Don’t have access to this commentary or Carson @TCC.
I also don’t have Logos brother.
But I do have a question for you. Is dokimazo ever used for unbelievers? Why not peiradzo in this verse?
J.
1 Like
Factions (sects) (139) hairesis from haireo = to choose, elect, prefer; only in the middle voice = to take for oneself; see word study of hairetikos) denotes a choosing or a choice. It came to mean an opinion chosen or a tenet (a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true) and then came to refer to a sect, party or faction that held tenets distinctive to it. Hairesis is the source of our English words heresy, heretic, heretical, but (with the exception of the “destructive heresies” in 2 Peter 2:1) heresy as we think of it today was not usually the meaning in the NT. Vine explains that as hairesis evolved it came to mean “an opinion,” especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects… such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage Hairesis is used in the book of Acts to describe various parties or sects in Acts 5:17 = Sadducees; Acts 15:5; 26:5 = Pharisees; Acts 24:5-14, 28:22 = Christians.
So that - Term of purpose.
Those who are approved may become evident among you - Approved (dokimos) was a metallurgist term for testing the genuineness of something by fire which burns off the dross revealing that which is genuine. It is a bit ironic that divisions were allowed by God (certainly not sent by Him), to allow the “cream to rise to the top,” so to speak. In other words, the believers who were walking in the Spirit and manifesting the fruit of the Spirit would be clearly highlighted (phanerós) when compared with those who were acting fleshly. Factions have a purpose but should not be allowed to persist (cf Titus 3:10-11+ - “reject a factious (hairetikos related to hairesis) man…”) and should not be allowed to divide a church (church split).
MacDonald - Although in general this (factions) would be detrimental to the church, yet one good thing would come out of it, that is, that those who were truly spiritual and who were approved of God would be recognized among the Corinthians. (Ibid)
Some like Warren Wiersbe go a step further suggesting that “God would use this to reveal those who were true believers.” I’m not sure that was Paul’s main thrust but it is a possibility for as Jesus told us there will always be wheat and tares (cf Mt 13:37-42). (Ibid)
MacArthur says it this way - Church division, ungodly and sinful as it is, nevertheless is used by the Lord to prove the worth of His faithful saints. In the midst of bickering and divisiveness they are separated out as pure gold is from the dross. Evil helps manifest good. Trouble in the church creates a situation in which true spiritual strength, wisdom, and leadership can be manifested…Those approved ones are especially made manifest in adversity and hardship, and it is only to such tried and tested saints that a church should entrust its leadership. (Ibid)
Krell says it this way - God’s approval (dokimos) contrasts with what Paul had written earlier about being disapproved (adokimos; 1 Cor 9:27) by God. Thus, “the approved” are those who behave in a Christian manner and thus stand out from the ones who do not. Mature Christians will become evident in times of crisis.
Arnold on those who are approved - In His providence, God permitted cliques in the Corinthian church for a purpose, but He does not desire them. The purpose was that those who were biblically correct might stand the test and be approved. Internal strife causes God’s people to go to the Bible to find out what it teaches on the subject.Paul says God has a wise purpose in permitting factions in the church. By disorders, God puts His people to a test. It is a great consolation to know that dissensions, whether in the church or in the state, are not fortuitous, but are ordered by the providence of God and are designed as storms for the purpose of purifying God’s people.
Approved (1384) dokimos from dokime = test, proof, trial = idea is that when you put metal through a fiery testing and it comes out on the other side enduring it “proven”, “authentic” or “genuine” Click discussion of related word dokimazo and the antonym = adokimos) describes one who has stood the test. It means to put to the test for the purpose of being approved, and having met specifications, having the stamp of approval placed upon one. Vine writes that dokimos signifies "that which is approved by being proved, that which stands the test
Evident (5318) phanerós = manifest, visible, conspicuous, from phaino = give light; to make to shine, to cause to become visible from phos = light; Study verb phaneroo) means made visible as an external manifestation to senses. The very nature of phaneros (originating from phos = light) suggests a visibility that gives the observer an ability to define immediately what is seen. Phaneros stresses what is visible to sight. Conspicuous, apparent, (openly) manifest, obvious, visible, evident, plain, clear, easily seen, open to sight. What is open and public Webster on evident - Clear to the vision or understanding, readily perceived or apprehended. Evident implies presence of visible signs that lead one to a definite conclusion. Plain. Open to be seen; clear to the mental eye; apparent; manifest.
