Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:22
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.
22. have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? ] i.e. If all you came together for were to satisfy your own hunger, you might just as well eat and drink at home. But the Lord’s Supper was instituted for a threefold purpose. It was (1) a practice intended to bind Christian people together in mutual love (see Act 2:42-47; Act 4:32-35), (2) it was designed as the solemn commemoration of the great Act of Love whereby Jesus Christ offered Himself upon the Cross for the sins of men (see 1Co 11:26), and (3) it was the means whereby He fed His people with the “spiritual food of His most blessed Body and Blood.” See ch. 1Co 10:15-16.
or despise ye the church of God ] Not the material building (see above, 1Co 11:18), but the Church gathered together in it, called out of the world, or called together (the Greek favours the first, the analogy of the Hebrew the latter explanation) to be the habitation of God through the Spirit. To introduce into this the petty jealousies and antipathies of human society was to despise the great and glorious Body, in which God was pleased to dwell.
and shame them that have not ] Not “those who have no houses,” “ han noone ” Wiclif, but as the margin, them that are poor; qui sont pauvres, De Sacy. The word in the original is rather stronger than shame; it is equivalent to disgrace.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
What! – This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of the Lords Supper.
Have ye not houses … – 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 ( ekklesia) 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 Lords 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, accomodations. The connection 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 dishonorable, and especially in a Christian church, where all were professedly on an equality.
What shall I say to you? … – 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?] They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
Despise ye the church of God] Ye render the sacred assembly and the place contemptible by your conduct, and ye show yourselves destitute of that respect which ye owe to the place set apart for Divine worship.
And shame them that have not?] , Them that are poor; not them who had not victuals at that time, but those who are so poor as to be incapable of furnishing themselves as others had done. See Clarke on Mt 13:12.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Hence evidently appears, that these love feasts were kept in the place where the assembly met for the public worship of God; for the apostle would have them (if they would continue them) kept in their private houses: and he doth not only blame the abuses of these feasts, but the feasts themselves as kept in the place where the church met, or as having in them any pretence to any thing of religion: meet they might, friendly to eat and to drink, but their private houses were the fittest places for that.
Or despise ye the church of God? Or do you despise the place (as some think) where the church of God meeteth, or the people met in that place, by carrying yourselves so disorderly in such a grave assembly; or the poorer part of the church, who, though poorer, are a part of the church, redeemed by the blood of Christ? The next words would incline us to think that the sense; for it followeth,
and shame them that have not, that is, that have not estates to contribute to such feasts, and so are forced to go away without any due refreshment.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. What!Greek, “For.”
houses(compare 1Co11:34) “at home.” That is the place to satiate theappetite, not the assembly of the brethren [ALFORD].
despise ye the church ofGodthe congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom”God hath chosen,” however ye show contempt for them (Jas2:5); compare “of God” here, marking the true honor ofthe Church.
shame them that havenotnamely, houses to eat and drink in, and who,therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feastsfrom their wealthier brethren.
I praise you notresumingthe words (1Co 11:17).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in?…. This shows that one taking his supper before another, was not in their own houses, before they came to the place of divine worship, but in the house of God; and the apostle suggests, that if they must have their ante-suppers, and were disposed to eat and drink freely, before they partook of the Lord’s supper, it was more decent and orderly, and less reflected upon the honour of religion and the ordinances of Christ, to eat and drink in their own houses; in which they were not only more private and retired, but which they had for such purposes; whereas the house of God was not for any such use, nor should they meet together there on such an account; at least, such disorderly, unequal, and intemperate feasts there, were very scandalous and reproachful: and it was contrary to a Jewish canon to eat and drink in the synagogues, which runs thus o,
“in the synagogues they do not use a light behaviour, nor do they eat and drink in them;”
though they sometimes speak of travellers eating and drinking and lodging in the synagogues p, yet they interpret these of places adjoining to them:
or despise ye the church of God; that is, expose it to contempt and scorn; meaning either the community, the people of God gathered together in a Gospel church state; or the place where they met for public worship, which the Ethiopic version calls, “the house of God”; which was rendered very contemptible by such disorderly practices;
and shame them that have not; no houses to eat in, or supper to eat, or any of this world’s goods, or money to purchase food for themselves; who must be confounded and put to shame, when, coming in expectation of being fed, the provisions were eaten up by the rich before they came, or, however, were not allowed to partake when they did come; this was such a respecting of persons, as was justly culpable in them by the apostle.
o T. Hieros. Megilia, fol. 74. 1. & T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 28. 1. p Gloss. in T. Bab. Bava Bathra, & Pesachim, fol. 101. 1. & Gloss. in ib. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 29. sect. 8. & Maggid Misna in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
What? Have ye not houses? ( ;) The double negative (—) in the single question is like the idiom in 9:4f. which see. expects a negative answer while negatives the verb . “For do you fail to have houses?” Paul is not approving gluttony and drunkenness but only expressing horror at their sacrilege (despising, ) of the church of God.
