GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies.
But in giving you this command, I don’t praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
1 Corinthians 11:16-19 sits inside this longer paragraph.
Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies.
But in giving you this command, I don’t praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you. When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise God’s assembly and put them to shame who don’t have enough? What shall I tell you? Shall I praise you? In this I don’t praise you.
But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies.
But in giving you this command, I don’t praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse.
For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it.
For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
If there be eny man amonge you that lusteth to stryve let him knowe that we have no soche custome nether the congregacions of God.
This I warne you of and commende not that ye come to gedder: not after a better maner but after a worsse.
Fyrst of all when ye come togedder in the congregacion I heare that ther is dissencion amonge you: and I partly beleve it.
For ther must be sectes amonge you that they which are perfecte amonge you myght be knowen.
But if any man lust to be contentious, we haue no such custome, neither the Churches of God.
Nowe in this that I declare, I prayse you not, that ye come together, not with profite, but with hurt.
For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I heare that there are dissentions among you: and I beleeue it to be true in some part.
For there must be heresies euen among you, that they which are approoued among you, might be knowen.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv16–19 16. But if any man seem A contentious person…
16. But if any man seem A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs — raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful — who do not yield to reasonings — who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (ἀκοινώνητοι) would be singular persons who, from a foolish affectation, aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church
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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv16–19 Against such as are stubbornly contentious we have to…
Against such as are stubbornly contentious we have to oppose this, that the Churches of God are not contentious.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv16–19 16 But if any man seem to be contentious,…
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Ver. 16. Seem to be contentious] A doctore glorioso, et pastore contentioso, et inutilibus questionibus, liberet Ecclesiam suam Domiuus, said Luther. From a vain-glorious doctor, from a contentious pastor, and from endless and needless controversies, the good Lord deliver his Church. The word rendered "seem," signifieth, "is pleased to be, desires and hath a will to be, yea, boasts and prides himself in it," δοκει δοκησισοφος. This is a foul fault in any, but especially in ministers; who must see (saith Luther) that those three dogs follow them not into the pulpit, pride, covetousness, and contentiousness. A quarrelsome person is like a cock of the kind, ever bloody with the blood of others and himself; and divisions are Satan’s gun powder plot to blow up religion.
Read full note →
We have no such custom] viz. To strive about trifles, but to submit to our teachers, Heb 13:17. It is a vile thing, saith Bifield, {on 1Pe 3:1-22} to vex our ministers by our obstinace; yea, though they were not able to make so full demonstration, yet when they reprove such things, out of a spiritual jealousy and fear that they corrupt the people’s hearts, they are to be heard and obeyed.
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.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv16–19 If any man seem to be contentious; if any…
If any man seem to be contentious; if any man hath a mind to quarrel out of a love to show his wit in discoursing what may be said on the other side, or out of a desire to hold up a party, and contradict us.
We have no such custom, of women’s praying or prophesying with their heads uncovered, or men’s praying or prophesying with their heads covered; or we have no such custom of contending for these little frivolous things;
Read full note →
neither any of the churches of God; and good Christians, in their practices, ought, in things of this nature, to have an eye and regard to the custom of their own church, and also of other Christian churches. Thus the apostle closeth this discourse, and proceedeth in the next verses to tax other abuses which were crept into this famous church.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v17 Our apostle here enters upon a new argument or…
Our apostle here enters upon a new argument or subject-matter of discourse; namely, to reprove the abuses which were crept in amongst them, in their administration of the holy sacrament of the Lord’s supper.
And the first abuse which he blames them for, was, the divisions and factions which were found amongst them; I hear that there are schisms amongst you. Where we are to understand by schisms, not a separation from the unity of the catholic church, but of sects and divisions in the church; they did not separate from the church, but they ate the Lord’s supper separately in the church, and the whole congregation did not join together in the celebration of that ordinance. Though we do not separate from the communion of the catholic church, yet if we occasion division and dissension groundlessly in the church, we justly fall under the imputation and charge of schism.
Read full note →
Observe next, The apostle argues a minori ad majus; he did easily believe there were divisions, because there must be also heresies among them. Heresies were worse than schisms, false doctrines more dangerous than divisions. Heresy is an error in the fundamentals of religion, maintained with obstinacy. When the green wound of an error is let alone, it soon rankles, and quickly grows into the old sore of an heresy.
But how comes the apostle to say, there must be heresies? what necessity is there for them?
Ans. 1. Negatively; there is not an absolute necessity for them on God’s part, or a necessity of his making; but a conditional necessity, or a necessity ex. hypothesi, which must needs be, if such a thing be granted before: as supposing the sun be risen, it must be day.
Thus here, upon supposition of the pride, vain-glory, envyings, strife, and contentions, which are amongst the members of the church; upon supposition of the craft and subtilty, malice and malignity, of Satan, the church’s grand enemy; upon supposition of God’s permission, that Satan and wicked men should act according to their corrupt affections and inclinations; heresies must and will be.
Note farther, That the reason here assigned for the necessity of heresies is not causal, but eventual: not causal, as if the wisdom of God did design there should be heresies for this end, that they who are approved of him should be made manifest; but rather eventual; as if the apostle had said, "Hence it will come to pass, that they who are approved will be made manifest."
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v17 In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for…
In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord's supper, which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the apostle here reprehends, concerning which observe,
I. The manner in which he introduces his charge: "Now in this that I declare to you I praise you not, Co1 11:17. I cannot commend, but must blame and condemn you." It is plain, from the beginning of the chapter, that he was willing and pleased to commend as far as he could. But such scandalous disorders, in so sacred an institution, as they were guilty of, called for a sharp reprehension. They quite turned the institution against itself. It was intended to make them better, to promote their spiritual interests; but it really made them worse. They came together, not for the better, but for the worse. Note, The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be very apt to make us worse; if they do not do our souls good, they do us harm; if they do not melt and mend, they will harden. Corruptions will be confirmed in us, if the proper means do not work a cure of them.
Read full note →
II. He enters upon his charge against them in more particulars than one. 1. He tells them that, upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms - schismata. Instead of concurring unanimously in celebrating the ordinance, they fell a quarrelling with one another. Note, There may be schism where there is no separation of communion. Persons may come together in the same church, and sit down at the same table of the Lord, and yet be schismatics. Uncharitableness, alienation of affection, especially if it grows up to discord, and feuds, and contentions, constitute schism. Christians may separate from each other's communion, and yet be uncharitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, and yet be uncharitable. This latter is schism, rather than the former. The apostle had heard a report of the Corinthians' divisions, and he tells them he had too much reason to believe it. For, adds he, there must be heresies also; not only quarrels, but factions, and perhaps such corrupt opinions as strike at the foundation of Christianity, and all sound religion. Note, No marvel there should be breaches of Christian love in the churches, when such offences will come as shall make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Such offences must come. Note that men are necessitated to be guilty of them; but the event is certain, and God permits them, that those who are approved (such honest hearts as will bear the trial) may be set to view, and appear faithful by their constant adherence to the truths and ways of God, notwithstanding the temptations of seducers. Note, The wisdom of God can make the wickedness and errors of others a foil to the piety and integrity of the saints. 2. He charges them not only with discord and division, but with scandalous disorder: For in eating every one taketh before the other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken, Co1 11:21. Heathens used to drink plentifully at their feasts upon their sacrifices. Many of the wealthier Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord's table, or at least at their Agapai, or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper. They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. This was profaning a sacred institution, and corrupting a divine ordinance, to the last degree. What was appointed to feed the soul was employed to feed their lusts and passions. What should have been a bond of mutual amity and affection was made an instrument of discord and disunion. The poor were deprived of the food prepared for them, and the rich turned a feast of charity into a debauch. This was scandalous irregularity.
