Jesus was instituting the lord's supper vol. 2

JESUS WAS INSTITUTING THE LORD'S SUPPER VOL. 2
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 Corinthians11:23-2523ForI received from the
LORD what I also passedon to you: The LORD Jesus,
on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when
he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my
body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of
me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup,
saying, "This cup is the new covenantin my blood; do
this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
JOHN MACARTHUR
The Celebrationof the Lord's Supper, Part 2
Sermons 1 Corinthians 11:23–34 1847 May16, 1976
A + A - RESET
This morning we are, in preparation for our time around the Lord’s Table,
going to look at the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians where we have been

already pursuing the truth that God has there with great benefit. And we
usually, as I saidearlier, share in the Lord’s Table on a Wednesday, but due
to the fact that this is the study for this morning, we couldn’t hesitate to share
as well in this hour, and with greatanticipation and joy at that.
We beganour study last Lord’s Day of verses 17 through 34. This most
significant passage -that all of us who have been in the Church for any length
of time are somewhatfamiliar with, due to the fact that it discusses the
Communion Table - is brought to our attention in the light of its context this
morning. I think all of us have at leastlookedat 23 to 26 time and againin the
past but maybe never seenit in its context, in the situation as it existedin
Corinth and as it exists today, in drawing some very practicalinsights out of
what is around it, not only some positive direction from those verses
themselves.
And so, we come to part two in our study of the celebrationof the Lord’s
Supper. Last time we coveredverses 17 to 22. This morning we want to look at
the remainder through verse 34.
But in a preliminary sense, I want to draw your attention to the sixth chapter
of John, if I could, for just an initial look at a very important passagewhich
will help us in our understanding of the Lord’s Supper as Paul discusses it in
the eleventh chapterof 1 Corinthians.
John 6:51. In this sixth chapter, among other things, the primary emphasis is
on the Lord Jesus Christ presenting Himself to the Jewishpeople as the bread
of life. And having spent some time discussing that with them, he kind of
draws it all to a conclusionbeginning in verse 51 in these words, “I am the
living bread that came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he

shall live forever. And the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world.”
Now, here Jesus says that He is bread, and that He is living bread, and that He
came down from heaven – a statement regarding His deity – and if any man
eats this bread, he receives eternallife. And then he refers to the bread as His
flesh. All of this comes togetherto mean that God became flesh incarnate in a
human body, enteredinto the world, and when men appropriate – that’s what
eating means – when they appropriate Christ, they receive eternal life. He’s
speaking in physical terminology, but He has a spiritual message:receive Me,
appropriate Me, take Me in to satisfy your soul as a man takes breadto satisfy
his stomach.
“The Jews” -verse 52 - “therefore arguedamong themselves” – or strove
among themselves – “saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’”
Here they are interpreting it physically. “Then Jesus saidto them, ‘Truly,
truly, I sayto you, exceptyou eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His
blood, you have no life in you.’”
Two things: unless you canacceptthe incarnation and acceptthe blood-
atoning death, you will never have eternallife. Eternal life is a matter of
believing that God came in human flesh, and that He died a substitutionary,
atoning, sacrificialdeathfor sin.
Eating the flesh means acknowledging andappropriating that Christ is God in
human flesh. Drinking the blood is accepting, and acknowledging, and
believing, and appropriating His sacrificialdeath.

In verse 54, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternallife; and I
will raise him up at the lastday. For My flesh is food indeed; My blood is
drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood dwells in Me, and I
in Him.”
Now, here from a very physical metaphor or figure of speech – bread – Jesus
draws out the appropriation of Himself. He’s saying to those Jews, “Unless
you canacceptthe fact that I am Godin human flesh, and acceptthe fact of
My death, you will never know eternallife.” Eating His flesh and drinking His
blood, then, is not literal; it is figurative for appropriating all that He was and
is and has done on the cross.
Now, listen, when you were saved, you did that. In a spiritual sense you said,
“I believe Jesus is God entered into the world in human flesh. I believe Jesus
shed His blood as a sacrifice for sin, atoning for the sins of the world. And you
appropriated it.
When you share in the communion, and you take the bread, and you take the
cup, you are symbolizing outwardly that spiritual appropriation. As you
acceptedthe deity of Christ and His substitutionary, sacrificialdeathfor you
spiritually, at your salvation, you are declaring that in the bread and the cup.
And so, communion then becomes a symbol of our salvationact. It becomes a
reconfirmation. It becomes a restatement. If you will, it becomes a
rededicationto our salvationact of believing and receiving Christ.
And so, it’s a vital thing that we share in. And as we saw lasttime, the early
Church made it a habit of life to share in the Lord’s Supper as a sign, as I just

said, as an outward symbol of that inward reception. Further, as a memorial;
as a memorial to the one who lived and died for them.
Thirdly, as a communion, as a living, vital communing with Him. And we saw
that in 1 Corinthians 10:16 to 18, that when we partake of the Table of the
Lord, we literally commune with Him. He is present; He is here. We
fellowship with Him.
And further, the Lord’s Table is a proclamation. We do show forth the Lord’s
death. And so, it is a declarationto the world that we believe Jesus was Godin
human flesh, who died a substitutionary, atoning death for us.
And fifthly, the celebrationof the communion is eschatological. It is a great
hope. Jesus said, “Do this until we do it togetheragainin the kingdom.” And
we are doing it in anticipation of His soonreturn.
So, this is a sacred, special, serious, and I think worshipful experience in the
life of a believer. And it behooves us to treat it with that sense of dignity and
honor, as well as celebrationthat it deserves. Thatis preciselywhat the
Corinthians did not do.
The Corinthians had turned the Lord’s Supper into a mockery. As we saw in
our laststudy, when we lookedat verses 17 to 22, they had perverted the
Lord’s Supper, and that was point one in the outline. And we’re going to
coverpoints two or three if you want to look at that outline that’s inserted in
your bulletin.

We saw in the perversion of the Lord’s Supper that they were coming to the
Lord’s Supper drunk, gluttonous; that the rich were stuffing themselves in a
gluttonous, drunken manner, and withholding from the poor so that they had
nothing to eat in the love feastwhich precededthe Lord’s Supper in that era.
That they came to the Lord’s Supper hating one another, with factions and
divisions and bitternesses, andunconfessedsin.
And the result of all of it is, in verse 20, Paul says, “Whenyou come together,
therefore, into one place” – and here’s the literal Greek – “it is impossible that
you should eat the Lord’s Supper.”
You may be having something you think is the Lord’s Supper, but that’s an
impossibility because of your attitude. Some of you are drunk. Some of you
are deprived. Some of you are gluttonous. Some of you are hating one
another. There is bitterness; there is faction; there is division. There are class
divisions. There are divisions over theologicalviewpoints. There are divisions
over every conceivable opinion within the church. There is no real
communion of the believers. There is no realcommunion with Christ because
of all the sinfulness. You have debauched and desecratedthe Lord’s Supper.
And what you’re doing is not the Lord’s Supper. Whatever you call it, it is
not.
Now, from that statementabout the perversion of the Lord’s Supper, Paul
moves to the secondarea, the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, beginning in
verse 23. The purposes of the Lord’s Supper, beginning in verse 23. Let’s look
at it. This is a beautiful presentation of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.
And if you’ve been a Christian for any time at all, I know you’ve involved
yourself in the hearing of this passage. And perhaps some of you have had it
memorized because ofits frequency.

Well, what’s so beautiful about it is that is an absolutely – absolutely beautiful
portion of Scripture, and it’s dropped in the middle of a messy situation. It’s
like a diamond in a dirt clod. It just – it’s – the surrounding situation in
Corinth was so vile and so bad, and here in the middle of it, Paul drops this
beautiful jewelof the beauty and the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, right in
the midst of their problem.
He says, at the beginning of this passage,“This is what you’re doing.” At the
end he says, “This is why you’re being chastised.”And he’s dealing with
negatives on both ends. But right in the middle, verses 23 to 26, is the beauty
of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Paul was a masterat dropping those
kind of things in the midst of ugly situations, and he does it here.
Let’s begin at verse 23, “ForI have receivedof the Lord that which also I
delivered unto you” – stop there for a second. “I receivedof the Lord that
which also I delivered unto you.” What I have to sayto you is not human
opinion. What I have to say to you is not my own idea. What I have to sayto
you is not some tradition that’s been handed down from man to man. But
what I have to say to you I receivedfrom the Lord and deliver to you.
In other words, here is a divine reality.
Now you say, “Well, wasn’t everything that Paul said inspired by God?”
Yes, but this is directly takenfrom the statements of Jesus Christ. In fact, it’s
practically certain. And I think that you’d find very few conservative scholars
who would disagree with this. It is practically certainthat 1 Corinthians was
written before any of the four Gospels, thoughthe four Gospels appearin
your New Testamentfirst in their order, they are not, in terms of

chronologicalauthorship, in that order. They were not written till a later
period than this.
So, here is really the first statementof Godin print regarding the Lord’s
Table. For a full understanding of all of it, you need to read the accountin
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but here is the earliestaccountofthe
institution of the Lord’s Supper. And Paul says, “It was directly from the
words of Jesus. He Himself instituted it.
There are two ordinances of the Church: communion and baptism. Both of
them were set in order by the example of Christ and ordained and initiated by
Him as well. And this is no different. So, he says, “This is straight from the
Lord. It is His Supper. He has instituted it.” You notice in verse 20 “the
Lord’s Supper.” It is His Supper.
Now, let’s look further at verse 23. “Having receivedof the Lord” – that is by
a direct communication of the very words that Jesus spoke that night, he says
– “this is what I received, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was
betrayed took bread. And when He had given thanks, He broke it and said,
‘Take, eat:this is My body which is for you. This do in remembrance of Me.’
“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, as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of Me.’ Foras often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup,
you do show the Lord’s death till He come.”
Now, here Paul quotes Jesus. That’s why he says, “This is the Lord’s word
which I’m delivering unto you.” He quotes Jesus the night before He was – the
night in which He was betrayed, the night before he died.

