1 Corinthians 11:22

1Co 11:22. Γὰρ, for) He presses upon them with questionings.—οἰκαίας, houses) 1Co 11:34.—τῆς ἐκκλησίας, the Church) of which the better part was the poor, Jas 2:5.—τοῦ Θεοῦ, of God) This constitutes the honour of the Church.—καταφρονεῖτε, do you despise) when you do that apart in the church, which you might do at home.—μὴ ἔχοντας, not having) Those, who have, viz. the wealthy; those, who have not, viz. the needy.—οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, I praise you not) Μείωσις [saying less than is intended], implying: You are very much to be blamed.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:22. In a lively succession of questions the apostle shows how unsuitable and unworthy this procedure of theirs was.

μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας κ.τ.λ[1840]] γάρ has inferential force; see on Mat_27:23; Joh_9:30; Act_19:35; and Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 559]; Kühner, 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 γάρ.

ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας … ἔχοντας] 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 τῆς ἐκκλ. τ. Θεοῦ (Θεοῦ, dignitas ecclesiae, Bengel, comp 1Co_11:16); in the second, upon καταισχύνετε.

Respecting οὐκ ἔχειν, not to have, to be poor, see Wetstein on 2Co_8:13; comp οἱ ἔχοντες, divites, in Ast, a[1845] Plat. Legg. v. p. 172; Bornemann, a[1846] Anab. vi. 6. 38. Here, however, we have μή with the participle and article, because the class is referred to (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296).

τί ὑμῖν εἴπω κ.τ.λ[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 ἐν τούτῳ with ἘΠΑΙΝῶ 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 apostles 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] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[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] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 11:22 . μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε κ . τ . λ .; “For is it that you have not houses to eat and drink in?” See 1Co 11:34 , and note. The γὰρ brings in an ironical excuse: “For I suppose you act thus because you are houseless, and must satisfy your appetite at church!” cf. πῶς γάρ ; 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 ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ , an expression of awful dignity, see 1Co 1:2 , 1Co 10:32 . τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας , “the have-nots” ( cf. 2Co 8:12 ) οἱ ἔχοντες in cl [1728] Gr [1729] signifies “the men of property”; μή (of the point of view ) rather than οὐ (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: τί εἴπω ὑμῖν ; κ . τ . λ .: “What am I to say to you? Should I praise (you)? In this matter I praise you not”. ἐπαινέσω , deliberative aor [1730] sbj [1731] , like εἴπω , for the question refers not to the future, but to the situation depicted (see Wr [1732] , p. 356). ἐν τούτῳ has great point and emphasis when attached to the following οὐκ ἐπαινῶ (so R.V. marg., after early Verss., Bz [1733] , Est., Mr [1734] , Hn [1735] , Gd [1736] , Bt [1737] , El [1738] , Ed [1739] ); thus also ἐπαινέσω better matches εἴπω , and the last clause prepares for the important ἐγὼ δὲ παρέλαβον of the ensuing ver.

[1728] classical.

[1729] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1730] aorist tense.

[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 Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1736] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. 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

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:22

What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them which have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise (you) not.

The two grounds on which the apostle condemned this conduct of the Corinthians were, first, that it was a perversion of the Lords supper; and secondly, that it was disrespectful and mortifying to their poorer brethren. It was a perversion of the Lords supper, because it made it an ordinary meal designed to satisfy hunger. For that purpose they had their own houses. The church comes together to worship God and to celebrate his ordinances, not for the purpose of eating and drinking. It is important that the church, as the church, should confine itself to its own appropriate work, and not as such undertake to do what its members, as citizens or members of families, may appropriately do. The church does not come together to do what can better be done at home. Or despise ye the church of God? This was the second ground of condemnation. Their conduct evinced contempt of their brethren. They treated them as unfit to eat with them. Yet the poor were constituent members of the church of God. They were his people; those whom he had chosen, whom he had made kings and priests unto himself. These persons, thus highly honored of God, the richer Corinthians treated with contempt; and that too at the Lords table, where all external distinctions are done away, and the master is not a hairs breadth above his slave. And shame those who have not. To shame, i.e. to mortify and humble, by rendering conscious of inferiority. Those who have not may mean, either those who have not houses to eat or drink in, or simply the poor. Those who have, are the rich; those who have not, are the poor. The latter interpretation is not only consistent with the Greek idiom, but gives a better sense. Even the poorer members of the church did not, and ought not, come to the Lords table for the sake of food. Much as Paul was disposed to praise the Corinthians, in this matter he could not praise them.

