Hi Apologist:
First I would like to thank you for your efforts in trying to convey what your trying to say by bringing this commentary to this conversation.
However, I can not agree with this commentary , no matter how many credentials one thinks this individual has.
One would still have to ask one's self , if Jesus was a part of the Lord's supper in this record in I Corinth. 11, as to what he would have done , verses what is actually said by this commentator ?
The first thing that comes to my mind, is that Jesus Christ would not send anyone home just because they were hungry when they came to an assembly of gathering, and worship. Was not Jesus Christ fellowshipping with the four thousand and the five thousand and he feed them "when" they were hungry ! Is this not true ? Did he send them home if they were hungry ? I do not believe that Jesus Christ would even do such a thing !
There was one who was a betrayer among them when he ate his Last supper with his disciples. He did not send him home , nor did he ask him to not be in his sin of his betrayal while eating this Last supper with him. He also did not ask him for his forgiveness. Do you not believe that this sounds contradictory with this commentary that you gave me to read ? I know that I do indeed see the contradiction !
This commentary also promotes the continual doing of the Lord's supper, which was "never" intended by Jesus Christ. And was a correction by Paul in I Corinth. 11:20. Jesus Christ told his disciple to do this in remeberance of him. He never said to go and do this Lord's supper continually.
Paul said that when you do a literal Lord's supper , you show his death until he comes. This was telling them who were doing this Lord's supper , and shaming them that "had not", that they were not showing his resurrection. Only his death.
Paul points out in verse 21 that if you do the Lord's supper , you are eating your own supper. And the one who is hungry can not afford to eat the Lord's supper as you do, so goes hungry. You who do eat and drink, drink to excess and become drunk
Paul says in verse 22 - Don't you have houses to "drink" in ? If you will look closely here, you will notice that in this question Paul does not mention the food, but he does mention the drink. That is because they were getting themselves drunk of the excessive drinking of the wine . And by doing this, you "shame" them that have not. Which means that those who could not afford to eat a full meal, and could not afford the wine were put in shame by your ability to eat and drink, but they lacked, and were put to shame because they did lack.
What they had done , was to put the Lord's supper in an ability to purchase those things to eat and drink, based upon their finacial abilities to join in with them to eat and drink. This shows a lack of "caring" for the Church, and it shows, that those who could afford such a meal , were the one's who could eat this meal called the Lord's supper. Paul "never" tells those who were hungry, to go home and eat at home - never ! You can not find this in this record !
It is not until you get to verses 33 & 34 that Paul is telling them , that it is alright when you come together to eat. But always be ready to receive in (wait - tarry) one another. This is so that there will be no condemnation unto them that can not afford to eat , like those who can afford to eat those things which are more affordable to those who have more than those who lack in finacial ability to eat "what" they are eating.
Verse 34 is saying, that if one lacks the ability because he "has not" that ability to afford this expensive food, then instead of going hungry and come into condemnation, for them to eat at home those things which they can afford to eat.
Verses 33 & 34 should "never" be associated with verses 20 - 21 & 22 ! If you do , you then take out of context what Paul is saying. Paul never told them that they could not come together to eat, but that if one can not afford to eat , then go home to eat that which you can afford , so that you do not come into condemnation.
I find this commentary in total disagreement with what Jesus Christ would have said and done, if he were there during this commentaries comments. Pertaining to this record in I Corinth. 11.
I believe that Jesus Christ would have reminded him of the one who betrayed him and how Jesus let him continue in this Last supper with him . And he would tell this person who put this commentary together , that he "never" intended that this be done as a remembrance of him , other than with his disciples, which were with him on that day that he was betrayed. And he would remind this commentator , that he prayed and feed four thousand that were hungry and five thousand that were hungry who followed him, and that listened to his every word. < This was one of the greatest "communion" of fellowship in the records of the gospels.
For we are that bread > I Corinth. 10:17 and partakers of that bread, which is the body of Christ.
WE are to fellowship one with another, and not let ability or inability stand in our way of fellowshiping one with another.
We can not drink the cup of the Lord , and the cup of devils : ye cannot be partaker of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils" > I Corinth. 10:21. We are not to seek our own, but every man anothers > I Corinth. 10:24
When these Corinthians were eating the Lord's supper, they were seeking their own, as recorded in I Corinth. 11:21
Paul told them that they could come together to eat, but not to shame those that "had not" the ability to buy this food and wine. And for those who could not afford to buy this food and wine to eat at home so that they would not come into condemnation.
These two words "hungry", and "hunger" in this record of I Corinth. 11 means, that they could not join in the eating, because they lacked the ability to buy that which was necessary to join those who had the ability. It does not mean that they were starving people who hungered. To send them home to eat, was a way in which they would not come into condemnation , because they lacked the finacial capabilities , that those who "had " did not lack in.
You do not put people to shame and condemnation because they are not as capable as some others are to purchase such a meal as they were eating, and drinking, that they called in a religious manner, > The Lord's supper.
Paul put his foot down, and said, that when they came together this was not to eat the Lord's supper.
Love IN Christ - Hervey