Please note that this article is the third article derived from a five-part teaching series on the Lord's Supper given in Bermondsey Gospel Hall, the audio and transcripts of which can be found here.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
In the previous article in this series, we investigated the problem Paul had to address in Corinth. By working through verses 17-22, we seen that there was a Meal Divided. When the church gathered together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper and share a common meal, divisions were being caused in the group as a result of the amount of food that different members had to eat. While the well-off were feasting, the less well-off were famished. They turned up every week with a box of sandwiches rather than steak banquet and were going away hungry and humiliated. The problem had gotten so bad, that Paul tells them while they were eating a supper, it wasn’t the Lord’s Supper. Their conduct had so marred its character, that meal provided to them by Christ was unrecognisable.
Having summarised the problems with their supper, Paul turns in verses 23- 26 to remind them of the Lord’s Supper. In doing so he displays to them what the focus and feeling of their gatherings really should be, demonstrating just how far they had strayed from the original intention of the supper. As stated last week, verse 20 is the heart of the first paragraph, and the verse that launches Paul into the second, ‘When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat…For I received from the Lord…’. In contrast to their behaviour, Paul reminds them of his basis. Paul was evaluating their supper on the basis of the one whom he received his instruction from, namely the Lord, the very person who instituted it and whom it is all about.
Having received it from the Lord, Paul tells us that he proceeded to pass it on to the Corinthians. This means that this wasn’t the first time this local church was hearing these instructions. Paul had told them this information before, probably when he was with them. Therefore, in contrast to first half of chapter 11, where the Corinthians are practicing something they don’t quite understand, in the second half they are not practicing something that they should understand. Perhaps this is the easiest way to explain the change in Paul’s tone in the middle of the chapter.
Target belief, not behaviour
It is important to see that when a problem with behaviour presents itself, Paul addresses their beliefs. When their method of celebrating the Lord’s Supper was faulty, Paul tried to get them to understand the meaning fully. If Paul was the type of pragmatic leader many expect in their churches today, he could have skipped straight from verse 22 to verse 33. Problem identified, problem solved. A slight change in their practice and now they appear to be happily celebrating together!
However, Paul doesn’t bother with weak solutions. Paul has no interest here in on the surface, sticky plaster, pull the rug over division and prejudice in hearts pragmatism. When Paul sees a problem, he goes for the heart of the matter. He goes for our hearts and understanding, for out of our hearts and understanding comes all manner of things (Mark 7:21). The root problem was that the Corinthians thought this meal was just like any other, and so they behaved like it. So Paul teaches them that this meal is special, that it is unique.
If we miss the special meaning of the meal, we will into all kinds of errors, just like the Corinthians. What we believe about the Lord’s Supper will affect how we behave at it. What we understand as the meaning, will affect our method. Indeed, such an approach goes beyond the Lord’s Supper, but can be applied to any aspect of our Christian lives, together or apart. If we have a problem as evidenced by our behaviour, we can’t just settle for the easy, on the surface solution. If we have a problem with lust and pornography, we can’t overcome this problem simply by installing accountability software and trying to divert your eyes. We need to get our heart sorted, fixed on and delighting in God. If we struggle with jealousy, we need to try and understand why it is that we want certain things. If we are consumed by bitterness, we must resist the urge simply to smile and put it to the back of our minds. We dig into the root of the problem and weed it out. After all, that’s what you do with weeds. There is no point just lobbing the head of a weed so that you can no longer see it, you need to dig in the dirt and pull them out.
Not only does God give us an example to follow here with Paul digging for the root of the issue, but he supplies us with the tools to do it as well. Like a surgeon using a scalpel to cut into the body to find the problem, we must use the Word of God in our own lives and hearts to cut down to the root of the matter, for it ‘is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart’ (Hebrews 4:12).
When Paul identifies the problem, he pulls his sword out and cuts to the heart of it. Do you remember what I received from the Lord and gave to you? Going on, he lays it out to them again verses 23-26. In doing so, he focuses on three details: the setting, the symbols and the statement.
1. SETTING
Whether it is the classic opening lines of The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien or A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, master storytellers are able to pull their readers in from the very start by setting the scene in a few short lines. Likewise, Paul opens his account of the Lord’s Supper by setting the scene with the short phrase ‘the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed…’.
