Movement B: The Tradition Received (vv. 23-26)

The Verses

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

— 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (KJV)

What Paul Is Doing

Movement A diagnosed the problem. Movement B does something subtler: rather than correct the Corinthians’ practice point-by-point, Paul re-tells them the story that the practice was supposed to enact. The implicit logic is if you saw what this meal is, you could not eat it the way you have been eating it.

This is the earliest written account of the Last Supper in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians is dated c. 53-55 AD — fifteen years or more before the earliest of the Synoptic gospels reaches its written form. When Paul writes “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” he is citing a tradition that was already fixed and rehearsed in the churches long enough that he could appeal to it as common ground.

Four topics open up here: the paradosis claim itself, the relationship of Paul’s words to the Synoptic institution accounts, what “this is my body” means (the great Reformation question), and the eschatological hinge “till he come.”

Topic B1 — “I received of the Lord” (v. 23, παρέλαβον / παρέδωκα)

“For I have received [παρέλαβον] of the Lord that which also I delivered [παρέδωκα] unto you” (v. 23, KJV)

The verb pair is technical. Paralambanō and paradidōmi are the standard Jewish vocabulary for receiving and handing on a fixed tradition — the verbs the rabbis used for the chain of oral tradition from Sinai down through the generations (cf. m. Avot 1:1, “Moses received Torah from Sinai and handed it on to Joshua…”). Paul uses the same pair in 1 Cor 15:3 for the gospel-tradition (“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins…”). When Paul says he received and delivered, he is naming a defined body of teaching that has a known form.

So what does “of the Lord” (ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου) mean? Two live readings.

View 1 — Directly from the risen Christ

Paul received the Supper-tradition by direct revelation, much as he received the gospel by revelation (Gal 1:11-12, “neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”). The preposition ἀπό can carry the sense of ultimate, not merely proximate, source. On this reading the tradition Paul transmits has dominical authority not because it came down through the Jerusalem apostles but because the Lord himself authorized it to Paul.

This view is favored by readers who emphasize Paul’s apostolic independence (often Protestant). It coheres with Paul’s general claim that his gospel did not come from humans.

View 2 — From the Lord, through the church

Paul received the tradition the way any second-generation Christian would have received it — from those who were at the Supper (likely Peter and others he met in Jerusalem; cf. Gal 1:18). But the tradition is from the Lord in the sense that the Lord originated it, even if a human chain mediated it. The Jewish “received and delivered” formula assumes mediation; it does not assume direct revelation.

This view is favored by readers who attend to the rabbinic vocabulary. It does not deny that Paul had revelatory experience; it just notes that this particular formula points to a chain of transmission.

Why it matters

The two readings produce different ecclesiologies. View 1 emphasizes the vertical authorization — the Supper as a directly given dominical institution. View 2 emphasizes the horizontal authorization — the Supper as something the church has received and is passing on. The doctrine and practice of the Supper across the Christian centuries has rested on both.

Most careful readers today hold a soft form of both: Paul stands in a chain and claims dominical authority for what was transmitted. The chain is not a substitute for the Lord’s word; it is the means by which the Lord’s word reached Paul and then Corinth.

Topic B2 — Paul’s Account and the Synoptic Accounts

There are four institution accounts in the New Testament: Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-23, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. They divide naturally into two pairs.

	Pair 1: Mark / Matthew	Pair 2: Luke / Paul
”This is my body”	touto estin to sōma mou	touto mou estin to sōma (Paul)
“broken for you”	Absent in earliest manuscripts	Present (Luke “given for you”; Paul “for you”)
“Do this in remembrance”	Absent	Present in both
”New covenant in my blood"	"blood of the covenant” (Mark/Matt)	“new covenant in my blood” (Luke/Paul)
Two cups	One cup after bread	Luke has cup-before-bread AND cup-after; Paul cup-after
”Till he come”	Implied (kingdom-future)	Paul makes it explicit

The Paul/Luke pairing is striking. Luke was Paul’s travel companion (Acts 16:10 onward; Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11), and the verbal overlap between Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 is close enough that some scholars treat them as the same tradition stream — the “Antiochene” or “Pauline-Lukan” form — over against the “Petrine” or “Markan” form.