1Co_11:23

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the (same) night in which he was betrayed, took bread:

I cannot praise you, for your manner of celebrating the Lords supper is utterly inconsistent with its original institution. They were the more inexcusable in departing from the original mode of celebrating this ordinance, first, because the account of its original institution had been received by Paul from the Lord himself; and secondly, because he had delivered it to them. Their sin was therefore one of irreverent disobedience, without the excuse of ignorance. For I have received of the Lord. Paul asserts that he received from the Lord the account here given. The whole context shows that he intends to claim for this narrative the direct authority of the Lord himself. As with regard to his doctrines generally, so with regard to the institution and design of this ordinance, he disclaims all indebtedness to tradition or to the instructions of men, and asserts the fact of a direct revelation to himself. Of the gospel he says, I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal_1:12. To this interpretation, however, it is objected,

1. That he uses the preposition ἀπό, which properly expresses a mediate derivation (i.e. through the instrumentality of others), and not παρά, which would imply a direct communication. This objection supposes a refinement in the use of the Greek particles, which is not consistent with the character of the Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle John says: This is the message which we have heard of him (ἀπ ̓ αὐτοῦ), 1Jo_1:5, which certainly does not refer to an indirect communication received through others. In this place ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, from the Lord, is evidently opposed to ἀπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων, from men. He received his knowledge from the Lord and not from men. Comp. Gal_1:12. So in Gal_1:1, he says he was an apostle not by men (οὐκ ἀπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων), but by Jesus Christ (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Must it be inferred from this latter expression that Christ was only the medium of Pauls call to the apostleship, because διά expresses the instrumental cause? This would be as reasonable as to infer from the use of ἀπό in the text, that the knowledge of Paul was derived indirectly from the Lord. The apostle however says in Gal_1:1, that he received his apostleship, not only through Jesus Christ, but also through God the Father; must this also mean through the instrumentality of God? is God the Father a mere instrument? No writer uses language with such strict grammatical accuracy as this objection supposes; much less did Jews writing Greek. It is of course important to adhere as far as possible to the exact meaning of the words; but to sacrifice the sense and obvious intent of the writer to such niceties is unreasonable. The use of ἀπό in this case, probably arose from the desire to avoid the triple repetition of παρά; παρέλαβον, παρά, παρέδωκα.

2. It is objected that, as the Lords supper had been celebrated without interruption from the time of its institution, the facts concerning it must have been universally known, and therefore needed no direct revelation. The same objection might be made to a special revelation of the gospel to Paul. Why might he not have been allowed to learn it from the other apostles? Besides, Paul, as he shows in the first and second chapters of his epistle to the Galatians, had no communication with the other apostles for three years after his conversion.

3. It is objected that ideas and truths may be communicated by visions and inward influences, but not historical facts. Then a large part of the prophecies of the Old Testament must be fabulous.

The evidence is so strong from the context, that Paul claims independent authority for what he here says, that many who bow to the force of the Greek preposition, say that the account received by Paul from Christ through others, was authenticated to him by an inward revelation. But this is not what he says. He says he received it from Christ, which, in the connection, can only mean that he received it directly from Christ; for his object is to give authority to his account of the ordinance. It was not only of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole church, to be assured that this account of the Lords supper, was communicated immediately by Christ to the apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordinance.

The account which Paul received was, That the same night in which he was betrayed, i.e. while he was being betrayed while the traitorous scheme was in progress. Under these affecting circumstances the ordinance was instituted. This fact, which Christ saw fit to reveal to Paul, must be of permanent interest to his people. It is not a matter of indifference, that this sacred rite was instituted on the last night of our Redeemers life, and when he knew what the morrow was to bring forth. This fact gives a peculiar solemnity and interest to the institution. Romanists, in answer to the objections made by Protestants to the mass, that it is a departure from the original mode of celebrating the Lords supper, say that if the example of Christ be obligatory, we should celebrate the ordinance at night, after a meal, and at a table covered with provisions, etc. Protestants, however, do not hold that the church in all ages is bound to do whatever Christ and the apostles did, but only what they designed should be afterwards done. It is not apostolic example which is obligatory, but apostolic precept, whether expressed in words or in examples declared or evinced to be preceptive. The example of Christ in celebrating the Lords supper is binding as to every thing which enters into the nature and significancy of the institution; for those are the very things which we are commanded to do. They constitute the ordinance.

