Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:25
After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it,] in remembrance of me.
25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped ] The words in the original, though translated differently, are precisely the same as those of St Luke, and seem to imply (see also St Luk 22:17) that while the bread was administered at supper, the cup was administered after it.
saying ] The literal translation of the words is, This cup is the New Covenant in My Blood; this do whensoever ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. St Luke gives us the words as follows: ‘This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood, which is being poured forth for you;’ St Matthew, ‘Drink ye all of it, for this is My Blood which is of the New Covenant, which is poured forth for many unto the remission of sins;’ St Mark, ‘This is My Blood, which is of the [New] Covenant, which is poured forth for many.’ It is obvious that no one report of these important words can be pressed to the exclusion of the rest.
new testament ] This is unquestionably the original meaning of the word thus translated in Classical Greek. It is derived from a word signifying to put thoroughly in order, and is used of that complete arrangement of his worldly affairs which a man is accustomed to make in a will. See perhaps for this meaning Heb 9:16 (though the question is much debated). In other places in the N. T. it is used, as in the Septuagint, in place of the Hebrew Berith, a covenant or agreement between two parties, one of which sometimes is God. For an example of this sense see Gal 3:15. Here it would appear to include both senses, for (1) it was a covenant that Christ entered into with man, and (2) it was His Death which gave that covenant validity.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
After the same manner – In like manner; likewise. With the same circumstances, and ceremonies, and designs. The purpose was the same.
When he had supped – That is, all this occurred after the observance of the usual paschal supper. It could not, therefore, be a part of it, nor could it have been designed to be a festival or feast merely. The apostle introduces this evidently in order to show them that it could not be, as they seemed to have supposed, an occasion of feasting. It was after the supper, and was therefore to be observed in a distinct manner.
Saying, This cup … – See the note at Mat 26:27-28.
Is the New Testament – The new covenant which God is about to establish with people. The word testament with us properly denotes a will – an instrument by which a man disposes of his property after his death. This is also the proper classic meaning of the Greek word used here, (diatheke). But this is evidently not the sense in which the word is designed to be used in the New Testament. The idea of a will or testament, strictly so called, is not that which the sacred writers intend to convey by the word. The idea is evidently that of a compact, agreement, covenant, to which there is so frequent reference in the Old Testament, and which is expressed by the word beryth (Berith), a compact, a covenant, Of that word the proper translation in Greek would have been suntheke a covenant, agreement. But it is remarkable that that word never is used by the Septuagint to denote the covenant made between God and man.
That translation uniformly employs for this purpose the word diatheke, a will, or a testament, as a translation of the Hebrew word, where there is a reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with people. The word suntheke is used by them but three times Isa 28:15; Isa 30:1; Dan 11:6, and in neither instance with any reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with man. The word diatheke, as the translation of beryth (Berith), occurs more than two hundred times. (See Trommius Concord.) Now this must have evidently been of design. What the reason was which induced them to adopt this can only be conjectured. It may have been that as the translation was to be seen by the Gentiles as well as by the Jews (if it were not expressly made, as has been affirmed by Josephus and others, for the use of Ptolemy), they were unwilling to represent the eternal and infinite Yahweh as entering into a compact, an agreement with his creature man. They, therefore, adopted a word which would represent him as expressing his will to them in a book of revelation. The version by the Septuagint was evidently in use by the apostles, and by the Jews everywhere. The writers of the New Testament, therefore, adopted the word as they found it; and spoke of the new dispensation as a new testament which God made with man. The meaning is, that this was the new compact or covenant which God was to make with man in contradistinction from that made through Moses.
In my blood – Through my blood; that is, this new compact is to be sealed with my blood, in illusion to the ancient custom of sealing an agreement by a sacrifice; see the note at Mat 26:28.
This do ye – Partake of this bread and wine; that is, celebrate this ordinance.
As oft as ye drink it – Not prescribing any time; and not even specifying the frequency with which it was to be done; but leaving it to themselves to determine how often they would partake of it. The time of the Passover had been fixed by positive statute; the more mild and gentle system of Christianity left it to the followers of the Redeemer themselves to determine how often they would celebrate his death. It was commanded them to do it; it was presumed that their love to him would be so strong as to secure a frequent observance; it was permitted to them, as in prayer, to celebrate it on any occasion of affliction, trial, or deep interest when they would feel their need of it, and when they would suppose that its observance would be for the edification of the Church.
