TCC
Well-known
The actual title i think should be: Do Just About All Commentaries Get 1 Corinthians 11:19 Wrong? If I am mistaken and any find commentaries that proport according to the one listed below, please do mention and provide.
HOWEVER -– Every commentary, I have seen (including DA Carson’s own comments aside from being the senior editor of PNTC), sees Paul affirming that God has division in the church for the purpose of proving those who are His. Which seems to imply that the modern church kind of assimilates in ways the brokenness expressed in this passage as if it were something we ourselves should be doing.
Please see the commentary below from The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC):
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.
. . . . .
Although DA Carson himself differs from this passage, it is understandable why so many see it this way:
This verse reflects the idea that divisions within the church community are necessary to reveal the true believers among the crowd. D. A. Carson explains that these divisions can manifest as heresies or factions, which serve as a means for God to discern the authenticity of faith. The presence of such divisions is seen as a test for unity and love within the church, ultimately highlighting the importance of maintaining harmony and unity among believers.
. . . . .
CONCERN – According to PNTC, Paul is being sarcastic.
What PNTC sees as Paul being sarcastic about, the modern church adopts to incorporate “sarcasm” seemingly into our own theological grids as theology proper itself. A main concern I believe this can suggest is mistaking literary style for doctrine. In this passage, it is as if all our commentaries adopt a heresy while assuming our so doing offers “explanatory power." meanwhile we believing we are being discerning in that.
At the end of the day, DA Carson’s personal take makes sense. But something like the PNTC’s likely accuracy can in ways mirror our own era’s tendency to perhaps idolize preachers/pastors and/or some senses upon our own theology guarded. Not to say we should not guard, but I believe we do tend today to see factions/tribalism serving as orthodoxy, might we not?
HOWEVER -– Every commentary, I have seen (including DA Carson’s own comments aside from being the senior editor of PNTC), sees Paul affirming that God has division in the church for the purpose of proving those who are His. Which seems to imply that the modern church kind of assimilates in ways the brokenness expressed in this passage as if it were something we ourselves should be doing.
Please see the commentary below from The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC):
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.
. . . . .
Although DA Carson himself differs from this passage, it is understandable why so many see it this way:
This verse reflects the idea that divisions within the church community are necessary to reveal the true believers among the crowd. D. A. Carson explains that these divisions can manifest as heresies or factions, which serve as a means for God to discern the authenticity of faith. The presence of such divisions is seen as a test for unity and love within the church, ultimately highlighting the importance of maintaining harmony and unity among believers.
. . . . .
CONCERN – According to PNTC, Paul is being sarcastic.
What PNTC sees as Paul being sarcastic about, the modern church adopts to incorporate “sarcasm” seemingly into our own theological grids as theology proper itself. A main concern I believe this can suggest is mistaking literary style for doctrine. In this passage, it is as if all our commentaries adopt a heresy while assuming our so doing offers “explanatory power." meanwhile we believing we are being discerning in that.
At the end of the day, DA Carson’s personal take makes sense. But something like the PNTC’s likely accuracy can in ways mirror our own era’s tendency to perhaps idolize preachers/pastors and/or some senses upon our own theology guarded. Not to say we should not guard, but I believe we do tend today to see factions/tribalism serving as orthodoxy, might we not?
