Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:24

And when he had given thanks, he broke [it,] and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

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

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

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

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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

Take eat … – See the note on Mat 26:26.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 11:24

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

The Lords Supper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What is it that is commemorated?

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

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

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

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

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

The Lords Supper: its end and our duty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramental grace

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

The Lords Supper, a symbol

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

The Lords Supper the sample of the Christian life

(Text, and Col 3:17):–One of the saddest things about the Christian life is that it seems to be split into two parts. Is the distinction between sacred and secular a valid one? is there any reason why a mans prayers should be more devout than his business? Look at these two passages. The same consecration is claimed for the most trivial acts of daily life, as is claimed for the sacred communion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. All life, like the communion of the Lords Supper, may be, and ought to he, a showing-forth of Christs death. The death of Christ, which is shown forth in the holy communion, as a death for us, and the ground of our hope, is to be shown forth in our daily walk, as a death working in us, and the ground of our conduct (2Co 4:10-11). There is not only the atoning aspect in Christs death, but the example of the way by which we are to mortify our members which are upon earth, because we are dead with Him, and our life is hid with Christ in God. No man manifests the death of Christ by any outward act of worship, who is not feeling it daily in his own soul. It is in vain for us to say that we are relying on Christ, unless Christ be in us, slaying the old man and quickening the new. You do show forth the Lords death till He come when you crucify the old man with his affections and lusts, and rise again into newness of life. The fact is better than the symbol–the inward communion more true than the outward participation.

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

Take, eat

I. Take–

1. Knowingly (1Co 11:29).

(1) What it is in itself: bread (1Co 10:16).

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

2. Humbly. Considering–

(1) Gods greatness that gives.

(2) Our vileness that do receive (Isa 6:5).

3. Believingly.

(1) That Christ is really present with us (Mat 18:20.

(2) Doth really offer His body to us.

(3) That if we worthily receive, we are really partakers of all the merits of His death and passion (1Co 10:16).

So that–

(a) Our sins shall be pardoned (Mat 26:28).

(b) Our natures cleansed (Act 3:26).

4. Thankfully.

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

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

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

1. With repentance (Exo 12:8).

2. Faith.

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

III. Uses.

1. Prepare yourselves for this spiritual banquet.

2. Receive it with faith.

3. Feed with thankfulness.

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

This is My body.—

The body of Christ in the sacrament

What are we to understand by this?

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

1. Is not grounded on Scripture.

(1) Not on Joh 6:55. For this–

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

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

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

(2) Not on the text (see Gen 41:26; Dan 2:38; 1Co 10:4).

2. Is contrary to the Scriptures. When Christ said this there could be nothing but bread; for His body was not yet offered (see 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:25; Mat 26:20).

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

II. Positively.

1. This is My body; that is, the sign and sacrament of My body (see Gen 17:10-11; Exo 12:11).

2. Which was broken for you.

(1) How broken? Bruised, pierced (Joh 19:33-34). He suffered torment.

(2) For what?

(a) God our Governor has given us laws to observe (Gen 26:5), and annexed promises and threatenings (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:10-12).

(b) Man has broken these laws (Psa 14:1-3), and so is obliged to the punishments.

(c) These punishments he cannot bear, without being entirely miserable (Mat 25:46). Hence Christ, the Son of God, undertakes to bear them for him (Isa 53:4; Isa 53:6). This He could not do, unless He became man. Neither must He be man only, but He must suffer (Heb 9:22). These His sufferings are the things represented by the bread and wine.

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

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

(a) Our sins can be pardoned (Mat 26:28).

(b) God reconciled (Rom 5:1). Our natures renewed (Act 3:26). Our souls saved (Heb 2:10; Heb 5:9).

Conclusion:

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

2. Be always mindful of it.

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

(1) Penitently.

(2) Believingly.

(3) Charitably. (Bp. Beveridge.)

Which is broken for you.—

The broken Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. An emblem of the universality of His mission,

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

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

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

This do in remembrance of Me.—

In remembrance

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

1. Of ourselves when we were strangers and foreigners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The continual sustenance of faith.

2. The stimulus of love.

3. The fountain of hope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Experience has ofttimes proved its eminent value.

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

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

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

The nature and importance of the Lords Supper

I. The different names descriptive of this ordinance.

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

2. Communion–which may signify either a participation or communion between the receivers themselves, or between the receivers and the thing received. In both senses it is applicable to the Lords Supper (1Co 10:16).