I am sure you, like me, have read this passage countless times and probably just glossed over this introductory statement. Even if your eyes linger on it, it is usually to imagine the hurt cause to Christ by such a betrayal. However, when you stop to think about it further, it is a remarkably strange way to introduce the paragraph.
In choosing an opening to set the scene and draw the Corinthians back into the narrative of that night, Paul could have chosen any number of possibilities. Perhaps ‘the night before Jesus died’ to emphasise his crucifixion, ‘the night of the last supper Jesus spent with his disciples’ to emphasise the fellowship at the table or ‘the night of the Passover meal before his sacrifice’ to emphasise the shadow of Passover. However, Paul ignored all of these possibilities and instead opens with ‘on the night when he was betrayed’.
Why the focus on the betrayal of Christ? We must try to understand what Paul is trying to teach the Corinthians through this particular phrase. People have come up with broadly two answers, the first being a subjective reading, that it helps us to better understand the sufferings of Jesus, reminding us that he was betrayed by one of his closest followers. The second reading is a stretched one, holding that the Corinthians betraying their saviour in the same way that Judas had betrayed him.
I find neither reading totally satisfactory. It leaves us either feeling sorry for Christ or sorry for ourselves. If the former, was it really Paul’s aim to amplify the sacrifice of Christ by helping us to better understand his emotional state? If the later, was it really Paul’s aim to make the Corinthians feel bad for what they had done? If either, he surely could have done either far more effectively by choosing a different form of words. Neither of them provide a particularly smooth transition from the current problem in Corinth.
Instead, I believe that a third way of reading Paul’s opening words is available. The word Paul uses for betrayed here is the same as that used in Mark 14:10 ‘Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them’. It can and does mean ‘betrayed’. However, Mark also uses it in a variety of other ways. For example, in relation to John the Baptist in Mark 1:14, it means ‘arrested’ and in both Mark 15:1 and Mark 15:15 it is used to describe the actions of the chief priests and Pilate, ‘delivering him over to Pilate’ and ‘delivering him over to be crucified’. Indeed, that’s really the root meaning of the word. Where there is a close relationship, as with Judas, you can render it as betrayed, or where the action of deliverance is clear you could render it as ‘arrested’, but it others cases it can and should be taken simply as ‘delivered up’ or ‘handed over’. Paul sets the scene here by saying that it was the night that Jesus was handed over, delivered up.
In rendering the word ‘delivered’ rather than ‘betrayed’ we take a step back from viewing this statement as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Instead, by zooming out we see the actions of Judas, the disciples, the chief priests and the Romans all in play. However, it doesn’t stop there. Scripture continues to zoom out even further when considering the events of that night. Paul, in Galatians 2:20, speaks of the saviour ‘who loved me and gave himself for me’, or in Ephesians 5:2 that ‘Christ loved us and himself up for us’. However, behind Jesus giving himself up, we see the actions of God the Father. Again, Paul declares in Romans 8:32 declares that ‘he who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all’ and in Romans 4:25 ‘Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.’ In the immediate aftermath of the even, Peter describes what took place on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:23 as ‘Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God’. The night that Jesus was delivered over was the culmination of the plan of redemption. A plan forged before the foundation of the world reached its pinnacle that night. God handed Christ over. Christ gives himself up. Men deliver him to the cross.
Now as we zoom back into the problem in Corinth we can see the purpose behind Paul’s opening. In describing that night as the night that Christ was delivered over, he draws into his readers minds the attitude of both the Father and Christ. The Father gives his only son, handing over the most precious thing possible for sinful humanity. Christ allows himself to be taken, gives himself up and lays down his life for his enemies. The magnificent grace of the Father and Son that night draws a razor sharp contrast with the greedy Corinthian believers. While the Father gave up his Son and the Son laid down his life for the church, these Corinthians are too self-centred, greedy, selfish to even share some of their food with their church. While they are ignoring the needs of each other and focusing on themselves, Paul confronts them with a picture of Christ willingly laying down his life for the needs of others. Paul said it well elsewhere, ‘Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus…’ (Philippians 2:4-5).
Paul sets the scene by drawing their attention to ‘the night that he was delivered up’. Instead of causing them to feel sorry for Christ because of his betrayal, Paul stuns them by focusing on Christ’s sacrifice and shames them by highlighting their behaviour.
