Verse by Verse

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

² And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

³ And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

sounding brass (v.1) — probably a gong

faith (v.2) — the gift of faith (1 Corinthians 12:9), not saving faith

mountains (v.2) — could be symbolizing obstacles and difficulties

bestow all my goods (v.3) — the gift of helps (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Voluntarily submitting to burning and the banging of gongs and cymbals may be references to pagan rituals.

to be burned (v.3) — There’s some manuscript evidence that this should read “that I may glory.”

Without love, I have nothing to offer, I gain nothing in return, and I have no value.

²⁷ Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

²⁸ And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

²⁹ Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?

³⁰ Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

³¹ But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

All believers together are the one body of Christ, and each believer is individually a member of that body (v.27).

apostles (v.28) — those who had seen the Lord, especially after His resurrection, and were called by God to witness to that fact

prophets (v.28) — those who received supernatural revelation from God to give believers

teachers (v.28) — replaced prophets after Scripture was complete — received revelation from the Word

miracles (v.28) — supernatural powers

helps (v.28) — support, assistance

administrations (v.28) — steering, guiding

Verses 29 and 30 consist of rhetorical questions all of which have a negative answer.

It should be observed that the first part, at least, of the list of verse 28 is given strictly in order: “first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly, teachers, after that miracles, then gifts,” etc. This should be clearly borne in mind in interpreting Ephesians 4:11 as well as in determining the value of tongues in this passage, for there are also differences in the value of “the gifts of the Spirit.” Thus the apostle urges these saints to “covet earnestly the best gifts” (v.31). — Stam, page 217.

²² No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

²³ And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty,

²⁴ but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it,

²⁵ that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.

²⁶ And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

our presentable parts have no need (v.24) — Should be included with the thought in verse 23.

greater modesty (v.23) — referring to clothing. We clothe the less-comely parts. In the case of the church, we should clothe them with honor.

Compare verses 22 and 23 with Arthur S. Way’s translation: “Those parts of the body which we look upon as the more ignoble, these we ennoble with more beautiful clothing. Our ungraceful parts, in fact, are adorned with more special grace, whereas our graceful parts need no adorning.” — Laurin, page 220.

God (v.24) — emphasized

on member suffers (v.26) — If I burn my hand, I suffer. I don’t say, “My hand hurts, but the rest of me feels great!”

¹⁵ If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?

¹⁶ And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?

¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?

¹⁸ But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased.

¹⁹ And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

²⁰ But now indeed there are many members, yet one body.

²¹ And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

The point in verses 15-16 is that no member of the body should look down on his own function or covet the function of others.

Every one of them (v.18) — unity but not uniformity

Dissatisfaction with one’s place in the body is dissatisfaction with God’s plan and will (v.18).

The point in verse 21 is that there is no place for feeling superiority, only interdependence.

¹¹ But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

¹² For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

¹⁴ For in fact the body is not one member but many.

all (v.11) — stressed

Verse 6 states that the Father works in the members. Verse 11 states that the Spirit does also.

were all baptized (v.13) — at salvation

drink (v.13) — see 1 Corinthians 10:4

The Spirit is more than only the agent of our baptism into the Body of Christ; He is also the living Fountain at which we all drink and are refreshed (cf. John 4:14; 7:37-39). — Stam, page 214.

The stress in verse 13 is on “all” and “one.”

This difficult passage [v.13] evidently looked back to the definite moment of time when the Jews and Gentiles in Corinth were saved, as appears from the verb [were all baptized], which is the first aorist of the first person plural passive to indicate that there was a definite nick of time when this put the Jews and Gentiles of Corinth into the one Body. This happened evidently in the year 53 A.D., when he came to Corinth and led many Jews and Gentiles to Christ. Then the risen Lord breathed invisibly His Spirit into them and baptized, submerged, identified them forever by His Spirit into His death, burial and resurrection. This put all the believing Jews and Gentiles into His Body, which, as far as the story in Acts goes, was still hidden in the Jewish Pentecostal regime. — Bultema, page 101-102

__________

Being born of the Spirit gives us a new life. Being baptized by the Spirit gives us a new place. This new place is in the Body of Christ. Both the birth and the baptism are simultaneous but they are not similar. There was a time, however, when there were people who were born again of the Spirit but were not indwelt by the Spirit. 

