Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:34
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
34. that ye come not together unto condemnation ] Rather, as margin, judgment. The same word is used here as in 1Co 11:29.
And the rest will I set in order when I come ] Great changes in the order of administration of Holy Communion were rendered necessary by the abuses which so soon sprang up in the Christian Church. From an evening meal it became an early morning gathering (see Pliny, Ep. x. 42, 43), who says that in his day (about a.d. 110) the Christians were accustomed to meet “before it was light.” (Cf. “antelucanis coetibus” Tertullian, de Coron 3.) And the Agapae were first separated from the Lord’s Supper and then finally abolished altogether. See Neander, Hist. of the Church, vol. 1. . 3, who remarks that in the earliest account we have of the mode in which Holy Communion was celebrated (in the Apology of Justin Martyr, written about a.d. 150) there is no mention of the Agapae. Similarly Gieseler, Compendium of Eccl. Hist., sec. 53, note. “So the form of the primitive practice was altered, in order to save the spirit of the original institution.” Stanley.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And if any man hunger … – The Lords Supper is not a common feast; it is not designed as a place where a man may gratify his appetite. It is designed as a simple commemoration, and not as a feast. This remark was designed to correct their views of the supper, and to show them that it was to be distinguished from the ordinary idea of a feast or festival.
That ye come not together unto condemnation – That the effect of your coming together for the observance of the Lords Supper be not to produce condemnation; see the note at 1Co 11:29.
And the rest will I set in order … – Probably he refers here to other matters on which he had been consulted; or other things which he knew required to be adjusted. The other matters pertaining to the order and discipline of the church I will defer until I can come among you, and personally arrange them. It is evident from this, that Paul at this time purposed soon to go to Corinth; see 2Co 1:15-16. It was doubtless true that there might be many things which it was desirable to adjust in the church there, which could not be so well done by letter. The main things, therefore, which it was needful to correct immediately, he had discussed in this letter; the other matters he reserved to be arranged by himself when he should go among them. Paul was disappointed in his expectations of returning among them as soon as he had intended (see 2Co 1:17), and under this disappointment he forwarded to them another epistle. If all Christians would follow implicitly his directions here in regard to the Lords Supper, it would be an ordinance full of comfort. May all so understand its nature, and so partake of it, that they shall meet the approbation of their Lord, and so that it may be the means of saving grace to their souls.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 34. And if any man hunger] Let him not come to the house of God to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home-take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view.
That ye come not together unto condemnation] That ye may avoid the curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as those above mentioned; and that ye may get that especial blessing which every one that discerns the Lord’s body in the eucharist must receive.
The rest will I set in order, c.] All the other matters relative to this business, to which you have referred in your letter, I will regulate when I come to visit you as, God permitting, I fully design. The apostle did visit them about one year after this, as is generally believed.
I HAVE already been so very particular in this long and difficult chapter, that I have left neither room nor necessity for many supplementary observations. A few remarks are all that is requisite.
1. The apostle inculcates the necessity of order and subjection, especially in the Church. Those who are impatient of rule, are generally those who wish to tyrannize. And those who are loudest in their complaints against authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are those who wish to have the power in their own hands, and would infallibly abuse it if they had. They alone who are willing to obey, are capable of rule; and he who can rule well, is as willing to obey as to govern. Let all be submissive and orderly; let the woman know that the man is head and protector; let the man know that Christ is his head and redeemer, and the gift of God’s endless mercy for the salvation of a lost world.
2. The apostle insisted on the woman having her head covered in the Church or Christian assembly. If he saw the manner in which Christian women now dress, and appear in the ordinances of religion, what would he think? What would he say? How could he even distinguish the Christian from the infidel? And if they who are in Christ are new creatures, and the persons who ordinarily appear in religious assemblies are really new creatures (as they profess in general to be) in Christ, he might reasonably inquire: If these are new creatures, what must have been their appearance when they were old creatures. Do we dress to be seen? And do we go to the house of God to exhibit ourselves? Wretched is that man or woman who goes to the house of God to be seen by any but God himself.
3. The Lord’s Supper may be well termed the feast of charity; how unbecoming this sacred ordinance to be the subject of dispute, party spirit, and division! Those who make it such must answer for it to God. Every man who believes in Christ as his atoning sacrifice should, as frequently as he can, receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. And every minister of Christ is bound to administer it to every man who is seeking the salvation of his soul, as well as to all believers. Let no man dare to oppose this ordinance; and let every man receive it according to the institution of Christ.
