17 But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. [Their church services, which were intended for their development, had become so corrupted that they tended to retard and to dwarf their natural growth. Farrar makes the words "this charge" refer back to verse 2; but it is more natural and easy to refer them to what he is about to say.] 18 For first of all [Paul was not careful as to his divisions, and so his "secondly" is not clearly stated. Olshausen, Ewald, Winer and others think it begins at verse 20, and thus the apostle first censures the factions, and next the evils which resulted from the factions. But as Paul includes both these in one rebuke, it is best with Meyer, Fausset and others to find the "secondly" beginning at ch. 12:1; so that the first rebuke is directed at their misbehavior at the love-feast and the Lord's Supper, and the second at their misapplication of the gifts of the Spirit], when ye come together in the church [i. e., in the congregation, for as yet they doubtless had no building (Acts 18:7), and in this latter sense the word is nowhere used in the New Testament], I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. [Evidently the divisions rebuked in chapter 1 manifested themselves in the meetings of the congregation, and the Pauline, Petrine and other parties gathered in separate groups. Paul was distressed to hear this, and Alford interprets him thus: "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I can not help believing."] 19 For there must be [Luke 17:1; Matt. 18:7; 10:11] also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. [A carnal spirit tends to division (ch. 3:1-4; 1 John 2:18, 19). The divisive spirit in the [114] perverse and carnal, manifests, by contrast, the loving, united spirit of the obedient and spiritual, which is approved. "Approved" is the cognate opposite of "rejected" found at ch. 9:27. The word "division" used in the verse above was a milder term than "factions" found here. The former represented parties separated by present or at least very recent dissensions, while the latter described matured separations and looked toward permanent organizations. If the former might be regarded as a war of secession, the latter would describe that condition when the war was practically ended, and the two parties were almost ready to establish themselves as separate, independent and rival governments. But factions did not thus mature in Paul's time, nor does Clement's epistle written forty years later indicate that they had matured in his time. No doubt, this epistle of Paul's had much to do in checking their development.] 20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper [The Lord's Supper is a spiritual feast. It is a feast of love, union and communion in and with Christ, and so can not be eaten by those who have already glutted themselves with hatred, factiousness and partyism]: 21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. [This verse is an indictment with three counts. There could be no communion supper when: 1. The parties did not eat at the same time, but some before and some after; 2. when each ate his own meal, instead of sharing in "the one bread" (ch. 10:17); 3. when some ate to the full and others ate nothing at all, because there was nothing left. It is likely that "drunken" indicates a state of partial intoxication. Grotius gives "drunken" the milder, and Meyer the stronger, sense. But the context suggests that one had more than was good for him, and the other less, and there is a subtle innuendo in the crossing of the terms, so that overdrinking stands in contrast to undereating, for overdrinking is greater debauchery than overeating.] 22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put [115] them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. [Litotes for "I condemn you." The context here makes it evident that the abuses of the Lord's Supper grew out of the Agapæ, or love-feast, which was associated with it. As the feast of the Passover immediately preceded the Lord's Supper, the early church thought it expedient to have a preliminary feast as a substitute for the Passover, thinking that the Lord's Supper would thus have its proper setting. They called this preliminary meal a "love-feast" (Greek, Agapai--Jude 12). This Agapæ was a club-feast; i. e., one to which each was supposed to contribute his share. But the factious spirit in Corinth caused the church to eat in different parties and at different times; and may have, to a large degree, caused each to selfishly eat what he himself had brought. Hence, the apostle declares that a feast so devoid of all spirit of communion might just as well be eaten at home. They were mere carnal feasts of appetite and not spiritual feasts of love. Paul does not, however, mention the Agapæ, for, being a human and not a sacred feast, it could not be profaned. But the things which were a disgrace to it became a profanation and a sin when they passed from it into the Lord's Supper. Paul shows his sense of astonishment at the unseemly conduct of the Corinthians by "lively succession of questions." His meaning may be paraphrased thus: "Private feasts should be eaten in your own private houses, or is it possible that you do not own any houses? Surely you do. Why, then, do you meet in a public assembly to eat your private meal? Is it because you despise the church of God, and wish to show your contempt for it by exposing the poverty of those who have no houses (nor anything else), making a parade of your wealth before them, and publishing the fact that you do not consider them fit to eat with you?" The evil spirit of which Paul speaks still exists; but it shows itself to-day by a parade of dress, and not of victuals. From the perverted feast of the Corinthians Paul now turns to show the nature of the true Lord's Supper.] 