10:17 ; 1Co 11:17-22 ; Act 20:17 ). (6) It is an exclusive ordinance: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons.”
The faculties employed in the observance of this ordinance are memory, faith, hope. We remember (1) Jesus only; (2) Jesus dying on the cross; (3) Jesus dying on the cross for the remission of our sins; (4) Samuel Rogers, an English poet, wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Memory.” Faith apprehends and appropriates Christ in the purposes of his expiatory and vicarious death, and finds in his sacrifice the meat and drink which constitute the nutrition of our spiritual life. Hope anticipates his return for his people, and the spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; the poet, Thomas Campbell, an Englishman, wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Hope.”
The appointed duration of the ordinance is “Till he come” (1Co 11:26 ). But will we not eat the bread and drink the wine anew in the kingdom of heaven? If not, what is the meaning of Mat 26:29 ; Mar 14:25 ? Is it not, “I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom,” but “when I drink it new.” Here we drink the material wine; there it will be a new thing spiritual wine. The feasting on earth, in its meat and drink, represents the everlasting joy, love, and peace of our heavenly participation of our Lord, as he himself foretold: “Many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” See the account of angels carrying the earth-starved Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Luk 16 ) and the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9 ).
How often must we observe this ordinance the record does not say. Its analogue, the Passover was once every year, but that was strictly prescribed in the law. There is no such prescription in the New Testament law of this ordinance. “But,” says one, “does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?” There is no such requirement. At Troas, indeed, the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread (Act 20:7 ), but even in that case the ordinance was not observed until the next day (Act 20:7-11 ). The other record of observance (Act 2:42 ) seems to imply that in this great Pentecostal meeting it was observed every day. Some things are not prescribed, but left to sound judgment and common sense. In a great meeting like that following Pentecost, when thousands of new converts were added every day, and all of every day was devoted to religious service, there was a propriety in and sufficient time for a daily observance of this ordinance. Under ordinary conditions the observance every Sunday, if administered with due solemnity, would shut off much needed instruction on other important matters, at the only hour at which older Christians can attend public worship, and the only hour at which many others do attend.
The main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance are: (1) They call it the sacrifice of the mass. (2) That when the priest pronounces the words, “This is my body . . . this cup is the New Testament in my blood,” the bread and the wine (though not to sight, taste, or touch) do really become the actual body and blood of Jesus, yea, Jesus in body, soul, and deity; this miraculous and creative change, not only of one material substance into another; not only of inert into living matter, but of matter into both spirit and deity, they call transubstantiation. (3) Being now God, the priest kneels to it in adoration. (4) It is then lifted up that the congregation may adore it as God; this is called “The Elevation of the Host.” (5) That so changed to God it may be carried in procession, and so carried, the people must prostrate themselves before it as God; this is called the “Procession of the Host.” (6) That the communicant does literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. (7) That the efficacy of the sacrifice is complete in each kind, and so in the exercise of its heaven-granted authority the church may and does withhold the cup from the laity. (8) That eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus is essential to eternal life. (9) That the words “eat ye” and “drink ye” are a divine appointment of the priesthood, widely distinguishing them from the laity, and making their ministration of the ordinance exclusive and essential to the ordinance itself. (10) That this is, whensoever, wheresoever, and how oftensoever performed, a real sacrifice of our Lord, who as a High Priest forever must offer continual sacrifice. (11) That it is a sacrifice for both the living and the dead, available at least for the dead who are in purgatory, hence in application, their “masses for the dead.” (12) That in another sacrament called “Extreme Unction,” this consecrated “wafer” is put on the tongue of the dying as a means to remission of sin. (13) That the church has authority to prescribe all the accompaniments of order, dress, language, or other circumstances prescribed in their ritual of observance. (14) That the belief of this teaching in whole and in every part is essential to salvation, and whoever does not so believe let him be accursed.
This Romanist teaching is the most sweeping, blasphemous, heretical perversion of New Testament teaching known to history. As a whole, and in all its parts, it subverts the faith of the New Testament and substitutes therefore the traditions of men.
1. The Lord’s Supper is not a real, but a pictorial sacrifice: (a) The sacrifice of our Lord was once for all, because real, and not often repeated, as the typical sacrifices were. (b) This error gives the officiating priest creative power to transubstantiate inert matter into living matter, both soul and deity, though not even God in creation formed man’s soul from matter, (c) The alleged transubstantiation is contrary to the senses, for the bread and wine are still bread and wine to sight, touch, and taste, unlike when Christ transmitted water into wine, for it then looked like wine, tasted like wine, and had the effect of wine. (d) Christ said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in yourself,” and is careful thus to explain, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not,” and thus he shows that to believe on him is what is meant by the figurative language “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.” (e) This error controverts philosophy, in that the body of Jesus cannot be in more places than one at the same time. (f) It controverts many scriptures that explicitly teach that the body of Jesus ascended to heaven, and must there remain until the final advent and the times of the restoration of all things. (g) It is idolatry, in that mere matter is worshiped and adored as God.
2. It violates the New Testament teaching of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, who does not continually repeat his sacrifice, but continually pleads the efficacy of the sacrifice offered once for all, and continually intercedes on the ground of the one offering. As a high priest he does indeed continue to present the spiritual sacrifices of his people, such as prayer, praise, and contribution.
3. It subverts the New Testament teaching of the mission and office of the Holy Spirit, who was sent as Christ’s vicar because he was absent, and whose office continues until Christ returns.
4. It re-establishes the Old Testament typical order of priests, abrogated by the cross, and separates by a greater distance than in the Old Covenant the priest from the laity, and thereby nullifies the New Testament teaching that all believers are priests unto God. It thus sews together again the veil of the old Temple which at Christ’s death God rent in twain from top to bottom.
5. It makes the Pope at Rome Christ’s vicar instead of the Holy Spirit.
6. It makes the church a savior instead of the Lord himself, and confers on it legislative powers instead of limiting it to judicial and executive powers. Yea, it may change or set aside Christ’s own legislation.
7. It substitutes a sacerdotal salvation, and a salvation by ordinances for the New Testament salvation.
8. It destroys the church character of the ordinance by the administration of it to individuals.
9. It withholds the cup from the people, though Christ said, “All ye drink of it.”
10. It destroys the unity of the ordinance by affirming that the bread alone is sufficient, though Christ used both symbols to express his meaning.
11. It makes the ordinance for the dead as well as the giving, thus not only extending probation after death, but giving its supposed benefits to those who did neither eat nor drink, thus contradicting their own previous teaching, as well as the words of our Lord which they misapply and pervert.