2. SYMBOLS
Having sketched out the setting for his readers, Paul goes on to stress the symbols. This is of course where the controversy has centred over the centuries. Are the bread and the cup simply symbols, somehow sacramental or do they actually become the body and blood of Christ? It has been observed before that the heart of this massive issue comes down to the existence of a single hyphen. Protestants say the symbols represent the body and blood of Christ, Catholics that they re-present the body and blood of Christ.
It will be little surprise what I believe the Scriptures say on the issue. I believe that the bread and cup are symbols representing Christ’s body and the new covenant made in his blood. There isn’t the time or space, and this perhaps isn’t the best place, to draw out the key reasons for this belief. However, the most decisive in my mind is the disparity the re-presenting of the sacrifice of Christ and the role of an earthly priest has with the finality of Christ’s sacrifice and his sufficiency as our high priest as explained in the book of Hebrews. More important than this in our current study is what Paul says Jesus said about each of the bread and cup.
‘This is my body’
Some translations of 11:24 will include the language ‘broken for you’. This inclusion may be the correct, as it is contained in a number of reliable manuscripts. Remembering that the Lord’s Supper was originally set within the context of a Passover celebration helps to remind us how surprising these words would have been to the disciples who first heard them. Within the usual sequence of the Passover meal, after giving a prayer of thanks the host would stand up and typically say, "This is the bread of affliction that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt." We can only imagine the surprise of the disciples when after giving thanks, Christ stands up as host and instead states, ‘This is my body which is broken for you’. With the words of Christ, the bread of affliction became the body of affliction. The thought seems simple enough, holding out the bread, Christ identifies it with his body, breaks it to show what was about to occur to him and declares this to take place for, or on behalf of, the disciples.
Such a viewpoint is the mainstream meaning and certainly couldn’t be deemed wrong. However, the more I look at these words of Christ, the more I see a different emphasis. First of all, the problem with the mainstream meaning is that ultimately Christ’s body was not broken. On the cross, Christ’s body was pierced, wounded and beaten, but not broken. If a Passover lamb was to be without blemishes like a broken bone (Numbers 9:12), the breaking of Christ’s body would have rendered him an imperfect sacrifice. That’s why when he had his side pierced rather than his legs broken, John 19:36 records that ‘these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken".’ All of this means that you are left trying to argue that the breaking of Christ’s body is really the symbolic breaking of his life under the wrath of God. Such a comment may not be definitely wrong, but probably isn’t the main emphasis of Christ’s words.
The main emphasis of Christ’s words was probably the same as the main emphasis that the early church took from those words. It has been noted that ‘the breaking of bread’ appears to have become a common way of referring to the action that took place in the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16). At the Lord’s Supper, the gathered local church breaks bread together and thereby have communion with each other. Note that the term ‘breaking of bread’ is picked up not to refer to the sacrifice of Jesus, but the participation, fellowship or communion a group of people share with each other. The main idea in using this term is not one of substitution, but rather identification and participation.tent
There is only one way to share a piece of bread with a number of people, it must be broken. The bread has be split, whether cut or torn, in order to share it with others. The mainstream reading of Christ’s words uses the breaking of the bread in Christ’s hands as a visible demonstration of what was going to symbolically occur to him for his disciples. I believe that the emphasis of the New Testament is that the breaking of the bread was a visible invitation to his disciples to partake of his body, participate and share in the bread as a symbol of his body. Paul himself states this plainly in 1 Corinthians 10:16, ‘The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?’ It is only by uniting with the body that was crucified, pierced, wounded and crushed on our behalf by faith that we can be saved. Christ was inviting them to participate in his body, to spiritually feast on him (John 6:35-59). Though substitution is included, it being the body that was condemned in our place, it is the idea of participation that is central, so that we might be able to join Paul in stating that ‘I have been crucified with Christ’.
‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’
The second symbol Paul stresses is the cup. While we aren’t explicitly told that the cup contained wine, although that is probable, we are told is that it contained the fruit of the vine (Luke 22:18). Notice that it is the body and cup, rather than the body and blood. In referring to the cup, rather than the symbolic blood contained within it, Paul very deliberately places the primary emphasis on the covenant made at the cross, rather than the blood shed at the cross. In fact, the reference to the blood is only made to point to the cost of that covenant. It is known as the blood of the new covenant or the new covenant made in his blood.
