-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +

+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

²³For I received from the Lord what I also passed on 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 covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

We stated in our last study that the message of this section that the apostle wanted the Corinthians and so the universal church of Christ to get is this: You should understand that the Lord’s Supper was instituted by the Lord Jesus that involves two elements in its celebration with significances. We began to consider the first element of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper which is the bread because of the verbal phrase of verse 23 took bread. We ended by promising to deal with the question of the kind of bread to use in the Lord’s Supper in today’s study. It is with this that we begin our study this morning.

The bread the Lord used in the institution of the Lord’s Supper was clearly unleavened because the institution of the Lord’s Supper was after the Passover meal. We know that it was after the Passover meal that the Lord instituted the Passover because the background information prior to its establishment was the Passover meal as we read in Luke 22:13–16:

¹³They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. ¹⁴When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. ¹⁵And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. ¹⁶For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

The Passover involved unleavened bread as we gather from the fact that the first celebration of the Passover involved unleavened bread as Israel was instructed in Exodus 12:8:

That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.

Since Lord Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples prior to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the first bread used in the institution of the Lord’s Supper was the unleavened bread. Of course, some contend that we cannot be certain that the bread used was unleavened. This assertion could not be properly maintained when we consider that the Feast of Unleavened bread immediately followed the celebration of the Passover. The Feast of Unleavened bread required that there would not be any unleavened bread in Israel’s houses during that period as we may gather from Exodus 13:6–7:

⁶For seven days eat bread made without yeast and on the seventh day hold a festival to the LORD. ⁷Eat unleavened bread during those seven days; nothing with yeast in it is to be seen among you, nor shall any yeast be seen anywhere within your borders.

Matthew’s record indicates that the Lord Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during the week of the Feast of Unleavened bread as we read in Matthew 26:17–19:

¹⁷On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” ¹⁸He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” ¹⁹So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

Hence, there should not be any doubt that the institution of the Lord’s Supper involved the use of unleavened bread. The question is whether any future celebration of the Lord’s Supper must involve unleavened bread.

There are certain factors to consider in dealing with whether only unleavened bread would be used for any future celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A first factor is that while there are similarities between the Passover celebration and Lord’s Supper, they are not the same. An implication is that the Lord’s Supper must not be reduced to the celebration of the Passover as demanding the use of unleavened bread would suggest. A second factor is that the Lord Jesus did not stipulate the kind of bread to be used as the Lord specified for Israel regarding the kind of bread for the celebration of the Passover. A third factor is that it is unlikely that the early church continued the celebration of the Lord’s Supper with unleavened bread since it was a part of their fellowship meal as we may gather from what is said of the early church in Acts 2:42:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

The same conclusion of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper being a part of fellowship meal may be reached based on Apostle Paul breaking bread with fellow believers in Troas as recorded in Acts 20:7:

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

The bread Apostle Paul broke with believers in Troas was most certainly leavened since there is nothing that would suggest that the bread was unleavened. You see, there is no indication that the believers the apostle broke bread with were only Jews and even if they were only Jews, there is nothing that suggests that it was during the week of the Feast of Unleavened bread that this breaking of bread occurred. A fourth factor is that the focus of the Lord Jesus in the celebration of the Supper He instituted was on the significance of the bread and not the bread itself. Based on these factors, we can say that any bread – leavened and unleavened – could be used for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This seemed to have been the practice of the church for centuries until the about A.D. 1000 when the Eastern (Greek) church stayed with using the leavened bread while the Western (Latin) church used unleavened bread. Unleavened bread was generally discontinued at the Reformation; but the Lutherans retain it. Anyway, as far as the information available to us, we know that early Christian writers made no reference to the use of unleavened bread for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The point we are making is that the nature of the bread used in celebrating the Lord’s Supper is immaterial since what is important is the explanation given regarding significance of the bread used. We will deal with this later.