What this tells us:

There were stable but variant institution traditions in the first-century church. This is not a problem; it is what one would expect of a liturgical formula repeated in many languages and many churches. The variations are at the level of phrasing, not substance.
Paul’s version is not a Pauline invention. It is at minimum a tradition Paul received; the close fit with Luke supports this.
The “remembrance” and “new covenant in my blood” formulations are Pauline-Lukan. When churches say “do this in remembrance of me” at the Table, they are speaking with Paul and Luke’s specific words. Matthew and Mark do not preserve that phrase.

There is no resolved scholarly answer to which form is earliest. The shorter forms in Mark and Matthew may be liturgical compression; the longer forms in Luke and Paul may be liturgical expansion; or the two streams may go back independently to the Supper itself. The text does not tell us. What it tells us is that the very early church preserved variant formulations of the same memory, and that Paul’s version is one of two main streams.

For our purposes, the important thing is that Paul’s wording — including “broken for you,” “remembrance,” and “new covenant in my blood” — is the form the Corinthians had learned and that we have today.

Topic B3 — “This Is My Body” (v. 24, τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα)

“Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you” (v. 24, KJV)

This is the line over which Western Christianity split. The Reformation debates between Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Rome were not finally about whether the Supper mattered — all parties affirmed that. They were about what is signifies in “this is my body.”

What follows is a survey of the main positions, each in its strongest form. The honest report is that this is the place where the SCAR convention of “live views, each held by serious readers” is most needed. None of these positions is fringe; all have been held by careful exegetes; the text alone does not adjudicate them.

View 1 — Transubstantiation (Roman Catholic)

The position: At the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidents (appearance, taste, texture) remain those of bread and wine; the substance (what the thing fundamentally is) becomes Christ’s body and blood. The change is real, objective, and effected by the priest in the person of Christ.

The argument: “Is” in v. 24 means is. The “real presence” is the natural reading of the dominical words. The Church Fathers — Ignatius (c. 110, “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”), Justin Martyr (c. 150, “not as common bread”), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350, “doubt not whether this be true”), Ambrose, Augustine in many passages — speak in realist terms. The Aristotelian metaphysical vocabulary (substance/accidents) is medieval, but the underlying realism is patristic. Defined dogmatically at Lateran IV (1215) and Trent (1551).

The argument’s strongest expression: A Catholic theologian would say that to deny real presence is finally to deny the Incarnation’s logic: God-with-us continues to be God-with-us, not God-as-symbol-of-us. The Eucharist is the abiding Incarnation, the place where the same Christ who took on flesh continues to give himself.

View 2 — Consubstantiation / Sacramental Union (Lutheran)

The position: The bread and the body of Christ are both present. Christ’s body is given “in, with, and under” the bread. Luther rejected the term “consubstantiation” but the doctrine is often labeled so; the Lutheran Confessions prefer “sacramental union.” The bread does not cease to be bread; Christ’s body is genuinely received with the bread.

The argument: Luther insisted on the plain sense of est against what he saw as the symbolist evasion of Zwingli and the philosophical hedge of Rome. “This is my body” means is. But Luther rejected transubstantiation’s metaphysical machinery — the substance/accidents distinction — as a medieval imposition unnecessary to the doctrine. The body of Christ is ubiquitous (per Luther’s controversial use of the communicatio idiomatum), able to be present everywhere Christ chooses, including in every Eucharist.

The argument’s strongest expression: A Lutheran would say this position takes Christ’s word at face value (est) while refusing to philosophize what only Christ knows. The bread stays bread; the body stays body; Christ knows how to be present where he says he is.

View 3 — Spiritual Real Presence (Reformed, Calvin)

The position: Christ is truly and really present in the Supper, but spiritually, not bodily. By the work of the Holy Spirit, the believer who eats in faith is lifted up to feed on the ascended Christ — Christ does not come down into the elements; the Spirit raises the communicant to Christ. The bread and wine remain bread and wine; the communion with Christ they convey is real.

The argument: Calvin shared the Reformed conviction that Christ’s body is in heaven, not in the bread (against Luther). But against Zwingli, Calvin insisted that the Supper is more than memorial — it is a true means of grace, an actual partaking of Christ. The Spirit is the mediator. The bread is a sign and an instrument of the spiritual feeding it signifies, not merely a reminder.

The argument’s strongest expression: A Reformed theologian would say this position honors both the genuine spiritual reality of the Supper and the Reformation rule that we feed on Christ by faith. It refuses both the localization of Christ’s body in the elements and the reduction of the Supper to a memorial.

