When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise God’s assembly and put them to shame who don’t have enough? What shall I tell you? Shall I praise you? In this I don’t praise you.
For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread. When he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me.” In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy way eats and drinks judgment to himself if he doesn’t discern the Lord’s body. For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. For if we discerned ourselves, we wouldn’t be judged. But when we are judged, we are punished by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest your coming together be for judgment. The rest I will set in order whenever I come.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv20–34 20. This is not to eat the Lord’s supper…
20. This is not to eat the Lord’s supper He now reproves the abuse that had crept in among the Corinthians as to the Lord’s Supper, in respect of their mixing up profane banquets with the sacred and spiritual feast, and that too with contempt of the poor. Paul says, that in this way it is not the Lord’s supper that is partaken of — not that a single abuse altogether set aside the sacred institution of Christ, and reduced it to nothing, but that they polluted the sacrament by observing it in a wrong way. For we are accustomed to say, in common conversation, that a thing is not done at all, if it is not done aright. Now this was no trivial abuse, as we shall afterwards see. If you understand the words is not as meaning, is not allowable, the meaning will amount to the same thing — that the Corinthians were not in a state of preparation for partaking of the Lord’s supper, as being in so divided a state. What I stated a little ago, however, is more simple — that he condemns that profane admixture, which had nothing in it akin to the Lord’s Supper.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 This is an usual kind of speech, whereby the…
This is an usual kind of speech, whereby the Apostle denieth that flatly, which many did not well.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv20–33 20 When ye come together therefore into one place,…
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
Ver. 20. This is not to eat, &c.] When the Lord’s supper therefore is not rightly administered, it is no longer his; especially if the substantials thereof be omitted. As in those sacrifices, Hos 9:4; "Their bread for their soul shall not come into the house of the Lord;" that is, the bread for their natural sustenance. He speaks of that meat offering, Lev 2:4, appointed for a spiritual use, yet called the "bread for their life or livelihood;" because God esteemed it no other than common meat. So Jer 7:21, in scorn he calls their sacrifice, flesh, &c.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 The Greek words do not necessarily signify into one…
The Greek words do not necessarily signify into one place, they may as well be translated, for the same thing, and possibly that were the better translation of them in this place; divisions appearing the worse amongst persons that met as one and the same body, and for one and the same grave action, and that such an action as declared them one body, and laid upon them the highest obligation to brotherly love imaginable.
This is not to eat the Lord’s supper: some words must be here supplied to complete the sense.
Read full note →
This is not to eat; that is, as you do it is indeed not to do it; to eat the Lord’s supper in an unlawful manner, is not to eat it. It is called the Lord’s supper, either because he ordained and instituted it, or because it was instituted for the remembrance of his death, 1Co 11:26; Luk 22:19. Some think that the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is here meant, and so one would think, by comparing what is here with 1Co 11:23,24. Others say, that the love feast is here intended, which ordinarily preceded the Lord’s supper; the reason they give is, because the abuses here mentioned, viz. not staying one for another till the whole church were met, one eating plentifully, another sparingly, some being hungry while others had ate and drank enough, could not be at the Lord’s supper, where the minister beginneth not till the whole church be assembled, and where there is no such liberal eating and drinking. To this purpose we are told, that by an ancient custom in Greece (within which Corinth was) the rich men offered some things to their idols, (which after that action the poor had for their relief), and made feasts in the idol’s temples, of which all had a liberty to eat. That the Christians imitated this practice of theirs, and the rich amongst them upon the Lord’s days made feasts, at which both poor and rich Christians might be, and the poor carried away what was left. But this church growing corrupt every way, and having got teachers to their humours, they at these feasts neglected the poor, inviting only the rich to them, and also exceeding in their provision for their rich guests. These feasts were called feasts of love, or love feasts, either because:
1. Love to God was that which (pretendedly at least) caused them.
2. Or because they were representations of our Lord’s last supper, in which he first ate the paschal lamb, then instituted what we call the Lord’s supper; or because they immediately preceded or followed the administration of the Lord’s supper, from whence the love feast, being immediately before or after it, had also the same name. But if we allow this, we must make the love feasts also Christ’s institution, and instituted in remembrance of him, neither of which can be proved. The meaning must be: You cannot rightly communicate at the Lord’s table, when immediately before or after that table, at your love feast, you are guilty of such disorderly actions. In the mean time, only what Christ instituted for remembrance of his death is what the apostle calls the Lord’s supper.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 As if he had said, "True, ye Corinthians, when…
As if he had said, "True, ye Corinthians, when ye come together to one place, ye pretend to eat the Lord’s supper, but though you eat it, yet ye do not eat it as ye ought to do; you perform the material part of the action, but you do not partake of it solemnly and religiously, according to the divine institution; this therefore is not to eat the Lord’s supper."
