‘When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper, for in your eating each one takes before the other his own supper. And one is hungry, and another is drunken.’

In those days Christians regularly ‘assembled together’ to pray, hear the reading of the Scriptures, and the Testimony of Jesus (the traditions about the life of Jesus) and to hear letters received from such as Paul. They probably also sang psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Mar 14:26). And, as we gather later, during these gatherings prophesying would also take place for the building up of the whole church.

And just as it was common in many religions of the day for worshippers to gather for a sacred meal, so it would seem that Christians had embraced the idea which had become a kind of love feast which was intended to express their love and unity (see Act 2:42; Act 2:46; Act 20:7; Act 20:11 and compare Jud 1:12). This would apparently often take place while they were assembled. And during this feast, or after it, (we have no details), they would partake of the Lord’s Supper.

‘The Lord’s Supper’ was the name given to the partaking of the bread and wine in accordance with the example given by Jesus at the final Passover. It was ‘the Lord’s’ because it was seen as belonging to the Lord, so that He presided over it, and because it was in His honour. Those who gathered at it came to meet with Him and partake spiritually of Him.

And the cause of his distress was their behaviour when they assembled together to eat such a meal, a meal during which they would partake of the Lord’s Supper. For this latter, which was intended to be an expression of their total unity, had seemingly become impossible in any meaningful sense because instead of eating the earlier meal as a common meal together, different sections apparently took their own food, and ate apart in separate groups, the wealthier having sumptuous meals while others had little, and did it with scant regard that many had not yet arrived. What was worse some actually went hungry because they could bring no food and drink, or arrived too late, while others had so much that they even went to excess and became drunk, accentuating the awfulness of the situation (and many more would be ‘merry’).

There was thus a total lack of love and a sense of oneness. The whole thing, rather than being an expression of total unity and sharing in common, had become something emphasising total disunity and even lack of what was fit in God’s presence. It had become a travesty of what the love feast, and especially the Lord’s Supper, were supposed to be about. In observing these many of God’s own people were left distressed, feeling left out and unwanted, while others partook while drunk or merry and in no state to worship. Godliness was forfeit. To pass around the bread and wine in such conditions was an insult to Christ.

‘It is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper.’ In other words what they are participating in is not the Lord’s Supper, whatever name they like to give it, because it is denying all that the Lord’s Supper stands for. By it they are revealing disunity, lack of love and consideration, contempt for others, and even a contempt for God by appearing before Him drunk. It was a complete travesty.

We do not know the exact details that lay behind this complaint, and possibly it is as well, for it can then be applied to many situations. It is possible that the wealthy householders in whose house and courtyard the church assembled, invited those of equal status to themselves to partake of a separate meal in their dining hall (which would be too small to hold everyone), leaving others to see to themselves in the courtyard when they arrived, either leaving them to bring their own food or providing inferior food, but insufficient to satisfy all. In that case it is even possible that some of the lesser food itself was given out with discrimination, the better quality being designated by the householder for the slightly lower level of free men and important bondslaves, and a much lower quality, and even almost nothing, being made available for the lowest classes. And there would also be those who, through unavoidable circumstances, could only arrive late, for whom there would be nothing left. Such discrimination at secular feasts was certainly known and practised, but at a supposed feast of unity Paul saw it as disgraceful. Where was their oneness in Christ?

Or it may be that different groups each brought their own food and were unwilling to share it, preferring to stay with their own kind and in their own groups. Or it may include the fact that that some did not want to share what others brought because they despised it. But whatever the reasons it was destroying the oneness of their coming together. They were being split into factions, with different groups eating separately, and others going hungry, with no sense of oneness, and that at the table of the Lord.

It was clear that at this supposed assembly of themselves unity and oneness was not a consideration. It just did not exist. How then could they celebrate the Lord’s Supper in such circumstances? For that was to be the one place where all were intended to be revealed as equal, where rich and poor were to be seen to be on the same level, where all races were to be seen as united as one, where they should have all things in common, and where they were intended to express their full equality in Christ, declaring that they were one bread and one body. Thus their gatherings had become a total travesty of what the Lord’s table was supposed to be about.

All this went along with their party spirit (1Co 1:12), their arrogant view of themselves (1Co 4:8; 1Co 4:10; 1Co 4:19), their attitude to gross sin (1Co 5:2), their greed and covetousness (1Co 6:1-8), their selfishness and disregard for others in their use of their knowledge (1Co 8:11), and as we shall see later in the use of their spiritual gifts (14). They may have been ‘sanctified in Christ’ (1Co 1:2), but they were giving little indication of it.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Co 11:20 . ] resuming after the parenthesis; see on 1Co 11:18 .

] to the same place . See on Act 1:15 .

. . .] there does not take place an eating of a Lord’s Supper , i.e. one cannot eat a Lord’s Supper in that way; it is morally impossible , since things go on in such fashion as 1Co 11:21 thereupon specifies by way of proof. We have here the very common and familiar use of with the infinitive, in the sense of: it is possible, one can , as in Heb 9:5 . So e.g. the passages from Plato given by Ast, Lex. I. p. 622; Hom. Il. xxi. 193, al [1832] ; Thuc. viii. 53; Soph. Phil. 69; Aesch. Pers. 414; Polyb. i. 12. 9, v. 98. 4. It occurs in the classics also for the most part with the negative. See generally, Valckenaer on Eurip. Hippol. 1326. Beza, Estius, Zachariae, de Wette, Ewald, Maier, Winer, al [1833] , render it otherwise, as if there were a in the text: this is not , etc. And even if there were such a , it would have nothing here to connect itself with.

] a meal belonging to the Lord , consecrated to Christ; comp 1Co 11:27 ; 1Co 10:21 . The name was given to the love-feasts (Agapae, Jud 1:12 ), at which the Christians ate and drank together what they severally brought with them, and with which was conjoined the Lord’s Supper properly so called (1Co 10:16 ; 1Co 10:21 ; comp on Act 2:42 ), so that the bread was distributed and partaken of during the meal and the cup after it, according to the precedent of the original institution. Comp Tertullian, Apol. 30. Chrysostom, indeed, and Pelagius held that the Lord’s Supper came first ; but this is contrary to the model of the first institution, came into vogue only at a later date, and rests purely upon the ascetic idea that it was unbefitting to take the Eucharist after other food. To understand here, as Hofmann does, not the whole meal , but merely the celebration of the Lord’s Supper , which was conjoined with it, is not in keeping with the phrase , the precise scope of which is determined by the meal so originally instituted (Joh 13:2 ) to which it points.