View 4 — Memorial (Zwingli, much of the Baptist tradition)

The position: The Supper is an act of remembrance and proclamation. “This is my body” means “this represents my body.” The bread and wine signify Christ’s body and blood; they do not in themselves convey them. The congregation gathered at the Table proclaims the Lord’s death and renews its commitment to him.

The argument: “Do this in remembrance of me” (v. 24-25) frames the rite as memorial. “Ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (v. 26) names it as proclamation. The Supper is a covenant-renewal act of the gathered church — what God did once for all is here remembered, not re-presented or re-administered. The realism of the patristic and medieval traditions has read more into the est than the text requires.

The argument’s strongest expression: A Zwinglian (or modern Baptist) would say this position cuts the medieval superstition and trusts the words for what they say: a memorial meal, a proclamation, a sign. To make the bread be Christ is to confuse the sign with the thing signified — the very confusion the Reformation existed to undo.

View 5 — Receptionism (Anglican mainstream, Hooker, the 39 Articles)

The position: Christ is given to the faithful receiver, not to the bread per se. The elements remain bread and wine; but to the believer who eats in faith, Christ is genuinely communicated. The locus of the “real presence” is in the act of faithful reception, not in the consecrated element.

The argument: Article XXVIII rejects transubstantiation by name. Article XXIX says the wicked, though they press the sacrament with their teeth, “yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ.” Hooker (Lawes V.67) develops the receptionist position: “the real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.” The position threads between Rome and Zurich, refusing both ex opere operato and bare memorialism.

The argument’s strongest expression: A classical Anglican would say this position honors v. 27 (“eateth and drinketh unworthily”) as a real warning — the elements can be received without benefit — while still affirming that the faithful receive Christ truly. The Supper is not magic; it is also not merely memory.

Where the views overlap

Claim	T	L	R	M	Rec
The Supper was instituted by Christ	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
“This is my body” is to be taken seriously	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Christ is truly given in the Supper	✓	✓	✓	—	✓
The bread becomes the body	✓	partial	—	—	—
Christ’s body is localized in the element	✓	✓	—	—	—
Faith of the receiver determines reception	—	partial	✓	✓	✓
The Supper is a memorial	partial	partial	✓	✓	partial
The Supper is a proclamation	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

T=Transubstantiation, L=Lutheran, R=Reformed, M=Memorial, Rec=Receptionist

Two clusters emerge: realist (T, L) and receptionist-symbolist (R, M, Rec). The realist cluster locates the change/presence in the element; the receptionist-symbolist cluster locates the change/presence in the act of communion. The Reformed view is the bridge — affirming real presence (against memorialism) while denying localization (against realism).

What Paul actually says

Paul says: this is my body, which is broken for you. He does not give us a metaphysical theory of the is. He gives us a relational/sacrificial framing: for you. The body is broken for you; the cup is the new covenant in my blood; for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

The Reformation positions diverge most sharply on what is signifies. They diverge less on what the meal is for: a participation in Christ’s saving death that was for you. The five-fold survey above is necessary because the church has divided on it; but it should not obscure what all five positions confess together — that this meal proclaims and conveys, in some genuine sense, the death of the Lord for you.

Topic B4 — Remembrance (v. 24-25, ἀνάμνησις)

“this do in remembrance of me” (v. 24, KJV); “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (v. 25)

The Greek is ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis). The translation “remembrance” is correct but underdetermined. There are two readings, and the choice between them carries weight.

View 1 — Cognitive recall (“memorial”)

The Supper is a means of calling to mind what Christ did. The bread and cup focus the congregation’s memory on the cross. To “remember” is to make-present-in-mind what is past-in-time. This is the standard modern English sense of “remembrance,” and it fits the memorialist position above.

View 2 — Cultic re-presentation (“memorial-sacrifice”)

The Greek ἀνάμνησις, especially in Septuagint usage, carries the sense of making the past saving act efficaciously present in the cultic moment. In Numbers 10:10, the trumpets at Israel’s feasts are “for a memorial [ἀνάμνησιν] before your God” — not as a mental act but as a cultic event before God. In Leviticus 24:7, the memorial portion of the grain offering brings the worshipper’s act before the Lord. The Passover is the paradigm: when Israel keeps the Passover, the Exodus is not merely recalled but is, in the cultic moment, made present to the participating generation (Pesachim 10:5, “in every generation a person is obligated to regard himself as though he himself came out of Egypt”).

