§ 38. UNworTHY PARTICIPANTS OF THE Lorp’s BREAD AND CUP, Xi. 23-34. The behaviour of the wealthier Cor. at the Church Supper is scandalous in itself; viewed in the light of the institution and meaning of the Eucharistic ordinance, their culpability is extreme (23-27). The sense of this should set the readers on self-examination (28 f.). The sickness and mortality rife amongst them are a sign of the Lord’s displeasure in this very matter, and a loud call to amendment (30-32). Two practical directions are finally given: that the members of the
880 ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ A a Por a 2? αν ὁ bg a vor cs “els τὴν ἐμὴν © ἀνάμνησιν 25. Reni a τὸ «δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, “Todto τὸ ἃἹ ποτήριον ἡ xiv. 9 1 ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ 1] Εαἵματι]: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, rh. oe 17 . : and Mt.
vill. 34 are ἐκδ
b Lk. xxii. 19; Heb. χ. 1; Lev. xxiv. 7.
mle.
ες ῃ A ie he , N ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ “moTptoy μετὰ ‘kay ᾿ διαθήκη
h
ὁσάκις av? πίνητε,
5 Lk. αχ. 20; Rom. viii. 26;
Mt. xxi. 30; Lk. xx. 31; Prov. xxvii. 15. d See x. 16. e Lk. xxii. 20, xvii. 'B: Rev. iii. 20; Prov. xxili. 1; Tob. Sih Te f 2 Cor. ili. 6; Heb. viii. 8 (Jer. xxxviii. 31), ix. 15. g Heb. ix. 22, ος. χ.του χ τουσ. δν Seco. AK. το. h Rev. xi. 6. .
1 αιµατι µου (Lk.): ACP, 17, 37, 46.
Church should wait until all are gathered before commencing supper; and that where hunger forbids delay, food should first be taken at home (33 f.).
Vv. 23, 24. Amongst the things the Ap. had '' delivered”’ to his readers, that they professed to be “holding fast”’ (2), was the story of the Last Supper of the Lord Jesus, which the Church perpetu- ates in its communion-feast. —éyo, anti- thetical to ὑμῖν: I the imparter, you | the receivers, of these solemn facts.—ao neither excludes, nor suggests (¢f. i. 30, xiv. 36, etc.) as παρὰ might have done (Gal. i. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 13), independent impartation to P.; “it marks the whence of the communication, in a wide and general sense”’ (El.); the Ap. vouches for it that what he related came authenti- cally from the Lord. Παραλαμβάνω de- notes ‘‘receiving a deposit or trust” (πα]- πε Word” jesus, τες deo: —The allusion to ‘‘ the night in which He was betrayed” (graphic impf., ‘“ while the betrayal went on”’), is no mere note of time; it throws into relief the fidelity of Jesus in the covenant (25) thus made with His people, and enhances the holy pathos of the recollection; behind the Saviour lurks the Traitor. Incidentally, it shows how detailed and matter-of-fact was the account of the Passion given to Paul’s converts. For the irreg. impf., παρεδίδετο, see Wr., p. 95, note 3.— ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, “took a loaf” (ein Brod: cf. the ets ἄρτος of x. τ7)---οπε of the flat and brittle unleavened cakes of the Pass- over Table.—xal εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν «.T-A., ‘(and after pronouncing the bless- ing, broke it jand ασια etc: | This εὐχαριστία was apparently the blessing pane tape the meal, which was fol- lowed by the symbolic bread-breaking, whereas ‘the cup” was administered μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι (25); cf. Luke xxii. 17 ff. (see notes ad loc. in vol. i.), whose account is nearly the same as Paul’s, dif- fering in some important particulars from that of Matt. and Mark. Luke, however, introduces a preparatory cup of renuncia-
7 ¢av, NBC, 17. See Wr., p. 390.
tion on the part of Jesus, “prolusio cene’’ (Bg.). The fractio panis, the sign of the commencement of a house- hold or social meal (Luke xxiv. 30; Acts ii. 42), is prominent in each narrative; this act supplied another name for the Sacrament.—Regarding the words pro- nounced over the broken loaf, we bear in mind (1) that Jesus said of the bread “This is my body,’”’ Himself sitting there in His visible person, when the identifica-- tion of substance could not occur to any one; (2) that the parl. saying concerning “the cup” expounds by the word “ cove- παπί) (covenant in my blood, in Luke and P.; my blood of the covenant, in Matt. and Mark) the connexion of symbol and thing symbolised, linking the cup and blood, and by analogy the loaf and body, as one not by confusion of substance but by correspondence of relation: what the blood effects, the cup sets forth and seals. The bread, standing for the body, ‘‘is the body”’ representatively; broken for Christ’s disciples, it serves materially in the Supper the part which His slain body is about to serve spiritually “‘for the life of the world”’. Our Lord thus puts into an acted parable the doctrine taught by figurative speech in John vi. 48 ff. “éortiv is here the copula of symbolic being; otherwise the identity of sub- ject and predicate would form a concep- tion equally impossible to Speaker and hearers ” (Μτ.).---τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (κλώμενον an early gloss), '' that is for γοιι ’’—in all its relations subsisting for men; for our advantage He wore the capa σαρκός (2 Cor. viii. 9, Phil. ii. 7, Heb. ii. τὴ ff, etc.). ΤΠε τοῦτο ποιεῖτε clause is pecu- liar to Luke and Paul: their witness is good evidence that the words are ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου (23). The sacrificial sense put on ποιεῖτε by many “' Catholic” ex- egetes (as though syn. with the Homeric ῥέζειν, and ‘asah of Exod. xxix. 39, etc.) is without lexical warrant, and “plane preter mentem Scripture” as the R.C. Estius honestly says; see also El. ad loc.—eis τὴν ἐμὴν (cf ὑμετέραν,