That have not ( ). Not those without houses, but those who have nothing, “the have-nots” (Findlay) like 2Co 8:12, in contrast with “the haves” (the men of property).
What shall I say to you? ( ;) Deliberative subjunctive that well expresses Paul’s bewilderment.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Them that have not. Not, that have not houses, but absolutely, the poor. In thus shaming their poorer comrades they imitated the heathen. Xenophon relates of Socrates that, at feasts of contribution, where some brought much and others little, Socrates bade his attendant either to place each small contribution on the table for the common use, or else to distribute his share of the same to each. And so those who had brought much were ashamed not to partake of that which was placed for general use, and not, in return, to place their own stock on the table (” Memorabilia, ” 3, 14, 1).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” (me gar oikias ouk echete eis to esthiein kai pinein) “Have, hold, or possess ye not houses with reference to eat and to drink?” This is a rhetoric question, indicating an affirmative answer.
2) “Or despise ye the church of God.” (he tes ekklesias tou theou kataphaoneite) “Or the church of God despise ye or take ye lightly, frivolously?”
3) “And shame them that have not?” (kai kataischumete tous me echontas?) “And do you shame the ones not having (done the same thing)?” Have you criticized those, tried to embarrass or humiliate those, who will not bring their common meal to the hour and place of worship?
4) ‘What shall I say to you?” (ti eipo humin) “What may I say to you?” To embarrass the poor, those who have little or have not food, preceding the Lord’s Supper, was a revolting thing.
5) “Shall I praise you in this?” (epaineso humas) “Shall I praise you?” Paul rhetorically asserts, “I shouldn’t praise you in such conduct, should I? The humble is to be exalted, not the proud glutton; See Jas 4:6; Jas 4:10; 1Pe 5:5-6.
6) “I praise you not.” (en touto ouk epaino) “In this (thing, behavior, or conduct) I praise not.” Contrast 1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
22. Have ye not houses ? From this we see that the Apostle was utterly dissatisfied with this custom of feasting, even though the abuse formerly mentioned had not existed. For, though it seems allowable for the whole Church to partake at one common table, yet this, on the other hand, is wrong — to convert a sacred assembly to purposes foreign to its nature. We know for what exercises a Church should assemble — to hear doctrine, to pour forth prayers, and sing hymns to God, to observe the sacraments, (665) to make confession of their faith, and to engage in pious observances, and other exercises of piety. If anything else is done there, it is out of place. Every one has his own house appointed him for eating and drinking, and hence that is an unseemly thing in a sacred assembly.
What shall I say to you? Having fitly stated the case, he now calls them to consider, whether they are worthy to be praised, for they could not defend an abuse that was so manifest. He presses them still further, by asking — “What else could I do? Will you say that you are unjustly reproved?” Some manuscripts connect the words in this with the verb that follows — in this way: Shall I praise you ? In this I do not praise you (666) The other reading, however, is the more generally received among the Greeks, and it suits better.
(665) “ Pour receuoir et administrer los sacrements;” — “To receive and administer the sacraments.”
(666) The earlier English versions follow this reading. Thus Wiclif, (1380) — What schal I seie to zou ? I preise zou: but hereynne I preise zou not; Tyndale, (1534) — What shall I saye unto you ? Shall I prayse you: In this prayse I you not; Cranmer, (1539) — What shall I saye unto you ? Shall I prayse you ? In this prayse I you, not. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) What? have ye not houses . . .?Better, Surely it is not that you have no houses to eat and drink in? This cannot be the explanation of their conduct, for they have houses in which they can enjoy their proper meals. Hunger and thirst, which can be satisfied at home, therefore, cannot be the explanation of their conduct at the charity-feasts. The only other alternative explanation, therefore, is that they despise an assembly which is the Church of God; and they put to shame those poor members, who, no doubt, were the majority, who have not houses in which to eat and drink, and have come together in this common assembly of Christians to share in the food which the wealthier members ought to contribute.
