878
g Gal. vi.i in diff. sense); ra "| bie ae = Mini. τῷ Φαγειν, Kal "Os µεν TELVG. 8; Wisd. XVil. 16.
h xii, 8,28: ° καταΦρονεῖτε, καὶ } καταισχύνετε τοὺς Ἱ μὴ 4 έχοντας; τί ὑμῖν
2 Cor. ii.
2 ¥ 9 16; Rom. εἴπω 3 ; ix. 21, Xiv.
2,532
Tim. ii. 20; Jude 22; once in Acts, nine times in Syn. GG.
ii. τος Mt. xxiv. 49; Jo. ii. το. 1 See ix. 4. x. 19, Xiv. 36. n See i. 2.
in GG. p See i. 27. q Lk. iii. στ, xxii. 36.
)προσλαµβανει, A, some 20 minn.
νον φΦαγεῖν: 21. ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον ᾿δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει 1 ἐν
Pécs δὲ “pebder- 22. ‘ph γὰρ οἰκίας
] ~ > ’ ‘ a a οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν Kal πίνειν; ™H τῆς " ἐκκλησίας τοῦ " Θεοῦ
Εις. , ri See > , > τ 5 a επαινγεσω υμας;, εν τούτῳ ουκ επαινω.
i See iv. 11. ki Th. v. 7; Acts m For η in double interrogg., cf. i. 13, ix. 8, 10
ο Rom. ii. 4; 1 Tim. iv. 12, vi. 2; Heb. xii.2; 2 Pet. ii. 10; thrice
r See ver. 2.
προ and προς often confused in comp. vbs.
2 em. tw φαγειν: DG, vg. (ad manducandum). ὄειπω Όμιν (in this order): all unce. but KL. 4 ema.vw, BG, vg., Latt. Ff. For position of the interrog., see note below.
applied; also Rom. v. 4, ἡ ὑπομονὴ κατ- εργάζεται δοκιµήν, I Peter 1.7; also Τετε., De Prescr. Heret., 4, “ut fides habendo tentationem habeat etiam probationem”’. For δόκιμος, accepted on proof, see parls., esp. ix. 27; those approved with God thus ‘*become manifest’”’ to men; ‘“‘l’ef- fet est de manifester au grand jour les membres de l’église sérieux et de bon aloi”’ (Gd.). ‘Dominus talibus experi- mentis probat constantiam suorum. Pul- chra consolatio!’’ (Cv.).
Vv. 20, 21 resume with emphasis the circumstantial clause of ver. 138 and draw out, by οὖν, the disastrous issue of the σχίσµατα: they produce a visible separa- tion at the common meal of the Church, destroying the reality of the Lord’s Supper. Ch. i. 12, iii. 3 Ε., iv. 6, showed that the Cor. divisions were of a partisan character, and i. 19 that intellectual differences entered into them (¢f. viii. 1- 7); but distinctions of wealth contri- buted to the same effect. The two latter influences conspired, the richer and more cultivated Cor. Christians leaning to a self-indulgence which they justified on the ground of enlightenment; the aipe- σεις sloped down toward κραιπάλη καὶ µέθη.-- Ent τὸ αὐτό, ‘ to the same (spot)’”’. —ovx ἔστιν κ.τ.λ. can hardly mean, “' it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” (so Al. and others)—for the Cor. intended this, but by unworthy behaviour (26 f.) neutra- lised their purpose: P. says either “it (sc. your feast) is not an eating of the Lord’s Supper” (A.V., Bz., Est., D.W., Bt.,#Hn., EL; 44. «σε πἶοςε Ῥας. 1 manger, etc.’’); o1, ‘‘it is not (possible) to eat the Lord’s Supper”’ (R.V., Β6., Mr., Hf., Ed., Ev.)—such eating zs out of the question. Ver. 21 bears out the last interpretation, since it describes a
state of things not merely nullifying but repugnant to any true κυριακὸν δεῖπνον ; οὐκ ἔστιν carries this strong sense, nega- tiving the tdea as well as fact, in Heb. ix. 5, and often in cl. Gr.—The adj. κυριακὸν (=Tov Κυρίου) stands in em- phatic contrast with ἴδιον, the termina- tion -κὸς signifying kind or nature: “ It is impossible to eat a supper of the Lord, for each man is in haste to get (προ- AapBaver—preoccupat, Bz.) his own supper when he eats,’’—or “ during the meal” (Ev.; ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, in edendo, Bz.; not ad manducandum, as in Vg.). Instead of waiting for one another (33), the Cor., as they entered the assembly- room bringing their provisions, sat down at once to consume each his own supply, like private diners at a restaurant ; προ- suggests, in view Of νετ. 22, that the rich even hurried to do this, so as to avoid sharing with slaves and low people at a common dish (22).—The κυρ. δεῖπνον was a kind of club-supper, with which the evening meeting of the Church com- menced (18a, 20a), taking place at least once a week on the Lord’s Day (cf. Acts axe ζ ff.). This Church-supper, after- wards called the Agapé (see Dict. of Christian Antig. s.v.; also Ed. ad loc.) was analogous to the συσσίτια and ἔρανοι 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. (Acts il. 46), the practice of the common supper accorded so well with social custom that it was universal amongst Christians in the first century (see Weizsdcker’s Apost. Age, vol. ii., pp. 279-286). Gradually the Eucharist was separated from the Agapé for greater decorum, and the latter degenerated and became ex-