Learn thence, That a duty not done as it ought to be done, is not done at all in the account of Christ. Sermons may be heard, and yet accounted no sermons; prayers made, yet not made; sacraments received, yet not received; alms given, yet not given; because not done in manner and form as God required.
Read full note →
A gracious heart will look not barely at the matter of the duty, but also at the manner of performance, and take care not only that he hears, but how he hears.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v23 To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle…
To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in the reformation of all abuses.
I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them, Co1 11:23. He had the knowledge of this matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated, without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.
Read full note →
II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,
1. Of the author - our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the church only has power to institute sacraments.
2. The time of the institution: It was the very night wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which are therein to be commemorated.
3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Mat 26:26), he broke, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me, Co1 11:24, Co1 11:25. Here observe,
(1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bade them all drink of it (Mat 26:27), as if he would, by this expression, lay in a caveat against the papists' depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour, though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide Lightfoot on Mt. 26. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by these outward signs; they are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his blood.
(2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour's actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples, and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life, Col 3:4.
(3.) We have here an account of the ends of this institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ's death, to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.
(4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, etc. Our bodily meals return often; we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord's day, if not every day when they assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord's will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father's glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.
III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (Co1 11:27), of violating this sacred institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, Heb 10:29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment to themselves, Co1 11:29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery. Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord's table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord's body - not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord's supper may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world, Co1 11:32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Heb 12:6), especially with so merciful a purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is kindness to use the rod to prevent the child's ruin. He will visit such iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves; at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.
IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the Lord's table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (Co1 11:28), try and approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who would be welcome at this marriage-feast-grace in habit, and grace in exercise. 2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, Co1 11:31. If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Mat 7:1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but should be very candid in judging others.
V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (Co1 11:33, Co1 11:34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord's table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God's worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv20–33 For in eating,.... Not at the Lord's table, but…
For in eating,.... Not at the Lord's table, but at tables spread for them in the place of divine worship, where everyone brought his own food, under a pretence that others, particularly the poor, should eat with him; but instead of that, he sat down and ate it himself, and would not stay till the rest came, to eat together:
but everyone taketh before other his own supper; that is, without tarrying till all came together, in order to eat a friendly meal with each other, to encourage and increase brotherly love, one would sit down and fill himself before another came; so that some went without, whilst others had too much; and thus the designed end was not answered, and the whole was a piece of confusion and disorder:
Read full note →
and one is hungry, and another drunken; he that came late had nothing to eat, and so was hungry; when he that was first either eat and drank to excess, or at least very plentifully, so that he was very cheerful, and more disposed to carnal mirth, than in a serious and solemn manner to partake of the Lord's supper; and who is thought to be the rich man, who brought his own provisions, and ate them himself when he had done; as the poor may be meant by the hungry, who having no food to bring with them, and none being communicated to them by the rich, were in want, and starving; so that here were many abuses justly chargeable on them. Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that by him that was "drunken" meant the Jew that ate the paschal supper, of which he ate and drank freely; and by him that was "hungry", the Gentile, who was so not out of poverty and necessity, but because he refused and avoided eating of the ante-supper, as savouring of Judaism; and so here was a schism and division among them.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv20–33 Therefore - That is, in consequence of those schisms.…
Therefore - That is, in consequence of those schisms. It is not eating the Lord's supper - That solemn memorial of his death; but quite another thing.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Verse 20. This is not to eat the Lord's…
Verse 20. This is not to eat the Lord's Supper.] They did not come together to eat the Lord's Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv20, 23, 24, 25, 28, 33 1Co 11:20-22. When ye come together therefore — In…