The shame which a poor man will feel when the rich come to these feasts bringing supplies for their own private use, and not for general distribution, will arise both from the striking contrast which will come out all the more vividly from his poverty being brought into such direct contact with the wealth of the rich, and from the evident dislike of the rich to partake of a common meal with the poor. Thus those assemblies will, through the misconduct of the wealthier Christians, have precisely the opposite result from that which they were intended to accomplish. It will be an assembly in one place, but not to partake of one suppereven that which is dedicated to the Lord. The Apostle asks indignantly whether such conduct can be included in the catalogue (see 1Co. 11:17) of those things for which he can praise them, and then in the following verses shows how such conduct cannot be worthy of praise, inasmuch as it is entirely at variance with the solemn and sacred circumstances in which the Lords Supper originated.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Houses Homes. If you sink the sacred supper to a secular rank, let the eating be done in a secular place.
Despise ye As too proud to eat in common with the commonalty.
The church of God Said emphatically to remind them what this despised commonalty truly was.
Have not Alford explains it, have not houses. But those who have not, is a phrase sometimes in Greek used for the poor. The poor and the rich are the have nots and the have alls.
Praise you not And so emphatic a withholding of praise was a strong dispraise and rebuke.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘What, do you not have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise the church of God, and put those to shame who have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.’
Could they not see that this open show of separation and disunity was the very opposite of what Jesus had declared when He said, ‘by this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another’ (Joh 13:35). Would it not then be better that they ate at home, and held their feasts and their big meals with their friends there? Let them have their social gatherings at home, and be fully satisfied there, so that when they came to the church they could partake in a simple common meal together, in which all could join on equal terms, and feel equally at home, and during which they could celebrate the Lord’s Supper in such a way that the unity of the church was revealed. Indeed, he asks, do they so despise the church, the very people of God, many of whom are of the poorer classes (1Co 1:28), that they put those who have little to shame by their behaviour? He is at a loss what to say to them. There is no way that he can praise them. He considers that their whole attitude is frankly appalling.
We note that Paul does not suggest that the remedy is that they all pool their food. The whole set up and the loose behaviour that it produces is not conducive to worship. And he does recognise also that outside the church there are social distinctions and customs which people feel bound by, and that thereby different sections of society do eat different types of foods. Indeed rich food provided to those used to meagre diets might not be helpful in both the short and the long term, causing first upset stomachs and then later disgruntlement and dissatisfaction and covetousness. And this would not be good for anyone. The Kingly Rule of God is not about what food we eat (Rom 14:17). Such distinctions may exist, and may even be necessary in their place. But the point is that they must not be introduced into the gathering of Christians to the detriment of some. At the Lord’s Supper all must be equal and be able to partake equally.
In order to bring this home he then stresses what the Lord’s Supper is all about.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 11:22-23. Shall I praise you, &c. The Apostle plainly refers here to what he had said 1Co 11:2 where he praised them for remembering him in all things, and for retaining what he had delivered to them. This commendation he now retracts; for in this matter of eating the Lord’s supper they did not retain what he had delivered to them, 1Co 11:23 which therefore, in the immediately following words, he repeats to them again. It is very remarkable, that the institution of the ordinance of the Lord’s supper should make a part of that immediate revelation with which our Lord honoured this great Apostle; and it affords a strong argument for the perpetuity of it in the church: for had others of the Apostles (as Barclay presumes to insinuate) mistaken what had happened at the last passover, and founded the observation of the Eucharist on that mistake, surely Christ would rather have corrected this error in his new revelation to St. Paul, than have administered such an occasion of confirming Christians in it. See Locke, Doddridge, Barclay’s Apol. prop. 13 and the notes on the parallel plac
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 11:22 . In a lively succession of questions the apostle shows how unsuitable and unworthy this procedure of theirs was.
. . [1840] ] has inferential force; see on Mat 27:23 ; Joh 9:30 ; Act 19:35 ; and Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 559]; Khner, a [1841] Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10 : you surely are not without houses ? The sense of astonishment (Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 478) is conveyed by the question, not by the .
] a second counter question, which divides itself into two parts: [1842] or , again, is it the case with you that you are persons whose business it is (1) generally to despise the church of God (which you show by your not counting its members worthy to eat and drink on a common footing with you), and (2) to cause the poor to be put to shame ? The latter could not but feel themselves slighted, if they were not thought worthy of having a share in what the wealthier had provided. The main emphasis in the first clause is upon . . ( , “ dignitas ecclesiae,” Bengel, comp 1Co 11:16 ); in the second, upon .