12. It bases its defense more on ecclesiastical history and tradition, than on the Word of God, and limits that Word to a Latin translation, and to the church interpretation of that translation, rather than its text.
13. It makes belief in the whole and in all parts of this complex, self-contradictory, crude mass of human teaching essential to salvation instead of simple faith in Christ.
While Luther rejected the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation, he advocated a doctrine which he called consubstantiation, by which he meant that while the bread and wine were not the real body and blood of Christ, yet there was a real presence of Christ in these elements. His illustration was this: Put a bar Of iron into the fire until it is red hot, then there is heat with that iron, though the iron itself is not heat. The trouble about Luther’s consubstantiation is, that according to his illustration, there must be some change of the elements that could be discerned by the senses. A man can see with his eye the difference between a cold iron and a red hot iron. And he can tell the difference by touching it, none of which phenomena appeared in the elements of the bread and wine.
The Genevan doctrine was that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial ordinance, this being the principal idea in it; that it exhibited or showed pictorally, not really, certain great doctrines; that the bread and wine remained bread and wine, so that they neither were the real body and blood of Jesus, nor held the presence of Jesus, as iron put into the fire contained heat.
There is a thrilling story of the vain effort by Philip of Hesse to bring Luther and the advocates of the Genevan doctrine into harmony on the Lord’s Supper. When the question came up in the Reformation as to whether Christ’s presence was really in the bread and wine, Philip of Hesse, who loved Luther, and who also loved the Genevan reformers, invited two of the strongest of each to meet at his castle and have a friendly debate. Luther contended for consubstantiation, or the presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and the Genevan reformers insisted that it was simply a memorial ordinance. So for the debate were chosen Luther and Melanchthon on one side and Zwingli and Cecolampadius, on the other side. Luther was the fire on the one side and Zwingli was the fire on the other side. Philip placed Luther against Cecolampadius, and Zwingli against Melanchthon. But after they had debated a while, Cecolampadius and Melanchthon dropped out, and the two fiery men came face to face. In the course of the discussion Luther wrote on the wall a verse from his Latin Bible: “Hoc meum est corpus,” “This is my body,” and Zwingli said, “I oppose it by this statement,” and he wrote under it, “Ascendit in coelum,” “ He ascended into heaven.” “The heavens must retain him; therefore,” said he, “Christ cannot be in his body in heaven and on earth at the same time.”
A theological seminary, a district association, a state, national, or international convention, cannot set out the Lord’s Table and observe this ordinance, because it is strictly a church ordinance. The spiritual qualifications of the participants are: (1) On the divine side, regeneration. (2) On the human side, repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The legal qualifications are justification, redemption and adoption, while the ceremonial qualifications are: A public, formal profession of faith in Christ, or, in other words, the relating of one’s Christian experience before a competent official authority; baptism by that authority in the name of the Trinity; formal reception into a particular church, which is the authority to pass upon the credibility of the profession of faith, to administer the baptism, to judge of the Christian life, and the only body that may lawfully set the Lord’s Table. Certain passages show that though one has all the qualifications enumerated above, whether spiritual, legal, or ceremonial, and yet is living an unworthy Christian life, the church of which he is a member may judge him and bar him from participation in this Supper, viz.: 1Co 5:11-13 ; 1Co 10:21 . These qualifications may all be condensed into one brief statement, thus: A baptized child of God, holding membership in a particular church and walking orderly in Christian life.
The officers of the church cannot carry the elements of this Supper to a member who, for any cause, was absent at the assembly observance, and administer them to him privately. Here are two well-known historic cases:
First case. A member of a church, who had been living far from God, attending church seldom and never remaining when the Supper was observed, was now penitent, and in his last illness, knowing death to be at hand, dictates a penitential letter to the church, avowing the faith originally professed, but confessing all the irregularities of his life, claiming to have received the divine forgiveness, and asks forgiveness of the church. The letter expressed deep regret that the writer had never once obeyed his Lord in observing this ordinance and an intense desire to obey him one time in this matter before death, carefully assuring the church that he attributed no magical value to the ordinance, being himself already at peace with God, but longing to have God’s people with him one more time, to hear them sing and pray and to partake of this Supper, so that when he passed to the heavenly feast, he could say, “Lord, though unworthy, I did obey your solemn commandment one time on earth.” Whereupon the church voted forgiveness to the penitent brother, adjourned the conference to meet in the sick man’s house that night, and there convened pursuant to adjournment, and did there observe the Lord’s Supper as the assembled church, and allowed -the sick man to participate. The members had come for miles in buggies, wagons, and on horse-back. The conference was unusually large. The house seemed to be filled with the glory of God. Others confessed their sins; alienated members were reconciled. A marvelous revival prevailed, and the dying brother passed from the earthly feast to drink the wine at the heavenly feast. I was present and officiated as pastor.
Second case. A wife, professing to be a Christian, though not a church member, appealed to a Baptist preacher to come and administer the Lord’s Supper to her dying husband, himself not a member of any church, but who desired to partake of the Lord’s Supper before death. This preacher, of his own motion and alone, carried bread and wine to the house and there administered to the dying man the elements of the Lord’s Supper. I knew this pastor and wag instrumental in his confession and recantation of his error.
If the church, according to Christ’s law, must judge as to a participant’s qualification, what then the apostle’s meaning of “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat?” The man who is commanded to examine himself is not an outsider, but a member of the church, already qualified according to church judgment, yet on whom rests the personal responsibility to determine whether by faith he now discerns the Lord’s body.
What is the meaning of 1Co 11:27 ? This passage does not say, “Whosoever is unworthy,” but who partakes “unworthily,” i.e., whose manner of partaking, like these Corinthians, was disorderly. They ate and drank to satisfy physical hunger and thirst. They feasted separately without waiting for the assembly.
What is the meaning of 1Co 11:30 : “For this cause many are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep”? This has no reference to physical weakness, sickness and sleep, as if a judgment in this form had come on them for a disorderly manner in partaking of the Supper. The meaning must be sought in the purpose of the ordinance. We have houses in which to eat ordinary’ food when we seek physical nutrition and from that, bodily strength and health. The taste of bread and the sip of wine in this ordinance cannot serve such a purpose. These represent a different kind of nutriment for the saved soul, which we appropriate and assimilate by faith. If we do not by faith discern the Lord’s body, then missing the spiritual nutrition, the soul becomes weak, or sick, or sleepy: “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee.”