III. The apostle lays the blame of this conduct closely on them, 1. By telling them that their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution: This is not to eat the Lord's supper, Co1 11:20. It was coming to the Lord's table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away. Thus to eat the outward elements was not to eat Christ's body. Note, There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper which is as none at all; it will turn to no account, but to increase guilt. Such an eating was that of the Corinthians; their practices were a direct contradiction to the purposes of this sacred institution. 2. Their conduct carried in it a contempt of God's house, or of the church, Co1 11:22. If they had a mind to feast, they might do it at home in their own houses; but to come to the Lord's table, and cabal and quarrel, and keep the poor from their share of the provision there made for them as well as rich, was such an abuse of the ordinance, and such a contempt of the poorer members of the church more especially, as merited a very sharp rebuke. Such a behaviour tended much to the shame and discouragement of the poor, whose souls were as dear to Christ, and cost him as much, as those of the rich. Note, Common meals may be managed after a common manner, but religious feasts should be attended religiously. Note, also, It is a heinous evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord's table. This is doing what they can to pour contempt on divine ordinances. And we should look carefully to it that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table have the appearance of contemning so sacred an institution.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv16–19 Now in this that I declare unto you,.... The…
Now in this that I declare unto you,.... The Syriac version reads, "this is what I command"; which some refer to what he had been discoursing of, adding to his arguments, and the examples of the church, his own orders and command, that men should worship God publicly, uncovered, and women covered; though it seems rather to respect what follows, what the apostle was about to declare unto them; concerning which he says,
I praise you not; as he did in Co1 11:2 that they were mindful of him, remembered his doctrines, and kept the ordinances in the manner he had delivered them to them: and it should seem by this, that the greater part of them were not to be blamed, though some few were, for their irregular and indecent appearance in public worship, men with a covering on their heads, and women without one; but in what he was about to say, he could not praise them at all:
Read full note →
that you come together; to the house of God, to pray unto him, to sing his praises, to hear his word, and attend his ordinances, particularly the Lord's supper:
not for the better; for edification and instruction, for the quickening and comforting of your souls; that you may grow in grace and knowledge, become more holy, zealous, fruitful, and useful:
but for the worse; to indulge luxury and intemperance, to encourage heresies, schisms, and divisions, and so grow more carnal, scandalous, and useless.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19 We have no such custom here, nor any of…
We have no such custom here, nor any of the other churches of God - The several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv16–19 Verse 16. But if any man seem to be…
Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious] Ει δε τις δοκει φιλονεικος ειναι· If any person sets himself up as a wrangler-puts himself forward as a defender of such points, that a woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and that a man may, without reproach, have long hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either, nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem, generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of veils and hair, it is evident that it must have occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth. They have produced evil effects in much later times.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On v17 1Co 11:17-19. Now in this that I am about…
1Co 11:17-19. Now in this that I am about to declare unto you, I praise you not — I cannot commend some, as I have done others, (1Co 11:2,) for other things; that ye come together — Frequently, and even on the most solemn occasions; not for the better — So as to gain any spiritual advantage by the increase of your faith and other graces; but for the worse — To the prejudice of your souls, by fomenting strifes and animosities, which produce factions. For first of all — Before I mention any other instance of your irregular and indecent conduct, I must observe, that when ye come together in the church — Εν τη εκκλησια, in the public assembly, though it is evident that nothing but reverence to God, and love to each other, should reign on such occasions; I hear that there be divisions — Σχισματα, schisms; among you, and I partly believe it — That is, I believe it of some of you. It is plain that by schisms is not meant any separation from the church, but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one church, and notwithstanding all their strife and contention, there was no separation of any one party from the rest, with regard to external communion. And it is in the same sense that the word is used, 1Co 1:10, and 1Co 12:25, which are the only places in the New Testament, besides this, where church schisms are mentioned. Therefore, the indulging any temper contrary to this tender care of each other, is the true Scriptural schism. This is, therefore, a quite different thing from that orderly separation from corrupt churches which later ages have stigmatized as schism; and have made a pretence for the vilest cruelties, oppressions, and murders, that have troubled the Christian world. Both heresies and schisms are here mentioned in very near the same sense: unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosities which occasion heresies; that is, outward divisions or parties: so that while one said, I am of Paul, another, I am of Apollos, this implied both schism and heresy. So wonderfully have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism from their Scriptural meaning. Heresy is not, in all the Bible, taken for “an error in fundamentals,” or in any thing else; nor schism, for any separation made from the outward communion of others. Therefore, both heresy and schism, in the modern sense of the words, are sins that the Scripture knows nothing of; but were invented merely to deprive mankind of the benefit of private judgment, and liberty of conscience. For there must also be heresies among you —
Parties formed, as the word αιρεσεις properly signifies. These, in the ordinary course of things, must take place, in consequence of your contentions, and the declension of your love to one another: and God permits these divisions, that they which are approved may be manifest — That it may appear who among you are, and who are not, upright of heart.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv16–19 But if any man seem to be contentious -…
But if any man seem to be contentious - The sense of this passage is probably this: “If any man, any teacher, or others, “is disposed” to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reason why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many and should, therefore, be avoided.”
We have no such custom - We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.
Read full note →
Neither the churches of God - The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv16, 17, 19 In this chapter are three instructions: 1. That women…
In this chapter are three instructions: 1. That women must have a veil on their heads at public prayers, to ver. 17. --- 2ndly, he corrects the abuses in their banquets of charity, called Agape, to ver. 23. --- 3rdly, he teaches that in the sacrament of the holy Eucharist, is the body and blood of Christ. (Witham)
If any man seem to be contentious about this matter, or any other, we have no such custom, nor hath the Church; that is, says St. John Chrysostom, to have such quarrels and divisions. Or, as others understand it, we have no such custom for women to be in the Church uncovered. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v17 B. On the contrast between the rich and poor…
B. On the contrast between the rich and poor at church-feasts, as inconsistent with the idea of the Lord’s Supper, and provocative of the Divine judgments
1Co_11:17-34
Read full note →
17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not [But this I command you, not praising you, παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν],11 that ye come together not for thebetter, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church [a public assembly, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ]12 I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly19[in some degree, μέρος τι] believe it. For there must be also heresies [sects, αἱρέσεις] among you, that they13 which are approved may be made manifest among you.20When ye come together therefore into one place, this [it] is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other14 his own [private, τὸ ἴδιον] supper:22and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! [For, γὰρ] have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that havenot? What shall I say to you? shall I praise15 you in this?16 I praise you not. 23For I have [om. have, παρέλαβον] received of the Lord that which also I [have, παρὲδωκα] delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed,took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat17 [om. Take eat]; this is my body, which is broken18 [om. broken] for you: this do in remem-brance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament [covenant, διαθήκη] in my blood: this do ye, asoft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this [the]19 cup, ye do shew [proclaim, καταγγέλλετε] the Lord’s death till hecome. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,20 and [or, ῆ] drink this cup of theLord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and [the]21 blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine [make trial of, δοκιμαζέτω] himself, and so let him eat of that [theτοῦ] bread, and drink of that [the, τοῦ] cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, [om. unworthily]22 aateth and drinketh damnation [judgment, κρῖμα] to him-30self, not discerning the Lord’s [if he does not discern the, μὴ διακρίνων] body. For31this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For [But, δὲ]23 if we would judge [had judged, διεκρίνομεν] ourselves, we should not be [have beenjudged, οὐκ ἄν ἐκρινόμεθα] judged. 32But when we are judged [now that we are judged, κρινόμενοι], we are chastened of the Lord,24 that we should not be condemned with theworld. 33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And [om. And]25 if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not34together unto condemnation [judgment, κρῖμα]. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[In order to the right understanding of this section it must be premised: 1. That it was the primitive custom to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in private houses (Act_2:46); although there is reason to believe, as will soon be seen, that the Corinthians had already a specific place for public worship. Yet, supposing this to have been the case, it would be natural to infer that the habits and sentiments attaching to the observance at the private house, would be transferred to what might be called “ the church.” 2. That the Lord’s Supper was held “daily” (Act_2:46), and was usually connected with an ordinary meal; although even in this respect the language of the text seems to imply a change to a less frequent observance; perhaps the first day of the week, as was afterwards the custom (Act_20:7). 3. That this meal was often made up of contributions brought by the communicants, to be enjoyed in common, and which came to be called an Agape (ἀγάπη) or love-feast, where the fellowship of the Christian community was exhibited and cultivated in a social festival. 4. That the custom of enjoying such social repasts existed also among the Greeks. With them these repasts were termed ἔρανοι, club feasts, which were associated with plans of mutual relief or charity toward the poor, where the practice was for each guest to eat that which he brought with him in his own basket. And what an influence this heathen observance, so often attended with disorder and rioting, would have upon the minds of recent converts present at a similar Christian festival, can be readily imagined. Bearing these four facts in mind, we shall be able the more readily to appreciate the nature of the difficulties which had arisen in the church, and the occasion of the Apostolic rebuke and injunction. And in all this we shall see an illustration of the old proverb, that “evil customs give rise to good laws.” See these facts more fully brought out in Stanley’s valuable note, and also in articles under “Lord’s Supper,” in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopædia, Alexander’s Ed.; and Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible; Riddle’s Christian Antiquities, p. 600; Neander, Plant. and Train. of the Christian Church, pp. 23, 163; Schaff, Hist. of the Apostolic Church, p. 185 ff.].