Respecting , not to have , to be poor, see Wetstein on 2Co 8:13 ; comp , divites , in Ast, a [1845] Plat. Legg. v. p. 172; Bornemann, a [1846] Anab. vi. 6. 38. Here, however, we have with the participle and article, because the class is referred to (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296).
. . [1847] ] what shall I say to you? Shall I give you praise ? On this point I praise not . If we keep 1Co 11:17 in view, to connect with gives a more suitable emphasis for the words than to link them with the preceding clause (Lachmann, Hofmann, with various codices and versions). On other points he has already praised them, 1Co 11:2 . The apostle’s deliberative and ceremonious mode of expressing himself, and the result that he arrives at, could not but make the readers themselves feel how much they deserved the reverse of praise in this matter.
[1840] . . . .
[1841] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1842] The underlying dilemmatic conclusion is: Persons who act as you do have either no houses, etc., or they despise the church of God, etc.; you have houses, therefore you despise, etc.
[1845] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1846] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1847] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Ver. 22. What, have ye not houses? ] Here he abolished their love feasts, for the disorder that happened therein. The Greek Church nevertheless retained them; but the Roman Church laid them down, as Justin Martyr witnesseth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
22. ] For (a reason for the blame in the foregoing: this should not be: for) have you no houses, to eat, &c. : meaning, ‘ at home is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren. ’
Or do ye shew your contempt for (pres.) the congregation of God ( to express, as Bengel, ‘dignitatem ecclesi.’ This contempt was expressed by their not sharing with the congregation the portion which they brought), and put to shame those who have not (houses to eat and to drink in, and therefore come to the daily to be fed. There is no reason for rendering with the majority of Commentators , ‘the poor ;’ the has a distinct reference to the before. Meyer refers in support of the meaning, ‘the poor,’ to Wetst. on 2Co 8:13 , where nothing on the subject is found: De Wette, to Luk 3:11 , where the case is as here, the preceding being referred to. The meaning is allowable , e.g. , Soph. Aj. 157: , , , Eurip. Alc. 57: , , where however it is qualified by )? What must I say to you? Shall I praise you in this matter? I praise you not . (See 1Co 11:17 .)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 11:22 . . . .; “For is it that you have not houses to eat and drink in?” See 1Co 11:34 , and note. The brings in an ironical excuse: “For I suppose you act thus because you are houseless, and must satisfy your appetite at church!” cf. ; Act 8:31 . If this voracity cannot be excused by a physical need which the offenders had no other means of supplying if, that is to say, their action is deliberate they must intend to pour scorn on the Church and to insult their humbler brethren: “Or do you despise the church of God, and cast shame on those that are without means?” For , an expression of awful dignity, see 1Co 1:2 , 1Co 10:32 . , “the have-nots” ( cf. 2Co 8:12 ) in cl [1728] Gr [1729] signifies “the men of property”; (of the point of view ) rather than (of the fact ), for the poor with their beggarly rations are shamed by the full-fed on this very account. What could show coarser contempt for the Church assembly? P. shows a fine self-restraint in the litotes of the last sentence: ; . . .: “What am I to say to you? Should I praise (you)? In this matter I praise you not”. , deliberative aor [1730] sbj [1731] , like , for the question refers not to the future, but to the situation depicted (see Wr [1732] , p. 356). has great point and emphasis when attached to the following (so R.V. marg., after early Verss., Bz [1733] , Est., Mr [1734] , Hn [1735] , Gd [1736] , Bt [1737] , El [1738] , Ed [1739] ); thus also better matches , and the last clause prepares for the important of the ensuing ver.
[1728] classical.
[1729] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1730]
[1731] subjunctive mood.
[1732] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).
[1733] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[1734] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1735] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1736] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1737] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[1738] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1739] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
What? have ye not = For is it (Greek. me, introducing the question) that ye have not (Greek. ou).
shame. Greek. kataischuno. Same as in 1Co 11:4.
What shall I say, &c. Figure of speech Amphidiorthosis. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
22.] For (a reason for the blame in the foregoing: this should not be: for) have you no houses, to eat, &c.: meaning, at home is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren.
Or do ye shew your contempt for (pres.) the congregation of God ( to express, as Bengel, dignitatem ecclesi. This contempt was expressed by their not sharing with the congregation the portion which they brought),-and put to shame those who have not (houses to eat and to drink in, and therefore come to the daily to be fed. There is no reason for rendering with the majority of Commentators , the poor; the has a distinct reference to the before. Meyer refers in support of the meaning, the poor, to Wetst. on 2Co 8:13, where nothing on the subject is found: De Wette, to Luk 3:11, where the case is as here, the preceding being referred to. The meaning is allowable, e.g. , Soph. Aj. 157: , , , Eurip. Alc. 57: , , where however it is qualified by )? What must I say to you? Shall I praise you in this matter? I praise you not. (See 1Co 11:17.)