[1832] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1833] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

Ver. 20. This is not to eat, &c. ] When the Lord’s supper therefore is not rightly administered, it is no longer his; especially if the substantials thereof be omitted. As in those sacrifices,Hos 9:4Hos 9:4 ; “Their bread for their soul shall not come into the house of the Lord;” that is, the bread for their natural sustenance. He speaks of that meat offering,Lev 2:4Lev 2:4 , appointed for a spiritual use, yet called the “bread for their life or livelihood;” because God esteemed it no other than common meat. So Jer 7:21 , in scorn he calls their sacrifice, flesh, &c.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

20. ] The same subject resumed from the . of 1Co 11:18 ; see notes on . When then ye come together ( are assembling , pres. and perhaps here, where he deals with particulars, to be pressed, as their intention in thus assembling is blamed) to one place (reff. Acts) it is not to eat ( with any idea of eating [or, there is no eating ]. But Meyer, Bengel, and many others, render here, ‘ non licet ,’ as in and the like: De Wette, after Estius, al., as E. V., ‘ this is not ,’ ‘cannot be called,’ ‘ id quod agitis, non est .’ But the greediness which is blamed, seems to refer to the , and to the motive = ) the Supper of the Lord (emphasis on , as opposed to below).

. .] ‘ the Supper instituted by the Lord .’ This was an inseparable adjunct, in the apostolic times, to their agap or feasts of love. Chrys. on 1Co 11:17 , and Tertull. Apol. 39, vol. i. pp. 474 ff., give an ample description of these feasts, which were of the nature of , or mutual contributions, where each who was able brought his own portion, and the rich, additional portions for the poor. See Xen. Mem. iii. 14, in which the circumstances bear a remarkable similarity to those in the Corinthian church. Not before this feast, as Chrys. ( , p. 240), al., but during and after it, as shewn by the institution, by the custom at the Passover, by the context here, and by the remnants of the ancient custom and its abuse until forbidden by the council of Carthage, the ancient Christians partook of the Supper of the Lord. The best account of this matter is to be found in the note in Pool’s Synopsis on Mat 26:26 . It was necessary for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that all should eat of the same bread and drink of the same cup; and in all probability, that a prayer should be offered, and words of consecration said, by the appointed ministers. Hence cessation of the feast itself, and solemn order and silence, would be necessitated even by the outward requirements of the ordinance. These could not be obtained, where each man was greedily devouring that which he had brought with him: where the extremes were seen, of one craving, and another being drunken. This being their practice, there could be [no possibility, and at the same time] no intention of celebrating the Lord’s Supper, no [provision for it, nor] discernment of the solemnity of it. On the whole subject, see Stanley’s note.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 11:20-21 resume with emphasis the circumstantial clause of 1Co 11:18 and draw out, by , the disastrous issue of the : they produce a visible separation at the common meal of the Church, destroying the reality of the Lord’s Supper . Ch. 1Co 1:12 , 1Co 3:3 f., 1Co 4:6 , showed that the Cor [1697] divisions were of a partisan character, and 1Co 1:19 that intellectual differences entered into them ( cf. 1Co 8:1-7 ); but distinctions of wealth contributed to the same effect. The two latter influences conspired, the richer and more cultivated Cor [1698] Christians leaning to a self-indulgence which they justified on the ground of enlightenment; the sloped down toward . , “to the same (spot)”. . . . can hardly mean, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (so Al [1699] and others) for the Cor [1700] intended this, but by unworthy behaviour (1Co 11:26 f.) neutralised their purpose: P. says either “it ( sc . your feast) is not an eating of the Lord’s Supper” (A.V., Bz [1701] , Est., D.W [1702] , Bt [1703] , Hn [1704] , EL [1705] , Gd [1706] : “ce n’est pas l manger, etc.”); or, “it is not (possible) to eat the Lord’s Supper” (R.V., Bg [1707] , Mr [1708] , Hf [1709] , Ed [1710] , Ev [1711] ) such eating is out of the question . 1Co 11:21 bears out the last interpretation, since it.describes a state of things not merely nullifying but repugnant to any true ; carries this strong sense, negativing the idea as well as fact, in Heb 9:5 , and often in cl [1712] Gr [1713] The adj [1714] (= ) stands in emphatic contrast with , the termination – signifying kind or nature : “It is impossible to eat a supper of the Lord , for each man is in haste to get ( proccupat , Bz [1715] ) his own supper when he eats,” or “during the meal” (Ev [1716] ; , in edendo , Bz [1717] ; not ad manducandum , as in Vg [1718] ). Instead of waiting for one another (1Co 11:33 ), the Cor [1719] , as they entered the assemblyroom bringing their provisions, sat down at once to consume each his own supply, like private diners at a restaurant; – suggests, in view of 1Co 11:22 , that the rich even hurried to do this, so as to avoid sharing with slaves and low people at a common dish (1Co 11:22 ). The . was a kind of club-supper, with which the evening meeting of the Church commenced (18 a , 20 a ), taking place at least once a week on the Lord’s Day ( cf. Act 20:7 ff.). This Church-supper, afterwards called the Agap (see Dict. of Christian Antiq. s.v .; also Ed [1720] ad loc [1721] ) was analogous to the and held by the guilds and friendly societies then rife amongst the Greeks. Originating as a kind of enlarged family meal in the Church of Jerus. (Act 2:46 ), the practice of the common supper accorded so well with social custom that it was universal amongst Christians in the first century (see Weizscker’s Apost. Age , vol. ii., pp. 279 286). Gradually the Eucharist was separated from the Agap for greater decorum, and the latter degenerated and became extinct; here they are one, as in the Last Supper itself. The table was provisioned at Cor [1722] not from a general fund (as was usual in the or collegia ), but by each guest bringing his contribution in kind, a practice not uncommon in private parties, which had the disadvantage of accentuating social differences. While the poor brought little or nothing to the feast and might be ashamed to show his fare, the rich man exhibited a loaded basket out of which he could feed to repletion. All was destroyed; such vulgarity would have disgraced a heathen guild-feast. The Lord , the common Host, was forgotten at His table. sc . the poor man, whose small store was insufficient, or who arriving late (for his time was not his own) found the table cleared ( cf. ). , “but another is drunk!” or in the lighter sense suggested by , plus satis bibit (Gr [1723] , Hn [1724] ), “drinks to the full” ( cf. Joh 2:10 ); the scene of sensual greed and pride might well culminate in drunkenness. Of all imaginable schisms the most shocking: hunger and intoxication side by side, at what is supposed to be the Table of the Lord! This is indeed “meeting for the worse”. For the demonstr. use of the rel [1725] pron [1726] with and , see Wr [1727] , p. 130.

[1697] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1698] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1699] Alford’s Greek Testament .

[1700] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1701] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[1702].W. De Wette’s Handbuch z. N. T.

[1703] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

[1704] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1705] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[1706] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1707] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1708] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1709] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[1710] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1711] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .

[1712] classical.

[1713] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1714] adjective.

[1715] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[1716] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .

[1717] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[1718] Latin Vulgate Translation.

[1719] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1720] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1721] ad locum , on this passage.

[1722] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1723] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1724] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1725] relative pronoun.

[1726]ron. pronoun.