4. Against the fidelity of our translation of 1Co 11:27 of this chapter, Whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup unworthily, several popish writers have made heavy complaints, and accused the Protestants of wilful corruption; as both the Greek and Vulgate texts, instead of and et, AND, have and vel, OR: Whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink this cup. As this criticism is made to countenance their unscriptural communion in one kind, it may be well to examine the ground of the complaint. Supposing even this objection to be valid, their cause can gain nothing by it while the 26th and 28th verses stand, both in the Greek text and Vulgate, as they now do: For as often as ye eat this bread, AND drink this cup, c. Let him eat of that bread, AND drink of that cup. But although , OR, be the reading of the common printed text, AND, is the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Claromontanus, two of the best MSS. in the world: as also of the Codex Lincolniensis, 2, and the Codex Petavianus, 3, both MSS. of the first character: it is also the reading of the ancient Syriac, all the Arabic, the Coptic, the margin of the later Syriac, the AEthiopic, different MSS. of the Vulgate, and of one in my own possession and of Clemens Chromatius, and Cassiodorus. Though the present text of the Vulgate has vel, OR, yet this is a departure from the original editions, which were all professedly taken from the best MSS. In the famous Bible with out date, place, or printer’s name, 2 vols. fol., two columns, and forty-five lines in each, supposed by many to be the first Bible ever printed, the text stands thus: Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem, ET biberit calicem, c. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread AND drink this cup, c.: here is no vel, OR. The Bible printed by Fust, 1462, the first Bible with a date, has the same reading. Did the Protestants corrupt these texts? In the editio princeps of the Greek Testament, printed by the authority of Cardinal Ximenes at Complutum, and published by the authority of Pope Leo X., though , OR, stands in the Greek text yet, in the opposite column, which contains the Vulgate, and in the opposite line, ET, and, is found, and not VEL, or; though the Greek text would have authorized the editor to have made this change: but he conscientiously preserved the text of his Vulgate. Did the Protestants corrupt this Catholic text also? Indeed, so little design had any of those who differed from the Romish Church to make any alteration here, that even Wiclif, having a faulty MS. of the Vulgate by him, which read vel instead of et, followed that faulty MS. and translated, And so who ever schal ete the breed or drinke the cup.
That , AND, is the true reading, and not , or, both MSS. and versions sufficiently prove: also that et, not vels is the proper reading in the Vulgate, those original editions formed by Roman Catholics, and one of them by the highest authority in the papal Church, fully establish: likewise those MSS., versions, fathers, and original editions, must be allowed to be, not only competent, but also unsuspected and incontrovertible witnesses.
But as this objection to our translation is brought forward to vindicate the withholding the cup from the laity in the Lord’s Supper, it may be necessary to show that without the cup there can be no eucharist. With respect to the bread, our Lord had simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup, he says Drink ye all of this; for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it, therefore he says, Drink ye ALL of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God’s institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood poured out, i.e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this,) that can be said to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it that the very men who plead so much for the bare, literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has, in the most positive manner, enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! See the whole of this argument, at large, in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And if any one hungered, they should not make the place where they met together for the solemn worship of God, a place for eating and drinking at feasts, but eat at home; lest, by these disorderly and irreverent actions, they incurred the displeasure of God, and brought down the judgment of God upon themselves. Lastly, he minds them, that if there were any other things of this nature, which he had not spoken to, he did design suddenly to come to them, and then he would set them in order, by giving them rules about them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
34. if any . . . hungerso asnot to be able to “tarry for others,” let him take off theedge of his hunger at home [ALFORD](1Co 11:22).
the rest“theother questions you asked me as to the due celebration of the Lord’sSupper.” Not other questions in general; for he doessubsequently set in order other general questions in this Epistle.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if any man hunger let him eat at home,…. Whereby the apostle shows his dislike of their ante-suppers in the place of public worship, at which they behaved in so indecent a manner, neglecting the poor, and too freely indulging themselves; and therefore if anyone was hungry, and could not wait till the Lord’s supper was over, let him eat at home before he come to the place of worship, and satisfy his appetite, that he might with more ease and decency attend the table of the Lord:
that ye come not together unto condemnation or judgment; that is, that you may so behave when ye come together, that you may not bring upon you the judgment of the Lord, either by way of punishment or chastisement; that is to say, bodily diseases or death.