1 Corinthians 11 Commentary | Precept Austin(sects,eye%3B%20apparent%3B%20manifest.
J.
1 Like
I would say peirazó could be to tempt or try (refine) whereas dokimazo seems more so to see what is real, what remains. I think i know what you are getting at. But I came out of some pretty thick reformed doctrine that I know see as overly led by word meanings in Greek to the neglect of context.
For me, the word used “can” expose the exegetical drive. But what i have seen over the decades is that exegetical drive is far more contextual than what a Greek word means. Even so, your question is not without merit. dokimazo would be a more likely choice of word consistent with how I am reading the passage. Amen. And you would say, peirazó is used because it is dealing with an ability to “genuinely in the real moment” see what is there. Why would a word that holds so much explanatory power in the realm of the real and what is, be used in irony, hyperbole, or sarcasm?
But i would also say that peirazó is to try and see if something can be done. I don’t believe Paul’s point is that the elite try and see if they can get away with something. If this passage truly is sarcasm, then the fullest impact would be ontological focus. Elites, like Israeli leaders, felt entitled as the ontological heirs of majesty. By using dokimazo, I would find that consistent with the point of sarcasm. Behooves, to me, is used as a way of Paul putting an arm around the gluttonous and the drunkard and speak as they might be thinking. That is how it comes across to me. AND is kind of the context MORE than this is a context to lay down a deep alternative (side-bar mini comment) about a lofty theological ideology of how good it is that we have factions though, would be my take.
If by this you intend perhaps to ask something different, I am open to what that might be. But i copied and pasted what was said from that commentary…which is pretty much their position on it. And the words from DA Carson I just got from an oline search. Posting what DA Carson said is not in favor at all with my POV on this. But i posted it because it is what we find him to have said. I don’t believe though either of those quotes (from commentary or Carson) need to physically be in your possession in order to respond to them though. Not sure how that might make a difference.
I am not trying to be argumentative…lol. I am engaging as genuinely as I can. I am honestly being challenged by your position. I am open to its opportunity. But in so doing I’m just letting you know how the passage still strikes me.
GREEK TERMS FOR TESTING AND THEIR CONNOTATIONS
There are two Greek terms in all their forms that have the connotation of testing, trying, or tempting someone for a purpose.
Dokimazō, Dokimion, Dokimasia
This term is a metalurgist term for testing the genuineness of something (i.e., metaphorically someone) by fire (see SPECIAL TOPIC: FIRE). The fire reveals the true metal and burns off (i.e., impurities) the dross. This physical process became a powerful idiom for God and/or Satan and/or humans testing others. This term is only used in a positive sense of testing with a view towards acceptance (see SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD TESTS HIS PEOPLE [OT]).
It is used in the NT of testing
oxen ‒ Luke 14:19
one’s life ‒ 1 Cor. 3:13
ourselves ‒ 1 Cor. 11:28
believers approved by God ‒ 2 Cor. 10:18; 1 Thess. 2:4
even God ‒ Heb. 3:9; 1 Pet. 1:7
our faith ‒ James. 1:3
spiritual messengers or prophets ‒ 1 John 4:1
The outcomes of these tests were assumed to be positive (cf. Rom. 2:18; 16:10; 2 Cor. 10:18; 13:3,7), therefore, the term conveys the idea of someone examined and approved
to be worthwhile
to be good
to be genuine
to be valuable
to be honored
Peirazō, Ekpeirizō, Peirasmos, Peirasmo
This term often has the connotation of examination for the purpose of fault finding or rejection.
** It is used in connection to Satan’s tempting Jesus in the wilderness (cf. Matthew 4; Luke 4).
It conveys the attempt to trap Jesus (cf. Matt. 4:1; 16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2; Heb. 2:18).
This term (peirazōn) is used as a title for Satan in Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5 (i.e., “the tempter”; see SPECIAL TOPIC: SATAN).
Usage
It was used by Jesus warning humans not to test God (cf. Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12, [or Christ cf. 1 Cor 10:9]).
It also denotes the attempt to do something that has failed (cf. Heb.11:29).
It is used in connection with the temptation and trials of believers (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; 10:9, 13; Gal. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:5; Heb. 2:18; James. 1:2, 13, 14; 1 Pet. 4:12; 2 Pet 2:9).
In Hebrews 3:9 they are both used in their distinctive senses. Words have meaning only in contexts!
Utley.
Can you now see what I’m driving at brother @TCC ?
J.