In remembrance of me – This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial, or remembrancer; designed to recall in a striking and impressive manner the memory of the Redeemer. It does this by a tender appeal to the senses – by the exhibition of the broken bread, and by the wine. The Saviour knew how prone people would be to forget him, and he, therefore, appointed this ordinance as a means by which his memory should be kept up in the world. The ordinance is rightly observed when it recalls the memory of the Saviour; and when its observance is the means of producing a deep, and lively, and vivid impression on the mind, of his death for sin. This expression, at the institution of the supper, is used by Luke Luk 22:19; though it does not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
25. when he had suppedGreek,“after the eating of supper,” namely, the Passover supperwhich preceded the Lord’s Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently.Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from theLord’s Supper [BENGEL].
the new testamentor”covenant.” The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, onwhich My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, makingover to you all blessings here and hereafter.
in my bloodratified byMY blood: “not by theblood of goats and calves” (Heb9:12).
as oft asGreek,“as many times soever”: implying that it is an ordinanceoften to be partaken of.
in remembrance of meLuke(Lu 22:19) expresses this,which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (1Co11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrificesbrought sins continually to remembrance (Heb 10:1;Heb 10:3). The Lord’s Supperbrings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for allfor the full and final remission of sins.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
After the same manner also he took the cup,…. That is, off from the table, or out of the hands of the master of the house, and blessed or gave thanks, as he did before when he took the bread; see Mt 26:27, “when he had supped”; the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, read, “when they had supped”; which give a true sense, though not a literal translation; for both Christ and his disciples had supped, having both eaten the passover supper, and the bread, the principal part in the Lord’s supper, when he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them:
saying, this cup is the New Testament, or covenant,
in my blood; alluding to the old covenant, which was ratified and confirmed by the blood of bulls, and which was called “the blood of the covenant”, Ex 24:8 but the new covenant was established with Christ’s own blood, of which the wine in the cup was a sign and symbol; for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for it was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but it is so called in distinction from the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it, under the Mosaic economy; and it is always new, and will be succeeded by no other; and it provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others. Now this is said to be “in the blood” of Christ; that is, it is ratified, and all its blessings and promises are confirmed by his blood: hence his blood is called “the blood of the everlasting covenant”, Heb 13:20, pardon and righteousness, peace and reconciliation, and entrance into the holiest of all, all come through this blood, and are secured by the same; and to which the faith of the saints is directed in this ordinance, to observe, receive, and enjoy for themselves:
this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me; of his soul’s being poured out unto death; of his blood being shed for the remission of sins; and of his great love in giving himself an atoning sacrifice to divine justice, and laying such a foundation for solid peace and joy in the hearts of his people.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After supper ( ). and the articular aorist active infinitive, “after the dining” (or the supping) as in Lu 22:20.
The new covenant ( ). For see on Mt 26:28. For see on Luke 5:38; Luke 22:20. The position of before (in my blood) makes it a secondary or additional predicate and not to be taken just with (covenant or will).
As oft as ye drink it ( ). Usual construction for general temporal clause of repetition ( and the present subjunctive with ). So in verse 26.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
After supper. Only Luke records this detail. It is added to mark the distinction between the Lord ‘s Supper and the ordinary meal.
Testament [] . Rev., correctly, covenant. See on Mt 26:28. The Hebrew word is derived from a verb meaning to cut. Hence the connection of dividing the victims with the ratification of a covenant. See Gen 14:9 – 18. A similar usage appears in the Homeric phrase orkia pista tamein, lit., to cut trustworthy oaths, whence the word oaths is used for the victims sacrificed in ratification of a covenant or treaty. See Homer, “Iliad,” 2, 124; 3. 73, 93. So the Latin foedus ferire “to kill a league,” whence our phrase to strike a compact. In the Septuagint proper, where it occurs nearly three hundred times, diaqhkh, in all but four passages, is the translation of the Hebrew word for covenant (berith). In those four it is used to render brotherhood and words of the covenant. In Philo it has the same sense as in the Septuagint, and covenant is its invariable sense in the New Testament.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “After the same manner also he took the cup.” (hosautos kai to poterion) “Similarly (or after the same order or procedure) also the cup.” The term “cup” is used to refer to the container of the “fruit of the vine,” Mar 14:25; Luk 22:18.
2) When he had supped, saying, (meta to deipnesai) “When or after he supped.” The order is exact; he drank of the cup, symbolizing the very imminent shedding of His blood, Mat 20:22-23; Isa 53:10-11.
3) “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The cup symbolizes, in its contents, the shed blood of Jesus Christ, effective to bring salvation to every person who believes, Eph 1:7; Rom 3:24-25; 2Co 5:21.
4) “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it.” (touto poiete hosakis pinete) “Do ye this (in this order, procedure) as often as ye drink (it)” – the fruit of the vine.
5) “in remembrance of me.” (eis ten emen anamnesin) “With reference to, regarding, relating to my memory, or in remembrance of me.” – not as a means, instrument, media, or agency of saving grace.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. The cup, when he had supped The Apostle seems to intimate, that there was some interval of time between the distribution of the bread and that of the cup, and it does not quite appear from the Evangelists whether the whole of the transaction was continuous. (694) This, however, is of no great moment, for it may be that the Lord delivered in the meantime some address, after distributing the bread, and before giving the cup. As, however, he did or said nothing that was not in harmony with the sacrament, we need not say that the administration of it was disturbed or interrupted. I would not, however, render it as Erasmus does — supper, being ended, for, in a matter of so great importance, ambiguity ought to be avoided.