And the rest will I set in order when I come: meaning, not doctrines of faith, but things respecting ecclesiastical order and polity, which were amiss among them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
At home ( ). If so hungry as all that (verse 22).
The rest ( ). He has found much fault with this church, but he has not told all.
I will set in order (). Not even Timothy and Titus can do it all.
Whensoever I come ( ). Common idiom for temporal clause of future time (conjunction like with and aorist subjunctive ).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Will I set in order [] . Referring to outward, practical arrangements. See on Mt 11:1, and compare ch. 1Co 9:14; 1Co 16:1; Gal 3:19.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home.” (ei tis peina en oiko esthieto) “if anyone should hunger, let him eat at home.” The home is God’s ordained place for one to partake of physical necessities of life, not the church, 1Co 11:22.
2) “That ye come not together unto condemnation.” (hina me eis krima sunerchesthe) “in order that ye come not together unto judgement or chastisement.” To avoid future chastisement of weakness, feebleness, and even death, Paul charged the Corinthian brethren to restrict their coming together to eat, to the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 11:30.
3) “And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (ta de loipa hos an eltho diatasomai) “And the remaining matters (about which they had made inquiry) I will arrange, set in order, or help straighten out whenever I come.” Such matters are generally considered to have been matters of custom and traditions, made issues by some as the long and short hair matter had, 1Co 16:13-14. The setting of elders in the church may also have been anticipated.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
34. The rest I will set in order when I come It is probable, that there were some things in addition, which it would be of advantage to put into better order, but as they were of less importance, the Apostle delays the correction of them until his coming among them. It may be, at the same time, that there was nothing of this nature; but as one knows better what is necessary when he is present to see, Paul reserves to himself the liberty of arranging matters when present, according as occasion may require. Papists arm themselves against us with this buckler, too, for defending their mass For they interpret this to be the setting in order which Paul here promises — as if he would have taken the liberty (725) of overturning that eternal appointment of Christ, which he here so distinctly approves of! For what resemblance does the mass bear to Christ’s institution? But away with such trifles, as it is certain that Paul speaks only of outward decorum. As this is put in the power of the Church, so it ought to be arranged according to the condition of times, places, and persons.
(725) “ Mais c’est bien a propos, comme si ce sainct personnage se fust donne ceste license;” — “But this is a likely thing truly! As if that holy personage would have allowed himself this liberty,!”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) The restor, literally, the remaining mattersdoubtless refers to some other details connected with the charity-feasts.
From the foregoing we gather the following outline of the method of celebration of the Lords Supper in the Apostolic Church.
It was a common practice amongst the Greeks at this time to hold a feast called eranos, to which all contributed, and of which all partook. A similar arrangement soon sprang up in the Christian communities, and were called agap, or charity-feasts. At these gatherings was celebratedprobably at first daily, and afterwards weeklythe Lords Supper. It consisted of two partsa loaf broken and distributed during the meal, and a cup partaken of by all present after it. This bread and this cup were distinguished from the meal itself by the solemn declaration over them of the fact of the institution (1Co. 11:26). The entire feast, however, had a solemnity and sanctity imparted to it by the eucharistic acts which accompanied it; and while this bread and this wine constituted the Supper of the Lord, the entire charity-feast became consecrated by it as a Lords Supper (1Co. 11:20), the phrase being similar to Lords day (Rev. 1:10). To it the brethren came, not as individuals, but as members of the body of Christ. This gathering of the Church was His body now on earth; that sacramental bread and wine, the symbols of His body, which had been on earth, and which had been given for them. To the charity-feast the rich brought of their abundance, the poor of their poverty. But once assembled there everything was common. The party spirit which raged outside soon invaded these sacred scenes. The rich members ceased to discern in that gathering the Body, and to discern themselves as members of that Body. They regarded themselves as individuals, and the food which they brought as their own. The poor were put to shame; some of them arriving late would remain hungry, while the rich had eaten and drunk to excess. On those who acted thus there fell naturally Gods judgments of sickness and of death. To correct this terrible evil and grave scandal, St. Paul recalls to them the solemnity of the act of Holy Communion, what it meant, how it was instituted. He reminds them of how the whole feast was consecrated by having that eucharistic bread and wine united with it, and he commands those who wanted merely to satisfy their natural hunger to do so at home before coming to the Lords Supper. The two thoughts of communion with Christ and communion with one another, and of the bread and wine being the medium of the union with Him, and the source of the Christian unity, intersect and interlace each other, like the fine threads of some tapestry which are so skilfully interwoven that you cannot distinguish them while you look on the image or scene which they definitely produce. We may with theological subtlety dissever them; but if we do so we shall lose that loving image of the Holy Communion which the Apostle wrought out in his teaching, and on which he and the early Church gazed with tender adoration, and from which they drew the deepest draughts of spiritual life.
