55. 1Co_11:20-34
1 Corinthians 11:20-34, “Hungry and drunken.” “Methuei. drunken, being used as antithetical to peina, hungry, requires to be understood in the generic sense of satiated, and not in the restricted and emphatic sense of intoxicated. That St. Paul should thus have employed it is in harmony with the fact that he was familiar with the LXX translation of the Old Testament, where such a use of the word frequently occurs. Genesis 43:34, ‘Drank and were merry;’ Psalms 23:5, ‘Cup runneth over;’ Psalms 36:8, ‘Abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house;’ Psalms 65:10, ‘Settlest the furrows,’ i.e., saturate;Jeremiah 31:14, ‘Satiate the soul of my priests with fatness;’ Song of Solomon 5:1, ‘Drink abundantly or be satiated;’ Proverbs 5:19, ‘Let her breasts satisfy thee.’ A large collection of such texts, illustrating the usage of methuō, will be found in the works of Dr. Lees, vol. ii. showing its application to food, to milk, to water, to blood, to oil, as well as to wine—Bib. Com. p. 340.
Archbishop Newcome, on John 2:10 and 1 Corinthians 11:21, says, “The word methueidoes not necessarily denote drunkenness. The word may denote abundance without excess.”
Bloomfield, in loco, says, “It is rightly remarked by the ancient commentators that the ratio oppositi requires the word to be interpreted only of satiety in both drinking and eating. We need not suppose any drunkenness or gluttony. See Notes onJohn 2:10. The fault with which they are charged is sensuality and selfishness at a meal united with the eucharistical feast”—Vol. ii. p. 143.
Donnegan defines methuō, “to drink unmixed wine, to drink wine especially at festivals; to be intoxicated; to drink to excess.” Robinson, “to be drunk; to get drunk; hence, to carouse.” Green, “to be intoxicated.”
We have thus given a sample of the authorities on the use of this Greek word. It must be plain that the critical students of the New Testament are not all of the opinion that the Corinthian brethren were guilty of drunkenness. Admitting that the word, in this particular place, means to be intoxicated, it proves that there were inebriating drinks, which no one denies, but it cannot prove that these were the only kind then used, especially as the word has a generic character and a large application. The facts of the case are instructive. These converts from idolatry, mistaking the Lord’s Supper for a feast, easily fell into their former idolatrous practices. The rich brought plentifully of their viands, and gave themselves selfishly to festivity. The poor, unable thus to provide, were a body by themselves, and were left to go hungry. This discrimination between the rich and the poor was “a despising of the house of God,” and was an unchristian act, which the apostle condemned. It is not stated that all the members were drunken, for the narrative expressly says, “One is hungry, and another is drunken,” which clearly indicates that a portion were not drunken. As the poor are generally the majority in churches, the strong probability is that a minority only were offenders in prostituting the ordinance and in the matter of drinking. If an intoxicating wine was used on this occasion by the rich church members when they turned the Lord’s Supper into a common festive occasion, it furnishes no evidence that such wine was the proper element for the Scriptural celebration of that ordinance. Paul re-enacted the Supper as originally instituted, and restored it to its proper celebration. It is worthy of notice that he says, 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ; the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and the table of devils.” The contrast between the tables and the cups is apostolic and instructive. Their table and the cup they used were the devil’s. The proper table and the proper cup were the Lord’s. If their cup contained that which was intoxicating, it was, as Paul declares, the devil’s cup; but the cup which contained that which was the opposite, and was not intoxicating, was, as the apostle teaches, the Lord’s cup, the cup of blessing.