This cup is the New Testament What is affirmed as to the cup, is applicable also to the bread; and thus, by this form of expression, he intimates what he had before stated more briefly — that the bread is the body. For it is so to us, that it may be a testament in his body, that is, a covenant, which has been once confirmed by the offering up of his body, and is now confirmed by eating, when believers feast upon that sacrifice. Accordingly, while Paul and Luke use the words — testament in the blood, Matthew and Mark employ the expression — blood of the testament, which amounts to the same thing. For the blood was poured out to reconcile us to God, and now we drink of it in a spiritual sense, that we may be partakers of reconciliation. Hence, in the Supper, we have both a covenant, and a confirmatory pledge of the covenant.
I shall speak in the Epistle to the Hebrews, if the Lord shall allow me opportunity, as to the word testament It is well known, however, that sacraments receive that name, from being testimonies to us of the divine will, to confirm (695) it in our minds. For as a covenant is entered into among men with solemn rites, so it is in the same manner that the Lord deals with us. Nor is it without strict propriety that this term is employed; for in consequence of the connection between the word and the sign, the covenant of the Lord is really included in the sacraments, and the term covenant has a reference or relation to us. This will be of no small importance for understanding the nature of the sacraments; for if they are covenants, then they contain promises, by which consciences may be roused up to an assurance of salvation. Hence it follows, that they are not merely outward signs of profession before men, but are inwardly, too, helps to faith.
This do, as often as ye drink Christ, then, has appointed a two-fold sign in the Supper.
What God hath joined together let not man put asunder. (Mat 19:6.)
To distribute, therefore, the bread without the cup, is to man Christ’s institution. (696) For we hear Christ’s words. As he commands us to eat of the bread, so he commands us to drink of the cup To obey the one half of the command and neglect the other half — what is this but to make sport of his commandment? And to keep back the people from that cup, which Christ sets before all, after first drinking of it, as is done under the tyranny of the Pope — who can deny that this is diabolical presumption? As to the cavil that they bring forward — that Christ spoke merely to the Apostles, and not to the common people — it is exceedingly childish, and is easily refuted from this passage — for Paul here addresses himself to men and women indiscriminately, and to the whole body of the Church. He declares that he
had delivered this to them agreeably to the commandment of the Lord. (1Co 11:23.)
By what spirit will those pretend to be actuated, who have dared to set aside this ordinance? Yet even at this day this gross abuse is obstinately defended; and what occasion is there for wonder, if they endeavor impudently to excuse, by words and writings, what they so cruelly maintain by fire and sword?
(694) “ Continuel et sans interualle;” — “Continuous, and without an interval.”
(695) “ Confermer et seeller;” — “Confirm and seal.”
(696) “ L’institution du Fils de Dieu;” — “The institution of the Son of God.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped.We have here an intimation not found in St. Matthew or St. Marks narrative, that the blessing of the cup took place after supper, which implies that the blessing of the bread took place earlier in the meal.
This cup is the new testament.Better, This cup is the new covenant. The word new is peculiar to this and St. Lukes narrative; it does not occur in the best MSS. of St. Matthew and St. Mark. The new covenant of grace between God and Humanity was ratified in the blood of Christ. The cup containing the symbol of that blood is therefore the pledge and witness of that covenant. This was a new covenant in blood (Rom. 3:25) as contrasted with the old covenant in blood (Exo. 24:8).
As oft as ye drink.This can scarcely be taken as a command to make all occasions of bodily refreshment virtually a eucharist, but must be regarded as referring definitely (as in the following verse) to this particular rite.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’
Paul here stresses that the cup also is a similar memorial. As they partake of the wine they are entering into the experience of His cross (as it were ‘drinking His blood’ – Joh 6:53). and recognising that through it they have been sealed as participators in the new covenant which itself was sealed by that blood shedding. They had thus, through His death, became one people in Christ within the covenant of His blood.
And as they drank of that special cup of wine set aside it was to be a reminder of that new covenant (treaty, contract, between an overlord and his subjects or a superior and his inferiors) into which they had entered. And what is that new covenant? It is the new covenant with God whereby through Christ’s sacrifice of Himself they become His new people, and come within the orbit of His forgiveness, and of His acceptance, and of His ‘setting of them apart’ (sanctifying them) totally to Him, just as the old people of Israel had been set part as His holy people at Sinai. From the moment of entering that covenant they were to be totally His, acceptable in His presence and totally one with each other. How then could they then celebrate it when they were so conspicuously not showing love towards one another?
‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’ Matthew and Mark have ‘this is my blood of the covenant.’ The latter exactly parallels ‘this is my body’ and also connects with Exo 24:8, where God’s covenant with His people at Sinai (Exodus 20) is sealed with ‘the blood of the covenant’. In Exodus, however, the blood is the blood of animals, but here Jesus stresses that it represents His own blood. Thus He is referring to a covenant, a new one, sealed with His own blood, which is what Luke and Paul make clear in their paraphrase.
‘Do this — in remembrance of me.’ And central to that new covenant was Jesus Himself. Above all they were to remember Him. It was In Him that they became participators in the new covenant. It was through Him that they obtained their acceptability with God. All thoughts were thus to be concentrated on Him, a remembering that meant accepting their part with Him in His death and resurrection.