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

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

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

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

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

The Supper of the Lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

In remembrance of Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In remembrance of Me

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

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

I. A memorial.

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

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

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

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

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

II. As a means of grace.

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

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

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

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

III. A witness for Christian truth.

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

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

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

The remembrance of Christ

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

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

I. The glorious and precious object of memory.

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

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

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

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

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

2. Patience under persecution.

3. Strength in temptation.

4. Victory in death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The commemoration of Christs death

We are to remember–

I. What He was from eternity: God (Rom 9:5).

II. What He became: Man (Joh 1:4).

III. What He did, and how He lived.

1. Humbly (Mat 11:29).

2. Charitably.

3. Righteously (1Pe 2:22; Mat 3:15).

4. Inoffensively (Mat 17:27).

5. Obediently.

IV. What He suffered.

1. Contempt (Isa 53:3).

2. Pain in His body (Isa 53:3).

3. Grief of heart (Mat 26:37; Luk 22:44).

4. Death.

(1) A shameful,

(2) A painful,

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

V. Whom He suffered so much for: for us (Isa 53:5-6).

VI. What benefit we have by it.

1. Pardon (Rom 5:1).

2. Reconciliation to God (2Co 5:11).

3. Mortification of sin (Rom 8:1-2; Mat 1:21).

4. Grace here.

5. Glory hereafter (Joh 3:16).

VII. What He did after His death.

1. He rose again (Rom 4:25).

2. Ascended (Act 1:11).

3. Sits at the right hand of God (Rom 8:34).

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

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

Conclusion: For preparation–

1. Review your lives.

2. Examine your hearts (1Co 11:28).

(1) The strength of your sins.

(2) The growth of your graces.

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

Christ remembered at His table

Remember–

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

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

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

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

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

The sacrament a feast of alliance

This idea must be–

I. Explained. This feast is one of–

1. Reconciliation.

2. Friendship.

3. Union.

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

III. Justified. It is a feast of sacrifice.

IV. Improved:

1. Come with a contrite heart to this feast.

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

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

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

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

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

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

24. brakeThe breakingof the bread involves its distribution and reproves theCorinthian mode at the love-feast, of “every one taking beforeother his own supper.”

my body . . . broken foryou“given” (Lu22:19) for you (Greek, “in your behalf”), and”broken,” so as to be distributed among you. The oldestmanuscripts omit “broken,” leaving it to be supplied from”brake.” The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, readfrom Luke, “given.” The literal “body” could nothave been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among Hisdisciples when He said, “This is My body.” They couldonly have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this breadis to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health ofthe believing communicant. The words, “Take, eat,” are notin the oldest manuscripts.

in remembrance of me(Seeon 1Co 11:25).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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

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

or excuse from a blessing for that again;

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

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

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

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

this is my body; in opposition to, and distinction from,

, “the body of the passover”, as the lamb was called s; meaning not his mystical body the church, of which he is head, though this is one bread, and one body, 1Co 10:17 but his natural body, and that not properly, as if the bread was really changed into it; for the bread in the supper, after the blessing over it, and thanks given for it, retains its same nature, properties, form, and figure, only is set apart for the use of commemorating the broken body of Christ; and therefore this phrase is to be understood in a figurative sense, that it was a sign and seal of his body; it being broken into pieces represented his wounds, bruises, sufferings, and death; just in such sense as the rock is said to be Christ, in 1Co 10:4 not that that was really Christ, but was a type and sign of him: which is

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

When he had given thanks (). First aorist active participle of from which word our word Eucharist comes, common late verb (see on 1:14).

Which is for you ( ). (broken) of the Textus Receptus (King James Version) is clearly not genuine. Luke (Lu 22:19) has (given) which is the real idea here. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not broken (Joh 19:36). The bread was broken, but not the body of Jesus.

In remembrance of me ( ). The objective use of the possessive pronoun . Not my remembrance of you, but your remembrance of me. , from , to remind or to recall, is an old word, but only here in N.T. save Lu 22:19 which see.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

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

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

Do [] . Be doing or continue doing.

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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And when he had given thanks, he brake it.” (kai eucharistesas eklasen kai eipen) “And having given thanks brake (it) and said.” The order or procedure for administering the Lord’s Supper, Paul received from the Lord ‘ which was: 1) He took the bread, 2) He gave thanks, and 3) “Having given thanks” he broke it, after which 4) he explained its symbolic meaning as he said: (This orderly sequence is verified in Mat 26:26-30; Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:23-25.

2) “This is my body, which is broken for you.” (touto mou estin to soma to huper humon) “This (broken bread) is my body (broken) on behalf of you.” After which procedure he gave the memorial law, in step 5) as follows:

3) “This do in remembrance of me.” (touto poieite eis ten emen anamnesen) “Do ye this’ with reference to, or in my remembrance.” As the Passover was a symbolic memorial of Israel’s release from Egyptian bondage, so the breaking of bread is a divine symbolic ordinance, given by our Lord, to be observed by His church in remembrance of His broken body or mutilated, torn body. Exo 12:40-51; Mat 26:26-30; Luk 22:19-20. The Lord’s Supper is memorial – not procurative in nature.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