And I think it’s interesting, if you look at verse 23, that he throws that in,
“Thatthe Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread.”
Why does he say that? Well, because he wants to setthe history; he wants to
put it in its historical context, because that has a greatdeal of meaning.
You say, “But he could have said on the eve of the Passover, orhe could have
said on Thursday night before the crucifixion. Why does he say“in the same
night in which He was betrayed”?
Becausethe New Testamentdoes something very interesting, periodically, and
that is it sets the most glorious, the most beautiful, the most wonderful against
the backgroundof the ugliestso that, by contrast, the beauty is visible.
For example, in John 13 that what I think to be the most beautiful passageon
love in the Bible next to the story of the cross:Jesus washing the disciple’s
feet. All the way woven through the passage where He washes the feet of the
disciple is the interlude of Judas who is about to go out and betray Him. And
you have Satanentering his heart. Right in the midst of this whole thing.
And so, the contrastbetweenthe hate of Judas and the filth of the devil,
againstthe beauty and the love of Jesus, makes it all the more wonderful. At
the cross, where youhave Godthe Son dying for the sins of the world, all
around it is hatred and mockery and rejection, because that makes it all the
more beautiful.
And here in the most beautiful ordinance that the Lord has ever given for the
celebrationof His Church, set againstit is the terrible hatred, cruelty of a
betrayal. But that gives it all the more beauty againstthat dark background.

Now, I want you to notice that this was not just an ordinary night. It was not
just the night in which He was betrayed; it was not just the night before He
was crucified. It was the Passoverthat they were eating that night. Once a
year the Jews celebratedthe Passover.
The Passoverwas a commemorative feastthat reminded them all of what God
had done in delivering them from Egypt in the past. They had been in
bondage in Egypt for over 400 years, and Godhad delivered them, you
remember, by a series ofplagues, the last of which was the death of the
firstborn. The only waythey could escapethe executionof the firstborn in
their houses was to kill a lamb – a spotless lamb, incidentally – the firstling of
the flock;take the blood, sprinkle it on the doorpost and the top beam. The
angelof death would come and pass over the house where the blood was.
That’s why it’s calledthe Passover.
And God said, “I want you to have a feastthat night. I want you to eat that
lamb. I want you to eatbitter herbs, and I want you to eat unleavened bread.”
And He instituted a feastthat has been memorialized from that time till today
by Orthodox and even some conservative Judaism. So, this was a – this was
the apex, really, in the history of IsraelPassover.
You see, Passoverfor a Jew celebratedthe delivering power of God. It was
God as Savior, taking them out of Egypt to the PromisedLand. It’s equivalent
to us to the cross, where He takes us out of bondage to sin, into the kingdom of
His dear Son. It’s the same parallel. It’s God – the delivering, saving God.
And so, this was the night to celebrate it. And incidentally, remember always
Jesus was crucifiedon Passover. Youknow why? BecauseHe was the ultimate
Passoversacrifice.He was the ultimate sacrifice ofdeliverance.

So, the night before, they were eating the meal. And Luke 22:7 indicates to us
that it was, in fact, the Passovermeal. You don’t need to look it up, but you
can look it up yourself at another time.
Let me tell you how it went. The Passoverbeganwith a presiding person - it
could be the father, or it could be a patriarch of the family or whatever –
pronounced a blessing calledthe kiddush. And I’m not too goodat Jewish
pronunciation, but that’s sort of what it’s called. Some of you may be better at
that. Kiddush. That was the blessing over the first cup. Now, there were four
cups that were drunk in the Passover. Number one was the kiddush. That was
the blessedcup. And it was always red wine, and that was, of course, symbolic
of the blood of the lamb at the pass over in Egypt.
The presiding person would drink the cup, and then he would pass it around,
and everyone else would share. And that was followedby what you would sort
of today callhors d’oeuvres, appetizers. Bitter herbs dipped in haroset. You
got to sayharosetto get that right Hebrew accent. And they took the bitter
herbs, and they dipped it in the haroset, which is a – it’s a fruit sauce, and
they ate it.
Now, after that was done – it was kind of preliminary, just getting the appetite
sort of workedup a little bit – whetted if you will – there then came a lecture
on the meaning of the Passover. This is still traditional. The Passoverwas
described. They were to eat a lamb because it was a lamb that God had
prescribed to be slain and the blood of which was sprinkled on the door. The
lamb was then eatento symbolize God’s passing over Israelin Egypt. They ate
bitter herbs because it symbolized the bitterness of their bondage. They ate
unleavened bread because Israelwas being redeemedout of Egypt, and they
were going to be going in a big hurry, and haste demanded bread that
wouldn’t spoil, because they wouldn’t be able to make any more once they got

on the road. They neededthat kind of unleavened bread that lookedlike a
greatbig, huge, saltine crackerandwould lasta long time.
So, all this is explained in the Passoverafterthe initial herbs and wine. And
then they sang. And what did they sing? They sang the “Hallel” from which
we get hallelujah. The “Hallel” is Psalm 113 to 118, and they would begin by
singing either 113 or 113 and 114. Thatwas the opening hymns that they
would sing after the explanation of the meaning of the Passover.
Now, after they had sung a couple of the psalms, they would then take the
secondcup, cup number two. After cup number two, the leaderwould take
unleavened bread – that’s that great big, flat cracker-like thing, the
unleavened bread – and he would bless God; he would break it and hand it
out to everybody, and then the meal began.
I told you last week that meals always beganwhen the host broke the bread.
And then the Passovermealwas eaten. When the Passovermealwas done, the
host prayed and then took the third cup. Again, a cup of wine, prayed, and
they drank it. After that, they sang the rest of the “Hallel,” Psalm115 to 118.
That’s why the disciples the night – you remember? – in which the Lord’s
Supper was instituted it says, “And after they had” – what? – “sung a hymn,
they went out.” They were singing the remainder of the “Hallel.” Thatwas
traditional.
And after they had sung all of that, before they dismissed, the fourth cup was
taken. And this was to celebrate the coming kingdom. So, there they were.
If you study the Gospels with that in mind, you can pick out just about detail
by detail what they’re doing at eachpoint in the Lord’s Supper, the Passover.

Somewhere along the line, at the point of unleavened bread being broken
before the meal, Jesus took that bread that symbolized the exodus, broke it
and said, “This bread is my” – what? – “body.” After the meal, He took that
third cup. We know it was afterthe meal because it says, “After He had
supped,” or, “After He had had supper” – it doesn’t mean after He had drunk
it first, it means after supper. He took that third cup and said, “This cup
which to you has representedthe blood of the lamb at the Passoveris no
longerrepresentative of that. This cup is My blood which is shed for you. And
by that, Jesus transformedthe Passoverinto the Lord’s Supper.
And He said, “Now whenyou want to remember, you don’t want to remember
exodus; you don’t want to remember Egypt anymore. You don’t want to
remember Passoverwhenyou think of Savior God, when you think of God as
Deliverer. You want to remember My death.
“The Passoverwas a greatthing that God you out of Egypt and ultimately
into Canaan. My death is going to getyou out of bondage to Satan and
ultimately into heaven. The Passoverprovided for you only a physical release.
My death will provide for you an eternal and spiritual release.And when you
want a contactpoint for Godas Savior, for God as Deliverer, it isn’t going to
be the Passoverfeast;it’s going to be the Lord’s Supper.”
And so did Jesus take this beautiful Passoverfeast, and the night before He
died, He turned it over and made it into His own Supper. And now, when we
come together, it isn’t to celebrate Godas the greatDeliverer because ofwhat
He did in Egypt, but it’s God the greatsaving, delivering God because ofwhat
He did at the cross. You see? Transformationtook place.
Now, I want you to notice something. The Roman Catholic Church and I
think even the con-substantiationview of the Lutheran Church and so forth

says, “This is My body,” verse 24. And verse 25, “This is the new testamentin
My blood.” And because ofa misunderstanding of the meaning of estin, the
verb “to be” in the Greek, they have decided that that has to literally be the
body and blood of Christ. Either in a very physical sense or in a sort of a
strange spiritual sense. That’s not what He’s saying.
The word – the verb “to be” - estin, or whateverform you want, singular or
plural, is frequently used to mean represents. This bread is not His body; it
represents His body. This cup is not His blood; it represents His blood.
When Jesus saidin John 10, “I am the door,” He meant, “I, as a Savior and
Shepherd of the sheep, represent a door into the sheepfold.” He wasn’t
literally a door. In Matthew 13, when He gave the parable of the wheatand
the tares, and He said, “The field is the world,” He didn’t really mean the field
is the world; in the parable He meant the field represents the world.
And He said, “The goodseedare the children of God, and the bad seedthe
children of the wickedone.” And, of course, the word “is” and “are” in those
casessimply means represents. It’s used in a figurative, metaphoricalsense.
So, here, “This represents My body, this bread,” He said, “and this cup
represents My blood.” It was not His blood. His blood was still in His veins
when He said that. It was not His body; His body was still sitting there when
He said that. So, we’re not talking about literal things.
Remember, that’s exactlywhat the Jews thought in John 6, “How are we
going to eat his flesh? There’s not enough of Him to go around,” they thought.

So, He says in verse 23, Paul does, “Thatthe Lord Jesus took bread. And
when He had given thanks” – and that’s eucharisteō in the Greek, from which
you getthe Eucharist. He gave thanks; He broke it, and that’s so that all could
share from a common loaf, and said, “Take, eat. This represents My body
which is for you.” This represents My body. What do you mean by that,
Lord?
Well, the body, to the Jewishmind, representedthe whole man. The total
man. The whole incarnate life of Christ. “This bread represents all that I am
as God incarnate.” The mystery of the incarnation is there from the day He
was born till the day He died, and even when He rose again. The whole of the
incarnation is summed up in the term “body.” God in human flesh.
“Rememberthat I became Man and suffered, and was rejected, and was
despised, and ultimately died for you.” But the whole thing, not just His death.
In the bread is not just His death but His whole incarnation. “This is My body
– represents My body which is for you.”
The word “broken” just does not appearin the better manuscripts. In fact, if
you read carefully John 19, it says that, “The soldiers came by after Jesus was
on the cross. And they noticedthat He was alreadydead, so they did not break
His legs, that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith, ‘And not a bone of
Him shall be’” – what? “‘broken.’”
We saythe shed blood and the broken body. No, the body was never broken.
Not a bone in His body was everbroken. “This is My body which is for you.”
The two most beautiful words in that verse are the two words “for you.” For
you. He’s saying, “Look, letthis remind you, let this representthe fact that
God became a Man for you.” Why did God become incarnate? ForHimself?
No, for you. Why did Jesus come into this world and suffer what He suffered?
For you. Why did He suffer the hatred and the jeers and the mocking, the
despising and the plotting of all the people who just couldn’t tolerate Him?