1Co_11:17. Now this I command.—He here refers to the foregoing precept; and through a participial clause expressing a contrast with what he says in 1Co_11:2, he connects with it a rebuke of further evils in their church assemblies—Not praising (you).—We should have expected to see the sentence here differently constructed, having the main verb in the form of a participle, and the participle in the form of the main verb; since it is on the latter that the emphasis evidently lies. Hence the ordinary reading, which for this very reason is not to be maintained. If, however, with Lachmann [and Stanley], we include 1Co_11:16 in this paragraph, then the words τοῦτο παραγγέλλω would point to what follows, and be rendered: ‘Now this I declare unto you’ [as the E. V.], which rendering would be contrary to the New Testament usage. And to this we may add that the previous paragraph requires just such a conclusion as is found in 1Co_11:16. There is no need whatever of supposing that the strifes and schisms alluded to in 1Co_11:18 refer to the contentiousness spoken of in 1Co_11:16. Besides, the reference of τοῦτο, this, to what follows is inadmissible, since no directions do follow immediately; and in order to find any, we must look onward to 1Co_11:33 ff., which would be too remote. Still further, there is no need of looking for them here, since the close connection with the precepts immediately preceding by means of the participial clause, is sufficiently motived by that which is common to the two paragraphs, viz., disorders in the church assembly; and to this we may add the contrast between the “not praising” and the “I praise” of 1Co_11:22, q. d. ‘But this precept I give not praising you, as in the former instance, in that,’ etc.26—that (ὄτι, not, because, as Alf., Words.] ye come together.—“Hitherto he has been speaking only of the ambitious few; but now he feels obliged to rebuke the whole church for a prevailing evil.” Neander.—Not for the better, but for the worse.—These phrases do not indicate the way and manner of their assembling, but rather its result or fruit, implying that by means of it they were injured rather than improved; and so the issue was not edification, which it was incumbent on all to aim at, but the opposite; instead of furthering, it hindered their communion with their Lord and with each other.27
1Co_11:18-19. For first of all.—πρῶ τον μέν followed by no ἔπειτα δέ, just as is the case in Rom_1:8; Rom_3:2. Accordingly the second matter of rebuke many think they find in 1Co_11:20, introduced by οὔν, therefore, because this is to be regarded as a result of the “schism” spoken of in the next clause. What, then, does he mean by these “schisms?” Is it what he more fully discussed in chapter 1Co_1:11 ff.? Were this so, could he have alluded to them here in so incidental a manner? This is hardly possible; for he must then have had in mind certain reports of their schismatic ways in their church assemblies different from that particularly specified in 1Co_11:20, and which ought to have been more fully detailed. The correct view, therefore, undoubtedly is that the second disorder which he rebukes is not to be found in 1Co_11:20 ff., and that in the word “schisms” he only indicates generally what he there more fully defines, and to which the words “when ye come together” and the “therefore” which resumes the argument, refer; and that there, for the first time, the proper rebuke follows (1Co_11:22). The “schisms,” then, denote ruptures, disorders in fellowship of love as they appeared in the church feasts, and which he speaks of more fully in 1Co_11:21. The second matter, then, which he has to rebuke, we are to look for in chap. 12, viz., the disorders arising in their church assemblies from an unbecoming use of “gifts.” But the connection is loosely indicated, and is to be understood along the more extended exposition which intervenes.—When ye come together in the Church.—ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ shows the form of their coming together, i.e., in a church assembly. To suppose a pregnant construction for εἰς ἐκκλησίαν is unnecessary; still less is the word ἐκκλησια, church, to be regarded as denoting the place of assembling; which use of the term did not spring up until later times. Yet perhaps we might say, with Meyer and de Wette, that the congregation is here regarded in the light of a locality.—I hear.—He thus vividly presentiates the whole circumstance, as though what had been communicated to him were still sounding in his ears.—that there are schisms among you.—[These, as intimated above, are specifically those occurring at the love-feasts; but on the mention of them he breaks off to show that such divisions were to be no matters of surprise, but were ordained to test them. The original term is σχίσματα, whence our schisms; but here it designates simply cliques, separated from each other by social distinctions and petty alienations of feeling. Those who were thus divided were outwardly still one body].—and I partly believe it.—The word “partly” has a softening effect, q. d., ‘I think too well of you to believe all that has been reported to me.’