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

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

Accordingly, we nowhere read that the Lord tasted bread along with his disciples, but there is mention made of his giving thanks, (Joh 6:23,) by which example he has assuredly instructed us to do the like. This giving of thanks, however, has a reference to something higher, for Christ gives thanks to the Father for his mercy (674) towards the human race, and the inestimable benefit of redemption; and he invites us, by his example, to raise up our minds as often as we approach the sacred table, to an acknowledgment of the boundless love of God towards us, and to have our minds kindled up to true gratitude. (675)

Take, eat, this is my body As Paul designed here to instruct us in a few words as to the right use of the sacrament, it is our duty to consider attentively (676) what he sets before us, and allow nothing to pass unobserved, inasmuch as he says nothing but what is exceedingly necessary to be known, and worthy of the closest attention. In the first place, we must take notice, that Christ here distributes the bread among the Apostles, that all may partake of it in common, and thus every one may receive his portion, that there may be an equal participation among all. Accordingly, when there is not a table in common prepared for all the pious — where they are not invited to the breaking of bread in common, and where, in fine, believers do not mutually participate, it is to no purpose that the name of the Lord ’ s Supper is laid claim to.

But for what purpose (677) are the people called to mass, unless it be that they may come away empty from an unmeaning show? (678) It has, therefore, nothing in unison with the supper. Hence, too, we infer that Christ’s promise is no more applicable to the mass than to the feast of the Salii; (679) for when Christ promises that he will give us his body, he at the same time commands us to take and eat of the bread Hence, unless we obey this command, it is to no purpose that we glory in his promise. To explain this more familiarly in other words — the promise is annexed to the commandment in a conditional way, as it were: hence it has its accomplishment only if the condition also is accomplished. For example, it is written, Call upon me; I will answer thee (Psa 91:15.) It is our part to obey the command of God, that he may accomplish for us what he promises; otherwise we shut ourselves out from the accomplishment of it. (680)

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

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

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

But what do Papists say as to their mass? At first they were so impudent as to maintain, that it was truly and properly called a sacrifice. Now, however, they admit that it is indeed a commemorative sacrifice, but in such a way, that the benefit of redemption is, through means of their daily oblation, (681) applied to the living and the dead. However that may be, they present the appearance of a sacrifice. (682) In the first place, there is rashness in this, as being without any command from Christ; but there is a still more serious error involved in it — that, while Christ appointed the Supper for this purpose, that we might take and eat, they pervert it to a totally different use.

This is my body I shall not recount the unhappy contests that have tried the Church in our times as to the meaning of these words. Nay rather, would to God that we could bury the remembrance of them in perpetual oblivion! I shall state, first of all, sincerely and without disguise, and then farther, I shall state freely (as I am wont to do) what my views are. Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes, for it immediately follows — This cup is the New Testament in my blood Let us regard it then as beyond all controversy that Christ is here speaking of the bread. Now the question is — “In what sense?” That we may elicit the true meaning, we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny this is exceedingly dishonest. (683) Why then is the term body applied to the bread? All, I think, will allow that it is for the same reason that John calls the Holy Spirit a dove (Joh 1:32.) Thus far we are agreed. Now the reason why the Spirit was so called was this — that he had appeared in the form of a dove. Hence the name of the Spirit is transferred to the visible sign. Why should we not maintain that there is here a similar instance of metonymy, and that the term body is applied to the bread, as being the sign and symbol of it? If any are of a different opinion they will forgive me; but it appears to me to be an evidence of a contentious spirit, to dispute pertinaciously on this point. I lay it down, then, as a settled point, that there is here a sacramental form of expression, (684) in which the Lord gives to the sign the name of the thing signified.

We must now proceed farther, and inquire as to the reason of the metonymy. Here I reply, that the name of the thing signified is not applied to the sign simply as being a representation of it, but rather as being a symbol of it, (685) by which the reality is presented to us. For I do not allow the force of those comparisons which some borrow from profane or earthly things; for there is a material difference between them and the sacraments of our Lord. The statue of Hercules is called Hercules, but what have we there but a bare, empty representation? On the other hand the Spirit is called a dove, as being a sure pledge of the invisible presence of the Spirit. Hence the bread is Christ ’ s body, because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body; for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. (686) Hence it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread.

We must now discuss the manner. Papists hold forth to us their system of transubstantiation: they allege that, when the act of consecration has been gone through, the substance of the bread no longer exists, and that nothing remains but the accidents. (687) To this contrivance we oppose — not merely the plain words of Scripture, but the very nature of the sacraments. For what is the meaning of the supper, if there is no correspondence between the visible sign and the spiritual reality? They would have the sign to be a false and delusive appearance of bread. What then will the thing signified be, but a mere imagination? Hence, if there must be a correspondence between the sign and its reality, it is necessary that the bread be real — not imaginary — to represent Christ’s real body. Besides, Christ’s body is here given us not simply, but as food. Now it is not by any means the color of the bread that nourishes us, but the substance. In fine, if we would have reality in the thing itself, there must be no deception in the sign.