Why did He go through everything? Why did He go to the garden night after
night after night and pour out His heart in anguish? Why did He sweatgreat
drops of blood? Why did He die on the cross? Foryou. That’s why; for you.
“This is My body, which is for you.” It’s for you. What an unbelievably
gracious, magnanimous, loving, merciful God. For you.
You say, “But I don’t deserve it.”
You’re right. It’s still for you.
“But I don’t want it?”
It’s still for you. If you don’t choose to take it, that’s your problem, but it’s for
you. You see, Jesus said, “Look, it’s for you; will you remember that?
Everything I’ve ever done is for you. The – all the life of suffering and anguish
equips me to be a sympathetic, understanding High Priestfor you so that you
can come to Me, and you canlean on Me, and you canhear Me say, ‘Yes, I
understand; I’ve been there.’ For you. I don’t need this; it’s for you. My body
is given for you.’”
The whole incarnation, beloved, was for you. The reasonHe died was for you.
He died as a substitute for you. He lived in order that He might be a
sympathizer for you. That’s right.
So, He says in response forthat, “Would you do this in remembrance of Me? I
mean since I have done all of this for you, would you do something for Me?”

You’d have to say, “Yes, Lord, what?”
“Would you just do this in remembrance of Me?”
You know, I wonder sometimes about the simplest bottom line of obedience
among Christians. I was talking to some Christians recently, and I said – well,
to this one particular individual – I said, “How long has it been since you’ve
had communion, the Lord’s Table?”
“Oh, I guess abouta year-and-a-half.”
And I said, “That’s a sin. That is sin. That’s disobedience.”
Look at verse 24, “Jesussaid, ‘Do this.’” Did you getit? “‘Do this.’”
Now, either you do it or you don’t. And if you do, it’s obedient, and if you
don’t it’s – what? – disobedience. Do it.
You say, “But you don’t have it here often enough.”
Then do it somewhere else.Do it in your home. Do it in your Bible study. Do it
in your prayer group. Do it. “Do this,” He said. That’s simple enough. Did He
say do it in the church? Did He say do it on Sunday morning? No, He said,
“Do it. Do this.” Why? “In remembrance of Me.”

I don’t know that we canunderstand the word remembrance rightly, because
we think of remember as something, “Oh, yes, I remember.” Boom – it
happened in the past. The Hebrews didn’t think of remember that way. To a
Hebrew, to remember – now mark it – meant to call into the fullness of
conscious mind the presence of the one you were remembering.
It isn’t just, “Oh, yeah, I remember that. Yeah, that happened back in – you
know, 2,000 years ago.He died on the cross. Iremember. I’m remembering,
Lord.”
No. It’s to reachback there to that event and pull it all up into the presence so
that I’m living in the consciouspresence ofJesus Christ. When a Hebrew
remembered, it meant to him that his total mind and soul and heart was filled
with the consciousnessofthe reality of the one he remembered.
Jesus is saying, “Do this; and when you do it, would you call Me into your
conscious mind? Not just My dying for you, but My living for you, My whole
incarnation. Would you commune with that in your mind – your conscious
mind?”
You see, you cancome, and you candrink the cup and eatthe bread, and if
your mind’s a million miles away, you haven’t even remembered the Lord no
matter what you did, until you’ve clearedout all of the other things in your
mind and calledHim into your conscious presence.
He says, “Will you take this bread, and will you eatit, and will you do it,
calling Me to the consciousnessofyour mind? All that I’ve done for you My
whole life. After all, it was for you. Would you commune with that reality?”

Verse 25, “After the same manner also” – the same way – “He took the cup,
after supper” – that’s why we sayit’s the third cup; the meal was eaten, the
Passovermeal – “He said, ‘This cup is the new covenant.’” Diathēkē is always
translated covenantexceptmaybe one place;in Hebrews 9 it should be
translated another way. But with that one exception, it’s covenant. “This is the
new covenant” - or the new promise – “in My blood. This do” – or “do this” –
“Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
Now, here He takes the cup, and He says, “This represents the new covenant
in My blood.” The old covenantwas ratified by the blood of – what? –
animals. The new covenantis ratified by the blood of Christ.
You know, when you sign a document, you ratify it. The president signs a law,
and it goes into effect. When somebodysends you a policy of insurance or
some legalpapers or a bill of sale for a house, or whatever it is, you take a pen
and ink, and with fluid – with ink you ratify the promise. They promised to
give you a product, and you promised to give them money or whatever. They
promise in an insurance policy to give you protection, and you promise to pay
them what that protection costs. There is a covenantratified by fluid, by ink.
In the Old Testament, Godsaid to Israel, “I will lead you to the Promised
Land. I will pass overyour house and not execute your firstborn if you will
sign on the dotted line.” And what did they signwith? The blood of a lamb on
the doorpostand the lintel. And that was the fluid that ratified the promise,
“God, you do your part; we will do our part.”
And throughout all of the Old Testament, Godcontinued to say, “You’ve got
to ratify the promise in blood. And they sacrificedanimal after animal after
animal after animal so that the blood flowed through the land of Israel

through all of its history as the people continued to renew the promise over
and over and over and over again.
And in fact, when covenants were made in the East, in the ancient East, they
weren’t made by signing your name at the bottom. An animal was killed, and
the blood was sprinkled on both parties. You were both dousedin blood as a
sign you were going to keepyour promise. A covenantratified by blood.
And Jesus says, “There’sa new covenant. God is making a new promise. You
know what that promise is? It isn’t anymore the old one of law. It isn’t
anymore the old one of you have to do this sacrifice and this sacrifice and this
one. It’s a brand new promise. Here it is: I will forgive all your sins for all
time.” And that was new. They had to make sacrifices continuously. “I will
make one sacrifice forever, and that will be Christ. And His one sacrifice and
His one ratification by blood will end the sacrificialsystemfor good. That’s a
new promise.”
God says, “I’ll give you total forgiveness forever. I’ll give you eternal life
forever by the blood of Christ.” And it was as if on the cross Jesuswas taking
His blood and signing on the dotted line. That’s the new covenant: the blood
of Christ. Not the blood of a lamb on a doorpost, where God says, “I’ll take
you out of the land and getyou to the PromisedLand.” That’s temporal and
impermanent. But the blood of the new covenant, where God says, “I’ll take
you into heaven, and I’ll forgive your sin forever, unconditionally because of
Jesus Christ.” That’s the new covenant.
And so, He says, “The cup represents the new covenant. No longer do you
need to go back to the blood of the Passover;come back to the blood of the
cross. The Hebrews, of course, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedlyshed that
blood, repeatedly – over and over and over and over – and constantly were

saying, “I’m sorry, God; I bind myself againto Your promise. I’ve sinned
again. Please forgive me again. Here’s my sacrifice again. Iwant to obey
again,” etcetera, etcetera.
But once do we come, in the name of the blood of Jesus Christ, and bind
ourselves to the promise. But you know something? Every time after that,
throughout our lives, that we celebrate the Lord’s Table, we are restating that
promise, aren’t we? We are taking the cup, and we’re saying, “I outwardly
renew my pledge, my part of the salvation bargain.”
You say, “What’s my part?”
God says, “I’ll save you. I’ll give you eternallife. I’ll forgive your sins forever
if you will do one thing.” What is it? “Believe.”
When you take the cup, you’re saying, “I believe. I renew that commitment. I
refresh that vow. I restate that pledge.”
And Jesus said, “Do that, would you?”
You say, “How often?”
Often. As often as you drink it.
“Well, how often should I drink it?”

Verse 26, “As often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show the
Lord’s death till He come.” I’ll tell you how often you do it. How often do you
like to proclaim the death of Christ? How often would you like to declare His
death? How often do you want to commune with His death. How often do you
want to restate that pledge? That’s how often.
“And when you do it, would you callMy death into mind? Would you
remember Me in the fullness of what that remembrance means? CallMy
death into mind.”
Now, you will notice that it’s not just a communion but it’s a proclamationin
verse 26. You’re showing the Lord’s death to the world. You’re proclaiming
it. The world looks atthe communion and says, “Whatare they saying?”
And somebodysays, “Well, that’s how they celebrate Jesus’death.”
That’s right. And we proclaim it, and proclaim it, and proclaim it to the
world. If you’re here this morning, and you’ve never receivedJesus Christ
and appropriated His death, you’ve never believed that He is God incarnate;
that He died a substitutionary, atoning death for you, then you canhear the
messagethat comes right off of this Table this morning and commit yourself
to Christ. I’ve heard of a couple of people already who have receivedChrist in
the earlierservice because the message came through. We proclaim here.
It’s also, as I said earlier, eschatological;“Till He come,” it says in 26. It keeps
us looking forward till the day when we do it with Him.

So, it isn’t a simple thing to come to the Table. We remember what Christ has
done. And then we call Him into conscious presence, and we refresh our
covenantand commitment with Him. And we commune with the Living Lord;
we proclaim the Gospel;and we hope for His anticipatedreturn – all at this
Table. This is a specialplace. And when we come to it, Paul says we better
come with specialattitudes.
Let’s see, number three, the preparation for the Lord’s Supper. And we’ll
look quickly at this. The preparation for the Lord’s Supper, verse 27,
“Wherefore, whosoevershalleat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord” -
anaxiōs – or “unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
He says, “Look, it’s serious;it’s important. If you treat this uncommon thing
commonly, you become literally liable” – that’s the word “guilty” – “for the
body and blood of the Lord.” If you come to this Table wrongly, you’re guilty
of it.
“Now, whatdo you mean unworthily, John?”
Well, I’ll tell you how you can come unworthily. The Corinthians did it. You
can come – here’s the way you can treat the Table of the Lord unworthily.
Number one, by ignoring it rather than obeying it. By just not doing it. You’re
saying, “It’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. It’s unimportant.” Is that right? No,
that’s wrong; that’s unworthy of you, and unworthy of Him.
Second, you can treat the Table unworthily by making it a performance
rather than something meaningful, by just doing it rather than understanding
it.