Covenants have commonly been made by the shedding of blood. It is this thought that is highlighted in Exodus by Hebrews 9:19, ‘For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying ‘this is the blood for the covenant that God commanded for you’…Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.’
Like a new Moses, Christ stands up on the night he was delivered over and declares ‘this is the blood of the covenant for you’. Hebrews again in 10:4-5 picks up the thought so well, ‘For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me…’. Christ was the ultimate, the great, the final sacrifice. It is by his death, the shedding of his blood, that all the blessings of the new covenant come to us. Reading Jeremiah 31 (or Hebrews 8) gives us a sense of the scope of these blessings. Our new relationship with God, forgiveness of sins, indwelling by the Holy Spirit, that fact that we can know God and have a personal relationship with him, is all because Jesus poured out his blood. No wonder we sing ‘This is all my hope and peace, nothing but the blood of Jesus, this is all my righteousness, nothing but the blood of Jesus, O precious is the flow, that makes me white as snow, no other fount I know, nothing but the blood of Jesus.’
When we look at the cup, we certainly must see the blood of Christ poured out for us. But we must also see the blessings of the new covenant bought at such a high price.
‘Do this in remembrance of me’
The action that Christ calls us to in response to these symbols is one of remembrance. When referring to both symbols, Christ commanded his disciples to partake ‘in remembrance of me’.
Throughout history, the people of God have often been called to remember, frequently by using physical symbols. For example, we can think of the stones raised in the Jordan after Israel’s crossing in Joshua 4:7, ‘so these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever’. However, not all reminders for God’s people in the Old Testament were positive. Speaking of the sacrifices on the day of atonement, Hebrews 10:3 states that ‘in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year’. The most important reminder in this context is of course Passover itself. When the instructions for Passover were given, the Israelites were told to explain future generations that they celebrated it ‘because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.’
We should never fail to notice that it is in the midst of one memorial feast that Christ institutes another. It is in this context that he rises and instructs his disciples to explain to his future people that they celebrate this meal because of what he was about to do for them. These symbols would serve as a regular reminder, not of sins, but of their Saviour and the salvation that he purchased.
We must also realise that Christ’s call to remember isn’t simply to recall the facts of his death, but to respond to the reality of it with love and joy, worship and obedience.
3. STATEMENT
Ultimately, this is what Paul has been working towards. Since the ‘for’ at the start of this paragraph, Paul has been detailing the setting and the symbols in order to show that the Lord’s Supper makes a statement about the death of the Lord.
I’m not a fan of the saying falsely attributed to St Francis of Assisi, ‘Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.’ I believe in the importance of preaching, of declaring a message from God as seen in his word. Such a declaration almost always requires words. And yet, here we have an example of a case where such a declaration is made without necessarily making a sound. Paul uses the same word he often deploys for describing preaching, to refer to the action of God’s people in celebrating the Lord’s Supper. In doing so, they proclaim a message and make a statement together.
Unfortunately in the case of the Corinthians, they were making a false statement, a twisted statement about who their Saviour is. What kind of Lord is this that has a people who acts in this way? Dividing and despising, leaving some of their number hungry and humiliated. That’s the fundamental result of the problem in Corinth, and Paul calls for it to stop. Paul wants them to make a glorious statement about their Saviour, who saved them through the sacrifice of his body and blood.
Paul calls them to make a positive proclamation, but not a permanent one. This is not a celebration that will go on forever. Paul very clearly states that this regular proclamation will go on ‘until he comes’. Christ calls his people to remember him in the same way as Israelites were to celebrate Passover. Passover was done in preparation for leaving, they were to eat with a staff in their hand and sandals on their feet. God’s people were to be ready to go at any moment. We must partake of our memorial meal with the same spirit. This is a temporary celebration, for we are a pilgrim people, passing through this world and looking forward to the next. In remembering we aren’t just looking back to the Last Supper, or to the current Lord’s Supper, but ultimately to the future Lamb’s Supper, the marriage supper of the lamb, when our faith will be sight, when our fellowship and participation with our Saviour will be more than spiritual realities. When we shall see him face to face, the one who we remembered in the bread and the cup over so many years. When in union and communion with him we shall step into eternity and as C S Lewis puts it so well, ‘the door on which we have been knocking all our lives will open at last.’
ALEXANDER ARRELL