Rejecting then the dream of Papists, let us see in what manner Christ’s body is given to us. Some explain, that it is given to us, when we are made partakers of all the blessings which Christ has procured for us in his body — when, I say, we by faith embrace Christ as crucified for us, and raised up from the dead, and in this way are effectually made partakers of all his benefits. As for those who are of this opinion, I have no objection to their holding such a view. As for myself, I acknowledge, that it is only when we obtain Christ himself, that we come to partake of Christ’s benefits. He is, however, obtained, I affirm, not only when we believe that he was made an offering for us, but when he dwells in us — when he is one with us — when we are members of his flesh, (Eph 5:30,) — when, in fine, we are incorporated with him (so to speak) into one life and substance. Besides, I attend to the import of the words, for Christ does not simply present to us the benefit of his death and resurrection, but the very body in which he suffered and rose again. I conclude, that Christ’s body is really, (as the common expression is,) — that is, truly given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome food for our souls. I use the common form of expression, but my meaning is, that our souls are nourished by the substance of the body, that we may truly be made one with him, or, what amounts to the same thing, that a life-giving virtue from Christ’s flesh is poured into us by the Spirit, though it is at a great distance from us, and is not mixed with us. (688)

There now remains but one difficulty — how is it possible that his body, which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven and earth, (Jer 23:24,) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ, they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, (689) nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.

But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol (690) of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding. “In the meantime, however, drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking beyond the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, (691) that he may thence communicate himself to thee.” These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite.

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

Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the Supper is a memorial, ( μνημόσυνον (692)) appointed as a help to our weakness; for if we were sufficiently mindful of the death of Christ, this help would be unnecessary. This is common to all sacraments, for they are helps to our weakness. What is the nature of that remembrance which Christ would have us cherish with regard to him, we shall hear presently. As to the inference, however, which some draw from this — that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance applies to something that is absent; the answer is easy — that Christ is absent from it in the sense in which the Supper is a commemoration. For Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. In short, in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place, but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh, as though it were present. (693)

(674) “ Sa misericorde infinie;” — “His infinite mercy.”

(675) “ Et n’en soyons enuers luy ingrats, mats soyons enflambez a vne vraye recognoissance;” — “And may not be ungrateful towards him, but may be kindled up to a true acknowledgment.”

(676) “ Et bien poiser;” — “And ponder well.”

(677) “ Mais ie vous prie, a quel propos;” — “But for what purpose, I pray you.”

(678) “ Comme s’il retournoit de voir vne bastelerie inutile et sotte;” — “As if they were returning from seeing a useless and foolish mountebank scene.”

(679) “ Vn banquet de la confrairie des Sacrificateurs de Mars, lesquels les Romains nommoyent Salii;” — “To the banquet of the fraternity of the priests of Mars, whom the Romans called Salii.” They received this name from their going through the city leaping and dancing. The feast which they partook of, after finishing their procession, was exceedingly sumptuous. Hence the expression — “ Epulari Saliarem in modum “ — “to feast sumptuously.” Cic. Att. 5. 9. — Ed.

(680) “ Nous reiettons l’effet, et luy fermons la porte;” — “We reject its accomplishment, and shut the door against it.”

(681) “ Par leur belle oblation qu’ils font tousles iours;” — “By their admirable oblation, which they make every day.”

(682) “ Vne apparence et representation de sacrifice;” — “An appearance and representation of a sacrifice.”

(683) “ Ce seroit vne impudence et opinionastrete trop grande;” — “This were excessive impudence and obstinacy.”

(684) “ C’est a dire, qui est ordinaire en matiere des Sacremens;” — “That is to say, what is usual in connection with Sacraments.”

(685) “ Vn gage et tesmoignage externe;” — “An outward token and evidence.”

(686) “ Pour penser qu’il nous repaisse d’ombres et vaines figures;” — “To think that he would feed us with shadows and empty representations.”

(687) By the accidents of the bread are meant its color, taste, smell, and shape. — Ed.

(688) In this passage, as, also, in some other parts of his writings, Calvin seems to affirm the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, in some mysterious manner, while he was, as is well known, opposed to consubstantiation, as well as to transubstantiation. The late venerable Dr. Dick of Glasgow, while treating of the Lord’s Supper — while he makes mention of Calvin in terms of the highest respect, as “one of the brightest ornaments of the Reformation,” who, “in learning, genius, and zeal, had few equals, and no superior,” — animadverts on some expressions made use of in the Institutes, which seem not altogether in harmony with his general system of views in reference to the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Supper. Dick’s Lectures on Theology, volume 4. — Ed.

(689) “ Vne estendue de son corps infinie;” — “An infinite extension of his body.”