I’ll tell you another way you can pervert the Table and come unworthily is by
making it into a saving thing rather than a communing thing. By thinking that
it saves you to do it rather than understanding that it only causes youto make
a fresh commitment and a fresh communion with Christ.
Another way that you can come unworthily is by treating it as a ceremony
rather than as a personalexperience. And another way that you cancome
unworthily is by treating it lightly rather than treating it seriously. If you
come to this table with any bitterness toward another Christian in any way,
shape, or form; with any unconfessedsin; living in any kind of sin that you
will not repent of and turn from; if you come with any less than the loftiest
thought about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God; if you
come with anything less than total love for the brothers and sisters in the body
of Christ, you come to this Table unworthily.
And you say, “What’s the result?”
Look;you are liable for the body and blood of the Lord.
You say, “John, what do you mean I’m liable for the body and blood of the
Lord?”
You contactguilt in reference to Christ. You literally are treating Him in an
unworthy manner, and you become guilty of that kind of ill treatment. You
are treating the totality of Christ’s life and death unworthily, and you will get
guilt from that.

In other words, God says you’re guilty of that. You become culpable, liable,
guilty. For example, a man who tramples the flag doesn’t just trample the
flag. He insults his country; be becomes guilty of dishonoring a nation. And
somebody who tramples with the feet of indifference or sinfulness the body
and blood as representedin the elements of communion is guilty of
dishonoring, mocking, treating with indifference and hypocrisy the very
person of Jesus Christ.
How you treat this Table, beloved, is how you are treating Jesus. That’s what
he’s saying. And that tells me that it’s a very real encounter with Christ here.
In fact, it’s so realthat failure to acknowledge the reality and seriousnessofit
brings about judgment.
So, what do you do? Verse 28, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat
of the bread and drink of the cup.” The man’s self-examination. Look at your
heart. Is there anything there that shouldn’t be there? The word here in the
Greek means a rigorous self-examination: your life, your motives, your
attitude toward the Lord, your attitude toward the Lord’s Supper, your
attitude toward other Christians. Be certainyou’re not careless,flippant,
indifferent, entertaining sin, unrepentant, mocking – all of that.
And when you’ve examined yourself, then let him eatof the bread and drink
the cup. Examination first. Why? “Becausehe that eats and drinks
unworthily, eats and drinks” – krima in the Greek;it should be translated
chastisement. It’s not damnation. That’s the worsttranslation I’ve ever read
of that. It means chastisement. Katakrima means damnation. That’s used in
verse 32. Krima is a less intense word; it means chastening. “If you eatand
drink unworthily, you will eat and drink chastening to yourself because you
are not discerning the Lord’s body.”

In other words, you’re not treating the reality of Christ with seriousness and
dignity and purity and holiness. You don’t see the seriousness andthe
sacrednessofthe Lord’s Supper, communing with the body and blood of the
very person of Jesus Christ. And you treat it with sinfulness; then you are
literally guilty of His – of dishonoring Him. You become liable for chastening,
and you will be chastenedbecauseyou have not thought seriously about what
you’re doing. You’ve not discernedthe meaning and significance ofthe Lord’s
body.
Now, some would like to include in the term “the Lord’s body” also the
Church, you’re not considering seriouslythe Church, the corporate body of
Christ. That may be latent there, but in the text, the word “body” always
refers to the Lord’s actualbody. And the result of that kind of chastening?
What does He do? How does God chastenus? Well, in Corinth, this is what
He did, verse 30, “Because ofthis, many are weak and sicklyamong you, and
many sleep.” And “sleep” is a metaphor for death. The Lord said, “Becauseof
the Corinthians’ abuse of the Lord’s Table, some of them had gottenweak.
They were mildly sick. Some of them were very sick, and some of them God
had killed.
And incidentally, the Greek says a sufficient number were dead. I don’t know
how many God killed in Corinth, but a goodly number. Why did he kill them?
What evil did they do? The evil of coming to the Lord’s Table in an irreverent
manner. You get a little idea of the seriousness.
I personally believe that Ananias and Sapphira, who were executedby God
for their sin, were probably killed and executedat a communion service. That
would be very, very stark, wouldn’t it? They probably dropped dead at a
communion service, because that’s what the early Church did when it came
together. And I’m not sure that it isn’t true that some Christians today are

weak, others are sick, and some have even died because ofhow they treated
the Lord’s Table: with indifference, sinfulness, whatever.
Now he says in 31 – here’s the remedy – “If you would judge yourself, you
wouldn’t be judged. If you’d examine yourself, you wouldn’t end up being
chastened. Self-examinationdrives you right back to verse 28. Check your
heart. Check your motives. The Corinthians were being chastenedby God
because they wouldn’t examine themselves, cleanup their own life.
In verse 32, he throws in a beautiful verse, a fantastic verse. I wish we had
more time, as we’ve got to hurry.
But somebodynow is going to say, “Oh, man, this is too much, brother; I can’t
handle this. I’m going to come to the Table, and anything’s wrong, and –
zappo.” “I mean – ahhh – I mean I may wind up in hell. You know, what’s the
deal?”
I love this, “But when we are judged” – he says – “we are chastenedof the
Lord that we should not be katakrima with the world.” We are chastenedby
the Lord that we might not be damned with the world. What to hear
something. You want to hearsomething? No Christian, no time, under no
circumstance will ever be damned with the world.
People say, “Oh, does this mean I lose my salvation? Does this mean I’m
lost?”
No. You will never be damned with the world because shortof that, you will
be – what? – chastenedby the Lord. The worstthing that could ever happen

to a Christian would be the ultimate chastening. And what’s that? Take you to
heaven. See, that’s not too bad. The point of the verse – a tremendous verse –
the point of the verse is, “Look, we are being chastenedby the Lord in order
that we would not be damned with the world.”
You say, “But maybe the Lord won’t chastenme.”
Whom the Lord loves He chastens, andevery sonHe scourges. Every
Christian is under the chastening hand of the Lord which prevents him from
ever being condemned with the world. Is that a greattruth? So, we have not
that ultimate fear. I don’t know about you; I’d just as soonbe healthy, happy,
and alive for a little while. So, I want to check myself when I come to the
Lord’s Table.
So, then he closes in verse 33 and 34 by saying, “Look, you brothers, getthat
love feaststraightenedout. When you come together, waitfor eachother.”
Remember lastweek? Don’tgorge yourself before the poor getthere’s
nothing for them. “And if you’re hungry, then go home and eat, that you not
come togetherand be chastened. And the rest of the problems I’ll set in order
when I come.” I don’t know what the rest of the problems were, but you can
let your imagination run wild.
All of this, beloved, to simply saythat God is very, very serious about how the
Lord’s Table is treated. As we share around it this morning, I trust you will
examine your heart, as I have mine. Let’s pray. We’ll ask our deacons to come
as we pray and prepare to serve.
Father, thank You for speaking to our hearts, to my heart. I know there are
some in our midst this morning who do not know Jesus Christ as Savior, and

who cannot partake – unless they do, and, oh, Father, I would pray that right
now You’d open their heart to You. That right now, they’d say, “Lord Jesus, I
want to eat Your flesh and drink Your blood; I want to acceptYour
incarnation and Your sacrificialdeath for me.”
There are other Christians, Lord, who can’t partake because ofunconfessed,
unrepented sin, and bitterness or whatever. May they confess itnow. May we
examine our hearts. And so, let us eat and drink, in Jesus’name, amen.
HEINRICH MEYER
Verse 23
1 Corinthians 11:23. Ground of the ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. For I, for my part,
have receivedthe following instructions from Christ touching the institution
of the Lord’s Supper,(1848)which I also delivered to you. How should it be
possible then that your disorder should meet with praise, so far as I am
concerned, at variance as it is with the knowledge ofthe matter obtained by
me from Christ and communicated to you?
ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου]Had Paul written παρὰ τ. κ., this would have denoted that he
had receivedthe instructions directly from Christ (Galatians 1:12; 1
Thessalonians 2:13;1 Thessalonians 4:1;2 Timothy 3:14; Acts 10:22;John
6:45; John 8:40; John 10:18); ἀπὸ τ. κ., on the other hand, means forth from
the Lord, from the Lord’s side as the source, so that the preposition takenby
itself leaves the question open whether the relation referred to be an indirect
(so generally, including Galatians 3:2; Colossians3:24)or a direct one (as in
Colossians 1:7; 1 John 1:5; 3 John 1:7). And Hofmann does not go further
than this indefinite relation, holding the only idea expressedhero to be that of
origin from the Lord; comp also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 211. But seeing that,
if what Paul had in view had been an immediate reception, it would have been

natural for him, and of some importance for his argument, to express this
distinctly by using παρά, while yet in point of facthe uses only ἀπό, we are
warranted in assuming that he means a reception, which issued indeed from
Christ as originator, but reachedhim only mediately through another
channel. This applies againstCalovius, Bengel, Flatt, and others, including
Heydenreich, Olshausen, de Wette (assuming a confirmation by special
revelation of what he had learned from report), Osiander, who all find here a
direct communication from Christ. The argument of Schulz and de Wette,
however, againstthis latter view, on the ground of the word παρέλαβ. being in
itself inappropriate, will not hold, especiallywhen we view it as correlative to
παρέδωκα;comp 1 Corinthians 15:3.
The question now remains: Does Paul, in asserting that his accountof the
institution proceededfrom the Lord, mean to say simply that he receivedwhat
follows by a tradition descending from Christ,(1851)or by a revelationissuing
from Christ? The latter alternative, which Rückertalso adopts (Abendm. p.
194 f.), is not to be rejectedon the ground of the following narrative being
something with which all were familiar. For it is quite possible that it was
wholly unknown to the apostle at the time of his conversion;and even apart
from that, it was so important for his apostolic vocationthat he should have a
sure and accurate knowledgeofthese facts, and to receive it by way of special
revelation was so completelyin harmony with Paul’s peculiar position as an
apostle, since he had not personally been a witness of the first Lord’s Supper,
that there is nothing to forbid our assuming that he received his accountof the
institution of this ordinance, like his gospelgenerally, in the way of authentic
revelation from Christ. As to the form of mediate communication through
which Christ had causedthese facts to reachPaul, not appearing to him for
this purpose Himself, we must leave that point undecided, since very various
kinds of media for divine revelations are possible and are historically attested.
It may have been by an utterance of the Spirit, by an angelappearing to him,
by seeing and hearing in an ecstatic state. Only the contents of the
revelation—from its essentialconnectionwith the gospel, and, in fact, with its
fundamental doctrine of the work of reconciliation—exclude, according to
Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:15, the possibility of human