[1727] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

into one place. Greek. epi to auto. See Act 2:1. These were the social meals of the early church, called love feasts (2Pe 2:13. Jud 1:12), followed by the Lord’s Supper. According to the Greek custom, each brought his own provisions, and while the rich fared sumptuously, the poor sometimes had little or nothing; for the spirit of division led to the exclusion by some of all who were not of their own party. Thus sectarianism invaded even the Lord’s table.

Lord’s. Greek. kuriakos. Only here and Rev 1:10. See note there.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

20.] The same subject-resumed from the . of 1Co 11:18; see notes on . When then ye come together (are assembling, pres. and perhaps here, where he deals with particulars, to be pressed,-as their intention in thus assembling is blamed) to one place (reff. Acts) it is not to eat (with any idea of eating [or, there is no eating]. But Meyer, Bengel, and many others, render here, non licet, as in and the like: De Wette, after Estius, al., as E. V., this is not, cannot be called,-id quod agitis, non est. But the greediness which is blamed, seems to refer to the , and to the motive = ) the Supper of the Lord (emphasis on , as opposed to below).

. .] the Supper instituted by the Lord. This was an inseparable adjunct, in the apostolic times, to their agap or feasts of love. Chrys. on 1Co 11:17, and Tertull. Apol. 39, vol. i. pp. 474 ff., give an ample description of these feasts, which were of the nature of , or mutual contributions, where each who was able brought his own portion,-and the rich, additional portions for the poor. See Xen. Mem. iii. 14, in which the circumstances bear a remarkable similarity to those in the Corinthian church. Not before this feast, as Chrys. ( , p. 240), al.,-but during and after it, as shewn by the institution, by the custom at the Passover, by the context here, and by the remnants of the ancient custom and its abuse until forbidden by the council of Carthage,-the ancient Christians partook of the Supper of the Lord. The best account of this matter is to be found in the note in Pools Synopsis on Mat 26:26. It was necessary for the celebration of the Lords Supper that all should eat of the same bread and drink of the same cup; and in all probability, that a prayer should be offered, and words of consecration said, by the appointed ministers. Hence cessation of the feast itself, and solemn order and silence, would be necessitated even by the outward requirements of the ordinance. These could not be obtained, where each man was greedily devouring that which he had brought with him: where the extremes were seen, of one craving, and another being drunken. This being their practice, there could be [no possibility, and at the same time] no intention of celebrating the Lords Supper,-no [provision for it, nor] discernment of the solemnity of it. On the whole subject, see Stanleys note.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 11:20. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper.

Merely meeting together, each person bringing his or her own portion of bread and wine, and each one eating the provided portion, was not celebrating the Lords supper.

1Co 11:21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

Bad as some professing Christians are even now, they are not so bad as these Corinthians were. One was hungry, and another was drunken, because they had turned the holy feast into a kind of banquet of a most disorderly sort. There was nothing in their conduct to indicate true Christian fellowship. The very meaning of the ordinance was lost in the fact that each one was feasting himself without fear.

1Co 11:22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The Lords supper is not to be made an opportunity for eating and drinking in disorderly self-enjoyment. It is a hallowed and holy institution, setting forth the fellowship of true believers with one another, and with the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was an apostle, yet he had not been present at the institution of the Lords supper, so he had a special revelation given to him concerning the way in which this ordinance is to be observed.

1Co 11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,

That is the right kind of teaching which a man first receives from God, and then delivers to the people. Nothing is of authority in the Christian ministry unless we can say of it, I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,

1Co 11:23. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

What a pathetic interest is given to the Lords supper by the fact that it was instituted the same night in which he was betrayed. Never forget that God grant that none of us may betray our Lord this night, or any other night! It would be the darkest night in our life should it ever be so: The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

1Co 11:24-25. 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. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament

The New Covenant

1Co 11:25-26. In my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:20-30; And 1Co 11:20-26.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

1Co 11:20. , when ye come together therefore) The therefore has the effect of resuming the discourse, 1Co 11:18.- ) there is not aught to eat, i.e. it does not fall to you to eat; eating is prevented, viz. because the bread is withdrawn;[98] he therefore pointedly says, to eat. It is an indefinite expression. [Man kommt nicht dazu, wegen Abgang des Brots und Weins, we come not for that purpose, on account of the want of bread and wine.-Not. crit.] Sometimes they came in for the privilege of eating the Lords Supper itself, 1Co 11:26. Sometimes, they were excluded, some at least, who came too late, and had not been waited for, 1Co 11:33. So with the infinitive, Heb 9:5. So not merely on one occasion Chrysostom.-See 1. 2 de Sacerd., p. 388. There is a similar use of the verb , Act 20:16. So , 2Ch 5:11; , Est 4:2; , LXX., 1Ch 15:2; , 2Ch 20:6, and decidedly Gen 6:21, .-, the Lords) An antithesis to his own, () supper, next verse.

[98] Those who came first consumed it all, and left none for those who came late.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 11:20

1Co 11:20

When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lords supper:-Their meeting together did not result in their eating the Lords Supper. That was the occasion of their coming together, but they so perverted it that it made it impossible for them to do so.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

this is not to eat: or, ye cannot eat, 1Co 11:20

Reciprocal: Hos 8:13 – but Zec 7:6 – did not ye eat for Act 2:42 – in breaking Act 2:46 – from house to house Act 20:7 – to break 1Co 11:17 – that ye Heb 10:25 – forsaking 2Pe 2:13 – while

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

The Lord’s Supper

1Co 11:20-24

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

Circumstances under which the Supper was inaugurated.

1.Christ knew He would die.

2.After the Passover passed away the Supper came in.

3.The one, Judas, who went out.

4.The singing of the hymn.

5.The final words of comfort and admonition.

1. Christ knew He would die on the Cross. When we come to the Lord’s Supper we see Christ as He took the bread and said: “This is My body, which is broken for you.” In all of this we know that He knew not alone that He would die, but that He knew also how His body would be “broken” for us.

When we see Christ taking the cup and saying,-“This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” we realize that Christ not only knew that His Blood was to be shed, but He also knew that His Blood was to be shed in the fulfillment of a Covenant made long since in Heaven.

2. After the Passover was over, the Lord’s Supper came in. The Passover was a memorial of the days when the Lord passed over the houses of the Children of Israel. On that night a lamb was slain, and the blood was sprinkled on the side posts and the upper doorpost.

During the centuries, that Passover had been annually kept in anticipation of the hour when the true Passover Lamb, even the Lord, would be slain on Calvary. As Christ sat at the table with His disciples and ate of the Passover Feast, He knew its fullest significance. After the Passover, when He took the bread and the cup and set a new table of a New Covenant, He knew its full significance. Since then the Church has commemorated the Lord’s death, till He come.

The Passover has been set aside. It looked forward to Christ’s death. The Lord’s Supper has come in, it looks backward to Christ’s death: The Passover had a time limit, a culminating period; the Lord’s Supper also has a time limit-“till He come.”