1 Like
Thanks for all that. It is appreciated brother, honestly. But what I did not ask though is proof of my thesis: That it is very rare to find a view like PNTC. I used to put way too much trust in theologians and their words. In many cases I would boil them down to informed opinions. Good arguments. But i came out of a 2 decade struggle with those who champion Greek at the severe extent of context over and over and over again. So the reason I am asking for you to paraphrase line by line what Paul is saying is because it won’t be from sources of opinion. But observations of your heart.
And even though the heart is desperately wicked, if you walk by the Spirit in considering what is being said aside from commentary, God could use that. I ask because I am kind of immune to the great Greek scholarly minds of our day. I don’t completely dismiss them, but they have helped me to see the cream rises to the top when we let context context context clarify our word meanings and not the other way around. If that makes sense?
I was about to ask why you are isolating that particular verse rather than engaging the broader context and historical setting of the Corinthian ἐκκλησία, brother @TCC.?
J.
1 Like
Its ok for you to just plainly state it though Johann. I took the time to honestly reply with good faith thought toward what you are thinking. I’ve earned the opportunity from you of directness and candor, no?
What Utley says about this is what other commentaries are saying. But Utley accented it in a way that helps on another aspect of this. Utley sees that factions should not be but have a purpose (as you say). And that it brings forth the approved.
Stated like that (which everyone pretty much has) it helped me to think of something (because I do like Utley). Utley sees about this passage that the “approved” are brought to the forefront. Yet, what is forefront in this passage is the unapproved. By coming to the forefront does Utley mean “they go hungry?” Utley in the video I saw combined women in the church issue with the Lords Supper and kind of blew through them. So its not the best source i am sure from him. But because of lack of time, he did not walk us through the passage either.
So that is what I am asking. Just walk through the logic flow for me in how you are seeing, that. It might help. Blessings.
I wanted this to be a separate post for highlighting sake. Something else Utley stated that I believe is likely the thinking of a lot of commentators. He said that the factions in 1 Cor 11 are different than the factions earlier about I am of Apollos etc. I agree they are different. The I am of Apollos type groups were likely seeking for status. While the elite already believed they had it. Two different factions.
It would seem to me that the reason Utley would make this a distinction is how the language attached to factions is negative in Paul’s earlier address about that in the same letter. And distance this group (since “some” favorable language is about to leak out in chapter 11). This is one of the over arching realities about 1 Cor than perhaps even transcends the literary authority of context. And that would be internal consistency of the letter.
It is doubtful that Paul would be whimsically ballet dance through “factions” as having good purpose in regards to such a thing as the Lord’s Supper, and especially in contrast to Paul’s earlier grave opening the book of Corinthians toward factions. Minimally, the fact that this is hugely overlooked in the Christian community leads me to believe the reason its not a reasonable seat at the adult table is I guess Western conditioning? lol.
I mean even if I held to this verse as the commentaries do and you dear brother as well, I would see room for a seat at the table because of the problems inherent in where we typically land the plane here. And its not just me saying that. Its serious scholarship saying that too, like PNTC. I just don’t think we should so easily dismiss it because most commentaries don’t even realize it could be an issue. If that makes sense?
I don’t believe I am isolating it. That is not an answer though. What i am doing is showing a chunk of verses together and asking you to un-isolate them. And just explain them. They are not isolated if you take several of them together.
To suggest that focusing on verses pertaining to elitism, gluttony and drunkenness as a problem with communion in the Corinth church is hardly avoiding its context. Throughout the entire letter we get to see all of their dirty laundry. This is one area of it.
I appreciate the directness Johann. Thanks brother. But seeing meanings in Greek terms used is not = to engaging the broader context. It isolates Greek word choice as a sample of the cultural moment. I could say the same for you. Why do you let the Greek terms of a few works obfuscate the obvious context of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth?
Brother, I think we need to be precise about what we mean by “context.” Context is not merely the larger paragraph or the cultural setting; it also includes lexical meaning, syntactical construction, and rhetorical flow. Greek terms are not isolated specimens from a cultural museum. They are the very vehicles through which the Spirit inspired the argument. Ignoring them risks flattening the author’s intent.
When you suggest that appealing to Greek meaning isolates the text from context, that creates a false dichotomy. Lexical semantics function inside discourse. The meaning of a word is constrained by its syntactical role, its collocations, and its placement in the argument. If Paul chooses a particular term in 1 Corinthians 11, that choice contributes to the contextual force of his rebuke. Grammar does not obscure context; it defines it.