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 11:22. , for) He presses upon them with questionings.-, houses) 1Co 11:34.- , the Church) of which the better part was the poor, Jam 2:5.- , of God) This constitutes the honour of the Church.-, do you despise) when you do that apart in the church, which you might do at home.- , not having) Those, who have, viz. the wealthy; those, who have not, viz. the needy.- , I praise you not) [saying less than is intended], implying: You are very much to be blamed.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:22
1Co 11:22
What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you?-He shames them with these questions. If they had a feast in public, brotherly love for each other would have suggested a common table at which all would have fared alike, and as a consequence those without food at home would have had their wants supplied. The course pursued caused shame to the poor and left them hungry.
In this I praise you not.-He had told them (verse 1) that he praised them for remembering him and holding fast the traditions, but here was such a perversion that he could not praise them for doing it.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
have: 1Co 11:34
or: 1Co 10:32, 1Co 15:9, Act 20:28, 1Ti 3:5, 1Ti 3:15
that have not: or, that are poor, Pro 17:5, Jam 2:5, Jam 2:6
Reciprocal: Ecc 5:1 – thy foot Mal 1:7 – The table Mat 18:10 – heed Rom 10:19 – I say 1Co 11:2 – I praise 1Co 11:17 – I praise 1Co 13:5 – behave 2Co 11:29 – and I burn
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Verse 22. Some might claim they would become too hungry to wait until the rest were ready to eat. Paul tells all such that they should eat at home before coming to the assembly if their appetites were thus demanding gratification. But instead of doing that, they were abusing the purpose of the feasts of charity by their disorderly conduct. By such practices they despised (belittled or put to shame) the the public assembling place, and also embarrassed the poor, who are meant by the phrase them that have not. I shall quote Thayer’s remarks about the feasts as they were related to the poor of the congregation: “AGAPAI, agapae, love-feasts, feasts expressing and fostering mutual love which used to be held by Christians before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and at which the poorer Christians mingled with the wealthier and partook in common with the rest of the food provided at the expense of the wealthy.” Such disorderly conduct of the more prosperous brethren as Paul describes, would confuse the poorer ones and make them feel that they were not welcome to the public feasts of the congregation. This is one of the things for which the apostle said he would not praise them. The poorer sort of the brethren would not appreciate these free meals (feasts of charity) when they saw the corruption practiced by the wealthier classes, and the whole procedure thus made a mockery of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which is why Paul said when they came together they would not eat the supper.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?emphatically so named here, as in 1Co 11:16, to express the affront put upon God Himself, regarded as present in their assemblies.
and put them to shame that have notnamely, the poor, by exposing their poverty and making them feel it. Since all these disorders sprang from their forgetting what they had been taught on this subject, the apostle now formally and at some length repeats it.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
A twofold sense and interpretation is given of these words, Some paraphrase them thus; What! must you make the house of God the place of your feasting? If you be disposed for mirth and jollity, have you not houses wherein you may do it with more privacy, and less offence? Or despise you the church of God? Do you undervalue and thus profane and unhallow the place set apart for God’s worship and service, by converting it into a common banqueting-house? Thus many expound it of the material church; and their opinion is favoured by the antithesis and opposition betwixt church and houses; Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise you the church of God?
Learn, That holy duties, pious and public, are to be performed in the church or house of God.
Duties pious, but not public, better suit the closet than the church.
Duties public, but not pious, more befit a Guild-hall or Townhouse, than the house of God.
Others by the church of God understand the spiritual church, the poor members of Jesus Christ, and render the words thus; “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in, if need be, before you come? Or despise you those poor Christians, who are members of the church of Christ as well as you, and put to shame them that have not what you eat and drink, by excluding them out of your company for their poverty-sake? For since God adopts them into his family, and admits them unto his table, you ought not to exclude them from this feast of charity, which was originally designed for the poor’s relief.”
Learn, He that despiseth the poor, despiseth the church of God; yea, despiseth Christ himself; as he that pincheth the little toe paineth the whole body, so the disgracing the poor members of Christ is a despising of the whole church.
In these love-feasts the poor were the most proper, and should have been the most principal guests; but, alas! the rich gorged themselves plentifully, whilst the poor stood and looked on hungry.
