Following Jesus’ example (cf. Matthew 19:4-6), Paul appealed to the genesis of the Lord’s Supper to correct the Corinthians’ gross misconduct. They did not come together to observe the Lord’s Supper (v. 20), because there were factions among them, and they treated it as a common meal. The instruction Paul received by revelation from Jesus, which he communicated to the Corinthians, stood in stark contrast to their current behavior.

The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the Lord’s death. It was on the same night in which He was betrayed, separate from the Passover Feast, when He instituted the memorial (cf. Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23). He took bread, – which we know to be unleavened, for it was the Passover bread (cf. Exodus 12) – gave thanks for it, and explained its symbolism – His body He surrendered to suffering on our behalf. He also did the same with the cup – the fruit of the vine which represented His shed blood. This is that which ushered in a New Covenant of grace and mercy, for there is no testament without the death of a testator (cf. Hebrews 9:16-22).

The general frequency of the observance of this memorial is noted in the word “often.” His death is to be remembered in this capacity often, until the Lord returns. We know to do this every first day of the week because of the approved example of first century Christians (cf. Acts 20:7).

The Lord’s Supper does not promote factious behavior, but unity and fellowship. It is not an occasion of refreshment or nutrition, but of memory, thanksgiving, and reflection. It is a sacred divine institution which must be approached in a solemn and holy manner.