I here expound the Old Testament analogue in Exo 24:9-11 . This is the passage: “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: and they beheld God and did eat and drink.” This is the ratifying feast of the Old Covenant, as the Lord’s Supper is the feast of the New Covenant. In Exo 19 God proposes a covenant which they agree to accept and prepare themselves for it. God himself then states the three great stipulations of the covenant binding upon Israel: (1) The Decalogue, or God and the normal man (Exo 20:1-17 ); (2) the law of the Altar, or the way of a sinner’s approach to God; in other words, God and the sinner (Exo 20:24-26 ), with all its developments in Exodus 25-31; 35-40, and almost the whole of Leviticus; (3) the judgments, or God, the state and the citizen (Exodus. 21-23), with all developments therefrom in the Pentateuch.
These three make the covenant with national Israel. Then in Exo 24:3-8 , this covenant, so far only uttered, is reduced to writing, read to the people and solemnly ratified. Following the ratification, comes this passage, which is the Feast of the Covenant (Exo 24:9-11 ). Here Moses records the institution of this feast of the ratified Old Covenant as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul record the institution of the feast of the New Covenant, in which Jesus says, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood.” It is noteworthy that in the institution of both feasts (not in subsequent observances) the partakers are few, acting in a representative capacity. Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Aaron’s two sons, seventy elders, seventy-five in all, in the first case; Jesus and the eleven apostles in the other case. In both cases the communion, or participation, is with God, who is present: “They saw God and did eat and drink.” But they saw no similitude. They saw symbols. They saw him by faith. They saw the symbols of God’s presence with a natural eye, and tasted of the symbol, i.e., the Lamb of sacrifice, with the natural tongue. The symbol was not God; it represented him; nor was it changed into God. God was neither the symbol, nor in the symbol, nor with, by or under the symbol. He was there himself and with his covenant people. They saw him as propitiated through the sacrifice. Hence they saw him in the holy of holies, the paved work like sapphire stones under his feet (Exo 24:10 ), which is the sign that they saw him on his throne of grace and mercy, as appears from a comparison of kindred passages (see Eze 1:26 ; Rev 4 ). Hence it is said (Exo 24:11 ), “And on the elders of the children of Israel he laid not his hands,” i.e., to smite them. Seeing God out of the covenant the men would have died. But in the covenant they were safe, because he was propitiated.
The Lord’s Supper is not the holy of holies, but in faithful observance of the Covenant feast, we by faith approach and commune with him in the holy of holies. That is, the blood of the everlasting Covenant propitiates God, so that we may approach him and commune with him, and by faith see him and yet not die, for the blood turns away his wrath.
To further illustrate this thought, the tabernacle was God’s house, or dwelling place, whose innermost chamber was the holy of holies. There, over the mercy seat between the Cherubim, the symbol of the Divine presence appeared as a Shechinah, the sword flame (Gen 3:24 ), or pillar of cloud, or fire, and was the oracle to reveal and to answer questions; hence the most holy place is many times called the oracle, i.e., the house of the oracle. So in the Temple. But the tabernacle and the Temple fulfilled their temporary mission, and the veil was rent when Christ died. So a new house or Temple succeeded, namely, the church, a spiritual building (1Co 3:9 ; 1Co 3:17 ; Eph 2:21 , American Standard Version, 1Pe 2:5 ), and this new temple was anointed with the Holy Spirit (Dan 9:24 ; Act 2:1-4 ), as the first was (Exo 30:25-26 ), with the holy oil which symbolized the Spirit. Now, in this new temple, the church, is a most holy place, the place of the real Divine presence, in the person of the Holy Spirit, and in the Supper as a covenant feast, when faith is exercised, we approach and commune with a propitiated God. We see him and eat and drink in his presence. The hiding veil in this case was Christ’s flesh. When he died, whose death is commemorated in the Supper, the veil was removed, and the way into the most holy place is wide open to the believing communicant. But in the church in glory, which is an eternal temple, hieron , there is no naos or symbolic shrine, most holy place, or isolated, inner chamber (Rev 21:22 ), for God and the Lamb constitute the naos, and the tabernacle (Rev 21:3 ) with all the inhabitants of the Holy City, who see God directly, face to face not by faith. The days of propitiation are ended then, and the glorified ones need no intercession of the High Priest. Their salvation in body, soul, and spirit is consummated forever. But they feast with God forever. They sing indeed, but they do not “sing a hymn and go out.”
QUESTIONS 1. What is the Old Testament analogue of the Lord’s Supper?
2. What is the proof?
3. What preliminary study essential to an understanding of its institution?
4. What are the principal classes of New Testament scriptures to be studied?
5. Who were the historians of its institution and observance?
6. Where and what record of its institution?
7. What are the three historic observances?
8. Where do we find the discussion of its import and the application of its teachings?
9. Who instituted the ordinance and when and where?
10. Who were present and participating?
11. Why was Judas not present?
12. In what capacity did the apostles receive it?
13. What elements used?
14. What is the meaning of “bread” and “cup”?
15. What is the proof of this rendering and what the exposition?
16. What then was the first scene of the drama of this ordinance?
17. What was the second scene?
18. What was the third scene?
19. What was the fourth scene?
20. What kind of an ordinance then is this, and what is necessary to convey its full meaning?
21. Is the order of the scenes important?
22. What of the modern provision of many tiny glasses?
23. What is the name of this ordinance and what the proof?
24. How is this title further shown?
25. What follows from this title?
26. What is the import of the word “communion” in 1Co 10:16 ?
27. What is the design of this ordinance?
28. What is the nature of the ordinance?
29. What faculties do we employ in the observance of this ordinance?
30. Whom do we remember, where and why, and who wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Memory”?
31. Faith does what?
32. Hope does what, and who wrote a poem on “The Pleasures of Hope”?
33. What was the appointed duration of the ordinance?
34. What was the meaning of Mat 26:29 and Mar 14:25 ?
35. How often must we observe this ordinance?
36. Does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?
37, What were the main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance?
38. What was the reply to this Romanist teaching?
39. What is Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation?
40. What is the Genevan doctrine?
41. Recite the story of Philip of Hesse?
42. May any religious organization except a church celebrate the Supper?
43. What are the spiritual qualification of the participants?
44. What are the legal qualifications?
45. What are the ceremonial qualifications?
46. What scriptures show that a man with all these qualifications may be barred from the Supper by the church?
47. Condense these qualifications into one brief statement.
48. May the officers of the church administer this ordinance to an individual in private?
49. State the two cases cited and show which was right and why?
50. What is the meaning of “Let a man examine himself, etc.”?
51. What is the meaning of 1Co 11:27 ?
52. What is the meaning of 1Co 11:30 ?
53. Expound the Old Testament analogue in Exo 24:9-11 .
54. Is the Lord’s Supper the holy of holies?
55. How further illustrate the thought?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
Ver. 23. For I have received ] Rectum est regula sui et obliqui. The apostle seems to rectify them, by reducing them to the first institution; and by letting them know that he had his authority from heaven; he received what he delivered, and delivered what he received, keeping nothing back, Act 20:27 .