3. The one, Judas, who went out. He had taken the Passover with Judas present, for Christ said, “He that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish.” It is passing sad, a travesty on humanity, that one ready to betray the Lord should have eaten the Passover.

We fear, however, that there are many today who eat of the Supper and then go out into the paths of unrighteousness and folly to betray Him. The Bible speaks of certain ones who crucify the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame. Let us beware lest we prove insincere and unworthy of His grace.

4. The singing of the hymn. The Supper being ended, Christ gave unto the disciples the marvelous message contained in Joh 14:1-31, Joh 15:1-27, and Joh 16:1-33 : then He prayed the prayer recorded in Joh 17:1-26, and after they had sung a hymn they went out Our Lord, in the singing of this hymn, reminds us of the nightingale which sings in the darkest hour of the night. He sang when the shadows of His crucifixion were gathering heavily over Him.

The sorrows of death were about to grip Him, and yet He sung a hymn.

5. The final words of comfort and admonition. Let us revert to the chapters in John’s Gospel. We are all familiar with how Christ said, in chapter 14 “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me.” Having spoken these words, He gave them as many as 14 reasons why they should not be troubled. Then He closed with the same words, “Let not your heart be troubled.”

Chapter 15 centers in the message concerning the vine and the branches, with the great climactic statement, “That your joy might be full.”

Chapter 16 emphasizes the “little while” of the Lord’s absence, and the words of encouragement and comfort concerning the Paraclete or Comforter whom the Lord would send to teach, to guide, to strengthen, and to admonish us.

These three chapters, with the Lord’s wonderful prayer in chapter 17, close the Lord’s final words following the “Supper.”

I. THE LORD’S SUPPER A CHURCH ORDINANCE (1Co 11:18-20)

1.It is a Church memorial, in distinction to the Jewish memorial.

2.It is distinct from home eating, which is to supply physical hunger and thirst (1Co 11:21).

3.It is to be observed in solemn sacredness (1Co 11:22).

1. It is a Church memorial in distinction to the Jewish memorial. In every message given to the Jews, there is a lesson for the Church of God. However, the Church is not Israel, and the Lord’s Supper is not a Jewish feast. The Supper was given to the saints by the Lord Jesus, but certified by the Holy Ghost through Paul, as an observance to be kept by the Church until the Lord’s Return.

There are some who want to do away with the Supper, and leave the Church without any memorial whatsoever. With this we cannot agree.

2. It is distinct from home eating which is to supply physical hunger. 1Co 11:21 says, “In eating every one taketh before other his own supper.” 1Co 11:22 says: “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” The Lord’s Supper, therefore, is not a family affair. 1Co 11:18 says: “When ye come together in the church.” 1Co 11:22 says, concerning the eating and drinking of the Lord’s Supper as a private meal, “Despise ye the Church of God?”

All of this shows that there is a vast distinction between the daily run of family meals, and the Lord’s Supper.

3. It is to be observed in solemn sacredness. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper we should do it in the full light of its deeper meaning, and put away from us every suggestion of a feast with its accompanying levity and conversation.

Paul had no praise for the Corinthians because they had turned the memorial of Christ’s death into a time of feasting.

The Lord sacredly holds the Supper which He set forth, as an observance in remembrance of Him.

II. THE LORD’S SUPPER A DIVINE DELIVERANCE (1Co 11:23)

1.It was given to be observed by the command of the Lord.

2.It was given on the night in which He was betrayed.

3.It was given in perfect foreknowledge of the deeper depths of its meaning.

1. It was given to be observed by the command of the Lord. Paul says in our key verse: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” The Supper is not a man made, nor a church ordained affair. It is a solemn and significant deliverance from the Lord. Paul said that the Gospel which he preached he received, not of men, neither was he taught it, but by the Holy Ghost. Now he says, in effect, that the Supper was not after men, neither did he receive it, but from the Lord.

We take it, therefore, that the Supper is just as Divinely inspired and given through Paul as was the Word of God, set forth in his Epistles. Christ had, indeed, said to the disciples, “This do in remembrance of Me.” But now that the Apostle Paul had been called as an ambassador to the Gentiles, and to reveal the mystery of the Church which is His Body, the Lord particularly instructs him concerning the Lord’s Supper in its relationship to the Church of God.

2. It was given on the night in which He was betrayed. The Lord Himself, on the night in which He was betrayed, took bread. He also took the cup. The Lord’s Supper is therefore indissolubly linked to the approach to Calvary.

Our Saviour wanted to tie us on to the Cross, to His own broken body and shed Blood, lest we should drift away from the great basic truth of our redemption.

3. It was given in perfect foreknowledge of the deeper depths of its meaning. Those who ate the bread and drank of the cup in that upper room doubtless did not know, at that time, the deeper significances of the Supper, but Christ knew it. He not only knew, but He told His saints gathered around much of its meaning”.

III. THE LORD’S SUPPER INSTITUTED WITH THE GIVING OF THANKS (1Co 11:24)

1. The Lord Himself gave thanks for the privilege of dying for us.

2. We should give thanks that in His dying we are fed with the Bread from Heaven.

1. The Lord Himself gave thanks for the privilege of dying for us. Our verse opens with the striking statement, “And when He had given thanks, He brake it.” He brake it with His own hands as much as to say, “I am giving Myself as a willing sacrifice; I have power to lay My life down”; and He did lay it down as a ransom for many. He not only showed that He broke His own body, as it were, but He gave thanks for the privilege of so doing.

There is nothing to us more beautiful and more filled with meaning than the fact that Jesus gave thanks for the bread of which He Himself said, “Take, eat: this is My body.”

If He had told us to give thanks, it would be easily understood; but when He himself gave thanks, we marvel and say:

It’s just like Jesus to roll the clouds away,

It’s just like Jesus to keep me day by day,

It’s just like Jesus all along the way,

It’s just like His great love.”

2. We should give thanks that in His dying we are fed with the Bread from Heaven. If He gave thanks, should not we? His broken body means everything to us. His shed Blood means our redemption. What gratitude then should be ours! We are not left to starve, spiritually.

We can almost hear the Master saying before He broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, “Send them not away.” He did not want to send the multitudes away hungry, neither does He want to send us away hungry. On that memorable day, they ate and were filled. Today we may eat and be satisfied.

Jehovah did not send Israel away hungry of old when they cried for bread, and for meat. He gave them the manna from Heaven, and He gave them the quails. All of these things anticipated that other Bread of which Christ spake at the Supper in the upper room, when He gave thanks and brake it.

IV. THE BROKEN BREAD (1Co 11:24)

1.He broke it showing that His death was voluntary.

2.He broke it showing that God made His soul an offering for sin.

3.He broke it in anticipation of the breaking of His heart.