Paul alone applies these words about remembrance to the cup, but there is no reason why we should not see the Lord as having said them as an after-comment on what we read in Matthew, Mark and Luke. They were indeed necessary for He would want to emphasise the epoch making change that He was introducing.
We often overlook, in our familiarity with this ordinance, what an earth-shattering claim Jesus was making. He was informing all who would hear that He had displaced the Passover, that great feast which had been celebrated for over a thousand years. He was saying that men should no longer look back to the great deliverance wrought in Egypt, because a greater deliverance was now here in Him. He was declaring that that old deliverance was to be put aside. Rather they should from now on look to the even greater deliverance wrought through His cross, where, as the true Passover lamb, He was sacrificed for us (1Co 5:7), leading us out of the world and into the Kingly Rule of God. The old covenant was replaced by a new one sealed in His blood. The old ways were gone, the new had come. Thus its importance was something that He would stress while He was introducing it and would then emphasise again. By the time the Gospels were written the emphasis would be unnecessary, for the feast was already established permanently, and the writers did not feel it necessary to mention ‘do this in remembrance of Me’, but it very much suits Paul’s purpose to mention it.
‘As often as you drink.’ We do not know whether this signifies whenever they drank wine (which in the circumstances of the poorer ones might not be so often, although cheap wine was certainly available), or whenever they drank wine set aside by the elders of the assembly for the purpose in a special celebration. The latter seems more probable as Paul will now stress that the Supper should be a special event. How often the Supper was in fact celebrated in the early days we do not know.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 11:25 . . . . .] sc [1858] (this last is to be taken from ), 1Co 11:23-24 .
.] the cup which stood before Him. It was the cup which closed the meal, although there is no ground to connect . here with to ., as Pott does.
] in the position which it has here, is decisive against our connecting . with . ., as most interpreters do (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including de Wette, Rodatz, Maier, Hofmann), although Luther (in the gr. Bek. ) rightly rejects that connection. What Christ says is, that the cup is the new covenant in virtue of His blood , which, namely, is in the cup. For in the wine of the cup the Lord sees nothing else than His blood which was about to be shed. This vividly concrete, direct, but symbolical mode of view at that solemn moment stands out in the sharpest contrast with the strife of the churches on the subject (for the rest, see on Luk 22:19 f.). Christ’s blood became, by its being poured forth, the , [1859] whereby the new covenant [1860] was founded (Rom 3:24 f., 1Co 5:3 ), the covenant of grace, in which were established, on man’s side, faith in Christ, not, as in the old covenant, the fulfilling of the law, and on God’s side forgiveness by the way of grace, justification, sanctification, and bestowal of eternal Messianic salvation. Comp 2Co 3:6 . And the Lord looks upon the cup as this covenant, because He sees in the wine of the cup His covenant-sealing blood. The cup therefore, in this deeply vivid symbolism of view is, as that which contains the covenant- blood , to Him the covenant .
] to be taken so as to harmonize with 1Co 11:24 . Hofmann is wrong in thinking that Paul lays such special emphasis on this statement of the purpose of the Supper, because it appeared incompatible with the Corinthian mode of observing it. The apostle has no intention whatever here of laying emphasis either on one thing or another; he wishes only to report , in their simple objectivity , the sacred words in which the original institution was couched. What he desires to lay stress upon as against the Corinthians, comes in afterwards in 1Co 11:26 ff.
.] peculiar to this account of the ordinance: as often as ever ( quotiescunque , see Khner, II. p. 94; comp Bengel) ye drink it ; the context supplies . as the object of. ., without its having to be represented by a pronoun ( ). See Krger, 60. 7; Khner, a [1863] Xen. Mem. i. 3. 4. The will of Jesus, according to this, is that every time , when they drink the concluding cup at the meal of communion, they should, in remembrance of Him, do with it as has now been done. Hofmann would make the words mean: as often as ye are together at a . But how can that be conveyed by the simple ? And it was certainly not a drinking meal , but a regular (1Co 11:25 ).
Note, further, as to the , that it is placed after , “quia in hac voce maximum sententiae pondus positum est,” Khner, a [1864] Xen. Mem. i. 1. 16.
[1858] c. scilicet .
[1859] The atonement through the death of Jesus is at any rate the necessary premiss of even the symbolical interpretation of the Lord’s Supper. With every attempt to explain away the atoning death, the Supper becomes utterly unintelligible. Comp. Ebrard, Dogma vom Abendm. II. p. 752 ff.
[1860] The word covenant is unquestionably genuine, for it is common to all the narratives; but the designation of the as dates from Paul, being a later more precise definition of the phrase. in Mat 26:27 and Mar 14:24 is spurious. This applies also in opposition to Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 551.
[1863] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1864] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me.
Ver. 25. He took the cup ] See Trapp on “ Mat 26:27 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25 .] See Luk 22:20 .
. .] “viz. . . These last words are implied in above.” Meyer.