When I come.There is no definite indication of an approaching visit in these words. They are quite general whenever I come
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. Hunger The very name agape indicated that these love-feasts were for the cultivation of the affections, not the gratification of the appetite, or the sustenance of, at any rate, the well-off class.
The rest Referring, doubtless, to other matters in regard to the good order of their assemblages contained in the letter of the Corinthians. From this passage Romanists argue in favour of traditional customs added by them to the institutes of the Church, and especially to the Lord’s supper: such as having a thin wafer for bread, withholding the cup from the laity, and the worshipping the wafer as the body of Christ. We may easily concede that the apostles did make regulations in the Church. If any institute can be shown to have been established by apostles for the universal Church, it must, doubtless, be accepted as part of the Christian system. But of most of the peculiarities of Rome we know the date of their origin, and reject them as innovations and novelties. We have known in our own day, in the Romish enactments of the immaculacy of the Virgin, and the infallibility of the pope, how dogmas are manufactured. And in the last dogma we find the amplest power provided for the pope to enact, with a sentence a new Christian doctrine whenever he pleases.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 11:34 . To satisfy hunger, is a thing to be done at home. The Agapae should not be used as meals for such material purposes; they have a higher significance. Comp 1Co 11:22 . Others take it: “If any one has such keen hunger that he cannot wait for the distribution, let him rather take a previous meal at home” (Billroth; comp Erasmus, Paraph ). But how much of this is arbitrarily imported into the text!
] What has not yet been regulated in this section, 1Co 11:17-34 . The reference is to matters connected with the love-feasts; not indeed of a doctrinal kind, but, as the word is enough of itself to show, pertaining to outward order and arrangements, 1Co 7:17 , 1Co 9:14 , 1Co 16:1 ; Gal 3:19 ; Tit 1:5 . A passage taken advantage of by Roman Catholics in support of their doctrine of tradition . And, no doubt, it does serve to establish in general the possibility of the existence of apostolic traditions; but in each particular case in which such traditions are asserted, the burden of bringing forward the proof lies always upon those who make the assertion, and it can never be produced.
] whensoever I shall have come; in the temporal sense = simulatque . See on Phi 2:23 , and Hartung, II. p. 289.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
REFLECTIONS
Lord give thy people grace to follow thy faithful servants as they have followed thee! Truly, thou dearest Lord! thou art the head of every man, for by creation all is thine. But, oh! how sweet to my soul, that, while Jesus is the head of dominion to the whole creation of God, he is the head of union to his body the Church, the fulness that filleth all in all.
Almighty Jesus! blessed forever he thy name for thy grace in committing to the Apostle, for the benefit of thy Church, the precious form of institution of thine holy Supper. Oh! for grace to eye thee at every renewed opportunity of attending thy table, as receiving sinners, and eating with them! Oh! for faith in lively actings upon thy Person, and blood-shedding, and righteousness, so as to hear thee saying to my poor soul, amidst the numbers of thine round thy table, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. Oh! Lord! who shall thy people ever remember, if we are capable of forgetting thee! Lord! make the sweet service to all thy redeemed, a commemorating, communicating, refreshing, soul-strengthening ordinance, to feast thy saints here below, till we come to sit down with thee at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in heaven.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34. ] The were not meals to satiate the bodily appetites, but for a higher and holier purpose: let the hungry take off the edge of his hunger at home: see 1Co 11:22 .
] viz. things omitted (probably matters of detail) in the above directions . Perhaps they had asked him questions respecting the most convenient time or manner of celebration of the Lord’s supper: points on which primitive practice widely differed.