The result of this baptism is not said here to be speaking in tongues, or ecstatic experiences. It meant a common unity. Jews were no longer Jews as such. Gentiles were no longer Gentiles as such. Slaves were no longer slaves as such. All lost their former standing in the flesh and all found a new standing in the Spirit. There were, henceforth, no castes nor classes. There was a new oneness of life and identity.

A further result of this baptism by the Spirit was not an organization but an organism. It resulted in the forming of a body — the Body of Christ. — Laurin, page 214

__________

To determine the ultimate purpose of this “baptism” and its consequent and recurrent “filling,” we have but to inquire as to the purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit. It was … to exalt Jesus Christ. It was to continue Christ’s ministry both in us and through us. Our baptism into Christ’s body means the Spirit’s presence in our body. His presence there is to produce Christlikeness. It is to endow us with gifts and graces that will furnish us with both ability and character for the beautiful life. — Laurin, page 215.

__________

The Church, which is the body, is not the exclusive possession of any particular people. In fact, men have nothing to say about entrance into this body of believers. This is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit. Having once entered the body by birth and baptism, we function in the given sphere of our membership.’

The membership spoken of here is not creedal membership but organic membership, for “the body is not one member but many.” It is our individual relationship to collective Christianity within the organism of Christ’s body.

The membership of this mystical body of Christ is being addressed for the purpose of indicating its inter-related capacities and functions. It is asked to look at itself not as a body alone but as individual parts as well. These parts are to consider themselves in relation to every other part and are to adjust themselves in both spirit and service so that the whole body will function with precision. — Laurin, page 216.

There’s a lot of disagreement on this passage, some of which was reflected in my commentaries, but I don’t find it difficult. The Spirit gives out gifts individually, so all believers won’t have the same gifts. But we’re all supposed to work together as one body in Christ, each using our own gifts so together we accomplish the work which is God’s will for the Church.

In Christ, in this dispensation, there is not Jew or Gentile. Whether the individual believers in Corinth understood all this at the time they were saved isn’t really an issue for me. Most people who are saved today don’t understand it all right off either. Maybe Paul didn’t even understand it fully at the time when he spoke in Corinth, and that’s probably part of the reason why he’s explaining it so fully here.

⁴ There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

⁵ There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.

⁶ And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.

⁷ But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:

⁸ for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,

⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,

¹⁰ to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

diversities (v.4) — may include the meaning of “distributions”

gifts (v.4) — charisma, gifts of grace

same (vs. 4-6) — Here we see the Trinity present in the administration of the Church. In verse four — “diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.” This is God, the Holy Spirit. In verse five — “differences of administrations but the same Lord.” This is God, the Son. In verse six — “diversities of operations but the same God.” This is God, the Father, Thus, we see many  human capabilities but one divine source.

There is also to be seen here a unity of purpose in the object for which the gifts are given as expressed in verse seven. Here were gifts for human good. Their object was the good and benefit of man. All men were intended to profit from gifts that might have been given to a few men. These gifts were never intended for the monopoly of their possessors. God gave them for the blessing of all. —Laurin, page 206.

activities (v.6) — forms of service

wisdom (v.8) — God-given ability to gauge the true nature and value of things and their relation to one another

knowledge (v.8) — God-given intelligent apprehension of facts and principles

faith (v.9) — not referring to saving faith, but faith manifested by deeds

The three different prepositions in verses 8 and 9 regarding the agency of the Spirit are to be noted: “through” represents the instrumentality, the power to accomplish; “According to,” the standard or measure of accomplishment; “in,” the element in which the accomplishment is effected. — Vine, page 87

prophecy (v.10) — telling forth God’s revelation before the full revelation of Scripture was complete

discerning of spirits (v.10) — ability to determine if another was speaking from God or not

tongues (v.10) — a sign to Jews (1 Corinthians 14:21-22; Isaiah 28:11-13)