. . . is the new covenant in (ratified by the shedding of, and therefore standing in , as its conditioning element) my blood : = . . . The position of is no objection to this, nor the omission of the art. Meyer would render it, ‘ is the N. C. by means of my blood :’ i.e. by virtue of its contents, which are my blood: and this solely on account of the position of . But the meaning is as harsh, as the rendering is unrequired.
.] Not a general rule for all common meals of Christians; but a precept that as often as that cup is drunk, it should be in remembrance of Him : on these last words is the emphasis: see below.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:25 . : “In the same fashion also (He gave) the cup”. The two ritual actions correspond, and form one covenant. (as in Luke) “postquam cnaverunt” (Cv [1756] ), or better “cnatum est” (Rom. Liturgy) is studiously added to “emphasise the distinction between the Lord’s Supper and an ordinary evening meal; cf. 1Co 11:20 f. The eating of the bread originally formed part of the common meal (consider Mat 26:26 , Mar 14:22 , ), and may still have so continued, but the cup was certainly afterwards” (El [1757] ) a solemn close to the . “This cup is (see note 24: wanting in Luke) the new covenant, in my blood”; cf. notes on 1Co 10:16 f. for ., and the relation of to . The cup, given by the Lord’s hand and tasted by each disciple in turn, is a virtual covenant for all concerned; in His blood it becomes so ( . . is made by its position a further predicate, not a mere adjunct of .: cf. Rom 3:25 ), since that is the ground on which God grants and man accepts the covenant. For , see Cr [1758] , s.v .; this term, in distinction from , indicates the initiative of God as Disposer in the great agreement. For P.’s interpretation of . , see Rom 3:23 ff., Eph 1:7 ; Eph 2:13 ff., Col 1:20 ; also parls. in Ep. to Heb., Rev 1:5 , 1Jn 1:7 , 1Pe 1:18 f. For “ new covenant,” see parls.: , new in nature, contents , as securing complete forgiveness and spiritual renovation (Jer [1759] 31:31 ff., etc.).“This do for the commemoration of Me”: see 1Co 11:24 b ; includes, beside the act , the accompanying words , without which the is imperfect. (late Gr [1760] for ) : “so many times as ( quotiescunque ) you drink (it)” the cup of the context; not “so often as you drink ” (Hf [1761] ), sc . at any table where Christians meet. Our Lord prescribed no set times; P. assumes that celebration will be frequent, for he directs that, however frequent , it must be guided by the Lord’s instructions, so as to keep the remembrance of Him unimpaired.
[1756] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
[1757] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1758] Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans.).
[1759] Jerome, Hieronymus.
[1760] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1761]
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
After the same manner = Likewise.
also He took, &c. = He took the cup also.
when = after. App-104.
This cup, &c. Figure of speech Metaphor, as in 1Co 11:24. App-6. If, as Rome maintains, the wine is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ, can the cup be so too?
new. Greek. kainos. See Mat 9:17.
testament = covenant. See Luk 22:20 and Heb 9:14-23.
as oft as. Greek. hosakis. Only here, 1Co 11:26. Rev 11:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] See Luk 22:20.
. .] viz. . . These last words are implied in above. Meyer.
. . . is the new covenant in (ratified by the shedding of, and therefore standing in, as its conditioning element) my blood: = . . . The position of is no objection to this, nor the omission of the art. Meyer would render it, is the N. C. by means of my blood: i.e. by virtue of its contents, which are my blood: and this solely on account of the position of . But the meaning is as harsh, as the rendering is unrequired.
.] Not a general rule for all common meals of Christians; but a precept that as often as that cup is drunk, it should be in remembrance of Him: on these last words is the emphasis: see below.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:25. , after supper) Therefore you, Corinthians, ought to separate common meals from the Lords Supper.-, as often as) As often as is not a command, but it is implied that we should often eat and drink.-, you may drink) this cup, 1Co 11:26.- , in remembrance of me) This is presupposed by Matthew and Mark. Luke uses it once, Paul twice, because it is very suitable to his purpose. The old sacrifices were useful in bringing sins to remembrance, Heb 10:3; the sacrifice of the body of Christ, accomplished once for all, is revived by the remembrance of forgiveness.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:25
1Co 11:25
In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood.-The covenant referred to was the one mentioned by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34), and quoted with comments in Hebrews (1Co 8:7-13). It was the new covenant or will of God set forth in his blood, shown in shedding it for the sins of the world. God, through Jesus Christ, made a new covenant, as that made through Moses is called the old covenant. This is the memorial of that blood to seal and confirm this new covenant. The old covenant was sealed with the blood of animals; this was sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ shed for the remission of sins.
this do, as often as ye drink it,-That it was the common custom of the disciples to meet together upon the first day of the week to break bread is clearly indicated by the following: And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow. (Act 20:7). [In the original institution of the Supper nothing is said of the frequency with which it was to be observed. Had nothing more been said, every congregation of believers would have been left to its own judgment as to the frequency of the observance. But the apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in this, and their example is our guide. Here it is represented as furnishing the purpose of the meeting on the first day of the week. Such being the purpose of the meeting, as surely as the disciples met every Lords day, they broke bread on that day.]