intervention as regards the apostle in the matter; so that we should not be
justified in supposing that the revelation reachedhim through some man
(such as Ananias) commissionedto conveyit to him by the Lord. As to the
view that we have here a mere tradition, on the other hand, recounted by Paul
as originating with Christ, the apostle himself decides againstit both by his
use of the singular (comp 1 Corinthians 15:3), and also by the significant
prominence given to the ἐγώ, whereby he puts forward with the whole
strength of conscious apostolicauthority the communication made to himself,
to him personally, by the Lord, over-againstthe abuse, contrasting with it, of
the Holy Supper among the Corinthians. Had he meant simply to say: “I
know it through a tradition proceeding from Christ,” then his ἐγώ would have
been on the same level with every other, and the emphatic prominence which
he gives to the ἐγώ, as well as the sing. παρέλαβον, would be quite unsuitable,
because without any specific historicalbasis;he would in that case have
written: παρελάβο΄εν γὰρἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου. We have certainly therefore in this
passagenot merely the oldestaccountof the Lord’s Supper, but even“an
authentic explanation given by the risen Christ regarding His sacrament”
(Olshausen);not one directly from His lips indeed, but conveyedthrough
some medium of revelation, the precise form of which it is impossible for us
now to determine, whereby we have a guarantee for the essentialcontents of
the narrative independently of the Gospels, althoughnot necessarilyan
absolute ultimate authority establishing the literal form of the words of
institution (even in opposition to Matthew and Mark), since a revelation of the
history, nature, and meaning of the institution might be given even without
any verbal communication of the words spokenin connectionwith it.
ὃ καὶ παρέδ.] which I (not only received, but) also delivered to you.
Converselyin 1 Corinthians 15:3. Instances ofπαραλαμβ. and παραδοῦναι, in
the sense ofdiscere and tradere, may be seenin Kypke.
ὅτι] that, as in 1 Corinthians 15:3, not for, as Luther and Hofmann render it.
The latter translation would leave untold what Paul had receivedand

delivered, in spite of the importance of the matter in question; and it derives
no support from the repetition of the subject, ὁ κύριος, since that, with the
addition of the sacredname ἰησοῦς, gives a solemnemphasis to the statement.
It is the full doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, which they owe to him, that he is
now setting before his readers.
ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδοτο (imperfectum adumbrativum, see Kühner, II. p. 73):
in the night in which His betrayal was going on (hence not the aorist). It is a
deeply solemnand arresting thought, contrastedwith the frivolity displayed
among the Corinthians at the Agapae. The preposition is not repeatedbefore
the relative. Comp Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, Mem. ii. 1. 32, with Kühner thereon;
Plato, Phaed. p. 76 D, with Heindorf and Stallbaum in loc(1854)
ἄρτον] bread (a cake ofbread), which lay on the table.
REMARK.
The agreementwhich prevails betweenPaul’s accountof the Supper and that
of Luke, is not to be explained by a dependence of Paul upon Luke (Grotius,
comp also Beza), but conversely. See onLuke 22:20, remark.
Verse 24
1 Corinthians 11:24. τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα] This is my body (the body of
me). The emphasis lies not on the enclitic μου, but on τὸ σῶμα. See, further,
on Matthew 26:26, and see Keim (in the Jahrb. für Deutsch. Theol. 1859,p.
73), as againstStröbel(in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1854, pp. 598, 602 ff.), who
would have τοῦτο not to refer to the broken bread at all, but to point forward
to what is to be designatedby the predicate. This τοῦτο canmean nothing else

whateverbut: this broken bread here, which again necessitates ourtaking
ἐστί as the copula of the symbolic “being.”
Otherwise the identity of the subject and predicate here expressedwould be,
alike for the speakerand the hearers, an impossible conception;the body of
the Lord was still alive, and His death, which answeredto the breaking of the
bread, was yet in the future. When we come, therefore, to define ἐστί more
preciselyin connectionwith that first celebrationof the Supper, it is to be
takenas “being” in the sense of proleptic symbolism; and thereby the very
possibility of the Lutheran synecdoche (upon which even Mehring falls back,
in the Luther. Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 82) is done away.
τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν] κλώμενον is spurious. We must supply simply ὄν: which is for
your behoof, namely, by its being broken(slain(1856)). Christ’s body was not,
indeed, literally broken (John 19:33), but in His violent death our Lord sees
that accomplishedin His body which He had just done with the bread. This is
the point of what He beholds in the broken bread lookedupon by Him with
such direct creative vividness of regard; but in truth the simple τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν
is more in keeping with the deep emotion of the moment than any attempt to
expound in a more detailed waythe symbolism which both presents and
interprets itself in the breaking of bread; and Matthew and Mark have not
even this “for you.”
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε]to wit, what I now do; not merely the breaking of the bread
joined with a thanksgiving prayer, but also—asthe action itself became the
silent commentary on this τοῦτο—the distribution and eating of the bread;
comp 1 Corinthians 11:26.
εἰς τ. ἐ΄. ἀνά΄ν.] in remembrance of me, presupposes His absence in body for
the future; see on Luke 22:19. We may add that these words also do not occur

in Matthew and Mark, whose simple τοῦτό ἐστι τ. σῶμά μου carries with it a
presumption of its being the original, unexpanded by any later explanation or
reflection. Generally speaking, a like preference must be accordedto the
narratives of the Supper by Matthew and Mark (and betweenthose two,
again, to that of Mark) over those of Paul and Luke.
Verse 25
1 Corinthians 11:25. ὡσαύτ. κ. τ. ποτ.]sc(1858)ἔλαβεκαὶ εὐχαριστήσας
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς (this last is to be taken from ἔκλασε), 1 Corinthians 11:23-24.
τὸ ποτήρ.]the cup which stoodbefore Him. It was the cup which closedthe
meal, although there is no ground to connect΄ετὰ τὸ δειπν. here with to τὸ
ποτήρ., as Pott does.
ἐστίν] in the position which it has here, is decisive againstour connecting ἐν
τῷ ἐ΄ῷ αἵ΄. with ἡ κ. διαθ., 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 covenantin 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 symbolicalmode
of view at that solemn moment stands out in the sharpestcontrastwith the
strife of the churches on the subject (for the rest, see onLuke 22:19 f.).
Christ’s blood became, by its being poured forth, the ἱλαστήριον,(1859)
whereby the new covenant(1860)was founded(Romans 3:24 f., 1 Corinthians
5:3), the covenantof grace, in which were established, on man’s side, faith in
Christ,—not, as in the old covenant, the fulfilling of the law,—andon God’s
side forgiveness by the wayof grace, justification, sanctification, andbestowal
of eternal Messianic salvation. Comp2 Corinthians 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.
τοῦτο ποιεῖτε]to be taken so as to harmonize with 1 Corinthians 11:24.
Hofmann is wrong in thinking that Paul lays such specialemphasis on this
statementof the purpose of the Supper, because it appearedincompatible
with the Corinthian mode of observing it. The apostle has no intention
whateverhere of laying emphasis either on one thing or another; he wishes
only to report, in their simple objectivity, the sacredwords in which the
original institution was couched. Whathe desires to lay stress upon as against
the Corinthians, comes in afterwards in 1 Corinthians 11:26 ff.
ὁσάκις ἂν πίν.] peculiar to this accountof the ordinance:as often as ever
(quotiescunque, see Kühner, II. p. 94; comp Bengel)ye drink it; the context
supplies τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ. as the objectof. πίν., without its having to be
representedby a pronoun ( αὐτό). See Krüger, § 60. 7; Kühner, 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 togetherat a ‫מ‬ ִ‫ש‬ ְׁ‫ת‬ ֶּ‫.ה‬ But how can that be
conveyedby the simple πίνητε? And it was certainly not a drinking meal, but
a regular δεῖπνον (1 Corinthians 11:25).
Note, further, as to the ἄν, that it is placed after ὁσάκις, “quia in hac voce
maximum sententiae pondus positum est,” Kühner, a(1864)Xen. Mem. i. 1.
16.