1Co 11:20-22. When ye come together therefore — In such a manner as you do; into one place — Under pretence of celebrating the holy ordinance of the eucharist, and have such strife and contention among you, and act in the disorderly manner which I shall now mention; this is not to eat the Lord’s supper — That solemn memorial of his death; nor does it deserve to be called by that name, unless ye eat it in fellowship together, and in mutual love, as the disciples of one master. Instead of regarding it in a holy and religious point of view, you seem to confound it with a common meal; and do not indeed behave in the manner that decency would require, if it were no more than a common meal. For in eating it — Or when you eat it; every one taketh before other his own supper — Or, as Macknight renders εκαστος το ιδιον δειπνον προλαμβανει, every one taketh first his own supper; observing, that “what follows shows the apostle did not mean,” as in our translation, “that every one took before another his own supper; but that every one took his own supper before he ate the Lord’s supper. Christ having instituted his supper after he had eaten the passover, the disciples very early made it a rule to feast together before they ate the Lord’s supper. These feasts were called αγαπαι, charitates, love-feasts. They are mentioned, Jude, 1Co 11:12, as also by some of the ancient Christian writers. From Xenophon, (see Memorab., lib. 3. cap. 14,) we learn that the Greeks, when they supped together, brought each his own provisions ready dressed, which they ate in company together. Probably the Corinthians followed the same practice, in their feasts previous to the Lord’s supper.” And one is hungry, and another is drunken — Or rather, is filled, or plentifully fed, “as μεθυειν signifies here, being opposed to one is hungry. The word is used in this sense by the LXX., Psa 35:9; Jer 38:14; Joh 2:10; where it is rendered by our translators, when men have well drunk, drunk plentifully. According to the grammarians, μεθυειν literally signifies to eat and drink, μετα το θυειν, after sacrificing; on which occasions the heathen often drank to excess.” What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in — With your friends? Or despise ye the church of God — Which ye thus expose to contempt, and which you must greatly offend and grieve by such a conduct as this? That church of which the poor are both the larger and the better part; and shame — Expose to shame; them that have not — A supper to eat, while ye feast luxuriously? Do you act thus in designed contempt of them? What shall I say to you — On this occasion? Shall I praise you in this? — I wish I could fairly and honourably do it; but at present I praise you not — I must rather blame you, and exhort you to amend what is so grossly amiss.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv20–34 When ye come together therefore ... - When you…
When ye come together therefore ... - When you are assembled as a church, compare Heb 10:25, and see the note on Act 2:1. Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here particularly refers to their “assembling” to observe the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord’s Day.
This is not ... - Margin, “Ye cannot eat.” The meaning of this expression seems to be this. “Though you come together professedly to worship God, and to partake of the Lord’s Supper, yet this cannot be the real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness 1Co 11:21; your intemperance 1Co 11:21; your partaking of the food separately and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper.”
Read full note →
The Lord’s supper - That which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called “the Lord’s,” because it is his appointment, and is in honor of him; it is called “supper” (δεῖπνον deipnon), because the word denotes the evening repast; it was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning - a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30 The Lord’s supper. So the apostle here calls the…
The Lord’s supper. So the apostle here calls the charity [Agape] feasts observed by the primitive Christians; and reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians on these occasions: which were the more criminal, because these feasts were accompanied with the celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament. (Challoner)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv20–34 When . . . therefore--Resuming the thread of discourse…
When . . . therefore--Resuming the thread of discourse from Co1 11:18.
this is not to--rather, "there is no such thing as eating the LORD'S Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (Co1 11:33), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (Co1 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 20. Not… supper—The performances they came to enact were…
20. Not… supper—The performances they came to enact were truly no Lord’s supper at all, but a burlesque and dishonour upon it, being only their own supper. The possessive, Lord’s, is in the Greek an adjective for which we have no proper English word, as Lordic. So the Lordic supper and the Lordic day (Rev_1:10) are parallel terms. And the word Church is generally derived from a similar Greek phrase, which might similarly be Lordic house. The Lord’s supper, though primitively associated with, was distinct from, the agape. It usually, but probably not always, succeeded the agape.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv20–34 20. into one place] Literally, to (or at) the…
20. into one place] Literally, to (or at) the same place. See Act_1:15; Act_2:1; Act_3:1, and ch. 1Co_7:5 of this Epistle. It is the only phrase which we find applied to the place of the Christian assembly. See note on 1Co_11:18.
this is not to eat the Lord’s supper] Better, perhaps, it is not to eat a supper of the Lord’s Institution. The absence of the article, the apparent antithesis between a supper of Christ’s and a supper of one’s own devising, and the presence of the article in Rev_1:10 (the Lord’s Day), confirm this rendering. It is not merely that the conduct of the Corinthian Christians was inconsistent with taking’ part in the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood, but that it was in no sense a supper of Christ’s institution of which they partook. “The question arose,” says Dean Stanley, “whether the majesty, the tenderness, the awe of the feast should be lost in a senseless orgy.”
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv20–34 (20) When ye come together therefore into one place,…
(20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.—Better, Therefore, when you assemble in the same place, it is not to eat the supper dedicated to the Lord. Regarding 1Co_11:19 as a parenthesis, the word “therefore” connects this with 1Co_11:18. There being divisions among you, it is not possible for you when you assemble as a Church body (“in the same place” being equivalent to “in church” of 1Co_11:18) to partake of that supper which is dedicated to the Lord. The whole meal, or “charity-feast” (Jud_1:12), was distinguished from other meals by being united with the Lord’s Supper. To these charity-feasts the Christians brought contributions of food—the rich of their abundance, the poor whatever they could afford—and the food thus provided was partaken of in common by all. The Greek words in this verse for “Lord’s Supper” are more general (kuriakon deipnon) than those used in 1Co_11:27 and in 1Co_10:16; 1Co_10:21 (kuriou). The whole meal was dedicated to the Lord by virtue of its union with the sacramental Supper of the Lord.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 Into one place. There were as yet no churches.…
Into one place. There were as yet no churches. The Lord"s Supper was held in private houses. This is not; or perhaps, it is not possible. The Lord"s Supper. The fact that there is no article in the Greek shows the early prevalence of this name for the Eucharist.