in remembrance of me.-It was to be done in memory of him, to commemorate the shedding of his blood for the sins of the world, not as a feast to gratify the appetite.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
This: 1Co 11:27, 1Co 11:28
the new: Luk 22:20, 2Co 3:6, 2Co 3:14, Heb 9:15-20, Heb 13:20
Reciprocal: Exo 24:8 – Behold Psa 116:13 – I will take Jer 31:31 – I Zec 9:11 – by the blood of thy covenant Mat 26:28 – my Mar 14:24 – This Joh 6:48 – General Joh 7:37 – drink 1Co 10:4 – that Rock Heb 7:22 – of a Heb 8:8 – a new
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Verse 25. After the same manner is not a comparison to the form or performance in the procedure, for the phrase is from the same word as “likewise” in Luk 13:3, and we know Jesus did not mean that all impentitent
sinners would perish just as the Galilean did. It means as if it said, “for the same purpose,” etc. Supped is from the same Greek word as “supper” in Luk 22:20; it means He took the cup after the passover supper was ended. New testament in my blood. In Heb 9:16 Paul says that a testament requires the death of the testator. The beasts that were slain under the Mosaic system constituted the testator for that covenant, which is the reason they were slain. The New Testament (or covenant) also required the shedding of the blood of the Testator (who was Christ), hence we have the phrase italicized here. The expression is my body in the preceding verse, and in my blood in the present verse, are used with the meaning that they represent the body and blood of Christ. Partaking of the cup, like that of the bread, is for the same purpose, namely, to be in remembrance (a memorial) of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:25. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant[1] in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Here the memorial design of the Lords Supper is reiterated, as if to teach that, if this was not its sole design, yet any view of it, which either sinks this altogether or throws it into the shade, must be erroneous.
[1] The word here rendered covenant is that which the Greek of the Old Testament constantly uses for the Hebrew word covenant: and as there is here a manifest allusion to Exo 24:8Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these wordswe cannot doubt that the word should be rendered covenant here. But since in classical Greek this word signifies a testament, disposition, or will, and since in Heb 9:16-17, the writer seems clearly to avail himself of both ideasgliding out of the covenant idea into that of testamentit is not necessary altogether to exclude that idea here. For since it is by the death of Christ that the eternal inheritance becomes ours who believe, one can hardly resist regarding that death as, in its effect, that of a testator, bequeathing to us the eternal inheritance.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1Co 11:25-27. He also took the cup when he had supped Or, after supper. This circumstance is mentioned to show that the Lords supper is not intended for the refreshment of the body, but, as we are told 1Co 11:26, for perpetuating the memory of Christs death, resurrection, and ascension, to the end of the world, and declaring our expectation of his return from heaven to judge all mankind; that by seriously and frequently meditating on these things, the faith, hope, and gratitude of his disciples may be nourished. Now, that these ends may be effectually answered, this service must be performed by the whole members of each particular church, not in separate companies, but together, as making one harmonious society, by whose joint concurrence and communion in the service, the death of their Master is not only remembered, but declared in the most public manner to the world, as a fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning. Saying, This cup is the new testament Or, new covenant, rather, as the word more properly signifies. That is, it is the solemn seal and memorial of the covenant which is established in my blood, by which all its invaluable blessings are procured for you. Our Lord did not mean that the covenant of grace was first made at the time he shed his blood. It was made immediately after the fall, on account of the merit of his obedience unto the death, which God then considered as accomplished, because it was certainly to be accomplished at the time determined. Now this likewise do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me And in order to maintain the memory of my bleeding, dying love, in the church and in the world. The ancient sacrifices were offered in remembrance of sin; this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sin. According to the Papists, the expression, as oft as ye drink it, implies that the cup, in the Lords supper, may sometimes be omitted; and on that pretence they have denied the cup to the laity; but how justly, may be known by taking notice that the words, as often as, are applied (1Co 11:26) to the bread as well as to the cup. Besides, Matthew hath told us, that when Christ gave the cup, he said, (Mat 26:27,) drink ye all of it; which being both an invitation and a command, all Christians are as much entitled to the cup as to the bread. For as often as ye The church of God in any age; eat this bread and drink this cup With proper solemnity and seriousness, faith, love, and gratitude; ye do show forth the Lords death Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God and all the world; so the word , here used, signifies: till he come To close the present scene of things, and to receive all his faithful servants to a place where, for ever dwelling with him, they will no more need these memorials of an absent Saviour. Though at the institution of this ordinance our Lord spake nothing of his own second coming, yet in his discourse after the celebration of it, he connected his second coming with his death, Joh 14:3. The apostle therefore truly expressed his Masters intention, when he told the Corinthians, that by publishing the Lords death, they published also his coming to judgment, and that the service of the supper was intended as a publication of both. Wherefore , so that; whosoever shall eat this bread, &c., unworthily That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner, without properly regarding him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment; shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord That is, of profaning that which represents his body and blood.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 25. The first words reappear literally in Luke’s account. The two narratives prove that a certain interval separated the two acts of institution. The bread was distributed while they were eating; , say Matthew and Mark, thus positively expressing what is implied by the accounts of Luke and Paul. The words: after they had supped, in Paul and Luke, complete the view of what was done. The feast was therefore closed when the Lord took the cup. The interval which separated the two acts no doubt explains the term: in like manner also, , in Paul and Luke. After the distribution of the bread, Jesus had for a few moments given up the solemn attitude which befitted the institution of a rite, and familiar conversation had resumed its course. Supper ended, at the time of distributing the cup, He resumed the same attitude as in the preceding action.