1. He broke it showing that His death was voluntary. There are many today who teach that Christ was a martyr to a holy ideal, that He was slain against His will, and because of the growing antipathy to Him on the part of those who despised and rejected Him.

We would not for one moment take the guilt away from those who nailed Him to the Tree. Peter said of them: “Ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.” This remains true, yet it is also true that Jesus Christ went as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers, was dumb.

2. He broke it showing that God made His soul an offering for sin. The question, “Who crucified our Lord?” may have various answers.

(1) He was crucified by the Jews because they were the ones who delivered Him to the Romans, and cried out so vehemently that Pilate thought he could do nothing but deliver Christ to death. The Jews also circled the Cross crying out against the Lord Jesus like maddened bulls or dogs.

(2) He was crucified by the Romans, because they were the ones who actually nailed Him to the Tree.

(3) He was crucified by our sins, because if we had never sinned He had never been crucified,

(4) He was crucified by God, because it is written, “Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin.” Therefore, we are correct when we say that God made His soul an offering for sin.

3. He broke it in anticipation of the breaking of His heart. Christ actually died from the rupture of His heart vessels. The nails in His feet and in His hands would have killed Him had He hung there long enough. They did not kill Him, however. It was the burden of our sins, and the anguish of the cup He drank, which slew Him: and He knew it beforehand.

V. THE SOLEMN REMEMBRANCE (1Co 11:24)

1.A memorial of spiritual strength through eating the Bread that came down from Heaven.

2.A memorial of devout gratitude on the part of saints.

3.A memorial that shows human responsibility-“Take, eat.”

1. A memorial of spiritual strength through eating the Bread that came down from Heaven. We eat our daily bread, around our family board, for sustenance for the physical body, Around the Lord’s Table we gather to eat the bread in token of the fact that Christ is the Sustenance of our spiritual being.

We remember how it was written: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” It is also written that Job desired the words of His mouth, as more necessary than his daily food. Another Scripture tells us of the “milk of the Word,” and again we read of the “strong meat” of the Word.

We who must meet the problems of life with its testings and service, need strength. Therefore, we must remember that Christ is not only the Giver of our life, but also its Sustainer.

2. A memorial of devout gratitude on the part of saints. We, too, should give thank even as He did. Do we not appreciate and give thanks for the food we eat, as we take our daily meals? How much more then should we appreciate the Heavenly Manna. If we give thanks at one table, should we not at the other?

All gifts come down from above, from the Father of lights. For these gifts, praise is comely. The greatest Gift, however, that came down from above is the Lord Jesus Christ.

He not only feeds us, and clothes us, and satisfies the longings of our heart with everything temporal, but He also blesses us with all spiritual blessings in Heavenly places. When, therefore, we come together in one place to eat the Lord’s Supper, let us render heartfelt thanks.

3. A memorial that shows human responsibility. Here is where our responsibility comes in-we should “Take, eat.” The bounteous supply of spiritual blessings must be appropriated. They are ours, but they are not to be forced upon us. We must go up to possess our possessions.

It is written: “Eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.”

VI. THE CUP OF REMEMBRANCE (1Co 11:25)

1.The remembrance of the New Covenant in His Blood.

2.The remembrance of salvation by faith in His sacrificial Blood.

3.The remembrance circumscribed by, “The Lord’s death till He come.”

1. The remembrance of the New Covenant in His Blood. The New Covenant in His Blood-how the words ring out. A covenant not of types, nor of figures of the true, but a Covenant sealed in the fulfillment of all those types in which the First Covenant was written.

Now we can say: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Christ Himself is the Mediator of the New Covenant by means of His death. The First Covenant was not dedicated without blood, but that blood, first offered, was offered from year to year in token of a promised redemption.

The high priest of old entered into the Holy of holies once a year; but Christ has entered into Heaven itself, but not without Blood.

2. The remembrance of salvation by faith in His sacrificial Blood. Christ gave the cup to the disciples saying, “This do in remembrance of Me.” Afterward He said: “As often as ye * * drink this cup, ye do shew.” All of this is filled with significance. In the Passover, the lamb had to be taken and slain. That, however, was not enough. Each home, through the head of the house, had to take the hyssop, dip it in the blood, and sprinkle it on the upper doorpost and the side posts. So, also, must we take the cup and drink of it. It is not the death of Christ which saves us, nor His shed Blood that washes us. It is the application by faith of that death and Blood to our hearts and lives that saves. If we believe not, receive not, take not, our sin remaineth.

3. The remembrance circumscribed by, “The Lord’s Death till He come.” In what sense can we show the Lord’s death till He come, apart from eating and drinking at the Lord’s Table until He come? To our mind there is a definite, Divine command beneath the statement that the Lord’s Supper should be a remembrance of His death until He come.

VII. THE DIGNITY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST FOREWARNS THE SAINT OF DRINKING UNWORTHILY (1Co 11:27-34)

1.Self-examination as to one’s faith and conduct should precede the drinking of the cup (1Co 11:27-29).

2.Failure to discern the Lord’s body bringeth condemnation, sickness and sometimes, death (1Co 11:30-31).

3.The Lord’s Supper rightly conducted creates Christian courtesy and fellowship (1Co 11:33).

1. Self-examination as to one’s faith and conduct should precede the drinking of the cup. Let us examine ourselves and so let us eat of that bread. We grant that to “drink un-worthily” does designate the manner in which the cup is taken or the bread is eaten. There is more in it than this, however.

When the Children of Israel (Isa 1:1-31) lost the deeper meaning and the real intent of their sacrificial offerings, the Lord became wearied with their sacrifices. It is very vital for us, in eating and drinking at the Lord’s Table, that we keep in mind the real meanings of the bread and the cup.

Not only so, we must live a life that shows that our faith is genuine, and our trust is true. Thus, in Isa 1:1-31, the Lord demands more than an understanding of the significance of the sacrifice. He cried out: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes.” This is just as vital in the Lord’s Table, as it was in the observance of the Jewish sacrifices.

2. Failure to discern the Lord’s body bringeth condemnation, sickness and death. Because of the laxity in living, and the unconcern of the spiritual meaning of the supper, on the part of many, they become sickly and many die. Let us beware then lest we fail to discern the Lord’s body, and eat and drink condemnation to ourselves.

3. The Lord’s Supper rightly conducted creates Christian courtesy and fellowship. 1Co 11:33 tells us “When ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.” We want to have courtesy toward all the brethren. Christ did not die for any of us alone; He died for all saints. For this cause we must tarry one for another until we come together. The Lord’s Supper is not to be eaten in our own homes, but when we meet as a Church. It is a question of the fellowship of the one Body in the one Lord.