Be that as it may, Apostle Paul, having mentioned the first element of the Lord’s Supper, described what the Lord Jesus did after He took the bread before giving it to the disciples. He indicated that the Lord Jesus offered prayer of thanksgiving over the bread as we read in the first sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks. Literally, the Greek reads and having given thanks. This is because the apostle used a participle of a Greek verb (eucharisteō) that may mean to show that one is under obligation, that is, “to be grateful” as the word is used in Apostle’s Paul expression of his gratitude to Aquilla and Priscilla for risking their lives for him as we read in Romans 16:4:

They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

The word may mean to express appreciation for benefits or blessings hence “to give thanks, express thanks, render/return thanks” specifically to God as we read, for example, in offering thanks for food in Romans 14:6:

He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:24, the Greek verb means “to thank,” that is to express gratitude or show appreciation. The prayer of thanksgiving of the Lord Jesus must have been directed to God the Father. We say this because the recorded prayer of thanksgiving or praise of the Lord Jesus that occurred after the return of the seventy-two disciples, He sent on mission field, was directed to God the Father, as we may gather from Luke 10:21:

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

The sentence I praise you may also be translated I thank you as we find, for example, in the ESV and the NRSV. That aside, the fact that the Lord Jesus offered thanks to God the Father over the bread reminds us of the importance of offering thanks to God for the food we eat. The Lord Jesus demonstrated the importance of thanksgiving in the two occasions of feeding people miraculously. In the feeding of the four thousand, He offered thanks before He broke the bread for His disciples to distribute as we read in Matthew 15:36–38:

³⁶Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. ³⁷They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. ³⁸The number of those who ate was four thousand, besides women and children.

Before the feeding of the five thousand, the Lord Jesus also offered thanks over the bread as we read in John 6:10-11:

¹⁰Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. ¹¹Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish.

Hence, we should never be ashamed, even in restaurants, of offering thanks before we eat. Apostle Paul offered thanks for his food before those with him in the ship that was taking him to Rome to stand trial as we read in Acts 27:35:

After he said this, he took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat.

In any case, the Lord Jesus offered thanks before He took an action regarding the loaf of bread He took. It is for this reason that before the partaking of the bread we offer thanks to God. Thus, the Lord Jesus after He took the bread and after He offered thanks broke it into pieces as we read in the next sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:24 he broke it. The word “broke” is translated from a Greek verb (klaō) that means “to break an object into two or more parts,” but in the NT, it is used exclusively for breaking of bread. Thus, it was used to describe the Lord Jesus’ tearing a loaf of bread in pieces in His miracle of feeding the five thousand mentioned in Matthew 14:19:

And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.

It is this breaking of bread into pieces that the Lord followed when He instituted the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, according to Matthew 26:26:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Consequently, the breaking of bread may refer to ordinary meal or fellowship meal of the type that the early church practiced when they met at different homes as indicated in Acts 2:46:

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

That aside, it is in the sense of “to break off” that the word is used in 1 Corinthians 11:24. The breaking of the bread into pieces prepared the way for the Lord Jesus to give the significance of the bread that is the first element of the Lord’s Supper He instituted. But before we get to it, let me bring your attention to what the apostle did not say about the bread that is broken in pieces, but it is assumed.

Apostle Paul did not say anything about what was done to the pieces of bread broken off by the Lord since he simply wrote he broke it and said. What the Lord said, as we will get to shortly, does not explicitly state what He did with the broken pieces of bread or what the disciples did. Therefore, it is assumed that the reader would fill in what was missing as implying that the pieces of bread broken off were given to the disciples to eat when the Lord Jesus first established the Lord’s Supper. It is probably because of what is expected to take place with the bread that some later Greek manuscripts added the expression Take, eat found in the KJV, since it relied on the Textus Receptus composed from later Greek manuscripts, that is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the passage we are considering This observation that the Lord Jesus gave the pieces of bread to the disciples to eat is reflected in Mathew’s account of the establishment of the Lord’s Supper in the passage we cited previously, that is, Matthew 26:26:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Mark explicitly stated what the Lord Jesus did with the broken pieces of bread that indicates He gave it to the disciples to eat as we read in Mark 14:22:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Luke also reported what the Lord Jesus did with the broken pieces of bread but did not explicitly state what the disciples were to do with the bread as we read in Luke 22:19:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Apostle’s Paul account is similar to that of Luke except that he did not explicitly state that the Lord gave the broken pieces of bread to the disciples as in Luke but implied He did, with instruction to eat it. We can understand Luke’s account being similar to Apostle Paul since it is believed by some that Luke wrote his gospel account from the perspective of the apostle as Mark did from the perspective of Apostle Peter. That aside, the apostle eventually implied what happened to the bread that was broken but that was after he focused on the significance of the bread.