(690) “ Vn signe et tesmoignage;” — “A sign and evidence.”

(691) “ Esleve ton esprit et ton coeur jusques la;” — “Raise thy mind and heart thither.”

(692) It is worthy of notice, that our Author has made use of the same Greek term (when commenting on 1Co 5:8) in reference to the Passover, which was intended partly as a memorial ( μνημόσυνον). The term is of frequent occurrence in the same sense in Herodious, and occasionally in other Classical authors. — Ed

(693) “ Du ciel il fait descouler sur nous la vertu de sa chair presentement et vrayement;” — “He makes the virtue of his flesh pour down upon us from heaven presently and truly.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

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

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

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

24. This and the following verse have so many phrases identical with Luk 22:19 as to show them to be the same tradition. In regard to the passover consult our note, Mat 26:2: in regard to the Lord’s supper, notes on Mat 26:20-30. Yet it must be noted that this epistle and this passage may have been written before the gospel of Luke. Whether this is the earliest existing narrative of the Lord’s supper, as Stanley says, may he doubted. At any rate, we believe that the original Hebrew of Matthew’s gospel was written before this; and that the Greek Matthew is a translation of that document.

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

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

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

Body See note on Mat 26:26.

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

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

1Co 11:24-25. And when he had given thanks, &c. This is a remarkable instance, among a thousand, to prove the authenticity of St. Luke’s Gospel. The Apostle, finding it necessary to reprove the Corinthians for their behaviour at the Lord’s supper, labours to convince them of the heinousness of their conduct, by shewing how unsuitable it was to the nature and end of that solemn institution: but when he comes to explain the institution itself, though he acquired the knowledge of it by immediate revelation, yet it is very remarkable that he expresses himself in the words of the Evangelist, Luk 22:19-20 intending, it should seem, by this quotation, to make them sensible, that though they might plead the frailty of their memory, in excuse of their forgetfulness of what himself had delivered on this subject by word of mouth, theywere nevertheless extremely culpable, in not attending to the information of the Gospel that they had then in their hands; which, if duly regarded, would have effectually restrained them from such infamous proceedings. If this be allowed, and St. Paul had actually an eye to St. Luke in this passage, we have seen a pretty clear proof that his Gospel was written before this 1st Epistle to the Corinthians; that is, before the year fifty-seven, and may thence conclude, that we cannot be far distant from the truth in fixing the date of its publication to the year fifty-three. See Owen’s Observations on the four Gospels, p. 47, &c. The word , for, 1Co 11:26 has the force of an illative particle; accordingly we may read it therefore. Instead of testament, some read covenant.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 11:24 . ] This is my body (the body of me). The emphasis lies not on the enclitic , but on . See, further, on Mat 26:26 , and see Keim (in the Jahrb. fr Deutsch. Theol. 1859, p. 73), as against Strbel (in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.), who would have not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward to what is to be designated by the predicate. This can mean nothing else whatever but: this broken bread here , which again necessitates our taking as the copula of the symbolic “being.”

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

] is spurious. We must supply simply : which is for your behoof , namely, by its being broken (slain [1856] ). Christ’s body was not, indeed, literally broken (Joh 19:33 ), but in His violent death our Lord sees that accomplished in His body which He had just done with the bread. This is the point of what He beholds in the broken bread looked upon by Him with such direct creative vividness of regard; but in truth the simple is more in keeping with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to expound in a more detailed way the symbolism which both presents and interprets itself in the breaking of bread; and Matthew and Mark have not even this “for you.”

] to wit, what I now do; not merely the breaking of the bread joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but also as the action itself became the silent commentary on this the distribution and eating of the bread; comp 1Co 11:26 .

. . .] in remembrance of me , presupposes His absence in body for the future; see on Luk 22:19 . We may add that these words also do not occur in Matthew and Mark, whose simple . carries with it a presumption of its being the original, unexpanded by any later explanation or reflection. Generally speaking, a like preference must be accorded to the narratives of the Supper by Matthew and Mark (and between those two, again, to that of Mark) over those of Paul and Luke.

[1856] This more precise explanation of the absolute ., sc. , is to be drawn from the preceding ; and hence the addition of is very correct in point of interpretation. But the word was not spoken by Jesus, only the thought was expressed in the action of breaking the bread. This silent language of lively depicting suits well with the deep emotion of the moment; and there is no ground either for regarding the reading which admits as probable on internal evidence (Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 616), or for characterizing that which rejects it as “vaga et frigida” (Reiche, Comm. crit. ); nor will it do to explain the omission of the word by Joh 19:36 f. (Hofmann). As to Hofmann’s making . refer only to the violent bending and wrenching , as the term is used of men under torture (see Wetstein) and by physicians, the very fact that the bread was broken should have sufficed of itself to forbid the idea.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1978
THE DESIGN AND IMPORTANCE OF THE LORDS SUPPER

1Co 11:24; 1Co 11:26. This do in remembrance of me .. for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come.

