1Cor 11:18-22 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 18. For first of all . That is, I mention as the first thing to be reproved. When ye come together in the church . When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word church here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a building . No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means, when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then ; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes. I hear . I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe, . That there be divisions among you . Greek, as in the margin, Schisms. The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth, ( ;) and then a division, a split, a faction among men, . It does not mean here that they had proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was discord and division in the church itself. , . And I partly believe it . I credit a part of the reports; I have reason to think, that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet that it is true at least in part. I believe that there are dissensions in the church that should be reproved. (b) "hear" (2) "divisions" "schisms"

1 Corinthians 11:18-22

Verse 18. For first of all. That is, I mention as the first thing to be reproved.

When ye come together in the church. When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word church here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a building. No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means, when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes.

I hear. I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe, 1Cor 1:11.

That there be divisions among you. Greek, as in the margin, Schisms. The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth, (Mt 9:16, Mk 2:21;) and then a division, a split, a faction among men, Jn 7:43, 9:16, 10:19. It does not mean here that they had proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was discord and division in the church itself. 1Cor 1:10, 1Cor 1:11.

And I partly believe it. I credit a part of the reports; I have reason to think, that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet that it is true at least in part. I believe that there are dissensions in the church that should be reproved.

(b) "hear" 1Cor 1:11,12 (2) "divisions" "schisms" Verse 19. For there must be. It is necessary, (δει;) it is to be expected; there are reasons why there should be. What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse. Comp. Mt 18:7, 2Pet 2:1,2. The meaning is not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion, not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist, and not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God.

Heresies. Margin, Sects. Greek, αιρεσεις. Acts 24:14. The words heresy and heresies occur only in these places, and in Gal 5:20, 2Pet 2:1. The Greek word occurs also in Acts 5:17, (translated sect;) Acts 15:6; Acts 24:5, 26:6, 28:22; in all which places it denotes, and is translated, sect. We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some doctrine, the holding of which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in Gal 5:20; where, however, the word contentions or divisions would be quite as much in accordance with the connexion. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or sects, as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations.

(1.) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.

(2.) It is the sense which the connexion here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of irregularity in conduct; and the first thing which he mentions is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to doctrines, would by no means suit the connexion, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must be expected that there would be fundamental errors of doctrine in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner. The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected; there are causes for it; and it cannot be avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected, in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not." The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentions, may be traced to the following causes:

(1.) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of men, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.

(2.) Showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ. 1Cor 1:12.

(3.) The multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.

(4.) The passions of men--their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends. And the time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his long-distracted church; and that while there may be an honest difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of Christian love shall secure union of heart in all who love the Lord Jesus, and union of effort in the grand enterprise in which ALL can unite--that of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the whole world to God.

That they which are approved. That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.

May be made manifest. May be known; recognised; seen. The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is, to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation. See Rom 16:17: "Mark them which cause divisions, and AVOID THEM.

(a) "must be" Mt 18:7, 2Pet 2:1,2 (1) "heresies" "sects" (b) "that they" Lk 2:35 Verse 20. When ye come together therefore, etc. When you are assembled as a church. Comp. Heb 10:25, and Acts 2:1. Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here particularly refers to their assembling to observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord's day.

This is not, etc. Margin, "Ye cannot eat." The meaning of this expression seems to be this: "Though you come together professedly to worship God, and to partake of the Lord's Supper, yet this cannot be the real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness, (1Cor 11:21;) your intemperance, (1Cor 11:21;) your partaking of the food separately, and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord's Supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord's Supper."

The Lord's supper. That which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called "the Lord's," because it is his appointment, and is in honour of him; it is called "supper," (δειπνον,) because the word denotes the evening repast. It was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning--a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.

(2) "one place" "ye cannot eat" Verse 21. For in eating. When you eat, having professedly come together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the Lord's Supper either connected with a common feast, or that they regarded it as a mere common festival to be observed in a way similar to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this was done by making the observance of the Supper follow a festival, or, what were afterwards called, love-feasts, (αγαπαι --Agapae). Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact that the Saviour instituted the Supper after a festival, a feast in which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or common meal, before they celebrated the Lord's Supper. But it may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary festival, or feast. It had no resemblance to the so-called love-feasts, It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God; and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the observance of the Lords Supper, but was always understood as designed to be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance of the Lord's Supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by such a festival as a love-feast. There is no evidence in the passage before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New Testament. To my mind it seems altogether improbable that the disorders in Corinth would assume this form--that they would first observe a common feast, and then the Lord's Supper in the regular manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as a feast in honour of the Saviour on some such principles as they observed feasts in honour of idols, and that they observed it in some such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those festivals was, that it was in honour of Jesus rather than an idol, and was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name.

Every one taketh before other his own supper. That is, each one is regardless of the wants of the others; instead of making even a meal in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of the Lord's Supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea that there was anything like a common celebration, or a celebration together, was abandoned. There is allusion here, doubtless, to what was a custom among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated, or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the company. Thus Xenophon (Mem lib. iii. cap. xiv.) says of Socrates, that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided for. Socrates endeavoured, he adds, to shame them out of this indecent custom by offering his provisions to all the company.

And one is hungry. Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by others.

And another is drunken. The word here used (μεθυει) means, properly, to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord's Supper became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lord's Supper. But we are to remember the following things:

(1.) These persons had recently been heathens, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them.

(2.) They had been accustomed to such revels in honour of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity.

(3.) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lord's Supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honour of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow.

(4.) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favoured with pious, wise, and prudent teachers. There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavoured to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites. We may remark here:

(1.) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism,

(2.) We see how prone men are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence how corrupt is human nature.

(3.) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves, they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.

(c) "another is drunken" 2Pet 2:13, Jude 1:12 Verse 22. What? This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of the Lord's Supper.

Have ye not houses, etc. Do you not know that the church of God is not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry, nor even a place where to partake of your ordinary meals? Can it be that you will come to the places of public worship, and make them the scenes of feasting and riot? Even on the supposition that there had been no disorder, no revelry, no intemperance, yet on every account it was grossly irregular and disorderly to make the place of public worship a place for a festival entertainment.

Or despise ye the church of God. The phrase, "church of God," Grotius understands of the place. But the word church (εκκλησια) is believed not to be used in that sense in the New Testament; and it is not necessary to suppose it here. The sense is, that their conduct was such as if they had held in contempt the whole church of God, in all places, with all their views of the sacredness and purity of the Lord s Supper.

And shame them that have not? Margin, Are poor. Something must here be understood, in order to make out the sense. Probably it meant something like possessions, property, conveniences, accommodations. The connexion would make it most natural to understand "houses to eat and drink in;" and the sense then would be, "Do you thus expose to public shame those who have no accommodations at home--who are destitute and poor? You thus reflect publicly upon their poverty and want, while you bring your own provisions, and fare sumptuously, and while those who are thus unable to provide for themselves are thus seen to be poor and needy." It is hard enough, the idea is, to be poor, and to be destitute of a home. But it greatly aggravates the matter to be publicly treated in that manner; to be exposed publicly to the contempt which such a situation implies. Their treatment of the poor in this manner would be a public exposing them to shame; and the apostle regarded this as particularly dishonourable, and especially in a Christian church, where all were professedly on an equality.

What shall I say to you? etc. How shall I sufficiently express my surprise at this, and my disapprobation at this course? It cannot be possible that this is right. It is not possible to conceal surprise and amazement that this custom exists, and is tolerated in a Christian church.

(1) "that have not" "are poor"