Now regarding the Lord’s Supper in Corinth. The broader setting in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 is indeed communal abuse: divisions, socio-economic humiliation of the poor, and disorderly participation. But Paul does not correct them merely by appealing to social harmony. He grounds his rebuke in the tradition he “received from the Lord” and “delivered” to them. That appeal to dominical institution shifts the discussion from cultural meal practice to covenantal ordinance.
Further, when Paul says they are “not discerning the Lord’s body” (~1 Cor 11:29), the participle διακρίνων must be understood lexically and syntactically. It carries the idea of distinguishing or properly evaluating. Whether one interprets “body” as the gathered community or as Christ’s sacrificial body, the argument hinges on the meaning of those terms. That is not obfuscation, that is exegesis.
If we neglect lexical precision in the name of “obvious context,” we risk importing our assumptions into the text. The Corinthians likely thought the context of their meal was obvious as well. Paul corrects them by reinterpreting the meal through Christ’s death. The cross redefines the gathering. Context is therefore theological, not merely sociological.
So my approach is not to let a few Greek words eclipse context, but to allow morphology and syntax to clarify what the context actually is. The inspired text comes to us in Greek. If we do not wrestle carefully with its grammar, we may think we are honoring context while actually assuming it.
We may still disagree on interpretation, and that is fine. But appealing to lexical and syntactical analysis is not a retreat from context, it is a commitment to letting the text itself determine what that context means.
J.
1 Like
Is it just me, or do the fonts seem to be getting smaller and smaller?
J.
Hi Johann. Ok so obfuscation. A term I described in private. You are correct that seeing the body of Christ as a context is warranted. Why are you assuming I don’t consider that though? The whole point of 1 Cor 11 is communion. You plainly stated that I am focused on verses and missing context. By that I am missing the context that 1 Cor 11 is about the body of Christ and the communion of that body in respect to the believer and congregation? How do you know that though? Because I focus on a few verses makes it so?
This is an awesome statement by the way. Thanks for making it.
Neither is looking at a section of verses to see how it relates to the whole. Why would you assume that my focus on these verses to somewhat hold your feet to the fire to lay them out logically in flow (you are extremely articulate–surely this can easily be done) be me obfuscating? And how does understanding what you just posted here (very eloquently i might add) change the potential meaning of 11:19? Because communion is theological so must be “factions proves approval?”
It sounds like what you are saying is that since (a) Paul is being theological about communion, and (b) since Paul is anchoring answers to the Corinthians in theological motifs, therefore, “factions prove approval” is theological? Granted that is a nice tie to go with that suit. But emphasizing neighboring theological concepts does not grammatically insist that 11:19 is theological and not sarcastic though.
This is much better than most commentaries. I give you that 
This is a lot closer to what I am asking. Its not an exact fit of walking through the verses which i believe would help the most. But i thank you for stepping into the room. And approaching the dinner table.
So it does not look like it would make likely sound sense to you to walk through the verses paraphrased based on your insight into how the verses are rendered. To me, that kind of leaves us at our differences. On one hand, there is me. Looking for overarching context to lead (from the macro to the micro). And on the other hand, there is you. Watching organic chemistry of verse form context from the micro to the macro. If life were anything like Dr. Suess, I’d say we are together green eggs and ham. To have one without the other, we don’t have either. And, to that, if the cream to rise to the top is for a forum to be granted a discussion to evolve to such clarity in sober consideration, then the approval of “both” having relevance did rise to the top through faction thought (thought diverse from richly differing views). A pearl from an Oyster.
. . . . .
For any on our forum whom might have gathered that I was looping Johann in with the Western tendency to outsource theology to commentaries, I apologize. I did not mean to make that case. Just that we engage in conversation proportionate to our immediate context: ontologically (meeting our hearts according to our being–in how we have been so created and oriented in).
At this stage it is likely that we will have two very different views. I respect the due diligent of heart Johann has toward the word. And I agree with him that preserving the integrity of Greek concepts in the context forming thoughts within those words should not be dismissed by a context presumed. This is true.
I have seen the opposite though be a mainstream problem in the church today. A primary reason for this thread. And although we have not gotten to a place of resolve here, I would say this: That seeing Paul’s interest in answering theologically in this passage vicinity is about as close as we can likely come where eye meets eye on agreement. The pending difference beyond that though, for me, is that i don’t believe seeing Paul root and ground social issues in theological soil to suggest that “factions prove out approval” as a theological meme.