THE Corinthians had shamefully profaned the Lords supper. St. Paul reproves them, and rectifies their views of that ordinance.

I.

The design of the Lords supper

Our ungrateful hearts are prone to forget the richest mercies. To keep up the remembrance of his death, Christ instituted his last supper. When we celebrate that ordinance, we shew forth his death
[The passover was a memorial of the deliverance vouchsafed to the Jews from the sword of the destroying angel. At every returning celebration of it the reason of that ordinance was declared [Note: In reference to Exo 12:26-27. a custom obtained among the Jews that a child should ask the meaning of the passover, and that the person who presided should then give an account of its intent and origin, that so the remembrance of Gods mercy might be transmitted to their latest posterity: and this was called the declaration or shewing forth. Dr. Gill on the text.]. Christ in his death has effected a greater deliverance for us. In partaking of the bread and wine we shew forth his death: we shew forth the manner of it as excruciating and bloody [Note: The breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine seem well calculated to impress this idea.]: we shew forth the end of it as a sacrifice for our sins [Note: In this light it is represented by St. Paul, 1Co 5:7 and by our Lord himself, Mat 26:28.]: we shew forth the sufficiency of it for our full salvation [Note: We express our affiance in his blood as the Jews did in the blood of the Paschal Lamb, when they sprinkled their door-posts with it, and eat of the flesh that had been roast with fire.].]

We shew forth his death till he come
[Christ will, in due season, come again to judge the world; then his people will no longer need such memorials as these. They will incessantly enjoy the brightest vision of his person, and the richest fruits of his death; but till then the remembrance of his dying love, and the expectation of his future advent, must be thus preserved. Such was Christs end in instituting, and such should be our end in observing it.]
To enforce the observance of this ordinance, we will proceed to shew,

II.

The necessity of attending it

The duty of commemorating our Lords death is much neglected; but a neglect of it involves us in the deepest guilt. It implies,

1.

Rebellion against the highest authority

[Christ, the Supreme Governor of heaven and earth, has said, Do this; yet the language of too many is, I will not. But they who disregarded the passover did not go unpunished [Note: If a man had contracted any ceremonial defilement, or were on a journey, he might omit eating the passover at the appointed time; only he must eat it a month afterwards. But if he forbore to eat of it without any such impediment, God said concerning him. That soul shall be cut off, that man shall bear his sin. Num 9:7-11.]; much less shall they who slight the invitations to Christs supper [Note: Luk 14:24.]. Surely it is no less than madness to persist in this rebellion.]

2.

Ingratitude towards our greatest Benefactor

[Christ has even given his own life a ransom for us; and shall we disregard his dying command? On the same night that he was betrayed, did he institute these memorials of his death. Had he at that season such a concern for us, and can we refuse to do so small a thing in remembrance of him? The Jews went thrice every year up to Jersusalem, from the extreme parts of Juda, to commemorate their deliverance. And shall we turn our backs on the table when it is spread before us? Shall not God visit for such ingratitude as this [Note: Let such conduct be expressed in words; Thou didst indeed give thy body to be broken, &c. for me; and only requirest me to eat bread, &c. in remembrance of thee; but I account even that too much to do for thee: Who could dare to utter such language? Or who would endure it if spoken by his servant or his child? Yet such is the language of our actions.]?]

3.

Contempt of the richest mercies

[To communicate, without discerning the Lords body, can profit us nothing; but to approach the table in humility and faith is a sure mean of obtaining all spiritual blessings. Christ sometimes reveals himself in the breaking of bread, to those who had not so fully discovered him in the ministration of the word [Note: Luk 24:30-31.]. And do they not manifest a contempt of these mercies, who will not use the means of procuring them? How may the Saviour take up that lamentation over them [Note: Mat 23:37.]!]

4.

A renunciation of our baptismal covenant

[In baptism we covenanted to renounce the world, &c and to serve God: this covenant we ought to renew and confirm at the Lords table. But our refusing to confirm it is a tacit renunciation of it. And can we hope that God will fulfil his part while we violate ours? Will he be our God when we refuse to be his people?]

We shall conclude with answering some excuses

[I am not prepared. How then can you be prepared to die [Note: Is not this acknowledgment the strongest reason for immediate repentance?]? I am afraid of eating and drinking my own damnation. Are you not afraid of damnation for neglecting your duty [Note: In neglecting duty you ensure condemnation; in practising it as well as you can (to say the least) you may avert it.]? I am afraid of sinning afterwards, and thereby increasing my guilt. If sins after receiving the Lords supper were unpardonable, none should receive it till the last moment of their lives [Note: If you really desire strength, where would you so soon obtain it? But if you determine to live in sin, your condemnation will be equally sure whether you come or not.]. The time of administering it interferes with other engagements. To those who cannot deny themselves in any thing, we say with Paul [Note: Rom 3:8. whose damnation is just.]; but where the difficulties are insurmountable, God will accept the will for the deed [Note: Mat 12:7.]. They however, who are at liberty, should attend as often as they can; only they must be careful to communicate with reverence, humility, faith, and gratitude.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it , and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

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

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

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

] See note on Matt. ut supra.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1 Corinthians

‘IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME’

1Co 11:24 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

given thanks. Greek. eucharisteo. See Act 27:35.