JOSEPHBENSON
Verse 23
1 Corinthians 11:23. For I have receivedof the Lord — Doubtless by special
revelation; that which also I delivered unto you — In my former preaching on
this subject, in which, as in all things else, I have been careful most exactly to
adhere to my original instructions. This epistle appears to have been written
before any of the gospels, andit is probable from Galatians 1:17, &c, that
when the apostle wrote it, he had seennone of the apostles. And that the
institution of this ordinance should make a part of that immediate revelation,
with which Christ honoured this apostle, is both very remarkable, and also
affords a strong argument for the perpetuity of it in the church. “Forhad
others of the apostles (as Barclayin his Apology for the Quakers presumes to
insinuate) mistakenwhat passedat the last passover, and founded the
observationof the euchariston that mistake, surely Christ would rather have
correctedthis error in his new revelationto Paul, than have administered
such an occasionof confirming Christians in it.” — Doddridge. That the Lord
Jesus — In his own person; the same night in which he was betrayed — That
is, in the night which precededhis crucifixion, which circumstance, with the
others that follow respecting the nature and design of the sacredordinance
here spokenof, with the appointed form of its administration, Macknight
thinks was made knownto Paul by Christ himself, as a matter which merited
particular attention, because itwas a strong proof of his innocence. He knew
he was to be crucified the next day as an impostor, for calling himself the Son
of God. Having so near a prospectof his punishment, would he, by instituting
his supper, have takencare that his punishment, as an impostor, should never
be forgotten, if he had really been an impostor? No: such a supposition
exceeds allrational belief. But knowing himself to be the Son of God, and
being absolutely certain that God would acknowledgehim as his Son, by
raising him from the dead on the third day, he instituted his supper, to be
preservedby his disciples till he should return to judge the world; because he
foresaw that his death could not be remembered by his disciples, without
recollecting his resurrection, and expecting his return. Further, if Christ did
not rise from the dead according to his express promise, frequently repeated,
can it be thought that his disciples, who thus must have known him to be a

deceiver, would have perpetuated the memory of his punishment as an
impostor, and of their own shame, by beginning a service, in which his death,
that is, his punishment, would be openly published to the world? Wherefore,
since the apostles, andthe other first disciples, who were eye-witnessesoftheir
Master’s deathand resurrection, by beginning this service, and their
successors by continuing it from age to age, have published to the world the
death and resurrectionof their Master, as matters of fact known and believed
by all Christians from the beginning; this certainly is an incontrovertible
proof of the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection, and consequently it
hath fully establishedhis claim to be God’s Son, the true Messiahand Saviour
of the world. Also, this ordinance hath been the source of unspeakable
consolationto his disciples in every age, by assuring them that all his doctrines
are true, and that all his promises shall be performed in their season;
particularly his promise of returning to raise the dead, and carry his people
into heaven. In this view the institution of the supper, in the night wherein he
was betrayed, was a great instance of Christ’s love to men. And we are bound
by continuing that excellentservice in the world, to hand down to them who
come after us those unspeakable consolations whichwe ourselves enjoy,
through the pious care of our fathers, who believed in Christ before us.
Verse 24
1 Corinthians 11:24. And when he had given thanks — The word
ευχαριστησας, thus rendered, is the term used also by Luke, whence
Macknightinfers, that the word ευλογησας, used by Matthew and Mark,
ought to be understood, not of Christ’s blessing the bread, but of his blessing
God for saving sinners through his death, See on Luke 22:19. He brake it —
Into severalpieces;and — Distributing it to his disciples who were present,
said — With greatsweetnessand solemnity, This is my body which is broken
for you — “As the clause, whichis broken, cannot be takenliterally, because
it would imply that Christ’s body was broken, or put to death on the cross, at
the time he said this, contrary to truth; so the clause, this is my body, cannot
be taken literally: for the two clauses making but one proposition, if the
clause, this is my body, which is the subject of the proposition, be interpreted

literally, the predicate, which is brokenfor you, must be so likewise.
Consequently the proposition will import, that the bread in our Lord’s hands
was convertedinto a thing which at that time had no existence. Boththe
doctrine of the Papists, and that of the Lutherans, therefore, [on this head,]
ought to be rejected, as implying an evident falsehood; namely, that Christ’s
body, at the time he spake, was broken, orput to death.” In other passages of
Scripture, we frequently find expressions perfectlysimilar to, this is my body,
as is proved in the note on Matthew 26:26, which see. The evident meaning of
our Lord is, This bread is the representationof my body, which is to be
broken for you. “The Papists contend, that in every age, by the priests
pronouncing what they call the words of consecration, the same change is
made in the bread and wine, which they affirm was made in these elements by
Christ’s saying, This is my body, &c. But, to gain credit to their doctrine, they
ought to show from Scripture, that the power of working that miracle was
promised by Christ to all his faithful servants in the ministry to the end of the
world. But this they cannot do. Besides, thatSt. Paul did not possess anysuch
poweris evident from 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 ofthis chapter, where he calls
the elements bread and wine after their consecration, as he had named them
before.” — Macknight. This do in remembrance of me — In an humble,
thankful, obedient remembrance of my dying love, of the extremity of my
sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you,
and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.
Verses 25-27
1 Corinthians 11:25-27. He also took the cup when he had supped — Or, after
supper. “This circumstance is mentioned to show that the Lord’s supper is not
intended for the refreshment of the body, but, as we are told 1 Corinthians
11:26, for perpetuating the memory of Christ’s death, resurrection, and
ascension, to the end of the world, and declaring our expectationof 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 eachparticular 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
Masteris not only remembered, but declaredin 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 solemnsealand memorial of
the covenantwhich is establishedin my blood, by which all its invaluable
blessings are procured for you. Our Lord did not mean that the covenantof
grace was first made at the time he shed his blood. It was made immediately
after the fall, on accountof the merit of his obedience unto the death, which
God then consideredas accomplished, becauseit was certainly to be
accomplishedat 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
representedin remembrance of the remissionof sin. According to the Papists,
the expression, as oft as ye drink it, “implies that the cup, in the Lord’s
supper, may sometimes be omitted; and on that pretence they have denied the
cup to the laity;” but how justly, may be knownby taking notice that the
words, as often as, are applied (1 Corinthians 11:26) to the bread as well as to
the cup. Besides, Matthew hath told us, that when Christ gave the cup, he
said, (Matthew 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;eatthis bread and drink this
cup — With proper solemnity and seriousness, faith, love, and gratitude; ye
do show forth the Lord’s death — Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it
to God and all the world; so the word καταγγελλετε, here used, signifies:till
he come — To close the present scene ofthings, 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 secondcoming, yet in his
discourse afterthe celebrationof it, he connectedhis secondcoming with his
death, John 14:3. The apostle therefore truly expressedhis Master’s intention,
when he told the Corinthians, that by publishing the Lord’s death, they
published also his coming to judgment, and that the service of the supper was

intended as a publication of both. Wherefore — ωστε, 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.
GreatTexts of the Bible
Proclaiming the Lord’s Death
For as often as ye eatthis bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s
death till he come.—1 Corinthians 11:26.
1. The Apostle Paul sustained to the Corinthian Church the relation of a
father to his child. By him the Gospelhad been first preachedin the rich and
sensualcity; by his instrumentality the first converts had been won to Christ;
and with all a father’s yearning did he watch over their welfare, counselthem
in their ever-recurring perplexities, and guide the heedless footsteps which
were too prone to go astray. To his fatherly care for their interests we owe the
circumstantial accountwhich he has given us in this chapter of the institution
of the Lord’s Supper, in the celebrationof which, among the Corinthians,
certain abuses had crept in. His accountof it, here recorded, is a valuable and
welcome revelation. He was not present in the Upper Room. He was not
among the awe-strickencompany who were thrilled with horror by the
announcement that amongstthem was a foul betrayer, and who, scarce
recoveredfrom the shock of such sadtidings, were invited to join in the tender
and prophetic feast;and yet he had not been left to the hazard of a traditional

knowledge, norhad he receivedhis impression of the scene from the glowing
descriptions of another. He distinctly repudiates the thought that he had
either receivedit or been taught it of man, and expresslystates that “he had
receivedit directly of the Lord.” So distinguishing was the honour put upon
the Apostle of the Gentiles, and so important the institution itself, that there
was given to him a new revelation—thatits Divine paternity might be placed
beyond all cavil, and that it might be authenticated by yet weightierevidence,
and more firmly homed in the hearts of believers, in the perpetuity of its
obligation to the end of time.
2. The words of the text are, “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup,
ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” The eating and drinking are a
proclamation. It is surprising that, notwithstanding these words, this aspectof
the Sacramentof the Lord’s Supper receives so little emphasis. We give the
Sacramentnames. We callit “the Eucharist,” drawing attention to the
element of thanksgiving; or “the Communion,” in order to recognize in it that
fellowship which it offers with Christ Himself and with one another; or simply
“the Lord’s Supper.” But here, after repeating the words of the institution, St.
Paul does not speak ofthe giving of thanks or the fellowshipas the great
purpose of the institution, but says that that purpose is fulfilled when we
proclaim the Lord’s death till He come.
“As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew.” I cannottell
why our translators preferred this verb to “proclaim” or “announce,” which
would have seemedthe more obvious one. But should we have expectedeither
word? Are we not speaking of a Communion, of a participation in something?
Can an ordinance which possessesthatcharacterbe described as showing,
announcing, declaring? It is saferto let the Apostle explain himself than to
insist that he shall follow a course which we have prescribed for him. I believe
he will tell us hereaftermore about communion and participation than we
should everfind out for ourselves;but I doubt whether we shall profit by his
teaching, if we stumble at this phrase and wish to getrid of it. Do you think

that any ordinance of Christ can have reference merelyto the advantage or
enjoyment of those who submit to it? Did He come from heaven to enjoy or to
suffer; to be ministered unto or to minister? If the eating of the bread and the
drinking of the wine imports any communion with Him, any sympathy with
Him, canthis point of communion and sympathy be wanting? Did He not
come to show forth or declare a truth to men into which only some would
enter? If we are not willing in all our acts and services to make this a primary
object; if we are thinking of some selfish end as above this; can we be like
Him? Let us grasp this thought steadfastly. If this feastdoes not show forth or
declare something to the world; if we seek in it only for some benefit to
ourselves;it cannotbe a communion in the body or in the mind of Jesus
Christ.1 [Note:F. D. Maurice, Lincoln’s Inn Sermons, iv. 99.]
Let us see, then, what this proclamationconsists of, and (in conclusion)how it
may be made. It will be found on considerationto consistof three things:—
I. A Remembrance of the Past.
II. A Recognitionofthe Present.
III. A Regardto the Future.
I
A Remembrance of the Past
“Ye proclaim the Lord’s death.”