, see reff., whenever I shall have come . , as , implies uncertainty as to the event anticipated: see Khner, vol. ii. p. 535, 807.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
at home = in (Greek. en) the house.
unto. App-104.
condemnation. Same as “damnation”, 1Co 11:29.
set in order. Greek. diatasso. See Act 7:44.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34.] The were not meals to satiate the bodily appetites, but for a higher and holier purpose: let the hungry take off the edge of his hunger at home: see 1Co 11:22.
] viz. things omitted (probably matters of detail) in the above directions. Perhaps they had asked him questions respecting the most convenient time or manner of celebration of the Lords supper: points on which primitive practice widely differed.
, see reff., whenever I shall have come. , as , implies uncertainty as to the event anticipated: see Khner, vol. ii. p. 535, 807.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:34
1Co 11:34
If any man is hungry, let him eat at home;-He should take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of the body before he comes to the assembly, where he should have the feeding of the spiritual man alone in view.
that your coming together be not unto judgment.- [That they may avoid the curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as those mentioned; and that they may get that special blessing which every one who discerns the Lords body and blood must receive.]
And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.- [There were other irregularities which the apostle leaves to be corrected until he should again visit Corinth, but when that would be was certainly regarded by him as uncertain.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
if any: 1Co 11:21, 1Co 11:22
condemnation: or, judgment
will I: 1Co 7:17, Tit 1:5
when: 1Co 4:19, 1Co 16:2, 1Co 16:5
Reciprocal: Act 20:7 – the disciples 1Co 11:17 – that ye 1Co 14:40 – General 1Co 16:3 – when 2Co 1:15 – in 2Co 12:14 – the third Col 2:5 – and beholding 1Ti 3:14 – hoping 1Ti 5:12 – damnation Jam 5:12 – lest
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 11:34. If any man hunger is explained by the comments on verse 22. It does not mean to rule out the observance of the feasts of charity, but only to correct the abuses of it by those who claimed to be too hungry to wait. Come together to condemnation is the same subject that is considered in verse 17. There were other items that needed to be set forth for their instruction, but the apostle thought it well to do that when he made his next journey to them (chapter 4:18, 19).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:34. If any man is hungry, let Him eat at home. The religious gatherings of believers are for higher purposes man satisfying the cravings of natural appetite:this should be done at home.
that your coming together be not unto judgmentdo not issue in blighting rather than blessing.
And the restany other matters on this subject requiring to be looked intowill I set in order whensoever I comeimplying a shade of uncertainty as to the event.
Note.If the two opposite theories of the Lords Supper, which have occasioned such protracted controversy in the Church, are brought face to face with the strange abuses of that ordinance at Corinth which are here depicted, we cannot but think that it would go far to show with which of them the apostles teaching best accords. The one theory is, that under the forms or elements of bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are reallycorporeallypresent, given, received, and partaken of by the communicants, whether worthy or unworthy, believing or not believing. But while the Church of Rome holds and teaches that, after consecration, the elements are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christexisting no more save in their form or appearanceand that in the Lords Supper there is made a true, proper propitiatory sacrifice for the sins both of the living and the dead; the Lutheran Church holds and teaches that the elements remain the same after consecration as before, but that in, with, and under them Christ is really corporeally present, offered, and received; and they utterly repudiate the sacrificial theory of the Eucharist, as dishonouring to the one all-perfect sacrifice of the Cross. What is common, however, to both these Churches is their doctrine of a material presence of Christ in the Lords Supper. The opposite of this theory is, that the Lords Supper was designed to represent and set forth through the senses to the minds of believing communicants the one sacrifice for sins, which for ever perfects them that are sanctified; that while on the communion table there is only bread and wine, the faith of the devout communicant pierces through the outward elements to that of which they are the instituted symbols, and discerns Jesus Christ openly crucified before his eyes; and opening his soul to Him, there and thus set forth, he holds living fellowship with Him, receives of His fulness and grace for grace; by faith he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the Son of manin all the sacrificial significance and precious fruits of His atoning deathin a fresh sense of pardon, peace, access to God, newness of life and hope of glory.