The supernatural manifestations such as speaking with tongues and prophesyings all took place within twelve years from Pentecost, as recorded in the Acts, and on all occasions when Jews were present. See Acts 2:22-36; secondly, 8:14-17, in Samaria; Thirdly, 10:45, in the house of Cornelius, where “they of the circumcision were amazed”; fourthly and lastly, 19:2-6, at Ephesus, in the case of “certain disciples” of John the Baptist. There is no further instance of, or even reference to, this kind of demonstration after this in the Acts or anywhere in the epistles. The period was one of transition, marked by God’s testimony to Jews. — Vine, page 88

__________

The gift of tongues, then, was not an emotional gibberish but a genuine linguistic ability imparted to the apostles and disciples of the infant church for the purpose of presenting the gospel in languages they had never learned. — Laurin, page 211.

__________

 “Divers kinds of tongues” refers to the gift of speaking in other languages without having learned them. “The interpretation of tongues” was a gift of the Spirit that gave confirmation through another member that the first did indeed speak in another language. Certain it is that the gibberish often heard at modern “tongues” meetings has nothing to do with the gift of tongues (See Acts 2:4-11; 1 Corinthians 13:1).

It is debatable whether the apostle lists these gifts of the Spirit strictly in the order of their importance, yet the gift of tongues is found last and in all three lists given by Paul (1 Corinthians 12:8-11, 28 and 29-30), very possibly indicating its relative significance. Also, in his main treatment of the subject (14:1-28) he consistently compares tongues unfavorably with prophecy, and adds words of caution with respect to speaking in tongues. Again, 1 Corinthians 12-14 is the only place in all of Paul’s epistles where the gift of tongues is even mentioned, and at the same time this is the only church he labelled “carnal” and “babes,” the very church that made so much of tongues. It appears that the highest word of commendation Paul could find for speaking in tongues was his statement: “Forbid not to speak with tongues” (14:39), for tongues, rightly and scripturally used were a “gift of the spirit.” Finally, the apostle clearly states in 1 Corinthians 13:8-11 that the gift of tongues would pass away like a childhood experience. It was a temporary thing. — Stam, pages 207-208.

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:

² You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led.

³ Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

I make known to you (v.3) — When they were heathens, the Corinthians knew nothing of spiritual things and were easily led into the worship of idols (and the satanic power behind them), but now that Paul has instructed them, they have a basis for discernment.

Jesus accursed (v.3) — It is by no means unlikely that the Jews would make those who had been friendly toward the Christians either pronounce this curse or be thrown out of the synagogue as is recorded in John 9:22. Paul said to Agrippa when testifying of his former persecution of Christians, “I often punished them in every synagogue and forced them to blaspheme” (Acts 26:11).

Bible history and Bible antiquity tell us that in Paul’s day when the saints were gathered for worship and the gospel was being preached, many times unbelievers or hostile persons would gain admission into the synagogue, and in the midst of the message these men would suddenly spring to their feet and shout out, “Anathema Jesus!” Historians also tell us that the Gnostics demanded that anyone who joined them shout out these words. — Laurin, page 389.

__________

It has often been asked why miraculous signs basically associated with Pentecost and Israel, should now be found among the Gentiles. Our answer is that these signs were bestowed largely though, not only, for the sake of the Jews.

 Acts 18 relates how the Corinthian church got started in a Jewish synagogue, but Paul’s ministry there did not last long, for soon there was a division over Christ, and Paul and the believers had to continue their meetings in the house of a Gentile named Justus. From this point on the church grew by leaps and bounds until now as Paul writes to them they are a large, apparently a very large, church, composed mostly of Gentile believers.

But 1 Corinthians is largely a letter of rebuke for the loose, indifferent lives they lived. What a poor testimony to the Jews, who surely had their eyes on them now!