The Lord"s Supper.
Read full note →
The abuses and disorders which prevailed in the Corinthian Church served as an occasion for an apostolic exhibition and inculcation of a more excellent way. Incidentally, we are indebted to them for the account given by the apostle of the original institution, and for instructions as to the proper observance of the ordinance. The designation here applied to the distinctive observance of the Christian Church is one of beautiful simplicity, and suggests an exposition of the acknowledged nature and benefit of the ordinance.
I THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD"S SURFER.
1. It is an ordinance of Christ, and its observance is consequently an act of obedience on the part of his people. It is not a service of man"s device; the Lord himself has said, "Do this.
2. It is a tradition of apostolic times. Paul professed to have "received from the Lord that which he delivered." The sacrament was accordingly celebrated within a generation of Christ"s own lifetime, and has been celebrated in unbroken continuity from that time to our own.
3. It was in the first century a regular observance of the Christian societies. This is apparent from the way in which it is mentioned in this Epistle; it is treated as something actually existing, although in some cases misunderstood and abused. And as Paul writes, "As oft as ye," etc., it is presumed that the observance took place regularly and frequently.
II THE DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD"S SUPPER.
1. It is a memorial of Christ, and especially of his death. He himself appointed that it should be observed "in remembrance of" himself and of his sufferings whose body was broken and whose blood was shed for his people.
2. It is an Eucharist, or service of thanksgiving. The Institutor of the ordinance "gave thanks," or "blessed," probably upon the suggestion of the cup of which the Jews partook during the Paschal meal. The sacrament is a reminder of all the benefits which we have received from God, and especially of the "unspeakable gift.
3. It is a symbol and means of spiritual nourishment. Spiritually, the communicants eat the body and drink the blood of their Saviour, partaking and feeding upon Christ by faith. The real presence of the Redeemer is experienced in the heart of the faithful recipient.
4. It is a bond of fellowship and brotherhood. Hence called a communion, or the communion, as the appointed means and manifestation of a true spiritual unity. The brethren of the family are seated at one table, they join in one meal or sacred feast, they eat of one loaf and drink of one cup.
III THE SPIRITUAL PROFIT OF THE LORD"S SUPPER.
1. It is a divinely appointed means of increased and more vivid fellowship with the unseen Redeemer, who in this service draws near to those who draw near to him.
2. It is a profession of faith, attachment, and loyalty, the admitted and enjoined method of declaring aport which side we stand in the moral conflict which rages, under whose banner we have enlisted, and whom we purpose loyally to serve.
3. It is a testimony to the unbelieving world around. The death of Christ is proclaimed, not only to those within, but to those without. More effectively than by words, men are reminded that the grace of God and the salvation of Christ have come very nigh unto them. T.
The Lord"s Supper a showing forth.
Considering how much has been made of the sacrament of the Lord"s Supper by the Christian Church it is remarkable that the passage connected with this text should be the only apostolic teaching we have respecting its observance. We have in the Gospels the records of the incident from which it takes its origin, but though we should have expected St. Peter or St. John to give us complete counsels for its observance, neither of them refers to it. St. Paul alone deals with it, and it is a singular thing that he makes no allusion to it when writing to Timothy and Titus, and seeking to fit them, and others through them, for their pastoral work. It even seems that, but for the accident of an abuse creeping into the Corinthian Church, we should have been left entirely without apostolic precedent or instruction concerning it. Our text, and the verses connected with it, contain hints of the way in which the Lord"s Supper was then observed; indications of the kind of abuses likely to creep in; and teachings concerning those great principles which were to regulate its management. We can clearly see that it was then a meal, not a service; a feast, not a fast; a communion, not an administration; a means of remembrance, and not a mystical presence. Our Lord kept the ordinary Passover meal, and into one of the customary incidents of it he put a new and spiritual significance. Now, see what actually occurred in the early Church. Those having a common faith naturally sought fellowship together. The Eastern idea of fellowship is partaking of the same food together. In this way grew up the agapae, or love feasts, and these seem to have been observed in all the Churches that were founded. These agapae could easily be connected in thought with our Lord"s last meal with his disciples, and on the closing part of them a special significance was probably made to rest. When Christianity touched Western life, the old Eastern agapae naturally dropped away. Feeding together is not so familiar a sign of fellowship in the West as in the East. So in the West a part of the meal was retained and became a sacrament, a service, and a mystery. St. Paul helps us to understand the special significance put into a part of the meal. It was a showing forth; but we ask
I A SHOWING FORTH OF WHAT?