The significance of the bread as the apostle gave it is that it depicts the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. It is this that is given in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:24 This is my body, which is for you. This sentence that is a direct quotation of the Lord Jesus has created so much problem or controversy among the various Christian groups. There is first the problem of how to interpret the sentence This is my body and then how to interpret the clause which is for you. We begin with the first sentence.

There are two-fold problems associated with the sentence This is my body. A first problem is grammatical in the Greek. This is because the demonstrative pronoun this that clearly refers to the bread mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that the Lord Jesus broke into pieces as stated in verse 24. The problem is that in the Greek the word “bread” is in masculine gender so that one would expect Apostle Paul who knew his Greek to use the masculine form of the Greek pronoun (houtos) translated “this” to agree with bread to which it refers. Instead, the apostle used the neuter form (touto) of the Greek demonstrative pronoun. Because of this change in gender, some claim that the apostle did this to indicate that the bread has been transformed into the body of Jesus. In effect, this claim is reflected in the doctrine of “Transubstantiation” of the Roman Catholic Church. They teach that the moment the priest during the celebration of the mass utters the words of Jesus This is my body the bread becomes the body of Christ. This notwithstanding, there is a simple explanation for the apostle’s use of the neuter form of the Greek pronoun translated “this.” It is purely a literary decision by the apostle. You see, the word “body” in the Greek that we will consider later is in the neuter gender, so the apostle wanted the pronoun to agree with the word “body” which goes with it in the sentence This is my body, which is for you as well as referencing back to bread he mentioned previously. Therefore, it is wrong to read into the pronoun “this” a meaning the apostle certainly did not intend.

A second problem concerns how to understand the word “is” in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:24 This is my body, which is for you or literally This is my body the (one) for you. This is because the word “is,” is translated from a Greek verb (eimi) that has several meanings. Let me give you only some of these that have the possibilities of fitting our context. The word may mean “to possess certain characteristics, whether inherent or transitory,” hence means “to be, to exist.” It is in the sense of “to exist” that the word is used by the human author of Hebrews to assert the existence of the supreme God in Hebrews 11:6:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

The sentence he exists is literally He is. It is in the sense of “to exist” that Apostle Paul used it to acknowledge the existence of other divine beings in heaven as we read in 1 Corinthians 8:5:

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),

The clause as indeed there are many “gods” means that there exist many gods so we can translate as indeed there exists many “gods”.

The Greek verb may mean “to be identical with.” It is in this sense that the verb is used to equate one who denies that Jesus is the Christ to the antichrist in 1 John 2:22:

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist — he denies the Father and the Son.

The sentence Such a man is the antichrist, is not identifying the specific antichrist instead it means that such a man is identical with the future antichrist that will come.

Another meaning of the Greek verb is “to represent, to stand for, to be a figure of.” It is in this sense that the word is used to convey that Hagar represents the mountain from which the Law was given to Israel as we read in Galatians 4:25:

Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.

The sentence Hagar stands for Mount Sinai is literally Hagar is Mount Sinai, as it is translated in the NASB. Clearly, Paul does not mean that a woman is a mountain so that the word “is” here should be understood as “represents” as in the NET or “stands for” in the NIV.

The question is, of all the various meanings of the Greek verb (eimi) used here in 1 Corinthians 11:24, which of these meanings that best fits our context? It is the third meaning of “to represent.” Hence, Jesus said that the bread is a representation of His body that was to be offered for all believers, that is, specifically for the elect.

Anyway, we come to an important issue with respect to the sentence This is my body, which is for you under consideration which is; how does the bread represent the body of Christ and how it is for believers? To answer these questions requires first understanding the meaning of “body” in our sentence and how the Jews would have understood the word “bread” since it is to the disciples who were Jews that the Lord Jesus first spoke the words of the sentence under consideration.

The word “body” is translated from a Greek word (sōma) that refers to the body of a human or animal. Human body is to be understood in different ways. The body could refer to the seat of sexual function as it is used to describe the state of Abraham when the Lord promised him of having a son, as we read in Romans 4:19:

Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.