A REVEALING: Besides PNTC’s studious take, why i don’t believe 11:19 is theological is because I have seen what seeing that does socially. There are several ways it leaks out. But one for clarity is the ensuing and encroaching intensity by which church take overs rely on 11:19 being theological. Just because a church was taken over by a faction does not mean that end result of what it became is approved. And this as an epidemic of sorts, is the context. Blessings.
1 Like
1Co 11:17 But as I am giving you these instructions I cannot approve of your meetings, because they do not turn out for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18 For, in the first place, when you meet as a congregation, I hear that there are cliques among you, and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19 Yes, indeed, there must be parties among you, in order that people of approved fitness may come to the front among you.
1Co 11:20 So when you hold your meetings, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,
1Co 11:21 for each of you is in a rush to eat his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 It is not that you have no houses to eat and drink in, is it? Or, are you trying to show your contempt for the church of God and trying to humiliate those who have no houses? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? No, I cannot praise you for this.
1Co 11:23 For the account that I passed on to you I myself received from the Lord Himself, that the Lord Jesus on the night He was betrayed took a loaf of bread
1Co 11:24 and gave thanks for it and broke it and said, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same way, after supper, He took the cup of wine, saying, “This cup is the new covenant ratified by my blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of me.”
1Co 11:26 For every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.
1Co 11:27 So whoever eats the bread and drinks from the Lord’s cup in an unworthy way is guilty of sinning against the Lord’s body and blood.
1Co 11:28 A man, then, must examine himself, and only in this way should he eat any of the bread and drink from the cup.
1Co 11:29 For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing His body, eats and drinks a judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30 This is why many of you are sick and feeble, and a considerable number are falling asleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we properly saw ourselves, we would not bring down upon us this judgment.
1Co 11:32 But since we do bring down upon us this judgment, we are being disciplined by the Lord, so that finally we may not be condemned along with the world.
1Co 11:33 So, my brothers, when you meet to eat, wait for one another.
1Co 11:34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that your meetings may not bring on you judgment. I will settle in detail the matters that remain, when I come.
Williams.
Hope this is helpful brother.
J.
1 Like
At 1 Cor 1:10-Paul teaches= Unity of thought( all of Gods truth) no division. Thus by sects he was probably meaning within a congregation groups would basically just hang together. It should be all reach out to all in the congregation, in love and get to know each other better, not just hang with the same few each time.
1 Like
I am honored to be the thread of your first post here. Thanks for weighing in. Yes i agree that it has so much to do with attitudes towards one another in the church. After looking over the broader context the commentary I originally posted from places this event in, what might be helpful to see is how that commentary handles the surrounding verses: 17-22. Welcome to the forum 
1 Like
Thanks for your reply Bruce. I understand what you are saying. In general my thoughts upon God’s providence and His intermingling (and transcending) with events would certainly have a place. Amen. But as far as that place being 24/7 the way things are always to be understood in every case, not so much. I would see His providence in special measure for specific application and not for regular general ongoing content ways things occur though. For example, Jeremiah 19:5, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
But even so, God does cause good for the believer (Romans 8:28) to come out of events regardless how tragic. In light of the overall logic flow in how Paul is expressing his thoughts, it just still seems to be a much greater stretch for Paul to insert such a deeply spiritual eye opening theme amidst such a hugely fleshy issue…than it would to simply see this as sarcasm, in my estimation. Yes, Paul would see it. But the Corinthians having partiality (those operating in the breaking of all laws according to James) would be hardly in any shape to receive brief under the table (smuggled in even) deep passages related to the most Holy of God’s providential activities. It would see far more of a strange to perhaps shoe-horn this into a verse while scolding.
No doubt Paul knew about the providence of God. But he demonstrates care toward his audience. And with all due respect, I’d have to say, Paul’s view of this audience and how he relates in communication to them are the point of writing. Not just what Paul would know or not know. But what edifies…as 1 Cor 14 is brought to fuller focus once we arrive at that chapter (informing us of Paul’s authorial intentions). In my estimation, Paul himself points out his own style in the first portion of chapter 3 of this same book. So it would seem what is very much on the heart of Paul when he says “in part I believe it” and “that they which are approved may be manifest among you” is the fleshy state of readers of this letter having to receive these words from Paul.