1. Of a fact of history: the "Lord"s death." Remember that St. Paul usually goes on to the Resurrection, as revealing the significance of the death. The Lord"s death is shown forth in
(1) the substance of the sacrament bread, which is crushed in the mill before it can become food; wine, which is trodden in the wine press before it can become drink;
(2) the form of the food in the sacrament it is broken, and poured out. Impress the importance of keeping up the remembrance of this fact,
(a) as affirming the actual historical character of the Gospel records;
(b) as keeping for the death of Christ its central place in Christian doctrine;
(c) as renewing, on men"s souls, the special moral influence of Christ, the life persuasion, the "constraining" of his cross.
2. Of a fact of faith: "Till he come." That is "shown forth" in keeping up the observance, and in the manifest fact that he is now sensibly absent. We declare that the only president of the feast is Christ, as spiritually present. The importance of showing forth this fact is seen in its
(1) testifying to the resurrection and present life of Christ;
(2) in its affirming the foundation of the Church to be faith, not doctrine, or knowledge, or experience; and
(3) in its renewing the Church"s great hope, and witnessing to the reality and value of things unseen, future, and eternal.
II A SHOWING FORTH TO WHOM?
1. To God; as assuring him that we value his great Gift.
2. To ourselves; as quickening our own feeling, remembrance, and spiritual life;
3. To our fellow Christians; as bidding them rejoice with us in the common salvation which we all share.
4. To the world; as testifying that the despised "spiritual" is nevertheless the "true" and the "eternal." In conclusion, show the value of symbolic helps in religious life, and the claim that rests on us to show forth Christ"s death, if we have faith in him and the hope of his coming again. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 For I have received of the Lord Jesus that…
1Co_11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord Jesus that which also I delivered unto you.
Read full note →
Giving as we receive
At a sailors meeting a seaman prayed, Lord, make us ships with two hatchways; one to take in cargo, and the other to give it out. A good prayer; Paul knew its answer, I have received of the Lord that which, also I delivered unto you (1Co_11:23). We are not storehouses; we are ships intended to trade with the heavenly country and bring supplies for a needy world. Always loading ends in overloading; if we unload, we shall soon be reloaded. He who keeps his talent in a napkin, will lose both napkin and talent; one will rot, and the other rust.
The Lords Supper
Four things strike us with amazement:--
I. That any should doubt the genuineness of Christianity. Here is an institution that was started the night previous to our Saviours crucifixion, and which from that to this hour, through eighteen long centuries, has been attended to by all the branches of the true Church. Since its origin thousands of generations have passed away, many systems have risen and disappeared, nations have been organised, flourished, and broken up, but this ordinance continues. And what for? To commemorate the great central fact of the gospel, viz., that Christ died. Is there any other fact in history sustained by evidence half so powerful as this?
II. That any should misinterpret this ordinance. It is to show forth the Lords death. There are three abuses of this institution which imply the grossest misinterpretation.
1. The gustatory. The Corinthians thus abused it. Hence, in the preceding verses he says, When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper, etc. They had been accustomed, in their heathen festivals, to give way to gluttony and intemperance. Many of them, from the force of old habits, were tempted to use the Lords Supper in this way, hence they were guilty of profaning the institution. Thus, they ate and drank unworthily, and by so doing ate and drank condemnation to themselves.
2. The superstitious. There are some who believe that after the words of consecration pronounced by the priest over these elements, the elements become carnally the body and blood of the Lord. This is transubstantiation.
3. The formalistic. There are those who partake of the bread and wine merely as a matter of ceremony. It is regarded as the proper thing to be done, and is done mechanically. We evangelical Christians are not guilty of the first nor the second, but we may be of the third. Let us examine ourselves; so let us eat, etc.
III. That any should say the institution is not permanent in its obligation. The apostle tells us distinctly that it was to show forth the Lords death till He come. On to that distant point the obligation is binding. There are some professing Christians who think themselves too spiritual to observe such an ordinance. These very spiritual ones, to be consistent, should avoid all scientific studies, for science has to do with material forms. They should also avoid all Biblical studies, for Biblical truths are, for the most part, embodied in material facts. Christ Himself was flesh and blood.
IV. That any acquainted with the biography of Christ should neglect it. Consider--
1. That it is to commemorate the worlds greatest Benefactor that has served the world--
(1) In the highest way, effected its deliverance from sin and hell.
(2) By the most unparalleled sacrifice.