AN ILLUSTRATION

The power of the testimony of the Christian, whether he is showing forth the Lord’s death at the Lord’s Table, or in a word of testimony, is seen in this simple incident in the life of Charles H. Spurgeon:

“C. H. Spurgeon was asked by the directors of the Crystal Palace in London to test the acoustic properties of the vast space of the central transept. He went to the Palace early one morning taking with him two or three friends, who stationed themselves in different parts of the building, to tell if his voice could be heard there. He stood and began, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.’ Years afterward, Spurgeon’s brother went to see a dying man in Croydon who said to him: ‘I am a painter by trade. I used to be a very irreligious man. until one morning, early, when I was painting inside the roof of the Crystal Palace, not supposing that anyone was in the building, I was startled by hearing a voice ringing out in clear tones: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The words came home to me with such power of conviction that they led me to seek and find in Jesus Christ the Saviour in whom I have believed, and whom I have tried to serve ever since that day. I was afterwards told that it was your brother’s voice I heard. Please tell him this from me.'”

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

Verse 20. Having set forth some general principles concerning heresies in the foregoing verses, Paul comes to the special subject at hand, namely, the Lord’s Supper in the course of their coming together. The Englishman’s Greek New Testament renders the last clause, “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” Of course Paul does not deny the Corinthians professed to come together for that purpose, but he means that under the circumstances what they did could not be rightly called so for reasons soon to be stated.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 11:20. When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lords Supper.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

As if he had said, “True, ye Corinthians, when ye come together to one place, ye pretend to eat the Lord’s supper, but though you eat it, yet ye do not eat it as ye ought to do; you perform the material part of the action, but you do not partake of it solemnly and religiously, according to the divine institution; this therefore is not to eat the Lord’s supper.”

Learn thence, That a duty not done as it ought to be done, is not done at all in the account of Christ. Sermons may be heard, and yet accounted no sermons; prayers made, yet not made; sacraments received, yet not received; alms given, yet not given; because not done in manner and form as God required.

A gracious heart will look not barely at the matter of the duty, but also at the manner of performance, and take care not only that he hears, but how he hears.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

1Co 11:20-22. When ye come together therefore In such a manner as you do; into one place Under pretence of celebrating the holy ordinance of the eucharist, and have such strife and contention among you, and act in the disorderly manner which I shall now mention; this is not to eat the Lords supper That solemn memorial of his death; nor does it deserve to be called by that name, unless ye eat it in fellowship together, and in mutual love, as the disciples of one master. Instead of regarding it in a holy and religious point of view, you seem to confound it with a common meal; and do not indeed behave in the manner that decency would require, if it were no more than a common meal. For in eating it Or when you eat it; every one taketh before other his own supper Or, as Macknight renders , every one taketh first his own supper; observing, that what follows shows the apostle did not mean, as in our translation, that every one took before another his own supper; but that every one took his own supper before he ate the Lords supper. Christ having instituted his supper after he had eaten the passover, the disciples very early made it a rule to feast together before they ate the Lords supper. These feasts were called , charitates, love-feasts. They are mentioned, Jude, 1Co 11:12, as also by some of the ancient Christian writers. From Xenophon, (see Memorab., lib. 3. cap. 14,) we learn that the Greeks, when they supped together, brought each his own provisions ready dressed, which they ate in company together. Probably the Corinthians followed the same practice, in their feasts previous to the Lords supper. And one is hungry, and another is drunken Or rather, is filled, or plentifully fed, as signifies here, being opposed to one is hungry. The word is used in this sense by the LXX., Psa 35:9; Jer 38:14; Joh 2:10; where it is rendered by our translators, when men have well drunk, drunk plentifully. According to the grammarians, literally signifies to eat and drink, , after sacrificing; on which occasions the heathen often drank to excess. What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in With your friends? Or despise ye the church of God Which ye thus expose to contempt, and which you must greatly offend and grieve by such a conduct as this? That church of which the poor are both the larger and the better part; and shame Expose to shame; them that have not A supper to eat, while ye feast luxuriously? Do you act thus in designed contempt of them? What shall I say to you On this occasion? Shall I praise you in this? I wish I could fairly and honourably do it; but at present I praise you not I must rather blame you, and exhort you to amend what is so grossly amiss.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 20, 21. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, while the other is full.

On the connection with what precedes, see on 1Co 11:18. Here would stand the , but next, if Paul had expressed it. This preamble, 1Co 11:20, is not without solemnity. The very first words make us feel that we are coming to a grave matter.

The term , into the same place, denotes, like the words , in Church (1Co 11:18), a meeting of the whole Church gathered together in the same place; comp. 1Co 14:23. So it assembled to celebrate the Supper. This rite was preceded by a feast in common, called , supper, a term from which it follows that the celebration took place in the evening. It was thus wished to reproduce, as faithfully as possible, that feast of the Lord at which He instituted the Supper, and which took place on the last evening of His life. Those feasts, of which the Holy Supper formed the close, were called agapoe, that is to say, love-feasts (Jude, 1Co 11:12). Each one brought his quota. And certainly, according to the idea of this institution, all the provisions should have been put together and eaten in common by the whole Church. But selfishness, vanity, sensuality had prevailed in this usage, and deeply corrupted it. These agapae had degenerated at Corinth into something like those feasts of friends in use among the Greeks, where men gave themselves up to drinking excesses, such as we find sketched in the Symposium of Plato. And what was still graver, and which had certainly not been witnessed even at heathen banquets, each was careful to reserve for himself and his friends the meats which he had provided; hence it was inevitable that an offensive inequality should appear between the guests, becoming to many of them a source of humiliation, and contrasting absolutely with the spirit of love of which such a feast should have been the symbol, as well as with the rite of the Supper which formed its close. Chrysostom supposes that the agape took place after the Holy Supper; evidently a mistake. It was not till later that this different order was introduced, till at length the meal itself was totally abolished.

This is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, says Paul. We need not here take , as many have done, in the sense of , it is allowed, it is possible, as if Paul meant that in these circumstances it is no longer morally possible to celebrate the communion rightly. It is simpler to understand the words in this sense: To act as you do (1Co 11:21), can no more be called celebrating the Supper; it is indeed to partake of a feast, but not that of the Lord. The adj. , the Lord’s, reminds us that it was He who founded the feast, who gives it, who invites to it, who presides over it.

The following verse explains the severe judgment which has just been expressed regarding this way of celebrating the agape.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper [The Lord’s Supper is a spiritual feast. It is a feast of love, union and communion in and with Christ, and so can not be eaten by those who have already glutted themselves with hatred, factiousness and partyism]:

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 20

When ye come together; in your religious assemblies.–This is not, &c.; is not honestly and truly.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, [this] is {g} not to eat the Lord’s supper.