Took bread. Mat_26:26, it is said, as they were eating, i.e. during the repast, Jesus took bread, that is, he took of the bread lying on the table; and as it was at the time of the Passover, there is no doubt that the bread used was unleavened. It was the thin Passover bread of the Jews. But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the kind of bread used, as there is no precept on the subject, and as the apostles subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance used ordinary bread, it is evidently a matter of indifference what kind of bread is used. It was however for a long time a subject of bitter controversy. At first the Latins and Greeks used leavened bread; when the Latins introduced the unleavened wafer from superstitious fear of any of the fragments being dropped, the Greeks retained the use of fermented bread, and accused the Latins of Judaizing. Romanists and Lutherans use unleavened wafers; Protestants generally ordinary bread.

1Co_11:24

And when he had given thanks, he brake (it), and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Having given thanks. In Mat_26:26, and Mar_14:22, it is, Having blessed it In Luk_22:19, it is as here. The two expressions mean the same thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment of Gods mercy and invocation of his blessing. See the remarks on 1Co_10:16. He brake it. This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in Pauls. This is one of the significant parts of the service, and ought not to be omitted as is done by Romanists, by the Greek church and by Lutherans. And said. The words uttered by our blessed Lord at this moment are differently reported by the different evangelists. In Mat_26:26, it is, Take, eat. In Mar_14:22, the latter word (according to the best authorities) is omitted. In Luk_22:19, both are omitted. Here, although both are found in the common text, yet, as they are wanting in the oldest MSS., they should probably be omitted; so that Pauls account agrees as to this point with that of Luke. The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered by our Lord; but as the ideas which they express were sufficiently indicated by the gesture of reaching the bread to his disciples, they were omitted by some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, whether expressed by words or gesture, is however of importance. The bread was to be taken and eaten. There must be a distribution of the elements to those participating in the service. Otherwise it is not a communion. This distribution is omitted by Romanists in the ordinary celebration of the Mass. The priest alone eats the consecrated wafer. The next words, this is my body, are found in all the accounts. Probably the history of the world does not furnish a parallel to the controversies occasioned by these simple words. The ordinary and natural interpretation of them is, that the pronoun this refers to the bread. This bread which I hold in my hand, and which I give to you, is my body. That is, is the symbol of my body; precisely as we say of a statue, it is the person which it represents; or as the Scriptures say that the sign is the thing of which it is the symbol, Eze_5:4, Eze_5:5. Gal_4:24; or as our Savior says, I am the vine, ye are the branches. I am the door; or as in the preceding chapter it was said, that rock was Christ; or as in Joh_1:32, the dove is said to be the Holy Ghost; or as baptism is said to be regeneration. This is a usage so familiar to all languages that no one disputes that the words in question will bear this interpretation. That they must have this meaning, would seem to be plain,

1. From the impossibility of the bread in Christs hand being his literal body then seated at the table; and the wine the blood men flowing in his veins.

2. From the still more obvious impossibility of taking the words this cup is the New Testament in a literal sense. In Mat_26:28 it is said, this (cup) is my blood. But Romanists do not hold to a transubstantiation of the cup, but only of the wine. But if the words are to be taken literally, they necessitated the belief of the one as well as of the other.

3. From the utter subversion of all the rules of evidence and laws of belief necessarily involved in the assumption that the bread in the Lords supper is literally the crucified body of Christ.

4. From the infidelity on the one hand, and the superstitious idolatry on the other, which are the unavoidable consequences of calling upon men to believe so glaring a contradiction. It is only by denying all distinction between matter and spirit, and confounding all our ideas of substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is blood, or bread flesh.

The Romish interpretation of these words is, that the bread is the body of Christ, because its whole substance is changed into the substance of his body. The Lutherans say, It is his body, because his body is locally present in and with the bread. Calvin says, It is his body in the same sense that the dove (Joh_1:32) was the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove, which was the pledge of his presence. So the bread is the symbol of Christs body, because with the one we receive the other. What is received, however, and what Calvin calls Christs body, and sometimes the substance of his body, is not the body itself, which, he admits, is in heaven only, but a life-giving power (vim vivificam) which flows to us from the glorified body of our Lord. The only presence of Christs body in the sacrament admitted by Calvin was this presence of power.‹18› The Reformed churches teach that the bread is called the body of Christ in the same sense that the cup is called the new covenant. He who in faith receives the cup, receives the covenant of which it was the pledge; and he who receives in faith in the bread receives the benefits of Christs body as broken for sin. The one is the symbol and pledge of the other.