23 For I received of the Lord [Paul did not receive his knowledge as to the supper [116] from the apostles or other witnesses (comp. Gal. 1:11, 12). To be truly an apostle and witness (Acts 1:8), it was fitting that Paul should have his knowledge from the fountain source. For a comparison of Paul's account with the three others, and comments upon verses 23-26, see "Fourfold Gospel," p. 657] that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed [the solemn and affecting circumstances under which the supper was instituted, as well as the sacred nature of the ordinance itself, should have impressed upon the Corinthians how unbecoming it was to celebrate the memorial of it in a spirit of pride, revelry and disorder] took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. [The Greek word for giving thanks is eucharistia, and from it many call the Lord's Supper the Eucharist. But the "Lord's supper" and the "Lord's table" (ch. 10:21) and the "communion" (ch. 10:16) are three Bible terms for it. Many ancient authorities read: "This is my body, which is broken for you" etc. Some regard this as a contradiction of John's assertion that no bone of him was broken (John 19:36). But the word differs from that used by John, which may be properly translated "crushed." "Broken" is involved in the phrase "he brake it," used here, and in the three other accounts of the supper, and hence they err who use the unbroken wafer.] 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper [Paul here inserts the entering wedge of reform. The Lord's Supper came after the Passover, and was no part of it; hence it was no part of the Agapæ which was substituted for the Passover. As therefore the Agapæ was fruitful of disorder, would it not be well to separate it from the communion? By the end of the first century it was so separated, and at last it was formally prohibited by the Council of Carthage. See Poole's synopsis on Matt. 26:26], saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [Diatheke may be translated "testament" (Heb. 9:16), or "covenant." The latter is the meaning here, for [117] wills or testaments were not sealed with blood, as were covenants. The cup is the symbol of Christ's blood, which ratified the gospel covenant.] 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim [inwardly and outwardly] the Lord's death till he come. [Thus the supper looks forward, as well as backward. The constant observance of this feast through the centuries is one of the strongest of the external evidences of the truth of gospel history. By a chain of weekly links it will connect the first and second comings of our Lord; after which there will be no further need of symbols.] 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. [It is possible to partake of either emblem unworthily, and so be guilty as to both (Jas. 2:10). Though we may be unworthy, we may still eat worthily, i. e., in a prayerful, reverent, repentant spirit; but if we eat unworthily, we profane not only the symbols, but the Lord who is symbolized--comp. Heb. 10:29.] 28 But let a man prove [test] himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. [A Christian confronting the communion should first test his sincerity (2 Cor. 13:5), his state of heart (Matt. 5:22-24), etc., to see if he can eat in a submissive spirit, and in loving remembrance of his Lord.] 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. [The Corinthians were eating the supper in a spirit of levity, as though it were common food; not keeping in mind what it memorialized.] 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. ["Not a few" indicates a larger number than the preceding "many." It is generally accepted that Paul here refers to physical weakness, ill health and death, and that he asserts that these things came upon the Corinthians as a "judgment" for their abuse of the Lord's Supper (comp. John 5:14). But the word "sleep" indicates peaceful repose, rather than the violence of the death penalty; and suggests that the Corinthians were condemned to be spiritually unhealthy and sleepy--comp. Matt. 13:12-15.] [118] 31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. [If we examined and corrected ourselves, we would escape the correction of God; but, as it is, his judgments are visited upon us, so that we may not finally be condemned with the world (Ps. 94:12; Heb. 12:5-12). Verses 28 and 31 call for self-judgment, but there is no Biblical authority for the practice of those who take it upon themselves to judge as to the fitness of other professing Christians to commune (comp. Rom. 14:4). Moreover, these verses, in giving the true rule of practice, expose the departure of the Romish Church, which calls for no self-examination, but makes confession and priestly absolution the preparation for communion.] 33 Wherefore [if you wish to remedy matters], my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. [By waiting they would eat together, and eat of the same symbolic bread; by eating at home, and taking the edge off their appetites, they would not devour all, and so exclude others from the communion.] And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come. [The spiritual ill health of the church had delayed his coming, but when he arrived he would adjust any lesser irregularities which might need attention.]

[TCGR 114-119]