(g) This is a usual metaphor by which the apostle flatly denies that which many did not do well.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

In the Christian church’s early years the Lord’s Supper occupied a more central position in the life of local assemblies than it does in most churches today. The early believers often celebrated it daily or weekly (cf. Act 2:42-46; Act 20:7). However, it was just as impossible to observe this feast properly in an atmosphere of social discrimination as it was to do so while also attending feasts that honored idols (1Co 10:21).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 17

ABUSE OF THE LORDS SUPPER

IN this paragraph of his letter Paul speaks of an abuse which can scarcely be credited, still less tolerated, in our times. The most sacred of all Christian ordinances had been allowed to degenerate into a bacchanalian revel, not easily to be distinguished from a Greek drinking party. A respectable citizen would hardly have permitted at his own table the license and excess visible at the Table of the Lord. How such disorders in worship should have arisen calls for explanation.

It was common in Corinth and the other cities of Greece for various sections of the community to form themselves into associations, clubs, or guilds; and it was customary for such societies to share a common meal once a week, or once a month, or even, when convenient, daily. Some of these associations were formed of persons very variously provided with this worlds goods, and one of the objects of some of the clubs was to make provision for the poorer members in such a manner as to subject them to none of the shame which is apt to attend the acceptance of promiscuous charity. All members had an equal right to present themselves at the table; and the property held by the society was equally distributed to all.

This custom, not unknown in Palestine itself, had been spontaneously adopted by the primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians of those early days felt themselves to be more closely related than the members of any trade guild or political club. If it was convenient and suitable that persons of similar political opinions or belonging to the same trade should to some extent have common property and should exhibit their community by sharing a common meal, it was certainly suitable among Christians. Speedily it became a prevalent custom for Christians to eat together. These meals were called agapae-love feasts-and became a marked feature of the early Church. On a fixed day, generally the first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing what he could as a contribution to the feast: fish, poultry, joints of meat, cheese, milk, honey, fruit, wine, and bread. In some places the proceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but in other places physical appetite was first appeased by partaking of the meal provided, and after that the bread and wine were handed round.

This mode of celebrating the Lords Supper was recommended by its close resemblance to its original celebration by the Lord and His disciples. It was at the close of the Paschal Supper, which was meant to satisfy hunger as well as to commemorate the Exodus, that our Lord took bread and brake it. He sat with His disciples as one family, and the meal they partook of was social as well as religious. But when the first solemnity passed away, and Christs presence was no longer felt at the common table, the Christian love feast was liable to many corruptions. The wealthy took the best seats, kept hold of their own delicacies, and, without waiting for any common distribution, each looked after himself and went on with his own supper, regardless of the fact that others at the table had none. “Everyone taketh before other his own supper,” so that, while one is hungry and has received nothing, another at this so-called common love feast has already taken too much and is intoxicated. Those who had no need to use the common stock, but had houses of their own to eat and to drink in, yet, for the sake of appearances, brought their contribution to the meal, but consumed it themselves. The consequence was that from being truly love feasts, exhibiting Christian charity and Christian temperance, these meetings became scandalous as scenes of greedy selfishness, and profane conduct, and besotted excess. “What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” In this Paul anticipates the condemnation of these occasions of revelry and discord which the Church was obliged to pronounce after no great lapse of time.

Thus then arose these disorders in the celebration of the Lords Supper. By the conjunction of this rite with the social meal of the Christians it degenerated into an occasion of much that was unseemly and scandalous. To the reform of this abuse Paul how addresses himself; and it is worth our while to observe what remedies he does not propose as well as those he recommends.

First, He does not propose to disjoin absolutely and in all cases the religious rite from the ordinary meal. In the case of the richer members of the Church this disjunction is enjoined. They are directed to take their meals at home. “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? If any man hunger, let him eat at home.” But with the destitute or those who had no well-provided homes another rule must be adopted. It would shame the Christian community, and quite undo its quickly won reputation for brotherly love and charity, were its members observed begging their daily bread on the streets. It was equally unseemly for the rich to accept and for the poor to be denied the meal furnished at the expense of the Church. And therefore Pauls recommendation is that those who can conveniently eat at home should do so. Bur as no quality of the Christian Church is more strictly her own than charity and no duty more incumbent or more lovely than to feed the hungry, it could not dishonour the Church to spread in it a meal for whosoever should be in need of it.

Again, although the wine of Holy Communion had been so sadly abused, Paul does not prohibit its use in the ordinance. His moderation and wisdom have not in this respect been universally followed. On infinitely less occasion alterations have been introduced into the administration of the ordinance with a view to preventing its abuse by reclaimed drunkards, and on still slighter pretext a more sweeping alteration was introduced many centuries ago by the Church of Rome. In that Church the custom still prevails of receiving communion only under one kind; that is to say, the communicant partakes of the bread, but not of the wine. The reason for this is given by one of their most authoritative writers as follows: “It is well known that this custom was not first established by any ecclesiastical law; but, on the contrary, it was in consequence of the general prevalence of the usage that this law was passed in approval of it. It is a matter of no less notoriety that the monasteries in whose centre this observance had its rise, and thence spread in ever wider circles, were led by a very nice sense of delicacy to impose on themselves this privation. A pious dread of desecrating, by spilling and the like, even in the most conscientious ministration, the form of the sublimest and the holiest whereof the participation can be vouchsafed to man, was the feeling which swayed their minds However, we should rejoice if it were left free to each one to drink or not out of the consecrated chalice; and this permission would be granted if with the same love and concord a universal desire were expressed for the use of the cup as from the twelfth century the contrary wish has been enounced.” One cannot but regret that this reverence for the ordinance did not take the form of a humble acceptance of it, in accordance with its original institution; and one cannot but think that the “pious dread of desecrating” the ordinance would have sufficiently prevented any spilling of the wine or other abuse, or have sufficiently atoned for any little accident which might occur. And certainly, in contrast to all such contrivances, the sanity of Pauls judgment comes out in strong relief; and we more clearly recognise the sagacity which directed that the ordinance should not be tampered with to suit the avoidable weaknesses of men, but that men should learn to live up to the requirements of the ordinance. Again, Paul does not insist that because frequent communion had been abused this must give place to monthly or yearly communion. In after times, partly from the abuses attending frequent communion and partly from the condition of the cities into which Christianity found its way, a change to rarer celebration was found advisable: and, for reasons that need not here be detailed, the Church catholic, both in the East and in the West, settled down to the custom of celebrating the Lords Supper weekly: and for some centuries it was expected that all members of the Church should partake weekly. Pauls reluctance to lay down any law on the subject suggests that the abuse of this or any other ordinance does not arise simply from the frequency of its administration. It is quite natural to suppose that the inevitable result of frequent communion is an undue familiarity with holy things and a profane carelessness in handling what should only be approached with the deepest reverence. That familiarity breeds contempt, or at any rate heedlessness, is certainly a rule that ordinarily holds good. As Nelson said of his sailors, hardened by familiarity with danger, they cared no more for round shot than for peas. The medical student who faints or sickens at his first visit to the operating theatre soon looks with unblenching face on wounds and blood. And by the same law it is feared, and not without reason, that if we observed frequent communion, we should cease to cherish that proper awe, and cease to feel that flutter of hesitation, and cease to be subdued by that sacredness of the ordinance which yet are the very feelings through which in great measure the rite influences us for good. We think it would be impossible to pass every week through those trying moments in which the soul trembles before Gods majesty and love as exhibited in the Lords Supper; and we fear that the heart would instinctively shrink from the reality, and protect itself against the emotion, and find a way of observing the ordinance with ease to itself, and that thus the life would die out from the celebration, and the mere husk or form be left.