The body may refer to seat of mortal life so that Apostle Paul used it to indicate being alive in contrast to being dead as to be with the Lord in 2 Corinthians 5:6:

Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord.

The body may refer to organ of human activity so that it is the activity that is done through the body that will be evaluated before the Judgment Seat of Christ in 2 Corinthians 5:10:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

The word may be used for the entire person as it is used in Apostle’s Paul declaration of what some in Corinth said about him, as we read in 2 Corinthians 10:10:

For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.”

The phrase in person he is unimpressive is literally the bodily presence weak. The word may mean “physical” as it is used to indicate that wising someone well without meeting the person’s need is not good in James 2:16:

If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

The phrase his physical needs is literally the things needful for the body. In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:24, the word is used with meaning of Christ’s earthly body that was subject to death, but here the sense is as a reference to the whole person that was to be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the world so that some would have eternal life. With understanding that “body” refers to the earthly body of Christ that is subject to death or His whole person, we proceed to consider how a Jew would have viewed bread in time of Christ.

In biblical times, bread was the staple food so that it became a synonym for food itself. It is viewed with respect among the oriental because of its importance in sustaining of life. It is probably because of this view that led to a literal Hebrew phrase staff of bread in Leviticus 26:26:

When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.

The phrase supply of bread is literally from the Hebrew staff of bread. It is true that the Hebrew phrase means supply of bread, but the literal reading staff of bread implies that bread enables one to walk since “staff” is translated from a Hebrew word (mǎṭṭěh) that also means a walking stick. Bread is regarded as sacred in Palestine since it is considered a gift from God. This is particularly the case among the Jews, considering that God sent the manna directly from heaven to feed their forefathers, as we read in Exodus 16:15:

When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, "It is the bread the LORD has given you to eat.

The respect for bread is such that no oriental will tread on a piece of bread. When he sees it lying on the street, he will pick it up and give it to a dog or put it somewhere where a bird may get it.

Giving and receiving bread among the ancient was a sign of hospitality and friendship. It is for this reason that Melchizedek gave bread to Abraham as he was returning from battle, according to Genesis 14:18:

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,

Because of the symbolism of hospitality in offering bread, it was considered an act of discourtesy not to accept bread offered to an individual who visits a home. You see, the host will normally break off a piece of the flat bread in his hand and give it to his guest so that both would partake of the same bread symbolizing friendship and mutual responsibility to each other. So, when a host shares his bread with a guest, that not only means he is welcomed but also that he is safe and is bounded to his host. Therefore, it is considered height of betrayal to harm in anyway someone who has shared bread with an individual. It is expected that people should offer hospitality to their guests by giving them bread that is one reason Jesus sent out His disciples on a mission field without giving them bread.

To the Jews, bread was not only used for food, but it was part of their sacrifice to the Lord. It was used as wave offering and burnt offering during the dedication of priests as implied in Exodus 29:23-25:

²³ From the basket of bread made without yeast, which is before the LORD, take a loaf, and a cake made with oil, and a wafer. ²⁴ Put all these in the hands of Aaron and his sons and wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. ²⁵ Then take them from their hands and burn them on the altar along with the burnt offering for a pleasing aroma to the LORD, an offering made to the Lord by fire.

⁴ "'If you bring a grain offering baked in an oven, it is to consist of fine flour: cakes made without yeast and mixed with oil, or wafers made without yeast and spread with oil. ⁵ If your grain offering is prepared on a griddle, it is to be made of fine flour mixed with oil, and without yeast. ⁶ Crumble it and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering. ⁷ If your grain offering is cooked in a pan, it is to be made of fine flour and oil. 8 Bring the grain offering made of these things to the LORD; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar. ⁹ He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

Bread is to be set before the presence of the Lord on a table in the tabernacle, as we read in Exodus 25:30:

This bread of presence was eventually put in the temple, according to 1 Kings 7:48:

Solomon also made all the furnishings that were in the LORD’s temple: the golden altar; the golden table on which was the bread of the Presence;

Bread is used figuratively in different ways. For example, Prophet Isaiah used it to convey the sense of listening to the word of God and receiving free gift of God that satisfies one’s spiritual needs as well as bestows abundant life in Isaiah 55:1-2:

¹ "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. ² Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.