Yet observe, lastly, With what lenity and mildness the apostle reproves these great disorders in the church at Corinth: Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. It was the first time he had told them of their faults; therefore he doth it gently, in hope of amendment.
Learn thence, That though ministers must not commend but reprove people, when they do ill, yet they must use mildness, especially at their first reproving of a sin.
Some observe, That God so blessed the mild severity of St. Paul, that the Corinthians, upon the writing of this first epistle, reformed all their abuses: which they gather from hence, because no fault is taxed in the second epistle, which was reproved in the first.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 22. Have ye not then houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this point, I praise you not.
One feels in the lively succession of these accumulated questions the indignant emotion which fills the apostle as he calls up the scene before him. The , for, refers to an idea which is understood: It ought not so to be, for have you not…? Paul points out three principal sins in this conduct. First, the feast itself so celebrated; the agape, with the Holy Supper terminating it, is not a meal taken for support; it is a religious rite expressly instituted, and that for a religious purpose. If any one wishes to satisfy his hunger, he has the means of doing so otherwise. We learn from this first rebuke how thoroughly distinct in the apostle’s eyes was the feast of the Supper from a common feast, even when taken in the most Christian spirit and hallowed by thanksgiving. To hold, as Vinet somewhere has done, that every Christian meal should become a Holy Supper, is an ultra-spiritualistic error, the thoroughgoing application of which would inevitably compromise the existence, first, of the ministry, then of the Church itself. The second rebuke refers to the want of respect to an assembly like the Church; the third to the offence in particular given to a portion of its members, the poor who are humiliated.
The formula … signifies: It is not so however that you have not? The other two questions, closely connected as they are, might contain only one rebuke, in the sense that the dishonour to which the Church was subjected consisted precisely in the humiliation of its poor members; for the whole body feels the contempt with which one of its members is treated. But it is better to regard the two ideas as distinct. There is first contempt inflicted on the Church, as such, in this transformation of one of the most solemn acts of its worship into a means of gross and sensual enjoyment; the complement of God brings out the gravity of this profanation more forcibly. Then comes the humiliation inflicted on the poor; it appears in all its force if we take the expression , not only in the sense of poverty in general, but as having a direct application to the present case: Those who have nothing, that is to say, no food with them.
The question: What shall I say? indicates the embarrassment the apostle feels when he would characterize such conduct without using terms too severe. There is a litotes full of irony in the last words: Shall I praise you? Then returns the tone of the most sorrowful earnestness: In this I praise you not. We think, with Meyer and Holsten, that the words , in this, must be connected with the following verb I praise you not, rather than with the preceding, shall I praise you? as is done by Heinrici and many others. On other points I can praise you (1Co 11:2), but on this, not!
To make the Corinthians blush at their profane spirit, the apostle brings them face to face with the scene of the institution of the sacrament. But his object, in relating this solemn event, is not merely to contrast with their selfish and frivolous disposition the spectacle of Christ’s sufferings and devotion. Paul, in going back on the solemn institution of the Supper by the Lord, wishes above all to bring home to them the difference between this feast and a feast intended to satisfy bodily wants. Here is a religious rite, a true ceremony, for it was positively instituted.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put 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 Agap, 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– Jud 1:12). This Agap 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 Agap, 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.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
22. For have you not houses in which to eat and drink, or do you look down with contempt on the church of God, and shaming those not having? What do I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you. This is a withering rebuke to the church festivals of our day, setting forth the fact that they are utterly inappropriate in the house of God, because they are even much more extravagant and luxuriant and hilarious than these Corinthian festivals.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
11:22 {17} What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise [you] not.
(17) The apostle thinks it good to take away the love feasts because of their abuse, although they had been practised a long time, and with commendation used in churches, and were appointed and instituted by the apostles.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
This verse contains some of the apostle’s most critical statements in this epistle. If his original readers chose to behave in such a selfish way, they should stay home and eat rather than humiliating their less fortunate brethren. Such conduct showed disrespect for the church as the temple of God (cf. 1Co 3:17).
"The early Church was the one place in all the ancient world where the barriers which divided the world were down. The ancient world was very rigidly divided; there were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks and the barbarians-the people who did not speak Greek; there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman citizens and the lesser breeds without the law; there were the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one place where all men could and did come together. . . . A Church where social and class distinctions exist is no true Church at all. A real Church is a body of men and women united to each other because all are united to Christ.
"A Church is not true Church where the art of sharing is forgotten." [Note: Barclay, The Letters . . ., pp. 112-13.]