The same night, &c. ] It was his last bequeath to his Church, for a , as Ignatius hath it, a sovereign both purgative and preservative.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23 25. ] To shew them the solemnity of the ordinance which they thus set at nought, he reminds them of the account which he had before given them, of its INSTITUTION BY THE LORD. Mat 26:26-29 , Mar 14:22-25 .Luk 22:19-20Luk 22:19-20 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
23. ] For I (see ch. 1Co 7:28 ; Php 4:11 ) received from the Lord ( by special revelation , see Gal 1:12 . Meyer attempts to deny that this revelation was made to Paul himself, on the strength of meaning ‘ indirect ,’ ‘direct’ reception from any one: but this distinction is fallacious: e.g. 1Jn 1:5 , . He supposes that it was made to Ananias or some other, and communicated to Paul. But the sole reason for this somewhat clumsy hypothesis is the supposed force of the preposition, which has no existence. If the Apostle had referred only to the Evangelic tradition or writings (?) he would not have used the first person singular , but . I may remark, that the similarity between this account of the Institution and that in Luke’s Gospel, is only what might be expected on the supposition of a special revelation made to Paul, of which that Evangelist, being Paul’s companion, in certain parts of his history availed himself) that which I also delivered (in my apostolic testimony) to you , (viz.) that the Lord Jesus, &c.
] the imperf.: He was being betrayed . “There is an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula.” Stanley.
] not, as Meyer, ‘ a loaf ,’ but bread : cf. the common expression, .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:23-34 . 38. UNWORTHY PARTICIPANTS OF THE LORD’S BREAD AND CUP. The behaviour of the wealthier Cor [1740] at the Church Supper is scandalous in itself; viewed in the light of the institution and meaning of the Eucharistic ordinance, their culpability is extreme (1Co 11:23-27 ). The sense of this should set the readers on self-examination (1Co 11:28 f.). The sickness and mortality rife amongst them are a sign of the Lord’s displeasure in this very matter, and a loud call to amendment (1Co 11:30-32 ). Two practical directions are finally given: that the members of the Church should wait until all are gathered before commencing supper; and that where hunger forbids delay, food should first be taken at home (1Co 11:33 f.).
[1740] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 11:23-24 . Amongst the things the Ap. had “delivered” to his readers, that they professed to be “holding fast” (1Co 11:2 ), was the story of the Last Supper of the Lord Jesus, which the Church perpetuates in its communion-feast. antithetical to : I the imparter, you the receivers, of these solemn facts. neither excludes, nor suggests ( cf. 1Co 1:30 , 1Co 14:36 , etc.) as might have done (Gal 1:12 , 1Th 2:13 ), independent impartation to P.; “it marks the whence of the communication, in a wide and general sense” (El [1741] ); the Ap. vouches for it that what he related came authentically from the Lord . denotes “receiving a deposit or trust” (Ed [1742] ). “The Lord Jesus,” see 1Co 1:8 . The allusion to “the night in which He was betrayed” (graphic impf [1743] , “while the betrayal went on”), is no mere note of time ; it throws into relief the fidelity of Jesus in the covenant (1Co 11:25 ) thus made with His people, and enhances the holy pathos of the recollection; behind the Saviour lurks the Traitor. Incidentally, it shows how detailed and matter-of-fact was the account of the Passion given to Paul’s converts. For the irreg. impf [1744] , , see Wr [1745] , p. 95, note 3. , “took a loaf” ( ein Brod: cf . the of 1Co 10:17 ) one of the flat and brittle unleavened cakes of the Passover Table. . . ., “and after pronouncing the blessing, broke it and said, etc.” This was apparently the blessing inaugurating the meal, which was followed by the symbolic bread-breaking, whereas “the cup” was administered (1Co 11:25 ); cf. Luk 22:17 ff. (see notes ad loc [1746] in vol. i.), whose account is nearly the same as Paul’s, differing in some important particulars from that of Matt. and Mark. Luke, however, introduces a preparatory cup of renunciation on the part of Jesus, “prolusio cn” (Bg [1747] ). The fractio panis , the sign of the commencement of a household or social meal (Luk 24:30 ; Act 2:42 ), is prominent in each narrative; this act supplied another name for the Sacrament. Regarding the words pronounced over the broken loaf, we bear in mind (1) that Jesus said of the bread “This is my body,” Himself sitting there in His visible person, when the identification of substance could not occur to any one; (2) that the parl [1748] saying concerning “the cup” expounds by the word “covenant” ( covenant in my blood , in Luke and P.; my blood of the covenant in Matt, and Mark) the connexion of symbol and thing symbolised, linking the cup and blood, and by analogy the loaf and body, as one not by confusion of substance but by correspondence of relation: what the blood effects, the cup sets forth and seals. The bread, standing for the body, “is the body” representatively; broken for Christ’s disciples, it serves materially in the Supper the part which His slain body is about to serve spiritually “for the life of the world”. Our Lord thus puts into an acted parable the doctrine taught by figurative speech in Joh 6:48 ff. “ is here the copula of symbolic being ; otherwise the identity of subject and predicate would form a conception equally impossible to Speaker and hearers” (Mr [1749] ). ( an early gloss), “that is for you ” in all its relations subsisting for men; for our advantage He wore the (2Co 8:9 , Phi 2:7 , Heb 2:14 ff., etc.). The clause is peculiar to Luke and Paul: their witness is good evidence that the words are (1Co 11:23 ). The sacrificial sense put on by many “Catholic” exegetes (as though syn [1750] with the Homeric , and ‘ asah of Exo 29:39 , etc.) is without lexical warrant, and “plane prter mentem Scriptur” as the R.C [1751] Estius honestly says; see also El [1752] ad loc [1753] ( cf. , 1Co 15:31 ) , in mei memoriam (Cv [1754] ); Ed [1755] reads it “ My commemoration” in contrast to that of Moses (1Co 10:2 ), making . correspond to of 1Co 11:25 .
[1741] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1742] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[1743] mpf. imperfect tense.
[1744]mpf. imperfect tense.
[1745] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).
[1746] ad locum , on this passage.
[1747] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1748]
[1749] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1750] synonym, synonymous.
[1751].C. Roman Catholic.
[1752] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1753] ad locum , on this passage.
[1754] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[1755] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 11:23-26
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
1Co 11:23 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you” Paul was not present at the Lord’s Supper. He claims in Gal 1:11-17 to have received revelation directly from Jesus and in Gal 1:18-19, not to have received it from other Apostles or Jerusalem leaders. However, his words here reflect a knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels’ traditions.