However, God gave the Jews unimpeachable evidence that the message about Christ, which the Corinthians saints proclaimed, was true: these miraculous signs the Jews must accept (1 Corinthians 1:22) — Stam, page 201

²⁷ Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

²⁸ But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

²⁹ For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

³⁰ For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

³¹ For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

³² But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

³³ Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.

³⁴ But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

wherefore (v.27) — points back to verse 26

in an unworthy manner (v.27) — We are all unworthy based on our sin natures, but this is referring to the specific sins (gluttony, drunkenness) mentioned in v.21.

Many have taken the adverb [in an unworthy manner] as an adjective so that it would define the partakers as being unworthy, and feeling themselves unworthy, they did not dare partake of it. It is not an adjective but an adverb and defines the unworthy manner of eating and drinking of the Corinthian believers; their gluttony and intoxication. — Bultema, page 95

guilty (v.27) = liable to the penal effect of a deed — in this case, a share in the guilt for the death of the Lord

examine (v.28) = prove, test, with a view to approval — examine as to motives and conduct in participation

examine himself (v.28) — each person is to determine his or her own fitness

sleep (v.30) — always used in Scripture for the death of a believer — from the Greek word from which we get our word “cemetery.”

In that day there was still immediate judgment for sin. It has been said that we should not have the Lord’s table any longer, since the judgments connected with it are not found among us any longer, but according to this reasoning we would not have a gospel since the miracles were also once connected with it. The Lord chastised the Corinthians church in that day by inflicting many with weakness, sickness, and death. This immediate judgment and other signs we find connected with the ecclesia of God during all the Acts period when God still dealt with Israel. Only after He had set aside Israel in Acts 28, and the full and final revelation of the mystery had been given concerning the sussoma [body], did these miraculous signs stop. — Bultema, page 96.

It’s a dangerous thing to interpret Scripture based on personal observation, but when theologians tell us something will happen if … and that thing never happens no matter how often the “if” occurs, it’s fair to ask why.

Three of my commentaries on 1 Corinthians take the hard line on this passage, stating that if anyone should partake of the ordinance of the Lord’s supper with any unconfessed sin, he or she is liable to chastisement by the Lord by means of sickness and death. If this was true, churches would be experiencing a much higher rate of sickness and death than they do. The simple fact is that very few, if any, people in the pews skip the bread and juice as they’re passed down the rows, and I simply cannot believe that none of those people have unconfessed sin. I know for a fact that I’ve taken them during times when I wasn’t walking in my faith as I should be.

So what then? First, I’m not sure what we do in most churches today even qualifies as the Lord’s supper as Paul intended it to happen. Not that we can’t take the time to reflect on the Lord’s death — we can and should. But that doesn’t mean we’re doing it right. I still think it might well refer to a meal shared by the church members in which the breaking of bread at the beginning and drinking of wine at the end were intended to be times of focus on the Lord. But I’m not sure of that.

Second, it would be pretty hard to be a glutton on the minuscule bits of bread we use or get drunk on the eye-dropper of non-alcoholic grape juice, so, technically, it would be impossible to take the bread and wine in an unworthy manner as the Corinthians were doing.

Third, nowhere in the church epistles are we called on to confess in the first place. Paul talks extensively about his own sin nature in Romans 7 and follows it up, not with confession, but with the wonderful truth that there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

This passage was written during the Transition Period between law and grace, when aspects of the kingdom gospel — including the punishments given to Ananias and Sapphira, and tongues (as we will see in the next chapters) — were still in effect but fading out. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, Colossians 2 makes it clear that ordinances and the law were both wiped out.

This isn’t my view alone. Three of my commentaries — Bultema, Stam, and to a lesser extent Laurin — all take this position. As with most every passage, there’s nothing like a consensus among the experts, leaving me with the right, and the responsibility, to study it for myself.

²³ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;

²⁴ and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

²⁵ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

I (v.23 – 1st use) — strongly emphasized — Paul received this revelation from the Lord, not from the other apostles (Galatians 1:11-12)

I also delivered (v.23) — Paul had given them this revelation in person, but they hadn’t listened, so he was giving it to them in writing.