He next proceeds to assign a higher reason for the partial belief which he was constrained to give to what he heard, viz., a Divinely ordained necessity in the circumstances alluded to, as instrumental to a Divine result, “according to that law of Divine administration by which evil, so far from hindering, is made tributary to good.” Burger (Mat_18:7; Mat_26:54).—For there must be also heresies among you. In explaining this passage the chief question is, what did Paul mean by αἱρέσεις, lit., heresies? The word occurs elsewhere with Paul only in Gal_5:20, specifying one of the works of the flesh, and is one of the expressions denoting hostility and division. It occurs besides in Act_5:17; Act_15:5; Act_24:5; Act_24:14; Act_28:22, of religious parties or sects; and in Tit_3:10, αἱρέτικος denotes one who occasions divisions in the church by turning aside from sound doctrine (comp. αἱρέσεις, 2Pe_2:1). “Originally in classic usage αἱρέσεις signifies nothing bad. It implies choice, hence an opinion, then a party, which arises through choice, especially in the schools. It came to possess a bad significance, first in Christian usage; and this is in consequence of our Christian modes of thinking and viewing things. On the stand-point of worldly wisdom, diversity of views and tendencies in regard to religious things is allowable; but on the Christian stand-point it is required that every thing within us be subjected to one Divine principle of life, and be brought into one fellowship of faith and love.”28 Neander. In our text the current exposition wavers between the identification of the word with σχἱσματα so as to make it imply only the divisions alluded to in the following context, and the later ecclesiastical signification of the word, viz., ‘heresy’—a departure from the fundamental truth of the Gospel, and the divisions arising in consequence; thus distinguishing it from ‘schism,’ which implies a division simply in the matter of discipline. Between these extremes we give the explanation, ecclesiastical divisions, in the broader sense of the word [that is, divisions without any formal separation]. And this explanation is the only correct one, and suited to the character of the clause wherein the word occurs, which is only a digression by way of confirmation (Meyer). In this case the καἱ before αἱρέσεις will mean not even, but also, i. e., among other evils it is necessary that there should be also ‘heresies.’ The main emphasis lies upon “must” (δεῖ), rather than upon “heresies,” as required by the logical relation of this to the preceding verse.29—The objective clause, “in order that those who are approved may be made manifest among you,” involves the idea of a sifting process performed on the Church. “The approved” (δὀκιμοι) are the rightly disposed, who devote themselves without reserve to the whole body of Christian truth, and hence to the Spirit of the Lord; and it was necessary that such should be “made manifest,” inasmuch as the impurity and weakness of the Christian life, the yet remaining power of a carnal and selfish nature, often unfolds itself in such a way that many cleave one-sidedly to particular individuals, and to peculiar kinds of talents, and to certain specific tendencies and opinions, without, however, becoming distinctly heretical; although in the Judaistic and anti-judaistic modes of thought, and in the denial of the resurrection of the dead (chap. 15), significant germs and leanings toward heresy might have been formed. The sifting accordingly leads, and was intended to lead, to a higher development of the life of faith and love in the Church, which had been thus obstructed and disturbed. “The Apostle’s view of history thus brought out stands opposed as much to a pantheistic conception of necessity as to an atomistic view of freedom. It recognizes in history room for the play of freedom, yet at the same time asserts the guidance of a higher law.” Neander. [“The Church has been constrained by the rise of heresies to search Scripture more carefully; and thus heresies have served as occasions for bringing forth more fully the articles of faith in her creeds.” Wordsworth. “But the advantage here spoken of we ought not to ascribe to heresies, which, being evil, can produce nothing but what is evil, but to God, who, by His infinite goodness, changes the nature of things, so that those things are salutary to the elect, which Satan had contrived for their ruin. The cause here implied is the secret counsel of God, by which things that are evil are overruled in such a manner as to have a good issue.” Calvin].—Vv. 20,21. In these verses Paul intimates that what transpired in their Church assemblies rendered the celebration of the Lord’s Supper impossible; and then he states more definitely wherein the inconsistency was to be found; so that this appears as explaining and confirming what is before asserted.—When then ye come together.—[“1Co_11:19 being an interruption, the connection with 1Co_11:18 is resumed by the particle ου̇͂ν then.”]—into one place.—ἐπὶτὸαὐτὀ is to be construed locally (Act_7:15; Act_2:1), and denotes the place where the Church assembled. [From this some have inferred that the Corinthians had already come to have a room or building particularly set apart for religious services].—(it) is not.—Some translate οὐκἔστιν this is not; [referring to what they did on coming together, and which he goes on to specify]; but then τοῦτο should have been expressly given as the subject. Lit.: ‘there is no such thing as your eating,’ i.e., ‘it is impracticable,’ ‘impossible;’ not, however, from lack of bread and wine (Bengel), but because there was a lack of the requisite disposition. An accusative before the infinitive is here not necessary. [Bloomfield detects a sarcastic point in this sentence, q. d. ‘To eat the Lord’s Supper surely is not, cannot be the purpose of your meeting (since that you do not eat): for your meal is not common, but separate; every one eats his own Supper’].—to eat the Lord’s supper.—κυριακὸνδεῖπνον, ‘a feast appertaining to the Lord,’ or as Osiander says, “one consecrated to the Lord and instituted by Him.” (Comp. κνριακἡ ἡμερα Rev_1:10). By this the Apostle designates neither the agapae (Judges 12), the so called church feasts, [as Romanists interpret who would thus elude the argument furnished by this passage against their sacrificial theory of the Eucharist]; nor yet, the Holy Supper (1Co_11:23) by itself; but the combination of the two30 as it was to be found in Christian Churches, according to the original Apostolic custom, and in accordance with the first institution of the Supper, which, as we know, followed upon a regular meal. The “Supper” spoken of in the text was a festival, to which each one contributed a portion, and which concluded with the Lord’s Supper proper. That, however, which was brought by individuals, was to have been enjoyed in common, so that the fellowship of love, unbroken by social distinctions, might be the more clearly exhibited. Thus was the agape, or love-feast, a suitable preparation for the Lord’s Supper, in its more restricted sense, where all ate of one bread, and drank of one cup. But in Corinth such a meal as this, where all appeared as one family living on a common property, could not take place; since by reason of the cooling of their love, each one kept and enjoyed for himself the portion which he had brought [according to the heathen custom of the ἔρανοι—see above]; so that the distinction between the rich and the poor, which ought to have melted away in Church communion, re-appeared—and this to such a degree that while one class suffered from a sense of want, others were satiated to a degree which, in some cases, amounted even to drunkenness.—For in eating—ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν is not to be taken as defining more fully the preceding verb, προλαμβάνει; but it is simply a note of time, q. d., ‘while eating.’—every one—viz., who has brought something with him.—takes before other—προλαυβἁνει, a suitable expression for the selfish and hasty appropriation of what had been brought without waiting to put all together and divide it for the common good.—his own supper. [In contrast with the Lord’s Supper, and this in the Lord’s House, and not in his own private house. The abuse seems to have grown out of the primitive practice of sometimes annexing the love-feast to the Holy Communion. And here, in this case the former seems to have crowded the latter almost entirely aside, and the natural want was gratified to the overlooking of the spiritual need].—and one hungers and another is drunken.—μεθὐει. [The use of this word in Joh_2:10 shows that it need not be always taken to denote intoxication; but this is its natural meaning in most passages, and there is no need of softening it here.31 As Meyer says, “Paul draws the picture in strong colors and who can say that the reality was less strong?” “It is wonderful and well nigh portentous that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time.” Calvin].
1Co_11:22. The blame just indicated is here sustained.—For, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?—q. d., ‘if this is what you have to do, viz., to hold your private meals, why, you have your own houses for this object. To use the assembly of the Church for such a purpose is needless.’—Or despise ye the church of God and shame those who have not?—A second reason for the blameworthiness of their conduct—the disparaging of the Church of God, whose meetings were abused to festivities derogatory to its holy character by the introduction of secular distinctions there, and by the contemptuous treatment of the poorer members of the Church—a course of conduct which involved a disparagement of the Church in its members; inasmuch as these were shamefully thrust into the back-ground by reason of a difference which ought to have led only to an equalizing distribution of the good things in the fellowship of a holy love. These two reasons are closely connected.—The term “Church” is not to be interpreted locally,32 as is plain from the adjunct “of God.” It stands first, because of the emphasis (“the Church of God,” His sanctuary, His temple); on the contrary, in the second clause the stress lies on the verb, “despise ye.” [τοὺςμὴ ἔχονταδ—those not having. There is a question as to what is the real object of the participle here which must be supplied. Alford, and others, say, “houses to eat and to drink in,” and suppose that in this fact we have the reason ‘for their coming to the love-feast to be fed. But Meyer, Stanley, Hodge, and others, construe the phrase more generally.’ Those “not having” are those who have nothing, and are the poor in contrast with the rich. This is both consistent with Greek usage and gives a better sense].—What am I to say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.—The rebuke here is couched in mild expressions, and its interrogatory form is calculated to awaken reflection. There is, however, a sharp rap in the concluding words, which is, in fact, very severe. In saying “I praise you not,” he refers back to 1Co_11:17 (comp. Osiander).