“took bread” It is significant that Jesus did not use the Passover lamb as a symbol. It was linked too strongly with the Old Covenant (cf. Exodus 12). The loaf became the new symbol of unity (1Co 10:16-17).
1Co 11:24 “and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said” This points toward a specific historical act (i.e., the Passover meal in the upper room the night before Jesus was betrayed). Many Christians call the ordinance the Eucharist, which is from the Greek term for “to thank” (i.e., euchariste, cf. Mat 26:27; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19).
NASB”This is my body, which is for you”
NKJV”Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you”
NRSV”This is my body, that is for you”
TEV, NJB”This is my body, which is for you”
This is obviously metaphorical. Cannibalism would be a horror to any Jewish person. Jesus is using the broken bread as a symbol of His broken body on Calvary. As bread gives physical nourishment and life to those who eat it, so Jesus’ actions give spiritual life to those who receive it.
There has been much theological debate about the meaning of Jesus’ words. Much of the discussion is based on (1) the nature of the event and (2) the way God provides grace. Those who see this as a sacrament rely heavily on John 6, which in context, has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper.
There are several Greek manuscript variations in this phrase.
1. the Textus Receptus adds, “take, eat.” This is found in the Greek MSS C3, K, L, and P. It is not original.
2. Paul’s short phrase “for you” (cf. MSS P46, *, A, B, C*) has been expanded by the early scribes in several ways:
(a) “broken for you” (cf. MSS i2, C3, D2, F, G)
(b) “shed for you” (cf. MS D*)
3. (c) “given for you” (cf. Luk 22:19)
UBS4 rates the shorter text (to huper humn) as “A” (certain).
1Co 11:24-25 “do this in remembrance of Me” This is a either a present active indicative or a present active imperative. The imperative fits the context best. This symbolic meal is to be repeated regularly until Jesus returns.
It is interesting that in the record of the Lord’s Supper in Matthew and Mark’s Gospel the phrase “do this in remembrance of Me” is not included. However, it does appear in Luk 22:19 and 1Co 11:24-25. It is so surprising that an obviously significant event in Jesus’ life, which was to be repeated, is recorded with such variety in the Gospels and Paul’s writings.
The NT does not specify how often this is to be repeated. Some groups of believers never do it (i.e., Quakers), others do it every week. Those Christian groups that have a sacramental view of the Supper obviously make it a recurrent (i.e., weekly) and central event. The early Palestinian believers may have observed it once a year in conjunction with the Passover (i.e., the Ebionites, cf. Origen and Epiphanius). Those Christians who are nervous about repeated rituals losing their impact and significance and do not see it as a channel of grace, usually observe the Supper less often (i.e., Southern Baptists’ once a quarter).
1Co 11:25 “This cup is the new covenant” This new covenant is specifically mentioned in Jer 31:31-34 (described in Eze 36:22-38). The Greek term for covenant originally meant “a will” or “last testament,” but the meaning here reflects the Septuagint’s use of the term as “covenant.”
The concept of a “new covenant” must have been shocking to Jewish people. They were trusting in the permanency of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah had to remind them that YHWH’s covenants were conditional on a faith-repentant response.
SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT
“in My blood” This refers to the Hebrew concept of Jesus’ sacrificial death (cf. 2Co 5:21). Blood is an OT Hebrew idiom referring to a sacrifice given to God (cf. Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14; Deu 12:23). The first covenant was ratified with shed blood (cf. Exo 24:8).
1Co 11:26
NASB, NKJV
NRSV”For as often as you eat. . .drink”
TEV”That every time you eat. . .drink”
NJB”Whenever you eat. . .drink”
Notice that there is no specific times given here, or elsewhere, in the NT. In Acts the characteristic phrase to describe the Lord’s Supper, “broke bread,” is used of (1) a daily experience (Act 2:42; Act 2:46) or (2) Sunday worship (Act 20:7; Act 20:11). However, the phrase is also used of a regular meal (Act 27:34-35).
“you proclaim the Lord’s death” This clearly shows the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s death. The Lord’s Supper is a backwards look at the death of Christ.
“until He comes” The Lord’s Supper is a forward look to the Second Coming (cf. 1Co 1:7; 1Co 4:5; 1Co 11:26; Mar 14:25).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
have. Omit.
of = from. App-104.
Lord. App-98.
also I delivered = I delivered also. Compare 1Co 15:1.
unto = to.
Jesus. App-98.
the same = in (Greek. en) the.
betrayed. Greek. paradidomi. Same as “delivered”, 1Co 11:2. See Joh 19:30.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23-25.] To shew them the solemnity of the ordinance which they thus set at nought, he reminds them of the account which he had before given them, of its INSTITUTION BY THE LORD. Mat 26:26-29, Mar 14:22-25. Luk 22:19-20.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:23. , for I received) by immediate revelation. We ought therefore with great reverence to approach that most solemn mystery, which the Lord instituted, while He was yet upon the earth, as we are distinctly informed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and which He renewed, besides, when He ascended into heaven, by special revelation to the Apostle Paul.-Jac. Faber Stapulensis.- , from the Lord) Jesus Christ.-, I delivered) in your presence.- , The Lord Jesus) This word Jesus is added with deliberate intention. He had just said from the Lord.- , on the night) Hence it is called the Supper. Comp. Exo 12:6; although in regard to the paschal lamb, the time of the day was expressly appointed; not so in respect to the Eucharist.- , on which He was betrayed) This is thus brought forward with evident intention; for His being betrayed broke off the conversation of Jesus with his disciples: comp. note at 1Co 11:26.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:23
1Co 11:23
For I received of the Lord-[The information of which he treats was what he himself had received from the immediate and personal communication of the Lord himself, and according to the express injunction therein contained was appointed for their observance. It was not therefore of his own devising, not that of any man, but divinely instituted, and consequently imperatively binding on all Christians.]
that which also I delivered unto you,-[He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to have made these disorders impossible.]
that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed -[The delivery of Jesus to his enemies had already begun and was going on at the very time when the Lord instituted the Supper. The marginal reading, delivered up, is better than was betrayed, which confines the meaning to the action of Judas; whereas the Fathers surrender of the Son (Joh 19:11) and Jesus self-surrender (Joh 10:17-18) are also included.] Paul mentions the sad solemnity of the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Corinthians, to show how they perverted the Supper.
took bread;-The bread used was the unleavened bread of the Passover week. (See Exo 12:15; Exo 13:3; Exo 13:7; Deu 16:3).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Observing the Lords Supper
1Co 11:23-34
There was much disorder in the Corinthian church, because the love-feast, which preceded the Holy Supper, was the scene of riot and conviviality, of ostentation and jealousy. In the love-feast of the early Church each brought his own supply of food, which was put into a common stock and shared by all alike; but at Corinth each family or group retained their own provisions, and a great distinction was thus made between rich and poor. This caused much heart-burning and was unworthy of Christians.