Broken for you. In Luke it is, given for you. In Matthew and Mark these words are omitted. In some manuscripts‹19› the word (κλώμενον), broken, is wanting in this passage; so that it would read simply for you, leaving the participle to be supplied from the context. Broken or given for you means slain, or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the death of Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the commemoration of his death, not as a teacher, or a benefactor, but as a sacrifice; so that if this idea be kept out of view the sacrament loses all its significance and power.

This do in remembrance of me. These words are not found in Matthew or Mark. They occur in Luk_22:19, as they do here. This do, i.e. Do what I have just done; take bread, consecrate it, break it, distribute and eat it. In remembrance of me, i.e. that I may be remembered as he who died for your sins. This is the specific, definite object of the Lords Supper, to which all other ends must be subordinate, because this alone is stated in the words of institution. It is of course involved in this, that we profess faith in him as the sacrifice for our sins; that we receive him as such; that we acknowledge the obligations which rest upon us as those who have been redeemed by his blood; and that we recognize ourselves as constituent members of his church and all believers as our brethren. We are thus, as taught in the preceding chapter, brought into a real communion with Christ and with all his people by the believing participation of this ordinance.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Apostle thinketh it good to take away the love feasts, for their abuse, although they had been a long time, and with commendation used in Churches, and were appointed and instituted by the Apostles.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

What!--Greek, "For."

houses--(compare Co1 11:34) --"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [ALFORD].

despise ye the church of God--the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (Jam 2:5); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church.

shame them that have not--namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.

I praise you not--resuming the words (Co1 11:17).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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?] τους μη εχοντας, 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, 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 The other reading, however, is the more generally received among the Greeks, and it suits better.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 supper—even 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 Lord’s Supper originated.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For I have received of the Lord,.... The apostle observes unto them the rule, use, and end of the Lord's supper; his view in it is, to correct the disorders among them, and to bring them to a strict regard to the rule which had such a divine authority stamped upon it; and to observe to them, that in that supper all equally ate and drank; and that the end of it was not a paschal commemoration, but a remembrance of Christ, and a declaration of his sufferings and death. The divine authority of the Lord's supper is here expressed; it was not only instituted by him as Lord, having all power and authority in and over his churches, to appoint what ordinances he pleases; but the plan and form of administration of it were received from him by the apostle. This was not a device of his, nor an invention of any man's, nor did he receive the account from men, no not from the apostles; but he had it by revelation from Christ, either when he appeared to him at his first conversion, and made him a minister of the Gospel; or when he was caught up into the third heaven, and heard things unspeakable and unutterable:

that which also I delivered unto you; for whatever he received from Christ, whether a doctrine or an ordinance, he faithfully delivered to the churches, from whom he kept back nothing that was profitable, but declared the whole counsel of God unto them: now this he refers the Corinthians to, as a sure rule to go by, and from which they should never swerve; and whatever stands on divine record as received from Christ, and delivered by his apostles, should be the rule of our faith and practice, and such only;

that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed; or delivered; as he was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God the Father, and as he was by himself, who voluntarily gave himself up into the hands of men, justice and death, for our offences; and so the Arabic version reads it here, "in the night in which he delivered up himself"; as he did in the garden to Judas and his company: it was in the night when he came in search of him with officers, and a band of soldiers, and when he betrayed him and delivered him into their hands; and that same night, a little before, our Lord instituted and celebrated the ordinance of the supper with his disciples. The time is mentioned partly with regard to the passover it followed, which was killed in the evening and ate the same night in commemoration of God's sparing the firstborn of Israel, when at midnight he destroyed all the firstborn of Egypt, and so was a night to be observed in all generations; and because this feast was to be a supper, and therefore it is best to observe it in the evening, or decline of the day. The circumstance of Judas's betraying him is mentioned, not only because it was in the night, and a work of darkness; but being in the same night he instituted the supper, shows the knowledge he had of his death by the means of the betrayer, and his great love to his disciples, his church and people, in appointing such an ordinance in remembrance of him, and his death, when he was just about to leave them:

took bread; from off the table, out of the dish, or from the hands of the master of the house; an emblem of his body, and of his assumption of human nature; of his taking upon him the nature of the seed of Abraham, of that body which his Father prepared for him, in order to its being broken; or that he might in it endure sufferings and death for his people.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What! - This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of the Lord’s Supper.

Have ye not houses ... - 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 (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia) is believed not to be used in that sense in the New Testament; and it is not necessary to suppose it here. The sense is, that their conduct was such as if they had held in contempt the whole church of God, in all places, with all their views of the sacredness and purity of the Lord’s supper.