This was a special revelation for these Gentiles in the flesh (1 Corinthians 12:2). It was not a continuation of the Passover feast; it was not “delivered” to a congregation which was mainly Jewish; he “delivered” these instructions from the glorified Lord to these saved Gentiles.

Further, this is by no means an ordinance; it is a glad celebration. He himself had written with regard to the ordinances of Judaism: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [i.e., the law], that was against us; which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Again he says in Ephesians 2:15: “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ...” 

Ordinances in Scripture are consistently “things ordained,” i.e., for acceptance with God. This is not so with the Lord’s supper. The apostle does not even command his readers to observe it. Rather all is left to grace as he naturally assumes that those so gloriously redeemed will want to celebrate the great sacrifice of their Redeemer. — Stam, pages 194-195.

He was betrayed (v.23) = lit. “He was being betrayed” — The plot by Judas was underway as the Lord spoke. — Emphasizes the seriousness in contrast with the way the Corinthians were behaving.

bread (v.23) — the loaf associated with the Passover meal

given thanks (v.24) = praised, acknowledged the goodness of God

broken (v.24) — in the best manuscripts, this word is the word for “given” — None of His bones was broken.

The idea, which was promulgated early in Church history by an apostate system, that the bread was the actual body of Christ, by transubstantiation, is negatived by the fact that Christ’s human body was present at the table. Moreover, His blood was not yet shed.

Christ had taken a physical body, becoming incarnate, in order that in His atoning sacrifice He might yield His body up to death by crucifixion; this is conveyed in the phrase “which is for you,” and of this bread is the symbol and token.  Had He not done so, there would be no spiritual nourishment for us in and by His Person, of which the bread is the emblem. — Vine, page 80

do this (v.24) — giving thanks and breaking off a piece of the load, each for himself

remembrance  (v.24) = a bringing to mind — not a memorial

in the same manner (v.25) — as with the bread

this cup is (v.25) — represents the new covenant ratified and sealed by His blood

covenant (v.25) — the Greek word is not the word for an agreement between two parties

Does this mean that the Lord’s Supper concerns the new Covenant made “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31)? To answer this question let us ask two others. Does the Old Covenant, the Law, concern us Gentiles? Was it not made, also with Israel alone? Yes, but it concerns us, nevertheless, for it was given “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Romans 3:19), and Paul wrote this to Gentiles.

Then, does not the New Covenant similarly concern Gentile believers? For of a surety, the New Covenant is a replacement of the Old. As Sir Robert Anderson so beautifully put it: “What Israel will one day receive by covenant, we now receive by grace.” It should be noted that the New Covenant, unlike the others, is completely concerned with spiritual blessings, thus it is not Peter, but Paul who, with his co-workers, was an “able minister of the New Covenant” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Finally, “the blood of the New Covenant” was the only blood our Lord shed, and it is by that blood that we are saved and blessed. Hence the blood which was shed for us was in fact “the blood of the New Covenant,” more significant to us now that it ever could have been to Israel. Thus we gratefully “show the Lord’s death till He come” to a world that goes its way in revelry and sin. — Stam, page 196.

as often (v.25) — every time

till He comes (v.26) — continue doing this until the Lord returns

It’s very difficult to figure out exactly what the “Lord’s supper” is supposed to look like. The commentaries do not agree — one says that we aren’t told to do it but, under grace, want to do it to celebrate what the Lord did for us in His death and resurrection. Another says that if we don’t do it, we will be punished. One says it must be done every week. Others point out that we’re never told how often we should do it. One thinks it should take place in a gathering of believers in a home but never in the church. Others think it must be done in the evening. Most of them seem to be interpreting the passage to support whatever their particular church does with communion.

I’ve tried to pay attention to what Paul is actually instructing the Corinthians to do. It seems to me that it’s a lot less formal that most churches make it — it’s certainly not the tiny piece of stale bread and half a tiny cup of grape juice handed out by ushers  like my church does it. I’m not even sure it’s supposed to be a separate “meal.” It seems like it could be read to mean that whenever believers eat together, they should begin and end the meal with remembering what the Lord has done and thanking Him for it.  But I haven’t reached any final conclusions.