Note that the Apostle received the words of institution by direct revelation. The Lords Supper is intended not only to commemorate the supreme act of Calvary, but to enable us spiritually to incorporate into ourselves the very life and death of Jesus, so that we may truly be crucified with Him and nevertheless live. That I may know Him and the fellowship of His sufferings. We are liable to condemnation if we do not recognize the Body of Christ-that is, the Church-the unity of which is disturbed and obscured when there is dissension. If we judge ourselves, we escape the judgment and chastisement of the Almighty.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
I have: 1Co 15:3, Deu 4:5, Mat 28:20, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:11, Gal 1:12, 1Th 4:2
the same: Mat 26:2, Mat 26:17, Mat 26:34
took: Mat 26:26-28, Mar 14:22-24, Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20, Act 20:7
Reciprocal: Gen 9:12 – General Exo 4:15 – and I Exo 12:14 – memorial Exo 34:32 – he gave Exo 39:5 – as the Lord Lev 8:4 – General Lev 24:7 – a memorial Num 9:8 – I will 2Ch 18:13 – even what my God Son 1:4 – remember Eze 33:7 – thou shalt Eze 40:4 – declare Zec 6:14 – a memorial Mat 17:22 – betrayed Joh 6:35 – I am Joh 17:8 – received Act 20:27 – all Act 22:14 – hear 1Co 10:16 – cup 1Co 11:21 – in 1Th 4:1 – ye have 1Jo 1:5 – the message
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Verse 23. The Corinthians had so corrupted the divine institution that the apostle thought it necessary to describe it to them again, Just as he had delivered it to them when he was with them for so long (Act 18:1-11). The simple phrase took bread states all we need to know as to the article to be eaten in the Lord’s Supper. In every place where it is referred to after the church was set up, it is mentioned by the simple word “bread” (Act 2:42 Act 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23; 27, 28). In all of these places except our present chapter, the word is used independently of any consideration for the Jewish passover. Therefore, to insist on any particular kind of bread for the Lord’s Supper is to be more specific, than the Lord is.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:23. For I received of[1] the Lordthe Lord Jesus, as the next clause shows.that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,[2] This is my body, which is given[3] for you: this do in remembrance of me. Language could not make it more clear than it is here, that the memorial design of this institution is the primary one.
[1] That this communication was a direct one is denied by Meyer and others; because the preposition used would in that case have been different (not but ). But not only is the preposition here used employed in good classical Greek, where no such restriction of its sense is implied, but in New Testament Greek this preposition is beyond doubt employed to express direct communication, as in 1Jn 2:27, But the anointing which ye received of Him, etc. Besides, the emphatic I () clearly implies that the revelation came direct from Christ to the apostle himself; and that such direct communications by the Lord Jesus from His unseen glory to our apostle were no strange thing, we know for certain from Act 8:9-10; Act 22:17-21, xxiii 11.
[2] The evidence against the genuineness of the two introductory words of the received textTake, eatis overwhelming. They have doubtless crept in from Mat 26:26.
[3] There is something perplexing about what wordor whether any word at allwas used here by the apostle. The received text has broken (), but not on very good authority. For the word given there is no authority, and the four oldest MSS, have no word at allreading simply, which is for you. But it is difficult to believe that the apostle so wrote; and when it is observed that wherever the first and second Gospels differ from the third in their account of the Lords Supper, there it will be seen that Luke and our apostle agree, we cannot but think that the apostle did use the word given (), since his constant companion uses it (Luk 22:19); and knowing, as Luke doubtless did, that the apostle had his account of it from the Lord Himself, and probably repeated it in the same form whenever he for the first tune broke bread with any company of disciples, we venture to insert the word given, though in italics, in place of either broken or no word at all.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. How the apostle, for reforming those abuses which were crept into the church amongst them, relating to the holy sacrament, reduces them to the first institution of that sacred ordinance; I have delivered unto you what I have received of the Lord.
Mark, the apostle, did receive and deliver, but not institute and appoint, this venerable ordinance. Had he not received, he had wanted authority; and had he not delivered what he received, he had wanted integrity.
Observe, 2. The author of this institution, the Lord Jesus. To institute sacraments is an act of Christ’s regal power and royal authority. The church has no power to appoint, but only to execute and administer what Christ appoints.
Observe, 3. The time of the institution: the same night in which he was betrayed. It is a night much to be remembered, in which he settles an ordinance in the church for the confirmation and consolation of his people to the end of the world.
Lord! what an evidence was here of thy tender care and affectionate concern for thy church and people, in spending so much of that little, very little time thou hadst left, upon their account!
Observe, 4. The sacramental elements, or the commemorative, significative, and instructive signs: and they are bread and wine, shadowing forth the body and blood of the crucified Jesus.
Where note, St. Paul calls it bread five times over, which Christ calls his own body, because it was a sign and representation of his body; not his real body, for then Christ ate his own body whilst he was alive, his disciples devouring that body over night which hung upon the cross next morning, with a thousand such absurdities which the doctrine of transubstantiation carries along with it.
Observe, 5. The ministerial actions: the breaking of the bread, and blessing of the cup.
The bread must be broken, to represent the breaking of Christ’s body upon the cross, which comprehended all the sufferings of his human nature, all which were consummated in his crucifixion; and this broken bread must be taken and eaten by us, to intimate that all his breakings, bruisings, and woundings, both in soul and body, were for our sins, and for our benefits, and that the sole intention of all his sufferings was for us.
Wine also is poured forth, because as no liquor like wine doth cheer a sad and drooping spirit, in like manner nothing doth so glad and cheer the soul as faith in a crucified Saviour.
That spiritual life which a soul is raised to, by the death of Christ, is a life of the greatest delight and joy which we can conceive.
Observe, 6. The great design and end of this institution: Do it in remembrance of me, or for a memorial of me. Christ knew how apt our base hearts would be to forget him, amidst such a throng of sensible objects as we here converse with: and how much our forgetfulness of him and his sufferings would tend to our prejudice and disadvantage; and therefore doth he appoint this ordinance to bring him to remembrance.
Observe, 7. The strict mandate or charge given for the frequent celebration of this ordinance; Do this as oft as ye drink it; that is, do it often. We can no more live and thrive without our spiritual, than we can without our corporal food; as the body must be often fed, so the soul must have its frequent repast.