And additional thing here too I would note in reference to verse 19 is this: If verse 19 is a quick overture to providence we never see who the approved are though in that context. It would be assumed that the approved are the ones being violated. But they seem mysteriously absent from the care of mention or concern to share such forefront highlight. The ones who get all the attention are big shots in this verse. Because it would seem consistent that Paul is point out irony because he is talking about the ones brought clearly to the forefront in these passage though is my thinking brother.
And lastly (thanks for reading all of this should you have the chance brother), in order for Paul to be speaking providentially here, the referent of the big whigs hogging everything would seem to have to be in some proximity of sarcasm (a sense of irony) or the concept itself seems to fail. Please let me explain.
If verse 19 is providential, then the reason Paul would use that here is to point out that there must be people who cause division or more specifically who demonstrate partiality so that those who are “really” approved by God would become clear. If that is what Paul is saying here, are we then saying it is void of irony in context (irony being a form of sarcasm)? That there would be absolutely no way the 1st century church would hear this as ironic? Since the ones who had the money and prominence acted in this way toward the lower classes? I don’t believe that is honestly possible though brother. Especially being the group this happened to. Yet you find none?
I would submit that there would have to be some reasonable measure of irony for this principle even to exist. For it to function as providence, it would have to come from the idea of contrastive irony. That is why it worked so well in the case with Joesph. Because it was evil what his brothers did to him. Clearly evil. In Joseph’s case it was irony spelled out over the course of many chapters. To actually be a “type of Christ.” A prophetic Old Testament picture of Christ to come. But here in 1 Cor 11, we barely even see the defrauded. They are but mentioned. Not placed in seats of majestic court as a type of Christ. The focus is on the scolded it would seem.
Brother your welcome to address any of these, but I would like to post verses 17-22 of the PNTC for backdrop support because it does go into quite a bit more of the social context Paul was addressing. If helpful. Thanks for posting. Blessings.
Thanks Johann for taking the time to lay this out. Initially I would ask you to please consider my recent reply to @Bruce_Leiter and his kind thoughts upon our subject here. Please consider that reply as a core theme of redress. Because I can see how you see verses 17-22. But the highlighted v19 would still stand out as an odd verse disconnect to me. My post to @Bruce_Leiter details why.
In a more general answer i would like to provide this thread with PNTC rendering of verses 17-22. It gets into some interesting details for sure. I believe i can do this in my 3 afforded responses to you here. Blessings.
. . . . .
PNTC – 1 of 3
i. Rebuke for abuses at the Lord’s Supper, 11:17–22
This passage consists of an opening rebuke (v. 17), a statement of the report of Corinthian misconduct (v. 18), Paul’s assessment of that report (vv. 19–21), and a further rebuke (v. 22).
11:17 While in the previous passage (esp. v. 2) Paul praised the Corinthians for continuing to hold to the traditions he passed on to them, In the following directives he says that he has no praise for them. Both passages have to do with things that are remembered properly or improperly. He praised them for remembering him and the traditions he gave them. He has no praise for the way they are practicing the Lord’s Supper because it reflects a failure to properly consider the implications of remembering Christ as he is proclaimed in that Supper. Paul’s oblique manner of explaining why he is unhappy with them is that their meetings do more harm than good. The harm rather than good that Paul has in mind is clarified in the following verses. The following verse highlights the divisions that have been created in the church, but Paul goes on to accuse the Corinthians of “sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27) and eating and drinking judgment on themselves (v. 29), which is why some members of the community were sick and some have died (v. 30). The good the meetings should have done would be, according to the broader context, that of building up the church through love (8:1; chs. 12–14), bringing glory to God (10:31), and receiving his approval (11:19).
11:18–19 Paul’s first concern is that he has heard a report of divisions among the Corinthians when they come together as a church. To come together as a church was supposed to represent the coming together of one body (10:17) of people who together participate in the body and blood of Christ (10:16). BDAG indicates that the term “church” or “assembly” was used by early Christians “for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp[ecially] in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group.” The sad irony was that the Corinthians were not actually “coming together” when they came together, but gave clear indications of being a divided and disorderly group, which reflected poorly on Christ and on themselves.