1Co_11:23. The concluding question of the previous verse implies an answer in the negative, and this is now confirmed by a reference to the original institution of the Supper, wherein its character and worth are clearly set forth, even as he himself had received it by reliable tradition, coming directly from the Lord, and had so transmitted it to them.—For I received from the Lord.—παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου. The sense in which these words are to be taken, is very questionable. Are we to understand them as implying a direct, special revelation to Paul of the circumstances of the institution (for the text says nothing of a mere confirmation of testimony otherwise received, or of any special illumination respecting the significance of the circumstances)? if so, was it by means of a vision (as Tholuck, Olshausen, Osiander suppose)? or, as a tradition starting from the Lord, and transmitted to the Apostles? The first supposition is supported, not indeed by the force of the verb παρέλαβον, I received, but by the force of the prep. ἀπό, from, which implies [a remote source,] an indirect derivation; [instead of which παρά would have been more likely to be used, had he intended a direct communication (Winer, P. ΙΙΙ., § 47)]; as well as by the internal probabilities of the case, since he could have resorted to an accurate tradition of the whole circumstance. The second supposition is opposed by the force of the pronoun ἑγώ I, standing out prominently; since indeed, according to this supposition, Paul would only have placed himself on an equality with all others who had, in like manner, received the Apostolic tradition; [whereas he here brings himself specially into view, as one who had derived his knowledge from original sources, and had the right to speak authoritatively in the premises]. We might suppose with Meyer, Ed. 2, that this important circumstance had been accurately communicated to him through Ananias, or some other person, in obedience to a special commission of the Lord, and that this communication was made to him with the understanding that the Lord had given a special commission for him in this particular by means of a vision. This might have been connected in some way with his baptism, or with those special disclosures which he had received in relation to his future calling. Or we may suppose (according to Meyer, Ed. 3), that since, in consequence of its essential connection with the Gospel, and indeed with the fundamental doctrine of Paul concerning the work of atonement, the whole subject excluded human intervention according to Gal_1:12; Gal_1:16, the communication was made in some indefinable manner, either through the inspiration of the Spirit, or through the manifestation of angels, or in ecstatic vision. [Hodge argues with great force in favor of a direct derivation, and shows conclusively that this is invalidated neither by the use of ἀπό, nor by the supposition that no special revelation was necessary, on the ground that the facts connected with the institution were generally known; nor yet by the assumption that not historical facts, but only ideas and truths, may be communicated by visions and inward influences; but that, on the contrary, it is required by the context, and is in harmony with what Paul elsewhere claims for himself. He concludes: “It was not only of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole Church, to be assured that this account of the Lord’s Supper was communicated immediately by Christ to the Apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordinance”].—what I also delivered unto you,—[i.e., during his ministry among them; so that he is here only reminding them of precious instructions.—On the following words Stanley well remarks: “They form probably the earliest record of the institution of the Eucharist, and they contain also the earliest recorded speech of our Lord. To explain them at any length, or to adjust their relation to the other three verses in St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke, would be to encroach upon questions belonging only to the Gospel narrative; yet those who are familiar with those questions, will observe: 1. That their almost exact coincidence with the account in St. Luke, is important, as confirming the tradition of the author of that Gospel being the same as the companion of St. Paul. 2. That in this, the most ancient record, of certainly one of the most important speeches of our Lord, it is possible to discern elements of the discourses in St. John’s Gospel, viz., Joh_6:35-58; Joh_15:1 to Joh_6:3. That even in the four extant versions of this short passage, there are yet verbal variations of such an extent as to show that it was the substance, rather than the exact words, which the Apostle and the Evangelists aimed at producing. 4. That there is all the appearance of a familiar and fixed formula, especially in the opening words. 5. That it implies on the part of his hearers a full acquaintance with the history of the Betrayal and Passion.”].—What he had received by means of such a revelation, and had also imparted to them, is—that the Lord Jesus—(a solemn expression intimating His supreme dignity, and His character as Saviour)—in the same night in which He was being betrayed.—παρεδίδοτο, Imp., indicating that the scheme of betrayal was still in progress, and not yet fulfilled when He performed this act. By this circumstance the touching and affecting nature of the transaction is more prominently brought to view in contrast with the trifling character exhibited by the Corinthians at their love-feasts. It was the last transaction of our Lord just before encountering death, by means of which He intended to set forth what immediately awaited Him, and also establish a solemn memorial of the sacrifice which He was about to make. [“There is,” says Stanley, “an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula”].—Took bread—ἄρτον α a loaf—the last of the passover meal yet remaining. [“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.” Hodge],—And having given thanks.—That this included praise for divine grace manifested in the work of redemption, is to be assumed from the nature of the transaction; and it was naturally suggested by the preceding Passover meal which commemorated the deliverance of Israel. [In Matt, and Mark the expression is, “having blessed it;” but in Luke the same word is used as here. Both expressions mean the same thing, and declare the act of consecration by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy, and invocation of His blessing—as the two are united in the “grace said” before meals]. He brake it.—[“This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of Matt., Mark, and Luke, as well as in Paul’s. 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.” Hodge].—And said—[“The words uttered by our blessed Lord are differently reported. The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered; 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, however expressed, is 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, as it is not in the Romish Mass where the priest alone eats the consecrated wafer.”—Hodge].—This is my body that for you.—With these words he signifies the act of breaking that had just taken place. “This,” which has just been broken, “is my body;” and the object of this He at once defines—τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν sc . ὄν.,“which is or suffices for your salvation,” namely, by reason of this, that in it is fulfilled what the breaking of the bread indicates, to wit: violent dissolution and breaking up. This thought is expressed in the apparently well-attested, yet undoubtedly interpolated expression ‘broken,’ instead of which some authorities have ‘given,’ borrowed from Luke. Meyer in 3d Edition speaks of it, ‘as the calm utterance of deep earnest feeling excited by the occasion.’ The symbolic character of the words is almost unmistakable, although we are not at liberty to translate ἔςτιν signifies, or yet μου τὸ σῶμα the token of my body. He means to say ‘this bread is my body, intended for your salvation, inasmuch as the breaking of it exhibits the slaying of my body which redounds to your salvation.’ That it is not, however, a mere memorial, but a token which offers, imparts, and therefore carries the fact in itself, and so is a means of communicating, and a conveyance of the same cannot be proven from the words of the institution itself. This thought is first obtained through the authentic apostolic exposition in 1Co_10:16. We recognize in this the interpretation given by the spirit of Christ, which perpetually works in the unfolding thoughts of Christendom, and which has obtained in the substance of the Lutheran article of doctrine an essentially correct expression—while the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation carries the appearance of fancy; and the exposition of the Reformed Church in its various modifications, in part, presses a dry exegesis too far, and, in part, stops with a rationalizing separation of the matters involved, and does not attain to a truly Christianlike intuitive union of them, inasmuch as it produces nothing more than the conception of an ideal or symbolic means of communication, to wit: that the bread presentiates the body of Christ to the believers, and is the pledge of a redemption achieved for them, and so mediates the operation of the Holy Spirit which contemporaneously with their physical participation effects a union with the heavenly life of Christ.33—Do this in remembrance of me.—This injunction, on the one hand, exhibits to us the subjective side of the ordinance, to wit, that believers should do this which He was now doing, i, e., should break the bread with thanksgiving and divide it, in order to realize more vividly the sacrifice which He in His own person was about to make for them; on the other hand, it gives us to understand that our Lord wished to have this ordinance continually observed to all future time. That this is the import of the injunction is shown more clearly in 1Co_11:25, where, in presenting the cup, He says, “this do, as oft as ye drink of it, i.e., as often as ye hold communion with one another through the cup” (Meyer), [showing plainly the perpetuity of the rite]. Others, however, make the words “do this” mean the simple receiving of the elements at the time; which, indeed, both in itself and in relation to what follows, would be suitable enough, but here, where the words “take, eat,” are not to be retained, it is hardly to be supposed. [The import of the command, then, is nothing less than the imposing of a solemn duty upon the church, to be performed until it should meet to drink anew with our Lord in His Father’s kingdom; and the prime object of the observance is remembrance—a remembrance, however, which implies the real representation to their minds and hearts of their risen yet omnipresent Lord. “The bread is His body because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time His own body; for He is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty presentations.” Calvin.]. Less simple are the words employed in the distribution of the cup which was passed around after the Passover had been concluded. In like manner the cup after He had supped.—[An intimation that the cup ought to be separated from the common meal. (Bengel.)]. Saying, this cup is the new Covenant in my blood.—He does not say merely “this is my blood.” That which in Matthew and Mark is added to the words “my blood” byway of further qualification, viz: “of the new Covenant,” is here joined directly with “this cup” as a predicate—“this cup is the new Covenant;” and as a further qualification there is added “in my blood,” in accordance with Luke’s narrative which almost literally agrees with that of Paul, and was no doubt derived from it. The words “in my blood” are related either to “the new Covenant,” so that the clause shall mean “the Covenant which is established in my blood”—a construction which conflicts with the absence of the article which is here indispensable, especially since ἐστί intervenes: or it may be connected with the whole clause, q. d., “this cup is the New Covenant in virtue of my blood.” In other words, His blood is that whereby the New Covenant was established, in so far as this Covenant, in distinction from the Old Covenant of the law (the institution of which is described in Exo_24:8 in the very same terms), is the Covenant of grace, i.e., of sin-forgiving love. And this forgiveness was mediated through the shedding of His blood, through His holy self-sacrifice which is at once the sacrifice of the Covenant and of expiation (comp. Osiander, and in reference to the New Covenant Mat_26:28; Heb_8:8; Jer_31:31 ff.).—“Διαθῄκη properly denotes an ordinance or institution in general, then an agreement, a covenant, an institution which establishes a mutual relation between God and men.”34 Neander.—The cup then, with the wine it contains, symbolizes the New Covenant, and this Covenant is established in the blood of Christ, which the wine, poured into the cup and poured out of it for their participation, sets forth as shed for the expiation of sinful men and to be appropriated by those who drink of the cup. “According to a very common metonymy the cup here stands for the wine—the thing containing for the thing contained.” Steudel. “The wine, as the symbol of the blood of Christ, is the symbol of the New Covenant, and of our participation in it. But this is the more significant as it is a real symbol, i.e., the ‘wine of blessing (1Co_10:16) is the communion of the blood of Christ,’ as the channel or means by which it is communicated.” Kurtz.—The thing treated of here is a covenant—a relation between God and man resting upon promise, and not simply a fellowship among guests at a table united as brethren in Christ, whose union is symbolized by the wine contained in one cup (Schultheiss); although such a fellowship does indeed result from the Covenant.—The Covenant is called “new,” not merely to indicate a relation of time, but of character also, it being different in kind from the “old” (Jer_31:31 ff.).—The various accounts given by the Evangelists and Paul agree essentially, and supplement each other. It is also conceivable that during the presentation of the bread and distribution of the cup, the Lord in various ways expressed the significance of the act, or the fundamental ideas embodied in the institution.
