1 Corinthians 11:24

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.: λάβετε, φάγετε, 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 τοῦτο, 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 1 Corinthians 15:50 that blood is not an element which can belong to a spiritual and glorified body, whether the Lord's or ours (1 Corinthians 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. κλώμενον, 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, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, 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 ἔκλασε. This view is confirmed by the readings διδόμενον, given, and θρυπτόμενον, bruised, which are found in some documents. There has evidently been a wish to supply either from Luke (διδόμενον), or freely (θρυπτόμενον), 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 (Acts 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 τοῦτο, this, cannot refer, like the previous one, to the piece of bread; what would be meant by the ποιεῖτε, 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 Exodus 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 ποιεῖν, 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, σωματικῶς (Col 2:9), His spiritual body cannot be separated from His Spirit; comp. 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 10:16; John 6:53-58, and Ephesians 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.