Now suppose that the first theory was what the apostle taught to the Corinthian Church, the question arises, What sort of abuse would this be likely to generate? Could they possibly confound it with an ordinary meal, and come dropping in one after another, each to satisfy his own appetite? Is the thing conceivable? Nay, if they but vividly realised what this theory supposesthat Christ Himself is corporeally on the communion tablewould they not draw near with an awe approaching to dread as they took into theirhands so tremendous a mysteryas the phrase is?[1] But since the very opposite of all this was what the Corinthians did, we confidently affirm that no such view of the Lords Supper was or could have been taught by the apostle at Corinth. Well, let us next try the other theory, bringing it face to face with the Corinthian abuses. According to that theory, the apostle taught that nothing is on the Lords table, from first to last, but bread and wine, and that Christ is present there only to the faith which realises it through the instituted symbols. In that case, of course, unbelieving and unspiritual communicants would discern no Christ there at all, nor draw forth through it aught of His fulness as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. Even real converts, but slightly affected with the death there held forth, and the glory of His promised presence there, would pay more attention to the outward scene, in its varied arrangements and impressive actions, than to what it was designed to convey. Above all, since we know that the celebration of this ordinance was associated with an ordinary meal, would not the danger be great that superficial communicants would forget that they had houses of their own to eat and drink in, and come to the Lords table rather to satisfy the cravings of nature than to shew the Lords death? Beyond all reasonable doubt, if any such abuses crept in as this chapter tells us existed at Corinth, this second theory is that alone which could explain it: on the other theory we confidently say the thing is inconceivable.
[1] The following account of part of the ceremonies with which Archbishop Laud consecrated Creed Church (the church of St. Catherine Cree), when Bishop of London, on 16th January 1630, was attested on oath by eye-witnesses before the Lords at the Archbishops trial. (It is an extreme case, but will all the better illustrate the tendency of the Real-Presence theory):As he approached the communion table, he bowed very near to the ground six or seven times; and coming up to one of the corners of the table, he there bowed himself three times; then to the second, third, and fourth corners, bowing at each corner three times; but when he came to the side of the table where the bread and wine were, he bowed himself seven times; and then, after reading many prayers by himself and his two chaplains (they all this time on their knees by him, in their surplices, hoods, and tippets), he himself came near the Bread, which was cut and laid in a fine napkin, and then he gently lifted up one of the corners of the said napkin and peeped into it till he saw the bread, and presently he let it fall, and new back a step or two, and then bowed very low three times towards it and the table; when he beheld the bread, then he came near and opened again, and bowed as before. Next he laid his hand upon the silt cup, which was full of wine, with a cover upon it. So soon as he had pulled the cup a little nearer to him, he let the cup go, flew back, and bowed again three times towards it. He approached again, and lilting up the cover of the cup, peeped into it. Seeing the wine, he let fall the cover, flew nimbly back, and bowed as before. After these and many other gestures, he himself received, and then gave the Sacrament to several principal men, only they devoutly kneeling near the table. (Prynnes History of the Trial, etc. fol. Lond. 1646, p. 114.)
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. [By waiting they would eat together, and eat of the same symbolic bread; by eating at home, and taking the edge off their appetites, they would not devour all, and so exclude others from the communion.] And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come. [The spiritual ill health of the church had delayed his coming, but when he arrived he would adjust any lesser irregularities which might need attention.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
11:34 {23} And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. {24} And the rest will I set in order when I come.
(23) The supper of the Lord was instituted not to feed the belly, but to feed the soul with the communion of Christ, and therefore it ought to be separated from common banquets.
(24) Such things as pertain to order, as place, time, form of prayers, and other such like, the apostle took order for in congregations according to the consideration of times, places, and persons.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
If some of the Corinthian Christians were too hungry to wait to eat, they should eat something before they came to the service. Otherwise their unloving selfishness might result in the Lord’s judgment. It is very important to the Lord that we put the needs of others before our own needs (cf. 1Co 9:22; 1Co 10:33; Mar 10:45; Rom 15:2; Gal 1:10; Php 2:3; et al.).
Evidently there were other details of how the Corinthians were behaving when they congregated that Paul did not want to comment on in this letter. Perhaps they were of local importance only. He planned to address these issues when he visited Corinth again (cf. 1Co 4:18-21; 1Co 16:2-3; 1Co 16:5-7).
The selfish attitude that marked the Corinthian church comes through strongly in this section of the epistle. It manifested itself in a particularly ugly display at the Lord’s Table. Paul dealt with it severely for the sake of the reputation of the Savior and for the welfare of the saints.