However, the most important figurative use of bread is to describe Jesus as the source of spiritual nourishment or life. Jesus indicated that He is the bread from heaven in John 6:48-51:

⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Jesus in asserting that He is the bread of life that came down from heaven brings together in one sentence all the images the Jews had about bread as the gift from God and that which is necessary to sustain physical life. However, Jesus in His declaration implies that He is the giver of eternal life who has come down from heaven.

There is one more information that we need to help us in interpreting the sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:24 This is my body, which is for you or literally This is my body the (one) for you we are considering. It is the phrase for you. We consider this phrase because of the word “for” that in the sentence we are considering is subject to two possible interpretations. The word “for” is translated from a Greek preposition (hyper) that may be used to mark a participant as one who is benefited by an event or on whose behalf an event takes place and so may mean “for, on behalf of, for the sake of.” Thus, it is used by Apostle Paul as he commands intercessory prayer for everyone as we read in 1 Timothy 2:1:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—

The preposition is used especially of the death of Christ for humanity as Apostle Paul used it to describe the death of Christ that was for our benefit regarding our redemption as he described in Titus 2:14:

who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Another usage of the Greek preposition is marker of the moving cause or reason hence means “because of, for the sake of, for.” It is in the sense of “for the sake of” that Apostle Paul used it to describe the suffering of Jesus Christ for the sake of the church, His body, in Colossians 1:24:

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

It is with the meaning “because of” that Apostle Paul used it in rhetorical question as why he would be judged by any one for partaking of food that he has already given thanks to God, as we read in 1 Corinthians 10:30:

If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:24, it is used by the apostle in the sense of benefit for those in view in the passage.

With these various facts we have gathered about body and bread, we come back to answer the question of how bread represents the body of Christ in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 11:24 when the apostle quoted the Lord Jesus as saying This is my body, which is for you. He means that Jesus Christ stated at the time of the institution of the Lord’s Supper that He was about to be offered as a sacrifice for the disciples and the entire world for that matter. Thus, the significance of the bread used in the Lord’s Supper is that of a reminder of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. It is possible that our minds would go straight to the event of His death on the cross, but it seems to me that we should begin well before the actual event of His death on the cross. Indeed, the bread should take us first to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in form of His humiliation. He humbled Himself to take on a human form that made it possible for Him to die for our sins on the cross. In effect, when we reflect on the significance of the bread, our minds should go to the humiliation of Jesus Christ taking on human form as we may gather from what the Holy Spirit conveyed through Apostle Paul in Philippians 2:6–8:

⁶Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, ⁷but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

This should be followed by considering the abuse and torture He underwent before He eventually went to the cross. This involves remembering the misrepresentation of His prophetic statement regarding His resurrection as we read in Matthew 26:59–61:

⁵⁹The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. ⁶⁰But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward ⁶¹and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

The two witnesses that quoted what Jesus predicted were thinking of the temple in Jerusalem whereas Jesus meant that after He was killed, He will resurrect in three days. That this was what He meant is clear from John 2:19–22:

¹⁹Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” ²⁰The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” ²¹But the temple he had spoken of was his body. ²²After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

As we think of the misrepresentation of the Lord Jesus by false witnesses, we should think of the mocking and beatings He received from the Roman soldiers as recorded in Luke 22:63–65:

⁶³The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. ⁶⁴They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” ⁶⁵And they said many other insulting things to him.

It was not only the Roman soldiers that beat Jesus so did the Jewish temple guards as we read in John 18:22:

When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.

It is as we think through His humiliation and sufferings prior to the cross that we then think of the horror of what it was to die on the cross for our sins. The point is that when you take the bread to eat, you should contemplate on everything that led to the death of Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. You must not stop there. You should recognize that His body is a reminder that Jesus conquered death through resurrection. You should also remember that you are a member of the church of Christ, that is, His body so that you are required to think of the unity of believers as that is implied in what Apostle Paul already wrote when he first referenced the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17:

¹⁶Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? ¹⁷Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

In any case, it was after the Lord Jesus explained the significance of the bread that is part of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that He then gave the instruction of what the disciples and so the church should do in the last expression of 1 Corinthians 11:24 do this in remembrance of me. Before we consider the command, we need to determine what the Lord Jesus meant in the use of the pronoun this. It is used to describe what is involved in eating of the bread. In effect, the pronoun this first refers to getting the bread, then praying over it and eating it. As we have mentioned previously, the eating of the bread is not explicitly stated here but it is implied. Thus, the command that the Lord gave in the word do includes the eating of the bread.