(3) With the most disinterested love.
2. It is enjoined by the worlds greatest Benefactor, under the most touching circumstances. How amazing it is that men should neglect it!
Conclusion: The excuses that men make for neglecting this are singularly absurd.
1. A man will sometimes say, I can be saved without it. We ask, who told you so? What is damnation? What but disobedience to Christ? And he who neglects this institution disobeys Him.
2. Another man will say, I am unfit for it. We say, if you are unfit for this you are unfit for any other religious observance; unfit to read the Bible, sing, or pray, nor can you ever become fit by neglecting your duty. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
The sacrament of the Lords Supper of Divine institution
I. What is a sacrament? In general, the visible sign of an invisible grace.
1. As God hath used covenants, so also sacraments always.
2. They are part, not of His natural, but instituted worship.
3. They are all pledges of the covenant of grace.
4. They all represent Christ the Mediator--
(1) To suffer.
(2) Or having suffered.
5. In all sacraments there are two parts.
(1) The thing signified.
II. What is the Lords supper? A sacrament, wherein the outward signs are bread and wine.
III. What are we to understand by Divine institution? That it was instituted of God, as the others were not, which the Church of Rome maintains to be sacraments, viz., confirmation, orders, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.
IV. How does it appear to be of Divine institution (Luk_22:19-20).
V. Wherefore was it instituted by God?
1. When God had made man, He entered into a covenant of works with him (Lev_18:5).
2. This covenant man broke, and so became miserable.
3. Hence God, of His mercy, enters into a covenant of grace (Jer_31:33).
4. This covenant of grace was established in Christ (Heb_12:21; 2Co_1:20).
5. This covenant man is also apt to miscarry in; so as--
(1) To be forgetful of it.
(2) Not to believe in it.
(3) To receive no benefit from it.
6. Hence God instituted this sacrament.
(1) To make us mindful of this covenant and Christ (Luk_22:19).
(2) To confirm and seal it to us (Rom_4:11).
(3) To convey the benefits of it to us.
Conclusion:
1. Be thankful for this sacrament.
2. Do not neglect the use of it.
3. Prepare yourselves for it.
(1) Acquaint yourselves with the nature of it.
(2) Repent.
(3) Act faith in Christ. (Bp. Beveridge.)
The doctrine of the Holy Communion
I. It is a memorial of the sacrifice of the death of Christ.
1. See how closely it is connected with that death. Consider--
(1) The time; Christ and His apostles had met for the last time before He died.
(2) The action; the breaking being a sign of the dissolution of the body, the separation of body and soul in death, and also that His death was an act of free-will. He had power over His life to take it up and lay it down, just as of His own accord He took up from the table the bread, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples to eat.
2. To this picture the three Evangelists and St. Paul all describe the Lord as blessing, or giving thanks, as He brake the bread. And so this also afterwards passed as a synonym for the sacrament. St. Paul calls it the cup of blessing, and among us it has the name of Eucharist.
3. Since the sacrifice of the death of Christ is the cause of our justification, our chief concern must be to make sure of our partaking of it. It is one thing to say Christ died for all; another, Christ died for me. Therefore every man for himself must stretch forth this hand of faith and take to himself, appropriate, his part in the atoning sacrifice. The sacrament is an instrument for such an appropriation.
II. A means of present communion with Christ. As it was the work of Christ of His own free-will and grace to offer His body upon the Cross, so now every fruit of that sacrifice which we gather in His Church comes fresh from His living hand, and His work, and is nothing less. Lo, I am with you always, is the secret of our life in the Church; and nowhere more effectually than in the holy sacrament is His presence made real and true to the eye of faith. The manner of our Lords presence cannot be explained, but His presence in some supernatural form is there, or the text has no proper sense.
III. The highest act of worship in the Church.
1. The faithful Christian, in preparation for this holy act, examines himself, and confesses his unworthiness.
2. Then we make an offering of our stores, which, though small, is at least a symbol of homage.
3. Then the oblation of bread and wine is blessed and taken into His service--an offering of the first-fruits, in acknowledgment that lifes bounties are His gift.
4. Then comes an oblation of greater significance. The worshipper offers himself with a free heart to receive Christ, and in return gives himself to God.
5. Above all, we come nearest to the work of heaven itself, where the Church worships God in the presence of the Lamb as it had been slain. So in the Church below our highest act of worship is celebrated in that place, where the Lamb of God and His sacrifice is brought most near to us. (C. W. Furse, M.A.)