1. St. Paul’s words give prominence to the truth that the Sacramentwas
intended primarily as a memorial or remembrance of the Saviour. Nothing
could be simpler or more human than our Lord’s appointment of this
Sacrament. Lifting the material of the Supper before Him, He bids His
disciples make the simple act of eating and drinking the occasionof
remembering Him. As the friend who is setting out on a long absence oris
passing for ever from earth puts into our hands his portrait or something he
has used or worn or prized, and is pleasedto think that we shall treasure it for
his sake,so did Christ on the eve of His death secure this one thing, that His
disciples should have a memento by which to remember Him. And as the
dying gift of a friend becomes sacredto us as his ownperson, and we cannot
bear to see it handed about by unsympathetic hands and remarked upon by
those who have not the same loving reverence as ourselves, andas when we
gaze at his portrait, or when we use the very pen or pencil worn smooth by his
fingers, we recallthe many happy times we spent togetherand the bright and
inspiring words that fell from his lips, so does this Sacramentseemsacredto
us as Christ’s ownPerson, and by means of it grateful memories of all He was
and did throng into the mind.
It is no uncommon thing in the history of nations to commemorate events of
national importance by expressive symbolism. Medals are struck to celebrate
a victory or to perpetuate the prowess ofa hero. The statues of the wise and of
the valiant are niched in their country’s temples—columns rear their tall
heads on the mounds of world-famed battlefields, or on some holy place of
liberty—processions andpageants of high and solemn festivity transmit from
generationto generationthe memory of notable days and deeds. And it is
right that it should be so. These things are expressions of something greatand
true, and by how much they are invested with imposing grandeur, by so much
is the likelihoodthat they will be fastenedupon the memory and the heart.
There is hope of a nation when its gratitude lives, though the exhibitions of
that gratitude may be extravagant and unseemly.

If we come from the national to the individual, how memory clings round
some relic of sanctity bestowedon us by some far-off friend, some dear gage of
affection;the gift, perhaps in the latesthour, of the precious and sainteddead.
As we gaze upon them—mute but eloquent reminders of a past that has fled
for ever—how closelythey seemlinked with our every conceptionof the giver,
and in what an uncounted value we hold them for the giver’s sake.1[Note:W.
M. Punshon.]
In the Highlands of Scotland, in a wild region, there is a spring at which
Prince Albert once stopped to quench his thirst. The owner of the spring
fenced it in and built a tastefulmonument, making the waters flow into a
basin of hewn stone, on which he placedan inscription. Every passing
strangerstopping to drink at this fountain reads the inscription and recalls
the memory of the noble prince whom it honours. Thus the spring is both a
memorial and a blessing;it keeps in mind the greatman, and it gives drink to
the wearyand the thirsty. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial to Christ, but it is
food and drink to every one who rightly receives it.2 [Note:S. Marriott, On
Playing the Game, 190.]
Jesus Christ could not bear the thought of being forgottenby His people. God
and man long to be remembered. This is one point of fellow-feeling at which
the Divine heart touches the human. One of the greatestcalamities inthe sight
of God which canbefall the wickedis that “his memory shall be cut off.” I
know of nothing within the covers of this Book more touching than the way in
which the prophets represent Godand His people—the One truthfully, and
the other untruthfully—as bringing the charge of forgetfulness againsteach
other. “Zion said, The Lord hath forsakenme, and my Lord hath forgotten
me” (Isaiah 49:14). In these words we find the awful charge of unfaithfulness
and forgetfulness brought againstGod Himself by the people of His choice.
This suspicionmust vanish, or the relationship must cease. Onthe other hand,
there comes from the fatherly and infinitely tender heart of God a broken sigh

which has the undertone of desolationin it, “My people have forgottenme
days without number” (Jeremiah 2:32); and the answerwhich He gives to
their accusationis, “Cana woman forgether sucking child, that she should
not have compassiononthe sonof her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I
not forgetthee.” Thus, in God’s relationship with His people, all is made to
hinge upon this one word “forget.” “Blotme not out of the book of thy
remembrance,” exclaims man to God; “Blotme not out of the book of thy
remembrance” is the mysterious and pathetic appeal of God to man! Now this
longing to be remembered, so Divine and so human, is found with cumulative
force and intensity in “the man Christ Jesus,” and is inseparably associated
with the institution of the Lord’s Supper. He instituted it so as to make it
supremely difficult for His followers to forget Him.1 [Note:D. Davies.]
2. What is it that we are to remember? It is “the Lord’s death”—His death,
not His life, though that was lustrous with a holiness without the shadow of a
stain; His death, not His teaching, though that embodied the fulness of a
wisdom that was Divine; His death, not His miracles, though His course was a
march of mercy, and in His track of blessing the world rejoicedand was glad.
His death! His body, not glorious but broken; His blood, not coursing through
the veins of a conqueror, but shed, poured out for man. On the summit of the
Mount of Transfiguration, when the hidden Divinity broke for a while
through its disguise of flesh, and Moses andElias, those federal elders of the
former time, came down in conference, andthe awe-strickendisciples feared
the baptism of the cloud, they “spake ofhis decease whichhe should
accomplishat Jerusalem.” His death! Still His death! Grandestand most
consecrating memory for both earth and Heaven.
See Him setforth before your eyes,
That precious bleeding Sacrifice!

His offer’d benefits embrace,
And freely now be saved by grace.
“Ye do proclaim the Lord’s death.”—Thatis the centralmessage.The mortal
is the vital here. It is not, He was born, was made Man, lived, wrought, taught,
blessedthe poor sinful world by the touch of His feet, and the look of His fair
countenance, and the words such as man never spoke before. It is that He
died. It is that Gethsemane and Golgotha were that for which, above all
things, He came. “He gave his life a ransom for many.” “He poured out his
soul unto death.” He was “lifted up from the earth.” He “endured the cross.”
“Thathe might sanctify his people with his ownblood, he suffered, without
the gate.” “Withoutshedding of blood was no remission”;“He loosedus from
our sins in his own blood.” He came “againfrom the dead, in the blood of the
everlasting covenant.” “Worthyis the Lamb that was slain!”1 [Note:H. C. G.
Moule, Thoughts for the Sundays of the Year, 172.]
3. “To proclaim the Lord’s death” is not merely to announce our belief that
Jesus Christ died upon the Cross some eighteenhundred years ago. That, an
infidel might do; or, at least, a man who denies the inspiration and authority
of Holy Scripture, and puts the sacrednarrative on a level with other books,
might do. That, certainly, a sinful man might do; or a mere worldling, a man
totally careless aboutliving a life of faith in the Sonof God. All these persons
might acceptand credit the factof the Saviour’s dying, and might be willing
to proclaim their acceptance;and some of them would probably avow their
persuasionthat the Being who hung upon the Cross was no ordinary person,
but the Prince of glory, the Lord of life, the incarnate Son of God Himself.
And yet such confessionas this would not be Christian confession. Itwould
not be what the Apostle here means by showing the Lord’s death. No! The
Apostle means by this expressionthe proclaiming of that death as an event, as
a fact, upon which all our hopes of accessto God and all our hopes of life, of

salvation, and of blessednessdepend; and the proclaiming of it, too, as a thing
that was done for ourselves. Thendo we fully show the Lord’s death, when by
word, and by significant action, and by the whole course and tenor of our life,
we announce our confident persuasion, that that dying upon the Cross was a
dying for us.
4. We are not to understand the Apostle as limiting the remembrance rigidly
to the actualPassion. The form of the memorial is fitted to recall the life of
our Lord as well as His death. It is His body and blood we are invited by the
symbols to remember. By them we are brought into the presence ofan actual
living Person. Our religion is not a theory; it is not a speculation, a system of
philosophy putting us in possessionofa true scheme of the universe and
guiding us to a sound code of morals; it is, above all, a personalmatter. We
are savedby being brought into right personal relations. And in this
Sacramentwe are reminded of this and are helped to recognize Christ as an
actualliving Person, who by His body and blood, by His actualhumanity,
savedus. The body and blood of Christ remind us that His humanity was as
substantial as our own, and His life as real. He redeemedus by the actual
human life He led and by the death He died, by His use of the body and soul
we make other uses of. And we are savedby remembering Him and by
assimilating the spirit of His life and death.
St. Paul says, “the Lord’s death.” If he had not said so, if this expression, “the
Lord,” did not stand written in his Epistle, there are many who would have
calledit hard and cold. “The Saviour,” they would have said; “the Divine
Bridegroom, the ineffable Sacrifice that is offeredto us in this feast. How can
you speak of‘the Lord’ like some writer of the Old Testament?” I fancy that
the Hebrew of the Hebrews used that Hebrew phrase because he deemed it
not to be obsolete for any, because he knew that it was not obsolete forhim.
He wanted sympathy and fellowship. He wanted also to be guided and
governed. The Incarnation had not lessenedbut deepenedhis reverence for
the unseenGuide of his heart and reins. His belief in a brother of Man did not

make him remember less or rejoice less that He is the Lord of men. There
were times when he delighted to call Him our Lord. There were occasions
when the Lord expressedmore fully the universality of His dominion. This
was one of them. He is speaking of the bread and wine as testifying, not to him
or to his brethren, but to all men, of One whose Kingdom was in the midst of
them, of One who had proved Himself to be the King and Shepherd, by dying
for them.1 [Note:F. D. Maurice.]
5. When Christ said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” He meant that His
people to all time should remember that He had given Himself wholly to them
and for them. The symbols of His body and blood were intended to keepus in
mind that all that gave Him a place among men He devoted to us. By giving
His flesh and blood He means that He gives us His all, Himself wholly; and by
inviting us to partake of His flesh and blood He means that we must receive
Him into the most real connectionpossible, must admit His self-sacrificing
love into our heart as our most cherishedpossession. He bade His disciples
remember Him, knowing that the death He was about to die would “draw all
men unto Him,” would fill the despairing with hopes of purity and happiness,
would cause countless sinners to say to themselves with soul-subduing
rapture, “He loved me, and gave himself for me.” He knew that the love
shown in His death and the hopes it creates would be prized as the world’s
redemption, and that to all time men would be found turning to Him and
saying, “If I forgetthee, let my right hand forgether cunning. If I do not
remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not
Jerusalemabove my chief joy.” And therefore He presents Himself to us as He
died: as One whose love for us actually brought Him to the deepestabasement
and sorestsuffering, and whose death opens for us a way to the Father.
For the first time the Dorcas StreetSabbathSchoolTeachers’giftfrom South
Melbourne PresbyterianChurch was put to use—a new Communion Service
of silver. They gave it in faith that we should require it, and in such we
receivedit. And now the day had come and gone!For three years we had

toiled and prayed and taught for this. At the moment when I put the bread
and wine into those dark hands, once stained with the blood of cannibalism,
now stretchedout to receive and partake the emblems and seals ofthe
Redeemer’s love, I had a foretaste of the joy of Glory that well-nigh broke my
heart to pieces. I shall never taste a deeperbliss, till I gaze on the glorified face
of Jesus Himself.1 [Note: John G. Paton, ii. 222.]
In 1861 a brave volunteer turned his back upon loved ones in his little home,
nestling among the hills of the Blue Ridge and the spurs of the Alleghanies, in
Craig County, Va., and went to the battlefield to fight for what he believed to
be right. On the 3rd of July 1863, in that fatal charge made by Pickett, he was
shot down, and there gave his life for his country. On the following day (4th
July) a son was born. As this son grew in stature and in knowledge, his mother
would point to a photograph, and tell him that that was his father. He grew to
be a man, and at last had the privilege of walking over the ground that had
been made sacredwith the blood of a father. He cannot express to you his
feelings as he stood upon that holy ground; the acute conceptionof fancy with
the vivid flights of imagination would be inadequate to the task. When he
returned to his home, and lookedagainupon the picture as it hung upon the
wall, he remembered that his mother had told him that it was his father. He
has never seenhim; but some time he hopes to see him face to face, and then
he will no longer need the picture, for he shall see him as he is.1 [Note:W. H.
Book.]
II
A Recognitionofthe Present
“As often as.”