Paul’s comment, to some extent I believe it, seems a bit strange, since all the evidence from the rest of this passage and this book clearly indicates that he thought it clear that the Corinthian church was a divided church. It is probably intended to introduce his own ironic comment in the following verse with the sense, “I suppose, to some extent, it stands to reason that there would be divisions among you since No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval!” Paul is most likely referring ironically to a view that was reported to him as being held by some Corinthians. They thought the differences among them were a reflection of those who had God’s special approval. The following verses make it clear, however, that the divisions were provoked by the insensitive behavior of some of the social elites within the Corinthian church and that that behavior most certainly did not meet with God’s approval. If anyone could be said to have God’s approval in the Corinthian church, it would not be any of those wealthier and more socially advanced Christians who were snubbing their brothers and sisters! The behavior that, according to worldly wisdom, would have distinguished some of the members as socially superior members of the church who were “considered worthy of high regard, respected, esteemed” was actually shown to be unworthy of high regard, respect, or esteem since that very behavior was a disgrace to the community and an insult to God. That which distinguished the social elites in the Corinthian church was not worthy of praise (cf. v. 22) but had already brought God’s judgment on them (vv. 29–32) and now Paul’s sarcastic blame. They needed to recognize that behaviors that they thought merely marked them as social elites in fact ironically marked them as standing under divine judgment.
As will be pointed out in the comments on vv. 23–26, the Lord’s Supper entailed a reappropriation and reapplication of the Passover tradition in which Christ’s death on the cross was understood to provide the basis for the new and final redemption of God’s people, the second exodus. Peter Craigie points out that “the Passover became the act, symbolically speaking, of the one large family of God.” In 2 Chronicles 30 the celebration of the Passover is depicted as a unifying and sanctifying event that “fit well into Hezekiah’s designs to reunify the nation.” The Lord’s Supper, like the Passover meal on which it was based, should have served as an experience that strengthened the unity of God’s people, not one that would divide them.
PNTC – 2 of 3
11:20–21 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Certainly the Corinthians imagined that they were eating the Lord’s Supper when they gathered together. Paul, however, wants them (and us) to understand that the identity of the meal cannot be distinguished from the manner in which it is carried out. The distinctions Paul had mentioned in the previous verses are made clearer here. Certain members were not waiting for each other (cf. v. 33), but rather some, presumably the wealthier members, were going ahead before the others arrived and satiating themselves with food and drink while others ended up getting little or nothing. This was a common complaint in other dinner parties in the Roman world. In many cases the seating of the guests and the distribution of the food were orchestrated in such a way as to reflect the social pecking order as perceived or imposed by the host. Ancient writers complained of being insulted by the lower quality or lesser quantity of food served to them in comparison with more highly esteemed dinner guests. It seems that the social elite of the church, who would not have been constricted by work obligations, gathered and began their meal before the arrival of the poorer members of the church, who would not have had such flexibility of work and schedules. Also, even a large Roman home in Corinth would have room for only a limited number of people in the dining room (the Roman triclinium), usually about nine people who would be served by the household servants, so that even if all the members of the church arrived at approximately the same time only those who were invited into the triclinium would have been likely to be served a full meal. Even there distinctions might have been made by the proximity of each guest to the host and the quality and quantity of food served to each. Other members may have gathered in an outside atrium where sparser offerings, if any, would have been found. As already mentioned, the household slaves would have normally been expected to serve the dinner guests. One can only imagine what kind of dynamic might have been created when, as in Corinth, slaves were also part of the church and technically, at least, participants in the Lord’s Supper as well.
What the Corinthians were participating in could not be considered the Lord’s Supper since that supper was marked by the unity of those who had become one body in Christ and by a recognition that the Lord who presided over that supper was the one who had given up his own prerogatives and sacrificed his own life for those who were unworthy. Indeed, the Lord to whom they belonged is the one who took the nature of a servant (Phil. 2:7) and died a shameful death (2:2; see 11:23–24 below). Consequently the Lord’s Supper must be marked by clear manifestations of unity and concern for others, and since their supper reflected none of those values it could not rightfully be so described.
That some members of the church were satiating themselves and getting drunk at these meals may have suggested that they were carrying on as would be expected at a meal eaten in the name of Dionysus, the god identified with merry (and usually excessive) feasting in the Roman world. In fact, it was suggested that any activities that distracted from informal friendly conversations and merry entertainment were an abuse of Dionysus (also known as Bacchus).158 If Dionysus/Bacchus was abused when merry entertainment and libertine partying were inhibited, Christ is abused when his self-sacrifice and other-orientation is not reflected in the fellowship that sees in the wine not merry entertainment but sacrifice for others. Christians who understand the true nature of the Lord’s Supper should be expected to manifest a commitment to laying their lives down especially for the sake of the poorer and more fragile (the “weaker”) members of their church.