This do in remembrance of Me
If Christ had said, Build Me some fine cathedral that shall stand as a memorial to Me, how we would have poured out our contributions that somewhere in this world there might stand some central temple, over which the cross on which He hung should tower throughout the ages! But the cathedral would have passed into hands of men corrupted by ambition. He made His monument of loving hearts. Only this do: Sometimes sit down together; sometimes remember that last occasion when I grasped the hands of those I loved, looked into their faces, and heard their voices. He longs to be remembered as love always longs to be remembered. He wanted not His name to be blotted out of human memory, nor His personality to be forgotten from throbbing hearts. He commands and guides you in many things. He gives you opportunity to serve His children, His poor, in many ways; but there is only one personal request He makes of you, that now and again, at some supper table, with simply bread and wine, you shall, as they that love Him have throughout all ages, perpetuate His memory and show your love for Him. (Lyman Abbott.)
The remembrance of Christ
I saw behind an hotel in Switzerland a fine garden, and I unexpectedly found there American flowers, and being far away from home, and half homesick, they afforded me great pleasure. Every one of them seemed like a message to me full of affection by association. So the remembrance of Christ in the Lords Supper rekindles our love to Him. (H. W. Beecher.)
Expressive symbols
I cannot bring back my little child, but I can take a locket and look at his face, and he springs to life in my inward thought. There are scenes in my childhood that I cannot tread again, but a very simple memorial, a little dried flower, or some little yellow faded note brings back again the sweet sense of an early experience. And so, by some such very simple symbol, we can bring again before us the Saviour broken for us, His blood shed for us, His love so great, dying to give us life. (H. W. Beecher.)
The purpose of the Lords Supper
We soon forget objects which are removed from our sight; and our Lord, who knows and pities this weakness of our nature, has given us an abiding memorial of Himself. He has appointed an ordinance for this very purpose, to remind us of His love. All our fresh springs are in our crucified Lord, and therefore He brings Himself frequently before us as our crucified Lord that we may go to Him as the great source of our mercies, and take of His blessings. (Dean Bradley.)
The Lords Supper, a simple memorial
We need not look for great things in order to discover great truths. To those who reach after God, He will reveal His deepest secrets through things insignificant in themselves, within the routine of common lives. No event occurs more regularly than the daily meal, none, perhaps, gathers around it so many pleasant associations. Its simplest form, in Christs time, consisted in eating bread and drinking a cup of wine. Into this act, one evening, He gathered all the meaning of the ancient sacrifices, all sacred and tender relation between Himself and His followers, and all the prophecies of His perfected kingdom.
That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread.--
Christ taking bread, and our taking it from Him
I. He took bread.
1. Why did Christ choose so cheap and common a thing to exhibit His body in?
(1) Herein He graciously provided for the poor. Had He appointed some costly recipe, the poor could not procure it for themselves, and the charity of the rich would not purchase it for others.
(2) Had He instituted it in some precious element, people might have imputed the efficacy thereof to its natural worth and working, not to Christs institution. Christ therefore chooseth a thing so mean in itself, that it cannot eclipse God of His glory; none can be so mad as to attribute to plain bread itself such spiritual operation. Let us take heed how we despise the simplicity of Gods ordinance. Say not with Naaman, Are not Abana and Pharpar, etc. Is not the bread at the bakers, and the wine at the vintners, as good as that in the sacrament? And far be it from us to seek with our own inventions to beguard that which God will have plain. Rather let us pray, that our eyes may be anointed with that eye-salve, to see majesty in the meanness, and the state in the simplicity, of the sacraments.
2. But amongst such variety of cheap elements, why was bread preferred? To show our bodies can as well subsist without bread, as our souls without a Saviour. It is called the staff of bread; other meats are but as pretty wands to whisk in our hands. Without bread no feast; with bread no famine.
II. He said unto them, Take, i.e., in their hands, and put it to their mouth; not as the custom lately introduced in the Romish Church, for the priest to put it in the mouth of every communicant. But it is pleaded, that it is unmannerly for laymen to handle Christs body; and therefore it is most reverence to take it with their mouths.
1. There is no such clown in Christianity as he who will be more mannerly than God will have him. It is most reverence for us to do as God commands us. Ahaz tempted God in saying, be would not tempt Him (Isa_7:12). Those do little better who, more nice than wise, strain courtesy not to take Christs body in their hands, when He reaches it.
2. Take it strictly, and our mouths are as unworthy as our hands to receive Christs body. But, seeing it is Christs pleasure to come under the roof of our mouth, let Him also pass through the porch of our hands. The rather because it seemeth that we entertain Christs body in more state, and with more observance towards it, when the more servants attend it, the more members of our body using their service in receiving it.