Take, eat. The texts omit.

is. See Mat 26:26.

broken. The texts omit.

for = on behalf of. App-104.

in = for. App-104.

remembrance of Me = My memorial. Greek. anamnesis. Only here, 1Co 11:25. Luk 22:19. Heb 10:3.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

24.] On . , see note, Mat 26:26. Meyer well remarks, that the filling up of is to be sought in the foregoing . Hence the insertion of .

] See note on Matt. ut supra.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

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

[99] Or rather, translate Passio natur prior est quam eucharistia. The suffering is naturally prior to the thanksgiving.-ED.

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

[101] BCDL Vulg., Theb., Orig., and Cypr. omit the of the Rec. Text.-ED.

– is the reading of ABC corrected later. G supports the added in Rec. Text. D corr. later fg add . Memph. and Theb. favour . Vulg. Cypr. 107 have Quod pro vobis tradetur.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 11:24

1Co 11:24

and when he had given thanks,-In Mat 26:26 and Mar 14:22, it is blessed. In Luk 22:19, it is had given thanks. The two expressions, being used interchangeably, mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of Gods mercy and a prayer that God will make it a means of blessing to those who partake. (See note on 10:16).

he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you:- [That we may understand what the Lord meant when he spoke these words, we should place ourselves in the position of the apostles to whom they were first addressed. If, as Jesus spoke these words, he had suddenly disappeared, and they had seen nothing but the bread, they would have understood that the body had been miraculously transformed into the bread. But when his body was still there; and the bread which he held in his hand was also there; and as his body still remained there after the bread had been broken and eaten, it is impossible that the apostles could have understood him as meaning that the bread was literally his body, and impossible that he could have intended to be so understood. They could not, therefore, have understood it otherwise than as a representation or symbol of his body to them.]

this do in remembrance of me.-This solemn sacrifice and thanksgiving was so little in harmony with their selfish greed and lightness that to report it was to reprove them. To do it in remembrance of his sacrifice for them was to do it in a wholly different spirit from the way in which they acted.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

eat: 1Co 5:7, 1Co 5:8, Psa 22:26, Psa 22:29, Pro 9:5, Son 5:1, Isa 25:6, Isa 55:1-3, Joh 6:53-58

this: 1Co 11:27, 1Co 11:28, 1Co 10:3, 1Co 10:4, 1Co 10:16, 1Co 10:17

in remembrance: or, for a remembrance, Exo 12:14, Jos 4:7, Psa 111:4, Son 1:4, Isa 26:8, Mat 26:13

Reciprocal: Gen 40:18 – General Exo 13:3 – Remember Exo 29:33 – eat those Num 10:10 – a memorial Deu 16:3 – mayest Psa 78:7 – not forget Psa 105:5 – Remember Mat 14:19 – he blessed Luk 9:16 – he blessed Luk 22:19 – this do Joh 6:48 – General 1Co 11:29 – not 1Co 14:16 – Amen

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Verse 24. Brake it. The term is from the same original Greek word as “brake” in Mat 14:19 and it has no more spiritual significance in one place than in the other. The only reason for breaking the bread is that more than one person may partake of it in decency. I have known instances where a group of disciples was so few in number that only one attendant (commonly but erroneously called “deacon”) was used. Then if the one presiding at the table happened to forget about “breaking” the loaf in two pieces, it was thought a terrible mistake was made. Such a tradition shows that the real significance of the institution is overlooked almost as much as the Corinthians did it. Whether the one presiding breaks the bread (so as to place it on a number of plates), or the attendants break off a piece to serve to each participant, or he breaks it off himself, the bread is sure to be “broken,” and that is all that is required. My body, which is broken for you is another expression that is misapplied. It is a common thing to hear the one “presiding” to quote this, then refer to the Roman spear that “broke” the body of Jesus after his death. The mechanical act of piercing His side, or even that of driving the nails through his hands and feet, was only a means to an end, namely, “to be shattered, as it were, by a violent death”–Thayer. Robinson says virtually the same thing. Had it been the Lord’s will that Jesus be killed by a violent blow on the head but leaving the surface of the body intact, it would still have been true that his body was broken for us, in the sense the apostle uses the term. When Christians eat of this bread, they are to do so in remembrance of the “violent” death of Christ. It is significant that in Luk 22:19 where the supper is being instituted, it is stated that the body of Jesus was “given” for his people, which agrees with the idea that the mechanical fact of the spear and nails was not necessary to the word “broken.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

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

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. [The Greek word for giving thanks is eucharistia, and from it many call the Lord’s Supper the Eucharist. But the “Lord’s supper” and the “Lord’s table” (1Co 10:21) and the “communion” (1Co 10:16) are three Bible terms for it. Many ancient authorities read: “This is my body, which is broken for you” etc. Some regard this as a contradiction of John’s assertion that no bone of him was broken (Joh 19:36). But the word differs from that used by John, which may be properly translated “crushed.” “Broken” is involved in the phrase “he brake it,” used here, and in the three other accounts of the supper, and hence they err who use the unbroken wafer.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is {i} broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

(i) This word “broken” denotes to us the manner of Christ’s death, for although his legs were not broken, as the thieves legs were, yet his body was very severely tormented, and torn, and bruised.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The Greek word eucharisteo, "to give thanks," accounts for the fact that another name for the Lord’s Supper is the Eucharist. Likewise some Christians call it "the breaking of bread" because Jesus broke the bread, as Paul stated here.

There have been various interpretations of what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body." There are four main views. Roman Catholics take it as a literal statement meaning the bread really becomes the body of Christ and the contents of the cup become the blood of Christ. They believe this is true when duly authorized representatives of the church conduct the service properly. This is the transubstantiation view. Adherents believe God transfers the body and blood of Christ into the substance of the elements. The bread and wine really become the physical body and blood of Christ.

A second view is not quite so literal. It is the consubstantiation view and, as the word implies, its advocates see the body and blood of Christ as present "in, with, and under" the elements. Christ is "really" present, though not physically present, in this Lutheran view.

The third major view is the spiritual presence view that Presbyterians and some other followers of Calvin hold. For them the spiritual presence of Christ is in the elements and, as in the former views, God ministers grace to the communicant in a concrete way through participation.

The fourth view is the memorial view. Advocates believe that when Jesus said, "This is my body," he meant, "This represents my body." In other words, they understand His statement as completely metaphorical. They view the elements as pictures or emblems of the body and blood of Christ. In contrast to the preceding views this one does not see Christ present in any special sense in the elements. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, promoted this view. Today most of the churches from the Anabaptist branch of Protestantism (i.e., Baptists, Methodists, independent Bible churches, et al.) follow this interpretation. [Note: For more information on these views, see articles on the Lord’s Supper and synonymous terms in Bible encyclopedias.] As the following quotation clarifies, this view expresses how Jesus’ Jewish disciples probably first understood "This is my body (and blood)."

"The identification of the bread with the body is semitic imagery in its heightened form. As in all such identifications, he means ’this signifies/represents my body.’ It lies quite beyond both Jesus’ intent and the framework within which he and the disciples lived to imagine that some actual change took place, or was intended to take place, in the bread itself. Such a view could only have arisen in the church at a much later stage when Greek modes of thinking had rather thoroughly replaced semitic ones." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 550.]

Jesus invited his disciples to take the bread that represented His body. He thus gave them a share in His body and invited them to participate in the meaning and benefits of His death. His body was "for" them in a double sense. It was what secured atonement on their behalf (cf. 1Co 15:3; Rom 5:6; Rom 5:8), and it was a body offered in their place (e.g., Gal 3:13; 2Co 5:21).

The Lord’s request that His disciples remember Him by partaking of bread and the fruit of the vine is rich with significance. Many followers remember their leaders by erecting stone monuments to their memories and making pilgrimages to these sites. In contrast the Lord Jesus made remembering Him easy yet profound. Eating the elements helps us appreciate the fact that Christ is really within us, and eating together reminds us of our unity with other believers in Christ’s body, the church.

Remembering in biblical terminology does not mean just calling to memory. It includes realizing what the event remembered involved (cf. Exo 13:3; Exo 20:8; Deu 5:15; Deu 7:18; et al.). The Lord’s Supper is not just something Christians do to bring the memory of Jesus back into fresh view, though it does that too. It is a memorial of the salvation that He accomplished by His death and resurrection. 1Co 11:24 contains the Lord’s command to observe the Eucharist as do the Gospel accounts of the institution of this ordinance. [Note: For further study of the ordinances, see Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 421-27, or any of the standard theologies.] It is impossible to be an obedient Christian without observing the Lord’s Supper.

Some Christian groups refer to the Lord’s Supper as one of the "sacraments." They mean the elements minister grace to the participant in a more direct and physical way than those who speak of it as an "ordinance," assuming they are using these terms properly. An ordinance or sacrament is a rite the Lord commanded His followers to observe.

Most Protestants believe there are two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. A few Protestant groups include foot washing as an ordinance on the basis of Joh 13:12-17 (e.g., the Grace Brethren, some Mennonites, et al.).

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