It is, however, obvious that these fears need not be verified, and that an effort on our part would prevent the consequences dreaded. Our method of procedure in all such cases is first to find out what it is right to do, and then, though it cost us an effort, to do it. If our reverence for the ordinance in question depends on its rare celebration, everyone must see that such reverence is very precarious. May it not be a merely superstitious or sentimental reverence? Is it not produced by some false idea of the rite and its signification, or does it not spring from the solemnity of the paraphernalia and human surroundings of it? Paul seeks to restore reverence in the Corinthians not by prohibiting frequent communion, but by setting more clearly before them the solemn facts which underlie the rite. In presence of these facts every worthy communicant is at all times living; and if it be merely the outward equipment and presentation of these facts which solemnise us and quicken our reverence, then this itself is rather an argument for a more frequent celebration of the rite, that so this false reverence at least might be dissipated.

The instincts of men are, however, in many cases a safer guide than their judgments; and there is a feeling prevalent that very frequent communion is not advisable, and that if it be advisable it should be reached not at a bound, but step by step. The main point on which the individual should insist on coming to some clear understanding with himself is whether his own reluctance to frequent communion does not arise from his fear of the ordinance being too profitable rather than from any fear of its ceasing to profit. Does not our shrinking from it often mean that we shrink from being more distinctly confronted with the love and holiness of Christ and with His purpose in dying for us? Does it not mean that we are not quite reconciled to be always living on the holiest motives, always under the most subduing and purifying influences, always living as the children of God, whose citizenship is in heaven? Do we shrink from the additional restraint and the fresh and effectual summons to a life, not higher and purer than we ought to be living-for there is no such life-but higher and purer than we are quite prepared to live? Putting to ourselves these questions, we use this rite as the thermometer, which shows us whether we are cold, lukewarm, or hot, or as the lead heaved from time to time, which shows us the depth of water we have and the kind of bottom over which we are holding our course.

The two most instructive writers on the sacraments are Calvin and Waterland. The latter, in his very elaborate treatment of the Eucharist, offers some remarks upon the point before us. “There can,” he says, “be no just bar to frequency of communion but the want of preparation, which is only such a bar as men may themselves remove if they please; and therefore it concerns them highly to take off the impediment as soon as possible, and not to trust to vain hopes of alleviating one fault by another The danger of misperforming any religious duty is an argument for fear and caution, but no excuse for neglect; God insists upon the doing it, and the doing it well also It was no sufficient plea for the slothful servant under the Gospel that he thought his master hard to please, and thereupon neglected his bounden duty, for the use he ought to have made of that thought was to have been so much the more wakeful and diligent in his masters service. Therefore in the case of the Holy Communion it is to very little purpose to plead the strictness of the self-examination or preparation by way of excuse either for a total, or for a frequent, or for a long neglect of it. A man may say that he comes not to the Table because he is not prepared, and so far he assigns a good reason; but if he should be further asked why he is not prepared when he may, then he can only make some trifling, insufficient excuse or remain speechless.”

The positive counsel Paul gives regarding suitable preparation for participation in this Sacrament is very simple. He offers no elaborate scheme of self-examination which might fill the mind with scruples and induce introspective habits and spiritual hypochondria. He would have every man answer the plain question, Do you discern the Lords body in the Sacrament? This is the one cardinal point on which all revolves, admitting or excluding each applicant. He who clearly understands that this is no common meal, but the outward symbol by means of which God offers to us Jesus Christ, is not likely to desecrate the Sacrament. “This is My body,” says the Lord, meaning that this bread will ever remind the communicant that his Lord freely gave His own body for the life of the world. And whoever accepts the bread and the wine because they remind him of this and bring him into a renewed attitude of faith is a worthy communicant. The Corinthians were chastened by sickness and apparently by death that they might see and repent of the enormity of using these symbols as common food; and in order that they might escape this chastening, they had but to recall the institution of the Sacrament by our Lord Himself.

The brief narrative of this first institution which Paul here inserts gives prominence to the truth that the Sacrament was intended primarily as a memorial or remembrance of the Saviour. Nothing could be simpler or more human than our Lords 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 occasion of remembering Him. As the friend who is setting out on a long absence or is passing forever from earth puts into our hands his portrait or something he has used, or worn, or prized, and is pleased to 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 sacred to us as his own person, 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, and as when we gaze at his portrait, or when we use the very pen or pencil worn smooth by his fingers, we recall the many happy times we spent together and the bright and inspiring words that fell from his lips, so does this Sacrament seem sacred to us as Christs own person, and by means of it grateful memories of all He was and did throng into the mind.

Again, the form of this memorial is fitted to recall the actual life and death of the Lord. It is His body and blood we are invited by the symbols to remember. By them we are brought into the presence of an actual living Person. Our religion is not a theory; it is not a speculation, a system of philosophy putting us in possession of a true scheme of the universe and guiding us to a sound code of morals; it is, above all, a personal matter. We are saved by being brought into right personal relations. And in this Sacrament we are reminded of this and are helped to recognise Christ as an actual living Person, who by His body and blood, by His actual humanity, saved us. The body and blood of Christ remind us that His humanity was as substantial as our own, and His life as real. He redeemed us 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 saved by remembering Him and by assimilating the spirit of His life and death.

But especially, when Christ said, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” did He mean 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 keep us 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 connection possible, must admit His self-sacrificing love into our heart as our most cherished possession. 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 worlds redemption, and that to all time men would be found turning to Him and saying, “If I forget Thee, let my right hand forget her cunning; if I do not remember Thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not prefer Thee above my chief joy.” And therefore He presents Himself to us as He died: as One whose love for us actually brought Him to the deepest abasement and sorest suffering, and whose death opens for us a way to the Father.

But these symbols were appointed to be for a remembrance of Christ in order that, remembering Him, we might renew our fellowship with Him. In the Sacrament there is not a mere representation of Christ or a bare commemoration of events in which we are interested; but there is also an actual, present communion between Christ and the soul. Encouraged and stimulated by the outward signs, we, in our own soul and for ourselves, accept Christ and the blessings He brings. There is in the bread and wine themselves nothing that can profit us, but we are by their means to “discern the Lords body.” When Christ is said to be present in the bread and the wine, nothing mysterious or magical is meant. It is meant that he is spiritually present to those who believe.

He is present in the Sacrament as He is present to faith at any time and in any place; only, these signs which God puts into our hands to assure us of His gift of Christ to us help us to believe that Christ is given, and make it easier for us to rest in Him.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary