Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:21
For in eating every one taketh before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper ] Rather, for in the eating, i.e. when ye eat. Every passage relating to the Eucharist in the N. T. leads to the conclusion that it took place at the end of a social meal, such as the Last Supper itself. See Act 2:42; Act 2:46; Act 20:7; Act 20:11. It was called the Agap, or feast of love, and was like the of the Greeks, to which, very frequently, each brought his own portion. See Art. Erani in Smith’s Dictionary of Antiquities. The divisions among the Corinthian Christians ( 1Co 11:18) were of the kind which we are accustomed to denominate “sets” in a small society, cliques and coteries, which were the product, not so much of theological, as of social antagonism. Thus the members of the Corinthian Church were accustomed to share their provisions with members of their own “set,” to the exclusion of those who, having an inferior social position, had few provisions, or none, to bring. Hence while one was only too well provided with food, another had none.
and another is drunken ] We have no right, with some commentators, to soften down the force of this word, as though no such abominations were possible at Corinth. The permeation of the Christian community by the Spirit of Christ (see note on ch. 1Co 5:1) was a more gradual process than is generally supposed.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For in eating – When you eat, having professedly come together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the Lords supper either connected with a common feast, or that they regarded it as a mere common festival to be observed in a way similar to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this was done by making the observance of the supper follow a festival, or what were afterward called love feasts agapai – Agapae). Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact that the Saviour instituted the supper after a festival, a feast in which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or common meal, before they celebrated the Lords Supper. But it may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary festival, or feast.
It had no resemblance to the so called love feasts. It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God; and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the observance of the Lords Supper, but was always understood as designed to be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance of the Lords Supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by such a festival as a love feast. There is no evidence in the passage before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New Testament. To my mind it seems altogether improbable that the disorders in Corinth would assume this form – that they would first observe a common feast, and then the Lords Supper in the regular manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as a feast in honor of the Saviour on some such principles as they observed feasts in honor of idols, and that they observed it in some such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those festivals was, that it was in honor of Jesus rather than an idol, and was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name.
Everyone taketh before other his own supper – That is, each one is regardless of the needs of the others; instead of making even a meal in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of the Lords supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea that there was anything like a common celebration, or a celebration together, was abandoned. There is allusion here, doubtless, to what was a custom among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated, or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the company. Thus, Xenophon (Mem. lib. 3:cap. xiv.) says of Socrates, that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided for. Socrates endeavored, he adds, to shame them out of this indecent custom by offering his provisions to all the company.
And one is hungry – Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by others.
And another is drunken – The word used here ( methuo) means properly to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lords Supper became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lords Supper. But we are to remember the following things:
(1) These persons had recently been pagans, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them.
(2) They had been accustomed to such revels in honor of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity.
(3) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lords Supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honor of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow.
(4) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favored with pious, wise, and prudent teachers.
There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavored to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites, We may remark here:
(1) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism.
(2) We see how prone people are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence, how corrupt is human nature.
(3) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. Every one taketh before – his own supper] They had a grand feast, though the different sects kept in parties by themselves; but all took as ample a supper as they could provide, (each bringing his own provisions with him,) before they took what was called the Lord’s Supper. See note on 1Co 11:17.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
There was at this time in most of the Christian church a Jewish party, viz. such as were converted from Judaism to Christianity, and had a tang of the old cask, being too tenacious of some Jewish rites. These looked upon the Lords supper as an appurtenance to the passover, immediately after which we know that Christ at first instituted his supper. As therefore Christ did eat the paschal supper before the Lords supper; so they, in imitation of him, though they forbore the paschal lamb, yet would have a supper of their own to precede the Lords supper, and having provided it at home, would bring it to the place where the church was to meet; and their poor brethren contributing nothing to the charge of that supper, they would not stay for them, but took this their own supper: so it came to pass, that the poorer Christians were hungry, had none or very little share in their feast, while others, the richer part of the church, had too much; for I take our translation of this word, , to be very hard and uncharitable. Hard, because the word doth not necessarily so signify, only drinking beyond what is strictly necessary, and our translators themselves, Joh 2:10, render it well drunk. Uncharitable, because it certainly must be very uncharitably presumed of this church of Corinth, that they should suffer persons, at that time actually drunk, to come to the Lords table.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. one taketh before otherthe rich “before” the poor, who had no supper oftheir own. Instead of “tarrying for one another” (1Co11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21;1Co 12:25).
his own supper“Hisown” belly is his God (Php3:19); “the Lord’s Supper,” the spiritual feast,never enters his thoughts.
drunkenThe one hasmore than is good for him, the other less [BENGEL].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For in eating,…. Not at the Lord’s table, but at tables spread for them in the place of divine worship, where everyone brought his own food, under a pretence that others, particularly the poor, should eat with him; but instead of that, he sat down and ate it himself, and would not stay till the rest came, to eat together:
but everyone taketh before other his own supper; that is, without tarrying till all came together, in order to eat a friendly meal with each other, to encourage and increase brotherly love, one would sit down and fill himself before another came; so that some went without, whilst others had too much; and thus the designed end was not answered, and the whole was a piece of confusion and disorder:
and one is hungry, and another drunken; he that came late had nothing to eat, and so was hungry; when he that was first either eat and drank to excess, or at least very plentifully, so that he was very cheerful, and more disposed to carnal mirth, than in a serious and solemn manner to partake of the Lord’s supper; and who is thought to be the rich man, who brought his own provisions, and ate them himself when he had done; as the poor may be meant by the hungry, who having no food to bring with them, and none being communicated to them by the rich, were in want, and starving; so that here were many abuses justly chargeable on them. Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that by him that was “drunken” meant the Jew that ate the paschal supper, of which he ate and drank freely; and by him that was “hungry”, the Gentile, who was so not out of poverty and necessity, but because he refused and avoided eating of the ante-supper, as savouring of Judaism; and so here was a schism and division among them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Taketh before (). Before others. Old verb to take before others. It was conduct like this that led to the complete separation between the Love-feast and the Lord’s Supper. It was not even a common meal together ( ), not to say a Lord’s . It was a mere
grab-game .
This one is hungry ( ). Demonstrative . Nothing is left for him at the love-feast.
Another is drunken ( ). Such disgusting conduct was considered shameful in heathen club suppers. “Hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord” (Robertson and Plummer). On , to be drunk, see on Matt 24:49; Acts 2:15.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Taketh before other. Not waiting for the coming of the poor to participate.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For in eating.” (to phagein) “(For) in eating.” – (that you are reported to be practicing).
2) “Everyone taketh before other his own supper.” (hekastor gar to idion deipnon prolambanei) “Each one his own supper takes along or takes before.” (to the locality, at the time agreed by the assembly). The poor and the wealthy were contrasted at such social feasts so as to embarrass the poor, because of his little food, preceding the Lord’s supper.
3) “And one is hungry.” (kai hos peina) “And one hungers.” These brethren seem to have attempted to adopt the meditative philosophy of each other’s “doing his own thing” while reclining and eating at a meeting called for, observing the ordinance of the Lord’s supper.
4) “And another is drunken.” (hos de methuei) “While another is drunk.” In these matters Paul had proceeded to charge the brethren with wrong, “praise them not” 1Co 11:17. The reprimand then continues for their wrong motive or purpose in this meeting.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
21. For every one of you taketh before others his own supper. It is truly wonderful, and next to a miracle, (656) that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. We are, however, admonished by this instance, how much antiquity, without reason on its side, can effect, or, in other words, how much influence a long continued custom has, while not sanctioned by a single declaration of the word of God. This, having become customary, was looked upon as lawful. Paul was then at hand to interfere. What then must have been the state of matters after the death of the Apostles? With what liberty Satan must have sported himself. (657) Yet here is the great strength of Papists: “The thing is ancient — it was done long ago — let it, therefore, have the weight of a revelation from heaven.”
It is uncertain, however, what was the origin of this abuse, or what was the occasion of its springing up so soon. Chrysostom is of opinion, that it originated in the love-feasts, (658) ( ἀπὸ τῶν ἀγαπῶν) and that, while the rich had been accustomed (659) to bring with them from their houses the means of feasting with the poor indiscriminately and in common, they afterwards began to exclude the poor, and to guzzle over their delicacies by themselves. And, certainly, it appears from Tertullian, that that custom was a very ancient one. (660) Now they gave the name of Agapae (661) to those common entertainments, which they contrived among themselves, as being tokens of fraternal affection, and consisted of alms. Nor have I any doubt, that it took its rise from sacrificial rites commonly observed both by Jews and Gentiles. For I observe that Christians, for the most part, corrected the faults connected with those rites, in such a manner, as to retain at the same time some resemblance. Hence it is probable, that, on observing that both Jews and Gentiles added a feast to their sacrifice, as an appendage to it, but that both of them sinned in respect of ambition, luxury, and intemperance, they instituted (662) a kind of banquet, which might accustom them rather to sobriety and frugality, (663) and might, at the same time, be in accordance with a spiritual entertainment in respect of mutual fellowship. For in it the poor were entertained at the expense of the rich, and the table was open to all. But, whether they had from the very first fallen into this profane abuse, or whether an institution, otherwise not so objectionable, had in this way degenerated in process of time, Paul would have them in no way mix up this spiritual banquet with common feasts. “This, indeed, looks well — that the poor along with the rich partake in common of the provisions that have been brought, and that the rich share of their abundance along with the needy, but nothing ought to have such weight with us as to lead us to profane the holy sacrament.” (664)
And one is hungry This was one evil in the case, that while the rich indulged themselves sumptuously, they appeared, in a manner, to reproach the poor for their poverty. The inequality he describes hyperbolically, when he says, that some are drunken and others are hungry, for some had the means of stuffing themselves well, while others had slender fare. Thus the poor were exposed to the derision of the rich, or at least they were exposed to shame. It was, therefore, an unseemly spectacle, and not in accordance with the Lord ’ s supper
(656) “ Quasi incroyable;” — “As it were incredible.”
(657) “ A ioue ses tours;” — “Have played off his tricks.”
(658) “ Vne sorte de banquets qui se faisoyent par charite;” — “A kind of banquets that were held, by way of love.”
(659) “ Premierement;” — “At first.”
(660) Pliny is supposed to refer to the Αγαπὰι ( love-feasts) in his 97 th letter to Trajan, where he says of the Christians in Blthynia, of which he was governor, that, upon examination, they affirmed, that after having taken their sacramenturn — “ morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium;” — “it was customary for them to depart, and come together again for the purpose of taking an innocent repast in common.” — Ed
(661) “ Agapas, c’est a dire Charitez;” — “ Agapae, that is to say — Loves.”
(662) “ Par succession de temps;” — “In process of time.”
(663) “ Qu ’ autrement ;” — “Than otherwise.”
(664) “ Mais il n’y a consideration aucune qui nous doyue tant esmouuoir, que pour cela nous venions a profaner ce sainct mystere;” — “But there is no consideration that should have so much influence over us, that we should come, on that account, to profane this holy sacrament.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) For.Here follows a description of the conduct and mode of proceeding at this feast, which renders it impossible, as stated in 1Co. 11:20, for it to be a Lords Supper. Every one greedily seizes (takes before distribution is made) what he has brought with him, and appropriates it to his own individual use, instead of making it a contribution to the general and common supply. Every one comes to eat his own supper, and not the Lords Supper. And the result is that while some poor man, who has not been able to bring enough for himself, remains unfed, some rich man, drinking the wine which he brought, and which he has not shared with others, is drunken. (See Note on 1Co. 11:34.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Every one Each one. Instead of spreading a table for a common supper, each one made an own supper, of his own food, and preoccupied it entire. Thereby separate sets were established, and what was meant for union became disunion.
Hungry He whom persecution had made poor was left hungry; so that what was meant for liberality became insult.
Drunken At the symposium (which term was compounded of two Greek words, signifying a drink together) even Socrates was said not seldom to have appeared too vinous for a philosopher. The philosopher, therefore, sadly incurred the rebuke of the apostle. Paul, probably, uses as condemnatory a word as truth would allow. It does not necessarily follow from the word, yet it may have been, as Renan says, that some “went reeling from the table of the Lord.” The pagan Corinthians would doubtless consider the apostle as an extremist in temperance. Modern temperance reformers would, perhaps, think that Paul had better go further and prohibit the wine from the agape entirely; but the existence of more fiery liquors, like brandy and whisky, had not suggested the necessity of the law of entire abstinence for all persons from wine. Even now the law of abstinence from wine should be based not upon the intrinsic wickedness of a limited drinking of wine, but upon the obligation to abstain as part of a great reformatory enterprise, and as a prudential safeguard from moral danger. On the word drunken, see note on Joh 2:10. The antithesis to hungry would suggest that the opposite word would mean surfeited.
1Co 11:21. Every one taketh before other, &c. This circumstance of their rapacious and indecent behaviour at their feasts is finely illustrated by a passage from Xenophon, Memorab. lib. 3 : 100: 41 in which he observes, that Socrates was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, as some prepared delicately for themselves, while others were but slenderly provided for: he endeavoured to shame them out of this low taste, by offering his provisions to all the company. Socrates,theecclesiasticalhistorian,speaksofsomeEgyptianslivingnearAlexandria, who partook of the sacrament in a very particular manner, much, as it seems, after the Corinthianfashion;introducingit with a jovial feast, in which they regaled themselves with all kinds of food. It may be proper just to observe, that many well-disposed Christians being deterred from communicating at the Lord’s supper, by passages in this chapter, particularly 1Co 11:27; 1Co 11:29 they have no need to fear the unworthy receiving so strongly condemned here by St. Paul; since the abuses which crept into the Corinthian church are such, as can never be admitted in ours, upon the present mode of receiving the sacrament.
1Co 11:21 . ] takes beforehand his own meal (as contrasted with . ., comp Chrysostom: ). Instead of waiting (1Co 11:33 ) till a general distribution be made and others thus obtain a share (comp Xen. Mem. iii. 14. 1), and till by this means the meal assume the form of a , he seizes at once for himself alone upon the portion which he brought with him, and holds therewith his own private meal in place of the Lord’s Supper. The expression is not “in the highest degree surprising,” as Rckert calls it; but it is very descriptive of the existing state of matters. Grotius (comp de Wette) is wrong in supposing that the rich ate first, and left what remained for the poorer members. This runs counter to the , which must mean every one who brought anything with him. Of course, when the rich acted in the way here described, the poor also had to eat whatever they might have brought with them by themselves; and if they had nothing, then this abuse of the Lord’s Supper sent them empty away, hungry and put to shame (1Co 11:22 ; 1Co 11:33 ).
] not ad manducandum (Vulg.), but in the eating, at the holding of the meal .
] because, that is to say, he had nothing, or but little, to bring with him, so that he remained unsatisfied, receiving nothing from the stores of the wealthier members.
] is drunken , not giving the exact opposite of , but making the picture all the fuller and more vivid, because and lead the reader in both cases to imagine for himself the other extreme corresponding to the one specified. We must not weaken the natural force of ., as Grotius does, to “plus satis bibit.” See on Joh 2:20 . Paul paints the scene in strong colours; but who would be warranted in saying that the reality fell at all short of the description?
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
Ver. 21. Every one taketh ] Eateth and communicateth with those of his own sect and faction only, not staying for others. Such among the Philippians were those of “the concision,” 1Co 3:2 , that made divisions, and cut the Church into little pieces and sucking congregations, making separation.
21. ] ., as in E. V., takes before another , viz. during the feast ( .), not, at home , before coming. Obviously the must be limited to the rich : the poor had no to take, and were the losers by the selfishness of the rich.
] one is craving (the poor), another is drunken (the rich. There is no need to soften the meaning of : as Meyer says, “Paul draws the picture in strong colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong?”).
every = each.
taketh before = first taketh. Greek. prolambano. Only here, Mar 14:8. Gal 1:6, Gal 1:1. Thus the over-indulgence of some unfitted them for the ordinance.
21.] ., as in E. V., takes before another, viz. during the feast ( .), not, at home, before coming. Obviously the must be limited to the rich: the poor had no to take, and were the losers by the selfishness of the rich.
] one is craving (the poor), another is drunken (the rich. There is no need to soften the meaning of : as Meyer says, Paul draws the picture in strong colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong?).
1Co 11:21 , every one) G. Raphelius says: It was a custom at Athens, in the age of Socrates, for every one of those, who met at supper, to bring some meat for himself, which they did not set out for general use, but every one usually ate his own. Then, after he has referred to the testimony of Xenophon, he concludes, That this very passage of the apostle, is a proof so far of the observance of this custom, even at that time, by the Corinthians, who had become Christians, that when they were about to celebrate the Lords Supper, they brought at least bread and wine, if not other meats also, into the church, of which a part was afterwards taken and consecrated for the eucharist. For doubtless Paul calls the first their own supper, 1Co 11:21, , namely the meat, which every one had brought from home, and which they fell upon as their right, without waiting for others. Then, , those who have not, 1Co 11:22, can be understood to be no other than the poorer members, in whose presence, the richer, not without showing contempt for them, intemperately feasted, before the distribution of the elements in the Lords Supper, which the poor were present (had come) to enjoy, while no other food besides was prepared for them.-, takes before) when he ought to wait, 1Co 11:33.- , in eating) Language which relates to the feeding of the body, 1Co 11:33, etc., from which the Lords Supper very widely differs.-, and) and one indeed (inasmuch as he has not) is hungry (and thirsty): but another (inasmuch as he has, is well filled and) becomes drunken. The one has more than is good for him, the other less.
1Co 11:21
1Co 11:21
for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.-The eating of a feast with its attendant gluttony and drinking led many to attend. Each family brought its own portion and each partook of his own. The rich eating and drinking to satiety of their abundance. The poor were shamed by the scantiness of their food and went hungry. This was all wrong. It is thought by some that this feasting preceded the Lords Supper, so that some were filled to satiety, while others were hungry when they partook of the emblems of the Lords body and blood.
in: 1Co 11:23-25, 1Co 10:16-18
and one: 2Pe 2:13, Jud 1:12
Reciprocal: Zec 7:6 – did not ye eat for Mal 1:7 – The table 1Co 5:11 – or a drunkard 1Co 11:34 – if any 1Co 13:5 – behave Eph 5:18 – be not
1Co 11:21. Taketh before means that such persons were so eager to eat that they did so before the others were ready. In the first years of the church it was a custom for the disciples to partake of a common meal before attending to the Lord’s Supper. This was somewhat after the order of events occurring at the time Jesus established the Lord’s Supper, namely, they had the Passover first, then Jesus set forth his memorial supper next. These common meals are referred to in the New Testament as “feasts of charity” (Jud 1:12; 2Pe 2:13). In some way the Corinthians tried to blend the common meal with the Lord’s Supper. That corrupted it and caused Paul to say they were not eating the Lord’s Supper when they came together. Drunken is from METHUO, and primarily means to be intoxicated with drink. But it is used here as the opposite of hungry, hence it is in the sense of being filled. Groves defines the word, “to be filled, plentifully fed,” and it has that meaning in our verse. Those who look before their own supper would be filled, while the ones who waited–the “approved” ones whom Paul’s word “partly” in verse 18 included would still be hungry.
1Co 11:21. for in your eating, each one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another drinketh freely. To understand how such a state of things could exist, we must bear in mind the way in which the Lords Supper was then observed. In apostolic times it was never observed by itself, so far as appears, but always in connection with those friendly meals called Agapse or Love Feasts, designed partly to exhibit and exemplify the equality of all Christiansrich and poor, slaves and masters alikebut also as a way of helping the poorer members without creating the feeling of pauperism. Accordingly, the rich brought of their abundance to these tables, and the humbler classes what they could. Moreover, the Lords Supper was not celebrated before such meals, nor, strictly speaking, after them, but in close juxtaposition with themsitting at the same table at which these meals were spread out. The idea of this was taken from the way in which the Jewish Passover was celebrateda sumptuous meal at which were taken successive cups of wine with bread, after a fixed form, and with eucharistic chantings of portions of the Psalms. In this view, it is easy to see how some, having no very high views of the ordinance, might come to the table, not to eat the Lords Supper, but to get a good meal; and how they might come dropping in, and take their places one after another, as 1Co 11:22 shows that they actually did. Thus, in place of a simultaneous observance of the Lords Supper, every one might be seen taking his own supper before otherone hungry, namely, the poor, who were put off with a sorry portion, another drinking freely.[1]
[1] The Greek word need not be taken in its extreme sense, is drunken, as in the Authorised Version, and as it certainly means in Mat 24:49, Act 2:15, 1Th 5:7; for the same word in another form is used in Joh 2:10, and in the LXX. of Son 5:1, where the extreme sense is unsuitable.
Here our apostle begins to reprove the Corinthians for the abuses found in their love-feasts. These love-feasts were founded on no express command in holy writ, but only on the custom of the church, who immediately before receiving the sacrament used to have a great feast, to which all the poor were invited at the charges of the rich, as an expression of their perfect love and charity one towards another.
Now in these feasts of charity they did not observe due order and decency: for every one, that is, every party and faction, being come to the place of the assembly, did presently sit down and eat what they had bought, in the company of their own party, not minding or regarding others; whereupon this holy feast of charity was neither celebrated at the same time by all, nor with that unanimity and concord which it was designed to represent: whilst the poor were excluded, and sent home hungry, the rich were feasted, and drank to some degree of excess, which is here called drunkenness; one is hungry, and another is drunken.
Behold what great irregularities and disorders are here found in the church of Corinth! Who can expect a church without spot in this imperfect state? God has left these miscarriages upon record, not for imitation, but for our caution.
Vv. 21. By the way in which they act, they change the sacred feast into an ordinary supper, which has no longer anything in common with the sacred feast which it should recall. It is on the , before, in the verb , that the emphasis lies: You make haste to take the provisions you have brought before it has become possible to make a general distribution of them, and without sharing them with your neighbours. The epithet , his own, expresses the right in virtue of which the owner thinks he can act thus.
The words indicate the moment when the feast begins, following the act of worship which had certainly preceded: when the feasting is reached, including the supper, and then the holy sacrament.
The words: one is hungry, refer to the poor who are present.
The verb usually signifies to be intoxicated; but it may also be applied to eating, in the sense in which we say to eat his fill, and so to form a contrast, as is the case in this passage, to , to be hungry. The word certainly shows that the pleasure of good cheer and drinking went the length of intemperance, just as in those friendly feasts at which Greek gaiety and frivolity took free course. Now follow the rebukes which such conduct deserves.
for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. [This verse is an indictment with three counts. There could be no communion supper when: 1. The parties did not eat at the same time, but some before and some after; 2. when each ate his own meal, instead of sharing in “the one bread” (1Co 10:17); 3. when some ate to the full and others ate nothing at all, because there was nothing left. It is likely that “drunken” indicates a state of partial intoxication. Grotius gives “drunken” the milder, and Meyer the stronger, sense. But the context suggests that one had more than was good for him, and the other less, and there is a subtle innuendo in the crossing of the terms, so that overdrinking stands in contrast to undereating, for overdrinking is greater debauchery than overeating.]
21. He here alludes to the fact that in this meal which preceded the sacrament, and in its original institution was simple and frugal, demonstrative of their love to one another some of them have gone to excess, actually eating to gluttony and drinking to drunkenness. This was not the sacrament, but the meal which preceded it, called the agapee, i. e., the love feast.
Verse 21
Every one taketh, &c.; that is, in disorder and confusion.–Is drunken. Some persons, unwilling to admit that intoxicating drink was used by the early Christians at the Lord’s supper, understand this expression to mean is surfeited. Others, however, contend that there is no sufficient ground for deviating from the proper signification of the original term, which is well represented by the English phrase as it stands. Still we are not to suppose that absolute intoxication is intended. It is strange that the solemn ceremony of the Lord’s supper should be perverted so soon to any such excesses; but the temptation to such a sin was probably greatly increased among these converts, by the idolatrous revellings which prevailed around them, and to which they had themselves, perhaps, been accustomed.
11:21 For in eating every one taketh {h} before [other] his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
(h) Eats his food and does not wait until others come.
The Lord’s Supper was usually part of a meal the Christians shared together, the so-called "love feast." In Corinth instead of sharing their food and drinks, each family was bringing its own and eating what it had brought. The result was that the rich had plenty but the poor had little and suffered embarrassment as well. This was hardly a picture of Christian love and unity (cf. Act 2:44-46; Act 4:32; Act 4:34-35). Furthermore some with plenty of wine to drink were evidently drinking too heavily. They were eating their own private meals rather than sharing a meal consecrated to the Lord.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)