Observe, 8. The reason assigned for the frequent celebration of this ordinance: For as oft as ye do this, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come: that is, by frequenting this ordinance we commemorate the death of Christ during his absence from us. As the end of the ordinance was to be a standing memorial, so the obligation that lies upon all Christians to observe it is perpetual. Christians are, by this ordinance, to represent the sacrificing of Christ for their sins, till he come again in glory.
Learn from the whole, 1. That the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was instituted by Christ as a standing memorial of his death and sufferings for us.
Here we ought to remember the painfulness of his death, the meritoriousness of his death, the voluntariness of his death to ourselves. And the manner how we should remember Christ and his death in the sacrament is various; with judgment and understanding, with reverence and humility, with sorrow and grief of heart for our sins; yet with joy and thankfulness for the sufferings of a Saviour, with faith and affiance, with live and affection, with resolutions for a new and better obedience.
Learn, 2. That the command of Christ lays it as a law upon, and makes it the standing duty of, all Christians, to commemorate his death at his holy table. Do this in remembrance of me.
Here it deserves our notice what kind of command this is; it is a sovereign and supreme command: it is a positive and express command: it is a permanent and lasting command; it is the command of a Saviour, yea, of a dying Saviour; it is a command of love; it is such a command as, if we duly observe, will be a blessed means to enable us to observe all the commands of God better.
Lastly, It is such a command, as whoever lives in the wilful neglect of it, cannot be called a Christian, but will be treated by Christ at the great day as an enemy and despiser of his dying love.
Learn, 3. That it is a Christian’s duty not barely to do this, but to do it often: frequent communicating is a great duty. The primitive Christians received every Lord’s day, yea, it is believed oftener than every Lord’s day.
This is agreeable to the nature of the ordinance, which is a spiritual repast, banquet, and feast, and therefore to be received frequently. It is also agreeable to the Author of the ordinance; it is a feast of God’s own providing, therefore to neglect it is to fly in the face of God: it is agreeable to the end of the ordinance, which is to renew our covenant, and that cannot be done too often.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
The Lord’s Instructions Concerning the Supper
The Lord himself told Paul about the sacred supper. The night of the supper’s institution was the night in which Christ was betrayed and thus was a solemn occasion. The bread he took on that night would have been unleavened since this was the type of bread used during the Passover week ( Exo 12:15 ). Jesus, as always, thanked God for his blessings, of which the supper would be a part. Since Jesus was present in body at the original supper, the bread could only have represented Christ’s body. They were to partake of it remembering the Lord’s sacrifice ( 1Co 11:23-24 ).
Jesus took the cup in the same manner he had the bread. Obviously, he gave thanks. The contents of the cup, or fruit of the vine, represented the cleansing blood of Christ. That blood sealed and confirmed the new covenant under which sinners can be set free from the terrible debt of sin ( Rom 6:23 ). First Century Christians gathered together on the first day of the week to partake of this supper ( Act 20:7 ). Paul reminded the Corinthian brethren that they were to remember the Lord’s sacrifice each time they gathered for the purpose of partaking the supper. In this act, they looked back to the cross and forward to Jesus’ return to take his people home ( 1Co 11:25-26 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Co 11:23. For I have received of the Lord Doubtless by special revelation; that which also I delivered unto you In my former preaching on this subject, in which, as in all things else, I have been careful most exactly to adhere to my original instructions. This epistle appears to have been written before any of the gospels, and it is probable from Gal 1:17, &c, that when the apostle wrote it, he had seen none of the apostles. And that the institution of this ordinance should make a part of that immediate revelation, with which Christ honoured this apostle, is both very remarkable, and also affords a strong argument for the perpetuity of it in the church. For had others of the apostles (as Barclay in his Apology for the Quakers presumes to insinuate) mistaken what passed at the last passover, and founded the observation of the eucharist on that mistake, surely Christ would rather have corrected this error in his new revelation to Paul, than have administered such an occasion of confirming Christians in it. Doddridge. That the Lord Jesus In his own person; the same night in which he was betrayed That is, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, which circumstance, with the others that follow respecting the nature and design of the sacred ordinance here spoken of, with the appointed form of its administration, Macknight thinks was made known to Paul by Christ himself, as a matter which merited particular attention, because it was a strong proof of his innocence. He knew he was to be crucified the next day as an impostor, for calling himself the Son of God. Having so near a prospect of his punishment, would he, by instituting his supper, have taken care that his punishment, as an impostor, should never be forgotten, if he had really been an impostor? No: such a supposition exceeds all rational belief. But knowing himself to be the Son of God, and being absolutely certain that God would acknowledge him as his Son, by raising him from the dead on the third day, he instituted his supper, to be preserved by his disciples till he should return to judge the world; because he foresaw that his death could not be remembered by his disciples, without recollecting his resurrection, and expecting his return. Further, if Christ did not rise from the dead according to his express promise, frequently repeated, can it be thought that his disciples, who thus must have known him to be a deceiver, would have perpetuated the memory of his punishment as an impostor, and of their own shame, by beginning a service, in which his death, that is, his punishment, would be openly published to the world? Wherefore, since the apostles, and the other first disciples, who were eye-witnesses of their Masters death and resurrection, by beginning this service, and their successors by continuing it from age to age, have published to the world the death and resurrection of their Master, as matters of fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning; this certainly is an incontrovertible proof of the reality of Christs death and resurrection, and consequently it hath fully established his claim to be Gods Son, the true Messiah and Saviour of the world. Also, this ordinance hath been the source of unspeakable consolation to his disciples in every age, by assuring them that all his doctrines are true, and that all his promises shall be performed in their season; particularly his promise of returning to raise the dead, and carry his people into heaven. In this view the institution of the supper, in the night wherein he was betrayed, was a great instance of Christs love to men. And we are bound by continuing that excellent service in the world, to hand down to them who come after us those unspeakable consolations which we ourselves enjoy, through the pious care of our fathers, who believed in Christ before us.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 23-25. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the night in which He was betrayed, took bread: 24. and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My body [which is] for you; this do in remembrance of Me. 25. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
The for shows that the account of the institution, which follows, is meant to justify the various rebukes expressed in 1Co 11:22. First of all, Paul establishes on an immovable foundation the authority of his narrative. It comes from the Lord, and without any other middle party than the apostle himself.
The , I, is put at the head to give the readers an assurance of the truth of the narrative: This is what I hold, I from a good source, from the Lord Himself.
But it is asked in what way this account could have been delivered by the Lord to the Apostle Paul, who was not of the number of the Twelve present at the institution of the Supper. The usual answer is this: The apostle had knowledge of the fact from the apostolical tradition; and to prove this mode of transmission, reliance is placed on the use of the preposition , which does not denote, as would do, direct transmission, but which simply points to the first source from which the account proceeded. Thus, according to Reuss, Paul here speaks of a communication made to him by older disciples, but not of an immediate revelation. But the question arises in this case, what means the I placed first in the sentence: I, even I have received of the Lord? If he is speaking of no other communication from the Lord than that which he gave as the author of the rite in question, or that which, through the apostles as its channels, conveyed this account to Paul, thousands of Christians, and hundreds of evangelists, might have said as much as St. Paul; and instead of saying: I have received, Paul, if he was not to be guilty of charlatanism, ought simply to have said: We have received of the Lord. In the passage 1Co 15:3, where he is really summing up the apostolical tradition, he avoids using the pronoun which characterizes our passage. If the account of the institution of the Supper really came to Paul from the Lord, it could only be in the way of direct revelation. The preposition , which strictly denotes the first origin, is not opposed, as is constantly repeated, to this interpretation; comp. Col 1:7; Col 3:24; 1Jn 1:5, where the communication implied in the is as direct and personal as possible. And if it is objected, that to express this last idea would have been necessary, which specially denotes direct transmission, it is forgotten that this preposition is virtually found in the verb , I received from.By using the two prepositions and the apostle brings out at once the purity of the origin and the purity of the transmission of his account. Heinrici quotes several passages in which the term is applied to initiation into the mysteries, for example in Porphyry: , to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras. This meaning would certainly suit here. The apostle then would say that the Lord Himself initiated him into the knowledge of this important act of his life. But we have no need of such a comparison to account for the choice of the term used by the apostle.
Bengel, Olshausen, Rckert, Meyer, de Wette, Osiander, have recognised that the only possible meaning of the passage was that of direct instruction given to the apostle by the Lord; comp. Gal 1:12. It is objected that revelation bears on doctrines, not on historical facts, and it is asked what purpose such a miracle would have served, since Paul could know from ecclesiastical tradition the fact which he here relates. But we find in the Acts a revelation, containing at least the sketch of a historical fact (Act 9:12), and several visions in which the Lord conversed with Paul, as friend with friend (Act 22:17 seq., Act 23:11). If these accounts are not mere tales, we should conclude from them that revelation may also bear on particular historical facts. Now in the present case such a communication was a necessary condition of the apostle’s independence and dignity. For he was not a simple evangelist, delegated by men (Gal 1:1), but a founder of Churches, the apostle chosen for the heathen world, as the Twelve were for the Jewish people, and consequently dependent only on the Lord; and when he instituted in his Churches a rite of such decisive importance as the Supper was, he required to be able to do so without appealing to any human authority, but supported, like the Twelve, by the Lord Himself. As we study the account immediately following, we shall prove the truth of this observation. The manner in which the Lord communicated this fact to him, we know not, and can only refer to Gal 1:11-12.
The words: that which also I delivered unto you, guarantee the purity of transmission. The , also, expresses the identity between the accounts of Jesus to Paul, and of Paul to the Corinthians.
As he enters on the narrative, Paul adds to the title Lord the name Jesus, to carry back the thought of his readers to His earthly person, and so call up the scene of the institution.
If Paul mentions the detail, that it was night when Jesus instituted the Supper, it was no doubt to compare with that time the hour when the Church celebrated the rite. Every similar night which shall follow should reproduce the emotions of that original night, and borrow from it something of its deep solemnity. The sad character of that night is brought out by the words: in which He was betrayed. Nine Mjj., belonging to the three families, read the verb in the form of , which is adopted by Tischendorf. In fact, the later Greek writers tended more and more to assimilate the conjugation of the other classes of verbs in to the conjugation of verbs in ; or should we see in this strange form the imperfect of a compound of (formed from , to bnd), a word which appears once in the Anabasis? The sense would be: on the night on which they bound Him. But neither the imperfect nor the preposition agrees with such a meaning.
The article introduced by the Greco-Lat. reading before must be rejected. The word literally signifies a bread; one of the cakes of unleavened bread placed on the table.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For I received of the Lord [Paul did not receive his knowledge as to the supper from the apostles or other witnesses (comp. Gal 1:11-12). To be truly an apostle and witness (Act 1:8), it was fitting that Paul should have his knowledge from the fountain source. For a comparison of Paul’s account with the three others, and comments upon 1Co 11:23-26; see “Fourfold Gospel,” p. 657] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed [the solemn and affecting circumstances under which the supper was instituted, as well as the sacred nature of the ordinance itself, should have impressed upon the Corinthians how unbecoming it was to celebrate the memorial of it in a spirit of pride, revelry and disorder] took bread;
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
23-25. Here proceeding on from his allusions to the love feast anticipating the sacrament, and which they had woefully perverted into a hilarious festival, like the church suppers of the present day, he now describes the holy Eucharist as instituted by our Savior, following the last supper in the upper room on Mt. Zion.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
11:23 {18} For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
(18) We must take a true form of keeping the Lord’s supper, out of the institution of it, the parts of which are these: touching the pastors, to show forth the Lord’s death by preaching his word, to bless the bread and the wine by calling upon the name of God, and together with prayers to declare the institution of it, and finally to deliver the bread broken to be eaten, and the cup received to be drunk with thanksgiving. And touching the flock, that every man examine himself, that is to say, to prove both his knowledge, and also faith, and repentance: to show forth the Lord’s death, that is, in true faith to yield to his word and institution: and last of all, to take the bread from the minister’s hand, and to eat it and to drink the wine, and give God thanks. This was Paul’s and the apostles’ manner of ministering.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Abuse of the Lord 11:23-26
There was an even more serious dimension to this problem. The Corinthians were sinning against the Lord as well as one another.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
What Paul taught here came ultimately from the Lord Jesus Himself. This reminder stresses the importance of this revelation.
"The verbs ’received’ and ’passed on,’ which occur again in combination in 1Co 15:3, are technical terms from Paul’s Jewish heritage for the transmission of religious instruction. His present concern is to establish that the tradition about the Supper they had received from him came from Jesus himself: ’I received [it] from the Lord.’" [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 548.]
The terminology used here does not require us to understand that the Lord Jesus communicated this information to Paul personally. Paul’s wording suggests that he may have been repeating exactly what others had taught him. This is not a verbatim quotation from one of the Gospel accounts. [Note: See David Lincicum, "Paul and the Testimonia: Quo Vademus?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:2 (June 2008):297-308.]
Paul described the night Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as the night in which He was betrayed. This draws attention to the Savior’s great love for His own. The Lord was graciously providing for His disciples when one of them was plotting to do away with Him.