1Co_11:26.—Here follow the words not of Jesus, but of Paul, explanatory of the injunction: “do this in remembrance of me,” by a reference to the actual practice of the church which confirmed it.—For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do proclaim the Lord’s death.—In place of the word “remembrance” we have here the word “proclaim” (καταγγέλλετε) representing the Supper as a solemn liturgical exhibition of the fact that the Lord suffered a sacrificial death in behalf of His church, and thereby achieved their redemption—just as there was a proclamation or “showing forth” of the deliverance of Israel at the Passover. [“These words are emphatically introduced in order to introduce the continuance and identity of the original meal through its subsequent celebrations.” Stanley.].—We have here, however, no injunction; hence the verb καταγγέλλετε is not Imperative but Indicative. The “proclamation” is that confession with thanksgiving which is connected with the rite itself, and being made in its very terms and forms, whether it proceed, in individual cases, from a heart penetrated by the love of God or not. The repetition of the words “as often as ye drink”—thus echoing the language of our Lord (1Co_11:25)—is quite in Paul’s manner. (’Εάν in 1Co_11:25-26, which is the reading best sustained, is an incidental form of ἄν used by the later inspired writers).—Until He come, ἄχρις ου̇͂ ἔλθῃ.—The omission of the ἄν here shows the time to be definitely fixed; and this time is the second advent of the Lord, until when this Supper shall continue to be observed as the compensation for His absence and the pledge of His return. [“This remembrance is of the closest and most vivid kind, like the remembrance by children of parents, by a wife of her husband, by a brother of brother, united with faith, love, desire, hope, joy, obedience, and summing up the Christian condition. This relation is in force from the close of the last feast with His disciples till His coming (Mat_26:29). Thus this mystery unites the extremes of the two periods or dispensations.” Bengel.]
1Co_11:27-29.—From the fact that the Supper was a proclamation of Christ’s death, He at once deduces an inference (v. 27), followed by an exhortation (v. 29) which is enforced by means of a threat in case of unsuitable deportment.—Wherefore,—since at every celebration of the Supper ye proclaim the death of our Lord.—whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup.—The particle ἤ, or, here connecting the two verbs (which is critically well supported, since καί and, has only few authorities in its favor), has been the theme of no little controversy. The Romanists use it as a sanction for the separation of the elements, and for withholding the cup from the laity; as though the propriety of using the cup alone might not just as well be deduced from it. In order to rebut their inference, however, there is no need of taking the “or” as equivalent to “and.” The two things are thus disjoined for the purpose of setting forth the guilt involved by unworthy conduct, whether it be in eating or drinking; and from this it would seem that in the primitive celebration of the Supper the distribution of the elements did not follow immediately upon each other (comp. Meyer and Osiander).—Unworthily.—ἀναξίες admits of various interpretations—impenitently, unbelievingly, unlovingly. “He partakes unworthily,” says Neander, “who does not keep in view the holy purport and aim of the solemnity; but treats it as an ordinary meal which, in its observance, does not show forth the death of the Lord.” At all events, the unworthiness lies in a lack of living active faith in the atonement which has been achieved by the death of Christ; and this is the source of the various moral disqualifications by which the celebration of the Supper may be dishonored (Meyer Ed. 3). Among these we may mention a selfish, unloving conduct as one of the chief—such conduct as the rich at Corinth manifested towards the poor, and which exhibited a striking contrast with the love of Christ shown in the sacrifice of Himself for all, and set forth in the Holy Supper wherein the benefits of it are extended to every one.35—Shall be guilty,—especially in the judicial sense. Elsewhere ἔνοχος is connected with the dative of the words expressing punishment prescribed by the law, and the complaint made, and also the crime committed. But the latter stand at times also in the genitive, and this construction is in the New Testament the prevailing one. Here as in Jam_2:10, the object against which sin is committed is put in the genitive. Crimini et pœnæ corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit: “shall be liable to the crime and punishment of having violated the body and blood of Christ.” But the idea is not that the unworthy participant is as guilty as if he had taken part in the death of Christ, and is to be regarded as one of His crucifiers. The connection points only to the body and blood of Christ as exhibited in the elements of the Supper, “towards these he will stand in guilty relation from the very moment he partakes unworthily.” Meyer.—This declaration holds good whether we suppose a symbolical or a real presence of the body and blood of the Lord. Irreverent or contemptuous conduct towards the symbol is in fact a desecration of the object symbolized. The guilt, however, appears in a stronger light when that which is unworthily partaken of is regarded as the very vehicle of the body and blood of Christ. The same remark is true of 1Co_11:29. [“All that is necessary here to observe is, that the warning is directly against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting. It is not the consciousness of unworthiness that makes a person unworthy, nor yet is it any misgiving in regard to a suitable preparation; for although this may be an evidence of weak faith it certainly indicates a better state of mind than indifference or false security.” Hodge].—In 1Co_11:28 Paul indicates a way in which this sin and danger are to be guarded against.—But—δἑ, shows the advance in discourse, and turns it into a contrast, q. d., ‘but in order not to incur this guilt’—let a man examine himself,—ἄνθρωπος as in iv. 1, [a general term suited for both sexes]. The expression δοκιμάζειν ἑαυτόν cannot mean to make one’s self fit; for it nowhere occurs in this sense not even, in 2Co_13:5; Gal_6:4; 1Th_2:4; but it means to examine one’s self, and here, as to whether he is morally and religiously qualified for the ordinance. Where such examination is not sincerely made, and is not accompanied with an earnest desire to be in a suitable frame of mind, there a proper self-knowledge will not be likely to exist, nor will a person be likely to avoid that selfish, haughty, unloving temper which is so disturbing to a worthy communion.—and so,—i.e., after having examined himself and discovered some reason humbly to hope that he may partake worthily.—let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.—[“The case in which the self-examination ends in an unfavorable verdict does not come under consideration, because it is assumed that such a verdict will lead to repentance and amendment.” Alford].—The above exhortation he enforces by referring to the penalty incurred by unworthy communion.