On this reading, the Supper is not only the church remembering Christ but Christ being made present-effective in the church’s remembering. This is the historic reading of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions; it is also taken seriously by many Reformed and Anglican liturgical theologians (Dom Gregory Dix, Joachim Jeremias, the modern liturgical movement).

Why the choice matters

If ἀνάμνησις is cognitive recall, the Supper is primarily an act of the church remembering. If ἀνάμνησις is cultic re-presentation, the Supper is primarily an act of God making present, in which the church participates by remembering. The locus shifts: in the first reading, we are the agents; in the second, God is the agent and we are recipients.

Most modern Protestant scholarship has accepted some form of the second reading at the linguistic level, even when the corresponding doctrinal positions are not fully embraced. The Septuagint usage is hard to deny. What the cognitive-recall reading preserves is the right insistence that the Supper does not repeat the cross (Heb 9:25-28) — what is made-present is the one-for-all sacrifice, not a new sacrifice. The cultic-re-presentation reading, in its careful form, does not deny this either.

So: the Supper is memorial, in the cognitive sense — Christians do consciously call Christ’s death to mind. But the Greek word reaches further than that. Whether one calls the further reach “real presence,” “spiritual participation,” or “cultic re-presentation,” the text invites a richer category than the bare English “remember.”

Topic B5 — “Till He Come” (v. 26)

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” (v. 26, KJV)

Paul ends the institution narrative with an eschatological hinge. The Supper is bounded on both sides: it begins at the Lord’s death and continues till he come. The Greek is ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ — “until he comes.” This frames the Supper inside a specific window.

The two horizons

The Supper looks backward and forward at once.

Backward: it proclaims (καταγγέλλετε — “ye do shew”) the Lord’s death. The proclamation is the church’s ongoing witness to what happened on the cross.
Forward: it looks to Christ’s return. The Supper is an interim practice. It does not aim at perpetuity but at consummation.

The Synoptic parallel

Jesus himself frames the Supper eschatologically in the institution accounts: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). The Supper is an eschatological meal pointed toward the messianic banquet (Isa 25:6-8; Luke 14:15; Rev 19:9). Paul’s “till he come” gathers up this dominical framing.

What the Maranatha tradition adds

The earliest Christian liturgical fragments include the Aramaic prayer marana tha — “our Lord, come” (1 Cor 16:22; Didache 10:6, in the eucharistic prayers). That this Aramaic phrase survived into Greek-speaking Gentile worship suggests it was attached to the earliest eucharistic celebration. The Supper was not merely commemorative but invocatory — the church’s prayer for the Lord’s return was offered at the Table.

Implications

The Supper has an inherent forward-tilt. Christian theology should not let memorialism or realism eclipse this — the meal is for now, while we wait.
The “do this in remembrance” of vv. 24-25 is not the whole frame. The whole frame is remember-and-await. The Supper looks both ways.
This has pastoral weight in contexts of suffering, loss, and Christian witness. The Table proclaims a death that has already happened and waits for a coming that has not yet. Whatever the present state of the church or the world, the Supper holds the line between cross and consummation.

Reading Movement B with Movement A

Movement A diagnosed the failure: the Corinthians’ gathering had become a stratified Greco-Roman dinner that humiliated the poor. Movement B re-tells the story of what the meal is: the body broken for you, the new covenant in his blood, the proclamation of his death till he comes.

The implicit indictment is sharper than any direct rebuke. If the meal proclaims a body broken for you — including the poor person at your table — then eating in a way that excludes that person is not merely impolite; it contradicts what the meal is doing. If the cup is the new covenant in his blood — establishing a community of those bought by that blood — then breaking the community across class lines is not a side-error; it negates the covenant being remembered.

Movement B does not lecture the Corinthians. It re-tells them the story they had forgotten and lets the story do the rebuke. The next movement (C) draws out the consequence: unworthy participation, examination, discerning the body, and the bodily judgment that has fallen on the community.

Movement C: Worthy Participation (vv. 27-32) — coming next
Movement D: Practical Ordering (vv. 33-34) — coming after C
The Health Question (v. 30) — the bodily-consequences question, already written
Back to the passage