This cup which Jesus now passes round, certainly corresponds to that which in the Paschal ritual bore the name of Cos Haberakia (1Co 10:16), the cup of blessing, which the father of the family circulated to close the feast.
The article , the, designates the cup as the one which stood there before Him, but at the same time as becoming from that moment the type of those which shall afterwards figure in all the celebrations of the Supper.
The first words of the formula of institution are the same as in Luke; only he adds after the expression , in My blood, the determining clause , which is shed for you, thus making his formula parallel to that of the other two synoptics: This is My blood, that of the covenant shed for many. The formula of Paul and Luke: This cup is the New Testament, has something more spiritual about it than that of the other two synoptics. In fact, what, according to this formula, corresponds to the cup, or the wine contained in the cup, is not the blood itself, but the covenant entered into over the blood. Hence it is easy to see what elasticity is demanded in the interpretation of the word est (is), and how thoroughly mistaken Luther was when he sought at Marburg to crush Zwingle with this one word.
The term new covenant alludes to the covenant made at Sinai over the blood of the victim which Moses offered for all the people. Indeed it is related, Exo 24:8, that Moses took the blood and said: Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. This old covenant was recalled every year by the Paschal feast; but Jeremiah had already contrasted it with another, a future and more excellent one, when he uttered the promise: Behold, the days come that I will make a new covenant with you, not according to the covenant that I made with your fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt, which My covenant they brake; but this is the covenant that I will make after those days: I will put My law in their inward parts…for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins will I remember no more (Jer 31:31-34).
Matthew and Mark, at least according to the most probable reading, omit the word new. According to them, Jesus said: This is My blood, the blood of the covenant shed… Strange to say, Holsten alleges that Paul has here preserved the true formula adopted in the primitive apostolical Church; for, he says, in view of the Judaizing adversaries whom Paul had before him at Corinth, he would not have dared to modify the original formula. It was Matthew, according to him, who, seeking to efface every trace of opposition between the old and the new covenant in favour of a strict Jewish Christianity hostile to Paul, deliberately rejected the term new. But Mark? What of him, independent as he certainly is of Matthew in his whole account, and betraying not the slightest tendency hostile to Paul? What is more curious still, if possible, is the entirely opposite opinion of Meyer, who thinks that the designation of the covenant as new, can only be of Pauline origin. There is here a description added at a later time to the authentic words of Jesus. But what! Jeremiah, six centuries before, had already characterized the Messianic covenant by this epithet; and Jesus could not have used the same expression, either at His own hand, or in imitation of the prophet! The absence of the word in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew proves nothing. They both reproduce the formula in use in the Jewish Christian Churches, where the expressions relating to the bread and wine were gradually identified: This is My body…, this is My blood. As to Luke, he depends on Paul, and Paul himself gives us the formula as he received it of the Lord. It is obvious why he had from the beginning rested his argument on that personal revelation which had been granted to him; otherwise, indeed,and this is the truth in Holsten’s remark,he could not in opposition to his adversaries have enunciated a different formula from that which prevailed in the apostolic Churches.
The words: in My blood, depend, according to Meyer and Hofmann, on the verb is: This cup is, in virtue of the blood which it contains, the new covenant. But it would be far from natural to say that the blood is the means in virtue of which the cup establishes the covenant. It is simpler, as is admitted by Heinrici and Holsten, to refer the regimen in My blood to the notion of the substantive covenant itself: the covenant in My blood, for: the covenant concluded in My blood. The absence of the article is objected, which would be required, it is alleged, to connect the substantive with the regimen; but the omission of the article is easily explained by the verbal meaning of the word , contract; from this substantive there is easily taken the understood participle , contracted. As the blood of the Paschal lamb, and afterwards that of the offered victim (Exodus 24), were the foundation of the covenant agreement passed in Egypt and at Sinai between the Lord and His people, so the blood of Christ, represented by the wine contained in the cup, is the foundation on which the new covenant rests, which is concluded in Christ between God and mankind. For the old contract, which had for its object, on the one side, the promise of the Divine protection, on the other, the engagement to obey the law of Sinai, there is substituted the new covenant, which has for its contents, on the one side, the pardon of sins, on the other, free obedience to the Divine will through the Holy Spirit.
The last words: Do this in remembrance of Me, express once more the idea of the institution of a rite which is to continue to be celebrated in the Church. Here they do not occur even in Luke. But in Mark and Matthew there are found words which have some analogy to this command: Drink ye all of it.
In the injunction: Do this, the word this denotes what Christ is now doing when He holds out the cup to them, and what they themselves do when partaking of it; such is the act which is always to be repeated anew in the assembly of believers. When so? Jesus says: as often as ye drink. Evidently this cannot be understood: as every time ye drink, in general, or when ye take any meal whatever. The following verse is opposed to this; for there Paul says: As often as ye drink this cup; comp. also 1Co 11:22, where the Lord’s Supper has been positively distinguished from common meals. Meyer understands: Every time that at a love-feast you come to this final cup. Hofmann and Osiander almost the same: Every time you assemble for a love-feast. But these ellipses are very arbitrary. The thought of the Lord is better explained, as it seems to me, if it is qualified by connecting it with the words: in remembrance of Me, and by the evident allusion to the remembrance of the Paschal lamb: Every time you celebrate, as members of the new covenant, the religious feast corresponding to the Paschal feast of the old, distribute the cup and drink of it in remembrance of Me. The memory of Jesus is to be substituted in their heart for that of the lamb, every time they celebrate the new Paschal feast.
This very indefinite expression , every time it shall happen that, shows that henceforth this ceremony will no longer be bound to a fixed day of the year, like the Paschal feast, but that it is put at the discretion of the Church. Again we see in this how important it was for St. Paul’s apostleship that he should possess an independent and original acquaintance with the mode in which this ceremony was instituted. Langen, in his monograph on the narrative of the Passion, has sought to combine in one sentence the formulas of Paul and Luke on the one hand, and of Mark and Matthew on the other; but the proposition thus reached is very complicated and clumsy, far from suitable to the sharply cut form which should characterize the institution of a rite. Meyer gives the preference to the formula presented in the two first synoptics as more concise and striking. It seems to me, on the contrary, that Paul’s form, independently even of his testimony, deserves the preference. Tradition and ecclesiastical usage must naturally have inclined to assimilate more and more to one another the two formulas relating to the bread and the wine, and consequently to simplify the second as much as possible, to bring it nearer the first, originally the more simple. Paul was put in a position to restore the original difference; and it is from him that Luke has taken his formula, so like Paul’s own.
It is singular that Paul, who, agreeably to the historical order, here puts the bread before the cup, has done the opposite in chap. 10. No doubt it is because in the last passage, where the matter in question was not the narrative of the fact as such, he has followed the order which corresponds to the assimilation of faith. The believer first appropriates the pardon which is connected with the shedding of the blood, then he receives the life and strength which are represented by the eating of the body. Here he simply reproduces the fact. His sole aim is to contrast the seriousness of the action with the manner in which it is treated by the Corinthians.
He now draws the practical consequences of the description which he has just given (1Co 11:26-32).
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
In like manner also the cup, after supper [Paul here inserts the entering wedge of reform. The Lord’s Supper came after the Passover, and was no part of it; hence it was no part of the Agap which was substituted for the Passover. As therefore the Agap was fruitful of disorder, would it not be well to separate it from the communion? By the end of the first century it was so separated, and at last it was formally prohibited by the Council of Carthage. See Poole’s synopsis on Mat 26:26], saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [Diatheke may be translated “testament” (Heb 9:16), or “covenant.” The latter is the meaning here, for wills or testaments were not sealed with blood, as were covenants. The cup is the symbol of Christ’s blood, which ratified the gospel covenant.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
As Jesus had taken the bread and given thanks for it, so He also took the cup and gave thanks for it (Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24; Luk 22:20).
When Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, that blood ratified (gave formal sanction to) the New Covenant that Jeremiah had predicted (Jer 31:31-34, cf. Exo 24:8). The New Covenant replaced the old Mosaic Covenant (Heb 8:8-13; Heb 9:18-28). Even though the Jews will be the major beneficiaries of the benefits of this covenant in the Millennium, all believers began to benefit from the death of Christ when He died. [Note: See Rodney J. Decker, "The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305.]
This arrangement resembles one that is possible to set up in a Charitable Lead Unit Trust under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. Suppose there was a vastly wealthy and generous philanthropist of the magnitude of a John D. Rockefeller or Bill Gates. As he prepared his will he bequeathed millions of dollars to various charitable causes that would benefit millions of people all over the world when he died. He also wrote into his will that when his only son reached the age of 21 he would inherit billions of dollars. When this man died, his son was only five years old, so for 16 years he did not enter into his father’s inheritance. However as soon as the philanthropist died the millions of dollars he had bequeathed to charity went to work immediately to help many people.
This illustration shows how the church enters into the blessings of the New Covenant. When Christ established the Lord’s Supper it was as though He notarized His will; it became official then. The will is the New Covenant. When He died His "estate" became available to those He chose to profit from it. Soon many people around the world, Jews and Gentiles alike in the church, began to benefit from the blessings of His death. However His chosen people, His son Israel, will not enter into his inheritance until the appointed time, namely, the Millennium. Blessings for the church began almost immediately after Christ’s death. Blessings for Israel will not begin until Christ’s appointed time arrives.
Whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover the father who was conducting the service would explain the significance of each part to the rest of the family (cf. Deu 16:3). Jesus did the same for His disciples when He instituted the Lord’s Supper.