—For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself,—That participation which ought to be to the communicant the means for appropriating salvation, he converts into the opposite, he makes it a means of destruction, and draws down condemnation therewith upon himself. The word κρίμα does not denote an absolute damnation, but points primarily to those impending Divine judgments which are spoken of in 1Co_11:26 f.—According to the ordinary text [which inserts the word “unworthily”] he asserts this of unworthy communicants; and then adds as a yet further reason explaining the unworthiness predicated,—not discerning the body.—The verb διακρίνειν is translated either, to distinguish—in this case from ordinary food and drink, or, in order to escape the necessity of adopting a different signification from that in 1Co_11:31, to judge., i. e., in regard to the body of Christ, whose symbol he receives;—in other words, to make a careful estimate of its sanctity and importance (Meyer). But it may be asked whether the legitimate signification of the word is not here transcended; and whether both the judging of the body of Christ and the judging of one’s self, is not to be explained analogously. In the most important MSS. (A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.)], we find neither ἀναξίως, unworthily, nor τοῦ κυρίου the Lord’s. But the latter words are at all events implied, and to be derived from the connection; the former, however, cannot be so readily understood. If we do not choose to suppose(with Meyer) that any abuse is intended in the clause, “he that eateth and drinketh,” and regard the expression as merely designating one who partook of the sacrament simply as an act of eating and drinking (comp. 1Co_11:22; 1Co_11:34), then must we translate the participle μὴ δακρίνεν, if he does not discern (de Wette), which is better and more expressive than that emphasis put upon the clause, “he that eateth and drinketh,” and it does not suffer from meaningless expansion; rather it is made as terse as possible, since we understand by it eating of the bread and drinking of the cup. “Not to discern the body,” is to fail of the very thing which should be aimed at in examining ourselves, viz., that we possess that frame of mind which belongs to him who has qualified himself, not to partake of ordinary bread, but of that which is the body of the Lord. In this case also we are not compelled to connect, as Osiander does, the words “condemnation to himself,” with the clause, “he that eateth and drinketh,” as if it read, ‘he that eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself;’ in which case we should have to translate μὴ διακρίνων, without discerning, i. e., he that eats and drinks judgment to himself, eats and drinks without discerning the body. Such a rendering would not only be harsh, but also incorrect, for the sense requires that “condemnation” be joined with the predicate.
1Co_11:30-31. He here applies what has just been said directly to the Corinthians.—Therefore,—i.e., on account of such unworthy communion, or in consequence of the judgments superinduced by it.—many are weak and sickly among you, and many Sleep.—To suppose that the natural results of intemperance are here alluded to, is both absurd and contrary to the immediate context. Neither can we understand him to mean by the word “sleep,” the decay and extinction of the spiritual life, since this word every where denotes natural death; and still less can we suppose him to mean a union of the spiritual and temporal death (as Olsh.). Rather, the Apostle here alludes to some extraordinary wide-spread weakness and disease prevailing at that time in the Church, and often proving fatal, which he regarded as a divinely inflicted punishment on their desecration of the Lord’s Supper (so Calvin, Neander and many others). The word κοιμῶνται. may be rendered, they sleep, i. e., dying as a continual process. But whether this intended a euphonism to denote their entrance into rest with a hope of resurrection to life (Osiander), is at least very doubtful; although from what is said in 1Co_11:32, we are not obliged to suppose the cutting off of all hope. [Wordsworth says: “He does not say κεκοίμηνται, the term which is used to describe the peace of the saints who have fallen asleep in Jesus (see 1Co_15:20; 1Th_4:13) but κοίμῶνται, a tense which is less expressive of a permanent condition of rest than the other]. The words ἀσθένεις καὶ ἄῤῤωστοι, weak and sickly, may be distinguished either by taking the former to denote mere indisposition, and the latter severe disease; or the former a chronic, and the latter an acute disease; or, which is indeed more correct, the former denotes those whose very powers fail, i.e., confirmed invalids; and the latter those in whom they are only weakened. Something analogous to these judgments is presented to us in 1Co_5:5; Jam_5:15; and also in the O. T. examples mentioned in 1Co_10:6 ff.—In what follows he next gives them to understand how such judgments might be avoided.—But if we would judge ourselves.—The γάρ, for, of the received text implies another view of the connection, q. d., ‘therefore, in consequence of the Divine judgment, there are many sickly among you; for if we only judged ourselves, then would such judgment not befall us.’ The διακρίνειν, judge, refers back to δοκιμάζειν, prove. It denotes the thorough-going self-condemnation which springs from earnest self-examination—a self-condemnation which involves self-punishment, and a thorough severance of the carnal from the spiritual within us (comp. Osiander). Self-judgment is in fact a diagnosis of one’s own moral state according to the Divine standard of what it should be (Burger).—The transition to the first person serves to soften the exhortation, and is not to be explained (Grotius) on the supposition that the Apostle had church discipline in mind, of which the context gives no hint.—But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord.—The judgment spoken of in 1Co_11:30 ho here represents in the light of chastisement, i. e., the infliction of pains for the benefit of the individual, so that it shall appear as an exercise of paternal love, and not of exscinding wrath (comp. Heb_12:6-11). The words “by the Lord” are not to be interpreted of God, but of Christ, the Lord and Educator of the church, and they are better connected with “chastened” than with “judged,” which, as in 1Co_11:31, is used without further qualification as being self-evident. The cheering and encouraging tendency of this view of the matter appears yet more definitely in the final clause,—that we should not be condemned with the world.—Through such discipline, aiming at improvement, we are said to be guarded from relapsing into a worldly state whereby we, together with the world, i.e., the mass of humanity, remaining outside of the fellowship of salvation, and abiding in hostility to Christ and God, would incur damnation, i.e., utter exclusion from the kingdom of God. The words διακρίνειν, κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν present a significant paranomasia (Osiander. Meyer says “an Oxymoron” 36). In a friendly, winning manner he next follows up his rebuke with a positive exhortation.