The command do is translated from a Greek verb (poieō) with a range of meanings. It may mean “to produce something material” hence means “to make, manufacture, produce.” Another meaning of the Greek word is “to undertake or do something that brings about an event, state, or condition” and so means “to do, cause, bring about, accomplish, prepare.” Still another meaning of the Greek word is “to carry out an obligation of a moral or social nature” hence means “to keep, carry out, practice, commit.” In our passage, it is used with the sense of “to carry out” what is commanded.

The command issued is in what is known as the present tense in the Greek. Present tense in the Greek conveys several senses in the English. In the passage we are considering, the present tense is that of repeated action, that is, “do it again and again.” In effect, the disciples and so the church of Christ should form the habit of eating the bread of the Lord’s Supper. The present tense used does not tell us how often it is to be done only that it is to be a repeated action. Thus, it is difficult to make any blanket statement regarding how often to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It appears that in the apostolic period that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated daily with a simple meal known as “love feast,” that is, meal shared by early Christians when they met together for fellowship. It is not clearly stated in the Scripture that the early church celebrated the Lord’s Super daily but that seems to be implied in the following passages Acts 2: 42, 46:

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

The sentence They broke bread in their homes, does not do justice to what the Greek indicates to be the practice here, so it is better rendered breaking bread from house to house, to indicate that the disciples moved from one house to another. In any event, after the apostolic period the church celebrated the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, as we learn from chapter 67 of the First Apology of the church Father Justin Martyr (c.100-165) that reads:

And on the day called Sunday an assembly is held in one place of all who live in town or country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as time allows. Then, when the reader has finished, the president in a discourse admonishes and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all stand up together and send up prayers; and as we said before, when we have finished praying, bread and wine and water are brought up, and the president likewise sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the people assent, saying the Amen; and the elements over which thanks have been given are distributed, and everyone partakes; and they are sent through the deacons to those who are not present.

And the wealthy who so desire give what they wish, as each chooses; and what is collected is deposited with the president. He helps orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in need, and those in prison, and strangers sojourning among us; in a word, he takes care of all those who are in need.

And we all assemble together on Sunday, because it is the first day, on which God transformed darkness and matter, and made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on that day; for they crucified him the day before Saturday; and the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples, and taught them these things which we have presented to you also for your consideration. (Justin Apol. I 67).^¹

The point is that there seems not to have been any biblical command to celebrate the Lord’s Supper daily. The clear example in the NT and in the middle of the second century is that of celebrating it on what we call Sunday. Of course, eventually the love feast was severed from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the third century of the church history. Since the Scripture does not give any specific instruction about the frequency of its celebration, the most we can say is that it should be celebrated with such frequency that helps believers to fulfill the purpose of its celebration which is remembrance of the Lord, but it should not be such that the meaning of the celebration is lost or so that believers would lose the ability to look forward for its celebration.

Be that as it may, the Lord Jesus commanded the disciples to make it a habit to celebrate the Lord’s Supper or to do it repeatedly. Whenever that happens, it is for the remembrance of the Lord Jesus as in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 11:24 in remembrance of me. The word “remembrance” is translated from a Greek word (anamnēsis) that may mean “reminder’ as it used of the annual sacrifice in Israel that reminded them of their sins as we read in Hebrews 10:3:

In our passage of 1 Corinthians 11:24, the sense of the word is “reflecting,” that is, the act of putting something in the mind for attention or consideration. Thus, when a believer eats of the bread in the Lord’s Supper that individual must be reflecting on the Lord Jesus. This brings us to the second element of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper which we will consider in our next study.

1 Wainwright, G. (1997). Lord’s Supper, Love Feast. In R. P. Martin & P. H. Davids (Eds.), Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments (electronic ed., p. 691). InterVarsity Press.