And shame them that have not - Margin, “Are poor.” Something must here be understood in order to make out the sense. Probably it meant something like “possessions, property, conveniences, 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To eat and to drink in. The object of the agape was something higher than the mere gratification of appetite. Though not a sacrament, it was an accompaniment of the Lord"s Supper, and was itself intended to be a symbolical and sacred meal. Despise ye the Church of God! The congregation of your fellow Christians. Shame; rather, disgrace, or put to shame. Them that have not. It would be natural to supply "houses." But the commentators found it difficult to suppose that any of the Corinthians had not "houses to eat and to drink in." Hence most commentators give to the phrase its classic sense, in which "those who have" means the rich, and "those who have not," the poor. They seem, however, to have forgotten that slaves at any rate could hardly be said to have "houses of their own," and it is certain that not a few of the Corinthian Christians were slaves. I praise you not. As in ver. 17, this is an instance of what is called litotes, a mild expression, suggesting a meaning much stronger than the words themselves. For. He is about to give his reason for thus strongly blaming their irregularities.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Have ye not houses to eat and drink your common meals in? or do ye despise the church of God - Of which the poor are both the larger and the better part. Do ye act thus in designed contempt of them?

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 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-- Jud_1:12 ). 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.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. What! Have you not houses to eat and drink in? The practice is rebuked. The place to eat their feasts was at home. Despise ye the church of God? By a selfish feast, where some ate luxuriously, and put to shame others, perhaps the poor, who had nothing.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

22. μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε. The force of this construction is most nearly represented by for you do not mean to say that you have no houses to eat and drink in, unless with some we regard γάρ in the light of an exclamation, as we find it translated in the A.V. of Joh 9:30.

εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν. 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) 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.

τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ. The Church called out of the world, or called together (the latter explanation is to be preferred) 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. See note on 1Co 11:18.

μὴ ἔχοντας. The Poor, as in the margin of the A.V. Cf. Eurip. Suppl. 240.

ἐν τούτῳ. The A.V. connects these words with what precedes. The text is according to Tischendorf’s punctuation. Translate, shall I praise you? in this I praise you not.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (θεοῦ to express, as Bengel, ‘dignitatem ecclesiæ.’ 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 ἀγάπαι to be fed. There is no reason for rendering with the majority of Commentators τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας, ‘the poor;’ the μὴ ἔχοντας has a distinct reference to the ἔχετε 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 ἔχων being referred to. The meaning is allowable, e.g. πρὸς γὰρ τὸν ἔχονθʼ ὁ φθόνος ἕρπει, Soph. Aj. 157: πρὸς τῶν ἐχόντων, Φοῖβε, τὸν νόμον τίθης, Eurip. Alc. 57: πότε μὲν ἐπʼ ἦμαρ εἶχον, εἶτʼ οὐκ εἶχον ἄν, where however it is qualified by ἐπʼ ἦμαρ)? What must I say to you? Shall I praise you in this matter? I praise you not. (See ver. 17.)

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε. ‘for surely you do not mean that you have not got houses to eat and to drink in!’ Comp. μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν (9:4, 5, 6), and εἰς τὸ … ἐσθίειν (8:10); and see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2702 b. ‘Well, then, if that is not true (and of course it is not), there is only one alternative,’ which is introduced by ἤ. ‘Ye despise the congregation that is assembled for the worship of God, and ye put the poor to shame.’ They treated a religious meal as if it were a licentious entertainment, and therein exposed the poverty of those who were in need. There can be little doubt that, as οἱ ἔχοντες = ‘the rich,’ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες = ‘the poor,’. Here it might mean ‘those who have not houses for meals’ (Alford); so also Wiclif, ‘han noon’; but this is very improbable. The τοῦ Θεοῦ is added with solemnity (v. 16, 10:32) to give emphasis to the profanity. The addition is frequent in the two earliest groups of the Pauline Epistles (Hort, The Chr. Eccles. pp. 103, 108, 117): καταφρονεῖτε, as Rom 2:4; Mat 18:10; καταισχύνετε, as Rom 5:5. The majority of the Corinthian Christians would be poor.*

τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς; Deliberative subjunctives: ‘What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you?’ The ἐν τούτῳ may be taken with what precedes (AV., RV.), or with what follows (Tisch., WH., Ell.). The latter seems to be better, as limiting the censure to this particular, and also as preparing for what follows.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 γάρ, 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 μὴ...οὐκ 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 μὴ ἔχειν, 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 ἐν τούτῳ, 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.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.