3. The Romish custom loseth the significancy of the hand of faith. The taking Christs body in our hands mindeth us spiritually by faith to apprehend and lay hold on His mercies and merits. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv20–34 20. When ye come together, therefore. When they assembled…
20. When ye come together, therefore. When they assembled these heresies and divisions were manifest. There was a Paulite group, an Apolloite group, and a Petrine group, who sat apart from each other. It is not to eat the Lord's supper. Coming in such a spirit they were in no fit mind to eat the Lord's supper.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 21. He here alludes to the fact that in…
21. He here alludes to the fact that in this meal — which preceded the sacrament, and in its original institution was simple and frugal, demonstrative of their love to one another — some of them have gone to excess, actually eating to gluttony and drinking to drunkenness. This was not the sacrament, but the meal which preceded it, called the agapee, i. e., the love feast.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v24 1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians
‘IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME’
Read full note →
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!
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv20–34 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not…
When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper [The Lord's Supper is a spiritual feast. It is a feast of love, union and communion in and with Christ, and so can not be eaten by those who have already glutted themselves with hatred, factiousness and partyism]:
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv27, 29, 31, 32 i.e. in an unworthy manner; cf. vs. 1Co 11:20-22.
unworthily
i.e. in an unworthy manner; cf. vs. 1Co 11:20-22.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv23, 26, 30 The Lord’s revelation of the institution of the Eucharist:
The Lord’s revelation of the institution of the Eucharist:
v. 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread;
Read full note →
v. 24. and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me.
v. 25. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in My blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
See Mat 26:26-28; Mar 14:22-24; Luk 22:19-20. The apostle would have been fully
justified in saying that he had received the doctrine concerning the Holy Communion even if he had merely heard the story from the mouths of the apostles that had been present at its institution. But his purpose in mentioning a direct and immediate communication of God is to emphasize his apostolic call and the authenticity and authority of his preaching. The Lord had given him the information by direct revelation, and in this sense they were to accept his teaching. See Gal 1:12. He had taught them thus while he was with them in Corinth, and he was here recording the facts as the Lord had made them known to him. It was in the night when He was betrayed, literally, while the betrayal was going on, that the Lord instituted the wonderful meal of His body and blood. While His enemies were busily engaged in preparations for His capture, the Savior was preparing the heavenly meal for the comfort of believers. He took bread, one of the pieces of unleavened bread which was used at the Passover meal. And having given thanks, not merely the usual prayer of grace which Jewish custom had fixed for this meal, but a special blessing over the bread as the bearer of heavenly gifts. Then, as He walked from one to the other among His disciples, He broke off pieces of bread of convenient size and distributed them, bidding them to take and eat, and declaring that this bread which they were receiving was His body, the same body which was broken or given for them, in their stead and for their benefit. The bread carried, offered, and imparted to the disciples then, as now, the body of the Savior and sealed to the believers all the benefits of His salvation.
And in the very same manner, as an essential part of the new Sacrament, Jesus took the cup, after they had supped, after the paschal lamb and the chief course of the supper had been served. As he walked from one disciple to the next, he varied the formula of distribution but little, as we see from the close agreement between the four accounts. He called the cup with the wine contained therein the new testament in His blood, the new covenant established by the shedding of His blood; through it He entered into a covenant of mercy with all the partakers of this new sacrament. One fact stands out with undeniable force, namely, that all those present partook of the cup as well as of the bread, and that there can be no true Eucharist unless both elements are received by all communicants. Mark that in either case the Lord says: This do in remembrance of Me, for the commemoration of Me. And in the case of the cup He adds: As many times as you drink it. As often as a believer has a longing and desire for the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, and no matter how often, that certainty is his in the Holy Communion. Surely it ought not require more than this definite promise to induce a Christian to receive the Sacrament frequently. "And now consider, my dear friend, what we must think of such people as boast of their being Christians and yet probably go a whole year, two, three years, and still longer, and do not receive the reverend Sacrament. Surely the devil has possessed them to such an extent that they either pay no attention to their sins and therefore do not think about getting rid of them, or they find more pleasure in this present life than in the eternal. In either case it is a terrible thing to hear. Therefore he that wants to be a Christian and also wants to conduct himself, in accordance with his name, in a Christian manner, should not abstain from this Supper, but use it very often. For we are in great need of it, as we are here informed."
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv20, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33 come together
come together
"gather together"
Read full note →
it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat
"you may believe you are eating the Lord's Supper, but you do not treat it with respect"
to eat and to drink in
"in which to gather for a meal"
despise
hate or treat with dishonor and disrespect
humiliate
embarrass or cause to feel shame
What should I say to you? Should I praise you?
Paul is rebuking the Corinthians. AT: "I can say nothing good about this. I cannot praise you." (See: Rhetorical Question)
translationWords
Lord's Supper
church
God
praise
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 11:20-22 Some people were more concerned about eating their…
11:20-22 Some people were more concerned about eating their own supper than with the Lord’s Supper.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.