¹⁷ Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.

¹⁸ For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

¹⁹ For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

²⁰ Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

²¹ For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

²² What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

I do not praise you (v.17) — Paul found a reason for praising them in verse 2, but not here.

better (v.17) = (spiritually) advantageous

worse (v.17) = (spiritually) deteriorating

as a church (v.18) = as an assembly — not referring to a building

divisions (v.18) = dissensions — wrong living

in part I believe it (v.18) — Paul seems to be indicating that he’s willing to think better of them or believe the reports had been exaggerated.

factions (v.19) — the divisions referred to in verse 18, but with the added idea of conscious choice — wrong thinking

approved (v.19) = have stood the test — individuals who stand out because their refusal to act wrongly is in marked contrast to the behavior of most.

A “heretic” is simply a dissenter. A heretic may rise to dissent from self-will, or he may protest wrong being done or taught. The wrong kind of heresy is that which dissents from the truth of the Word of God; the right kind of heresy, that which dissents from what is wrong. In the case above the apostle says, there must be dissensions, protests, against the disorders at your love feasts, “that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (v.19).

It is important too to observe the meaning of the word “divisions” (v.18). The Greek, schisma is simply our “schism,” an alienation or estrangement. This throws further light on the problem at Corinth. It was not a theological problem; it was that some had “rubbed each other the wrong way.” In 12:25 the apostle declares: That there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another.  Stam, page 193

not to eat the Lord’s supper (v. 20) — they came together to eat, but their behavior prevented it from being the Lord’s supper

one is hungry (v.21) — no sharing

What! (v.22) — “Why bother coming together?”

do you not have houses (v.22) — If you’re simply satisfying your appetites, do it at home.

shame (v.22) — The rich were shaming the poor with their unshared abundance.

There’s a wide range of opinion on this passage (and the verses that follow), mostly, I’m guessing, because of differences of opinion regarding progressive revelation. Here’s what some of my commentaries say:

The statement “in eating” [v.21] points out that actually the occasion was only a simple meal which each of the believers could have eaten anywhere. They were probably  mixing up the “love-feast” (Agape) with the Lord’s supper. The love-feast was a meal of which the early Christians partook in common. Each participant brought his own share of food, and all contributions were pooled to make a common feast. Thus the poor who could bring but little, shared in the plenty of those who had in abundance. The Corinthians, however, had lost this Christian fellowship and had resorted to class distinction. The poor brought of their scant store and went away hungry, while the wealthy brought abundantly of their rich foods (including wines) and became intoxicated as well as making gluttons of themselves. It seems that they did not put their food together, there was no sharing; but rather, each ate what he brought. So in reality it was not a meal in common — they did not share and share alike. Thus the Christian principle was destroyed at the very meal that should have displayed it in practice. To call such a meal “the Lord’s supper” was unscriptural and did grievous abuse to that observance. — Greene, pages 367-368

__________

There was a shameful abuse of the Lord’s table. Baptism was also abused but he did not make a single attempt to reform this. On the other hand, he said that he thanked God that he did not baptize any but two with a family (1:14-15); but here he rebukes the abuses and proceeds to set it right. This was in the year 59. According to Charles Welch, he received the full blaze of the mystery of the Body at 60 A.D. [Acts 28]. If now, as some say, the Lord’s table does not belong to the Body, why then should Paul proceed to reform it for just one year. If it had been a thing to be set aside, he would not have endeavored to reform it for one year at most. — Bultema, page 93

__________

The sin of coming to the table of the Lord without proper preparation and a thorough understanding of its meaning is followed by the most serious and terrible results. If Christians would believe, study and conscientiously practice the admonition of this passage it would spare them untold grief and suffering and save them thousands and ten thousands of dollars in time and doctors’ bills. — DeHaan, page 127

I’ll save my personal conclusions until I’ve studied more.