PNTC – 3 of 3
11:22 Paul’s indignation is poured out in a blistering interrogation followed up by a solemn indictment: Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter! The suggestion that they have homes to eat and drink in raises the question of Paul’s understanding of the context of the church meeting. Although it is possible that the church met in a shop or some other context, it is most likely that it met in the home of a wealthier member of the church who served as a patron/benefactor of the community. If so, one could imagine the adults of that home replying that they were indeed eating and drinking in their home. Paul’s language, however, suggests that the physical structure of someone’s home needed to be reconceptualized as church-meeting space, “sacred space,” when it was serving as the meeting place of the local Christian community. Christians who participate in the Lord’s Supper might eat and drink, but they are not merely eating and drinking as they do so and they must not act as they might in other mundane contexts of eating and drinking. They are, as they are about to be reminded again, gathered in remembrance of their Lord and to proclaim his death until he returns. If they want to have a drink or a meal on their own terms, they must wait until they are in the privacy of their own homes or in the home of a friend. They are not free to do so when gathered as the church of God, even if that happens to take place in what serves at other times as their own home. Of course they are to represent and incarnate the presence and attitude of Christ at home as well as in other contexts, so that the behavior Paul is criticizing would not be acceptable even at other times, but it is all the more reprehensible when done in the context of the gathered church.
By humiliating those who have nothing they were despising the church of God, the society belonging to God and not to their city. The humiliation was carried out by distinguishing between the “haves” and the “have nots” in the provision of food before, during, or after the Lord’s Supper. That they were gathered as the church of God should have been enough to remind them that they constituted a covenant community in which each member found a place through God’s gracious redemption and not through their own social status, achievements, or qualities. Paul’s reminder that it was in fact God’s church that was being despised hinted at the great danger that was involved. That this danger had already come to realize some of its grave potential and might continue to do so is stressed in vv. 27–34. One may not despise God’s church without inviting the wrath and judgment of God! God’s concern for the poor, caring for the poor as a mark of piety, and the oppression of the poor as a mark of the wicked are key themes of the Old Testament. God’s special concern for his covenant people would make such humiliation of the poor among his people by other members of the same community even more egregious.
Paul is dumbfounded by the insensitivity of this behavior and wonders out loud how the Corinthians expected him to respond upon finding out how their celebrations of the Lord’s Supper were being conducted. He reiterates the point made upon introducing this subject: he certainly has no praise for them in this area! The tie between this verse and v. 17 may also clarify the thought in that previous verse where he told them that their meetings “did more harm than good.” In this verse it is the humiliation of the poorer members of the church that is highlighted. Rather than serving to build up the church in love (8:1), which would be for the better, their meetings served to tear down and humiliate some members in the presence of others.
This verse also reveals another tie between this passage and the previous one. Not only do both have to do with traditions being faithfully or scandalously implemented and followed, but they both have to do with practices that would either potentially dishonor or humiliate members of the congregation or are actually doing so. The same word translated humiliate in this verse is translated “dishonor” in vv. 4 and 5. In this passage Paul has no praise for the Corinthians, for they are not honoring the tradition of the Lord’s Supper by dishonoring poorer members of their congregation. In the previous passage Paul praised the Corinthians for keeping traditions he passed on to them and warned them about a misapplication (or rejection) of those traditions that would result in dishonoring themselves and their “heads” (especially the women’s husbands). In both cases it is clear that the shaming, humiliation, or dishonoring of other members of the community entailed a failure to honor the God who established and ruled over that community and whose honor was tied to that shown to and among the members of his covenant community.
@TCC
Alright, then which commentaries would you say disagree with your interpretation? Since I do not see this as a genuinely salvific issue, would you agree that it falls within the realm of secondary doctrine rather than something essential to the gospel itself?
And…
I looked at the PNTC commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:18–19. What they are saying is that Paul is primarily addressing the divisions among the Corinthians when they came together for the Lord’s Supper. The focus is on social behavior, irony, and the way worldly wisdom misreads approval, especially how the wealthier members acted in ways that dishonored the community and God. So in that sense, PNTC calls it “not theological,” meaning it is not a formal doctrinal statement.
Yet at the same time, the theological reality is still there in the background: the Lord’s Supper points to Christ’s death, covenant fellowship, and true divine approval, so Paul is measuring their behavior against the cross-centered pattern of the meal. The verse is about how God’s approval is revealed in practice, not about abstract theology.
So PNTC isn’t denying theology entirely; they are saying that the immediate concern of 11:19 is communal and social, with theology operative implicitly through the Supper.
Correct?
J.
1 Like