1. It is manifest from the solemnity of its inauguration, and from the singular
reverence with which it was regardedby the early Christians, that the Lord’s
Supper was not intended to be a thing of one generation, but to be a precious
and hallowedmemorial to the end of time. So broad and deep was the
impression of its perpetual obligationthat in every age of the Church, alike
when it was crushed by persecution, and when it had degeneratedinto worldly
alliance and conformity, the continuity of this greatfestival sustained no
interruption; it remained in generalacknowledgmentthrough all external
changes. This perpetuity of the Sacramentseems to stamp it as a confirming
ordinance—confirming man’s faith in God, confirming God’s fidelity to man.
2. These symbols were appointed to be for a remembrance of Christ in order
that, remembering Him, we might renew our fellowshipwith Him. In the Holy
Sacramentthere is not a mere representationof Christ or a bare
commemorationof events in which we are interested;there is also an actual,
present communion betweenChrist and the soul.
We may not climb the heavenly steeps
To bring the Lord Christ down:
In vain we searchthe lowestdeeps,
For Him no depths candrown.
Nor holy bread, nor blood of grape,

The lineaments restore
Of Him we know in outward shape
And in the flesh no more.
He cometh not a king to reign;
The world’s long hope is dim;
The wearycenturies watch in vain
The clouds of heavenfor Him.
Deathcomes, life goes;the asking eye
And ear are answerless;
The grave is dumb, the hollow sky
Is sad with silentness.
The letter fails, and systems fall,

And every symbol wanes;
The Spirit over-brooding all
Eternal Love remains.
And not for signs in heaven above
Or earth below they look,
Who know with John His smile of love,
With PeterHis rebuke.
In joy of inward peace, orsense
Of sorrow over sin,
He is His own best evidence,
His witness is within.

No fable old, nor mythic lore,
Nor dream of bards and seers,
No dead factstranded on the shore
Of the oblivious years;—
But warm, sweet, tender, even yet
A present help is He;
And faith has still its Olivet,
And love its Galilee.1 [Note:Whittier.]
3. There are three distinct things that stare us in the face here: first, the
advent of our Lord in the days of His humiliation; secondly, the coming
advent of our Lord in His glory; and betweenthe two, a distinctive
sacramentalrite—“As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup” (that is,
in this present), “ye proclaim the Lord’s death” (that is, in that past) “till he
come” (that is, in the anticipation of that future). Now, we may be certain of
this, that this is not a mere artificial arrangement; there must be something in
the Sacramentwhich makes it fit to stand betweenthe advent consummated
in Christ’s redemptive death and the advent of His coming glory. What is that
connecting thing? The one thing that marks out the Sacramentas being what

it is amidst Christian rites, is that, in a specialsense, itis the sphere of our
Lord’s presence. OurLord’s presence and His humanity are revealedto us
under three distinct conditions. First, He has been presentin the days of His
historicallife under conditions of bodily humiliation. Secondly, He will be
present after His secondcoming under conditions of glorification. But
betweenthese two conditions He is present with His people in a spiritual
manner.
How deep is our obligationto our own Liturgy for bringing out so distinctly,
through the means of Holy Communion, the reality of Christ’s spiritual
presence, and the verity of our communion with Him in this Holy Sacrament.
It has preservedfor us the true doctrine in this particular as perfectly as it has
done justice to the truth first considered, namely, the memorial of the death of
Christ. For instance, “He hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christnot
only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that Holy
Sacrament”;—“Foras the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and
lively faith we receive that Holy Sacrament(for then we spiritually eatthe
flesh of Christ, and drink His blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us;
we are one with Christ, and Christ with us), so is the danger great, if we
receive the same unworthily. Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eatthe
flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood, that our sinful
bodies may be made cleanby His body, and our souls washedthrough His
most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in
us”—“Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank Thee, for that
Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly receivedthese holy mysteries,
with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Bloodof Thy Son our
Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of Thy favour and goodness
towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of
Thy Son, which is the blessedcompany of all faithful people.”1 [Note:Canon
Furse.]

4. The past, howeversweetand precious, is not enoughfor 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 that greatchapter—the sixth of St. John’s
Gospel—whichwas spokenlong before the institution of the Lord’s Supper,
but expressesin words the same ideas as 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 world hath he appeared to put awaysin by the sacrifice ofhimself”; and if
we had to look back through lengthening vistas of distance and thickening
folds of oblivion, simply to a historicalpast, in which He was once offered, the
retrospectwould not have the sweetnessin 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 washaway our sins unless we feed upon Him, here and now,
by faith and meditation, then the retrospectbecomes blessedness. The
Christian life is not merely the remembrance of a historicalChrist in the past,
it is also the presentparticipation in a living Christ with us now.
He is near eachof 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 keepis
liberty; our hopes feeding upon Him who is our Hope, and in whom they find
no chaff and husks of peradventures, but the pure wheatof “Verily! verily I
say unto you”; the whole nature thus finding its nourishment in Jesus Christ.
“We proclaim the Lord’s death.” By the very factof so doing we proclaim also
His glorious presentlife, His victory over the grave, His spiritual presence

with His people, His gift of Himself to be their life indeed. Never, let us be
quite sure of this, would the first believers have kept festivalover their
Master’s death, had not that death been followedby a triumph over the grave
which at once and for ever showedHis dying work to be the supreme
achievementwhich it was. Only the risen Christ can explain the joy of the
Lord’s Supper. Without Him it would have been a funeral meal, kept for a
while by love in its despair, and then dropped for ever. From the very first till
now it has been a feastof life and of thanksgiving. It is a contemporary and
immortal witness to the risen One. And the risen One is alive for ever more.
And in His eternallife He is our life, here and now. Feedon Him as such, feed
everywhere and always upon Him. Eat Him and drink Him, that you may live
because ofHim. Such is the messageofthe festal Mealof the Church, spoken
straight from her Lord to the heart of every member of His Body.1 [Note: H.
C. G. Moule, Thoughts for the Sundays of the Year, 173.]
What would be the value of the Holy Supper if it were simply a memorial of a
Divine visitation long ago, and not a pledge and a discoveryof the Lord’s
abiding presence? JohnKnox calledit “a singular medicine for all poor sick
creatures, a comfortable help to weak souls”;and he “utterly condemned the
vanity of those that affirmed sacraments to be nothing else but bare and
nakedsigns.” I fearthere are few among us in these days who thus esteem
them. The truth is that the Sacraments are the very heart of Christian
worship, and their neglect, their perfunctory and slovenly administration, is a
sore impoverishment of the Church, and proves how very low the tide of our
spiritual life has ebbed. True worship is essentiallysacramental,and I warmly
sympathize with old Gilbert of Sempringham, the friend of St. Bernard of
Clairvaux, when he says:“All doctrine is suspectwith me, and surely
despised, which introduces no mention of Christ, which neither renews me
with His Sacraments, norinforms me with His precepts, nor inflames me with
His promises.”2 [Note:D. Smith, Christian Counsel, 39.]

A communion was held at Pesth, in Hungary, on the 1st of January 1843,
being the Lord’s Day. We met in an upper room, at night and in secret—“for
fear of the Jews,”andto escape the eye of an intolerant Government. From
the moment that the service began, the place where we were assembled
seemedto be filled with a mysterious presence. Indeed, the risen Lord had
entered by the closeddoor, and stood, as at Jerusalem, in the midst of His
disciples. Deepsilence fell on the little company as they realized His nearness,
a silence interrupted only at intervals by the deep-drawn sigh of some
bursting heart. The dividing wall which separatedheavenand earth seemed
for the time removed, and that fellowship betweenboth was experienced
which is the fullest blessednessofearth, and anticipates the glory of heaven.1
[Note:Memoir of John Duncan, 334.]
III
A Regardto the Future
“Till he come.”
1. The Sacramentof the Lord’s Supper not only proclaims to us the Gospelof
the Passion, it also proclaims to us that greatGospelwhich is the centre and
basis of all Christian hope: the Gospelof the secondcoming of Jesus Christ
our Lord. And since this holy rite is in creedand in action, they who preach it
look back upon the first Advent and recognize and confess its redemptive
aspect, and they look forward to the secondAdvent and recognize it and
confess it as being the one greatactin which that redemptive work on Calvary
will reachto its full and to its glorious climax. And in this present, the gaze of
our faith is fixed upon the redemption consecratedin Christ’s first coming;
the eyes of our hope are fixed on the glorious consummation of His work in
His secondcoming, and in the meantime we wait with the repose oflove,

Jesus was instituting the lord's supper vol. 2

Jesus was instituting the lord's supper vol. 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was instituting the lord's supper vol. 2

Similar to Jesus was instituting the lord's supper vol. 2 (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was instituting the lord's supper vol. 2