1Co_11:33-34. Wherefore.—ὤστε draws an inference from what precedes.—my brethren, when ye come together.—He here goes back to the point he started from in 1Co_11:20, “to eat,” i.e., at the church-feast—the agape,—tarry one for another.—ἐκδέχεσθε as the opposite of the reprehended προλαμβάνειν (1Co_11:21) means, wait, suitably to the N. T. usage elsewhere. [Wordsworth translates it receive, entertain one another, a rendering which is forbidden by the contrast which it forms with προλαμβάνειν, and is not found in any of the versions].—Finally he points to the fact that this Supper was not intended for the satisfaction of bodily wants, and that these ought to be attended to at home. This would serve to guard them against that greedy haste which destroyed the fellowship of the Supper and counteracted its sacred intent.—And if any man hunger, let him eat at home.—This exhortation he strengthens by referring once more to the judgment to which they would expose themselves by an unseemly gathering.—that ye come not together unto condemnation.—Having thus given the necessary directions in reference to the matter most urgent, he postpones all further instructions concerning Divine worship and church usage, to his personal arrival. And the rest will I set in order when I come.—From this passage the Romish theology has sought to find a support for its tradition. “All permanent instructions which are destined to have the character of Divine appointments are always referred back even by the Apostles themselves to the Lord and His Word (1Co_7:10; 1Co_9:14); and hence we justify the rule that nothing can stand as a Divine ordinance in the church which is in opposition to the recognized and definite expressions of the Lord and His Apostles.” Burger.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
[1. The Lord’s Supper. 1. Its authenticity. In Paul we have a separate and an independent witness to the genuineness of this institution. It was revealed to him as a part of that Gospel of which he certified that he neither “received it of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” And the essential harmony of his account with the narratives found in the synoptical gospels, while it is prior to either of them in the order of composition, puts both the fact and all its particulars beyond reasonable doubt. The mythical theory here finds most effectual refutation. 2. Its distinctive character. It is the Lord’s Supper, and is therefore to be separated from ordinary meals as designed not for the nourishment of the body, but for the soul. It is, therefore, a suitable observance for the Lord’s house, and should there be celebrated with all the solemnity which the great event it commemorates ought to inspire in devout minds. 3. Its import, a. It is a memorial of our Lord’s death. This it exhibits to us as a sacrifice for our sins. The bread betokens the body that was broken in our behalf; the wine calls to mind the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of our sins, and by which the covenant, ensuring to us eternal life, was sealed. These elements are a significant witness, therefore, of the atoning character of our Lord’s sufferings and death, and they can be rightly received only by those who so interpret that wonderful transaction, b. But while it is a memorial, the Lord’s Supper is at the same time a feast to the soul. Our Lord therein presents Himself to the church as the true bread from heaven which giveth life unto the world, and by means of which we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so that He shall dwell in us and we in Him. It is, therefore, no empty form, but one filled with richest substance—a substance which is nothing less than the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which it becometh the believer to discern and appropriate by a living faith to the strengthening of his own spiritual life, and that he may be raised up at the last day. c. Besides, it is a festival of social union and communion where, in fellowship with their Head, believers knit the bonds of their common membership. d. It is, moreover, a proclamation of our Lord’s death, a significant exhibition to the world of what He has done and is still ready to do in behalf of all perishing sinners. In celebrating it the church sends forth its invitation to the world bidding every one that hungers and thirsts to come and eat without money and without price. e. It is a pledge of the Lord’s return. As it points backward to His death, so does it also point forward to that Marriage Supper where He, the returning Bridegroom, will entertain His Bride clothed in white array without spot or blemish or any such thing, and destined to go no more out from His presence forever and ever].
2. The Lord’s Supper. The proper method of its observance. The words “given for you,”—“shed for the remission of sins,”—are associated with the act of eating and drinking the elements as expressing the chief thing in this sacrament; and he who truly believes in these words is a right-worthy and well-qualified communicant. But he who does not accept their truth or doubts them is unworthy and disqualified; for all that the words “for you” require is a sincere believing heart.—Again, where this faith is fervent there the new command of our Lord, Joh_13:34, is observed by all the members of the New Covenant. The fire of this love, which in Christ devoted itself even unto death in behalf of all mankind, melts down human pride and selfishness. If this love of Christ truly possesses our hearts so that we can appropriate to ourselves the sacrifice it has made as offered for us, then will our natural self and all we have of this world’s advantages and goods become as nothing. Christ and his love will be our all, and in Him will the entire worth of life be included for us. We shall seem to possess worth so far as we are in Him; and everything will possess worth for us so far as it belongs to Him, proceeds from Him, is His work, partakes of His nature, bears His impress, and has Him for it’s end.—Still further, in my associates I behold One who is in them, even as He is in me, who imparts Himself to them as He does to me, who loves them as He does me, and who is beloved by them as He is beloved by me. Thus, all sense of estrangedness is removed, and a feeling of true brotherhood is awakened, and a communion established wherein we freely share with each other what we have received from Christ. When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper in such a state of mind, then may they be said to partake worthily; then are they in condition to receive through the bread and wine the all-atoning grace of Christ, and together with this, the might of a pure love which gladly forgives; which shrinks at no self-mortification; which embraces all who are in Christ with a pure benevolence and sinks all distinctions of weak and strong, of poor and rich, of little and great, in the one life of Christ which is freely imparted to all, and alone has and gives absolute worth; which accepts with pleasure the little from the little, and rejoices also to give without stint and without selfish intent, in perfect simplicity of heart, so that we receive from our brethren what they have in Christ and what is precious and costly, however small it may appear, and give to them in turn, what we too have derived from Christ, both great and small, counting it a favor if we may but be made the instruments of His love.—When on the contrary the heart is closed against the brotherhood in selfishness and disgust, and cleaves to earthly things of whatever kind, and exalts itself by reason of their possession and looks contemptuously on the rest keeping aloof from them, then faith in the declarations, “given for you”—“shed for you” is utterly impossible; there the person is disqualified for a living union with the Lord in His Supper; then does he eat and drink in an unworthy manner. Here then is the point which every one must carefully look at who wishes to commune at the Supper; and he must examine himself honestly in presence of the great Heart-Searcher in reference to it.—And only after thorough self-examination under the instruction and guidance of Christ’s Spirit must he approach the Holy Supper where the Lord imparts His own offered life to Him being vitally present through the visible symbols.—Holding communion thus he will be greatly strengthened in the participation of Christ’s salvation and be merged more completely in the river of eternal life flowing from Jesus, and his whole nature will be quickened, refreshed and nourished for the more complete development of its spiritual powers.—But when these conditions are wanting and when persons approach the Supper in an unhallowed frame of mind, faithless and loveless, then will the life so freely offered to them, instead of proving a blessing and a nourishment work out for them a greater condemnation. The Holy Sacrament being violated and desecrated by an unworthy handling proves a stumbling-block to the communicant; his life pines away and perishes—an effect which not only took place in the apostolic churches, but which stretches on through all time to come extending even to the body itself, (comp. Calvin in loco).—Such judgment, however, is to be regarded primarily as a chastisement of the Lord by which He intends to bring back the unworthy communicants to suitable reflection and to guard them against sinking back into the world and incurring a greater damnation. From all this it will seem that an unworthy communication can only take place where through the operation of the Divine Spirit a worthy communication has been rendered possible, where a believing disposition has already existed so that the unworthiness proceeds from unfaithfulness to the divine influences and from a mind perversely resisting the grace of Christ. But the oftener such unworthy communication is repeated, the more closed does a man become against rebukes of the Spirit and the more disqualified from proper self-reflection and personal examination and purifying self-judgment, the nearer also does he approach that state of complete apostasy which brings with it damnation.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Luther.
1Co_11:20-21. No sin is so contrary and hostile to this sacrament as disunion and discord. Starke:
1Co_11:17. The minister’s commands ought to be God’s commands. Woe to the minister who commands otherwise, and woe to the hearers who do not obey! Hed.:
1Co_11:19. God turns all things for good: the juice must ferment if wine is to be produced; so must the church be agitated by false opinions and abuses in order that what is evil may foam up and pass off. By this means we learn ourselves, and the hypocrite is separated from the true Christian (1Jn_2:18 f.).
1Co_11:20. Oh, what multitudes approach the table of the Lord, not as they should, but as they would; by so doing they celebrate, not the feast of the Lord, but the feast of their own condemnation.
1Co_11:21 (Hed.). The Lord’s Supper, not an ordinary meal, but a true Supper, where not the stomach, but the soul, is to be satisfied. Dost thou hunger and thirst after Jesus? Then it will be easy to fast while preparing to approach the table of the Lord for the sake of better devotion. But if thou art weak, and must needs partake of food, still this will not hinder the worthy reception of the Holy Supper.
1Co_11:22. In the Church of Christ, and in the distribution of the Supper, one is of as much consequence as another; and the rich and the noble must not take umbrage if the poor and the lowly partake first.
1Co_11:23. Abuses can best be remedied by going back to the primitive institution of a thing (Mat_19:4).—If our Lord has instituted an ordinance, it is not allowed us, or the whole Church even, to change aught therein; for He is the Lord of the whole Church.
1Co_11:24. He says not: ‘offer it, honor it, guard it, carry it about, worship it.’ Spener: If the veritable body of the Lord has been offered for us, then must the same also be received and enjoyed by us in the Holy Supper. In the inward remembrance of the Saviour there is an actual seeking, desiring and apprehending of all His grace; and such recollection transpires in the inmost depths of the soul. The more thou thinkest upon Jesus the happier art thou: the oftener, the better! (Spener)
1Co_11:25. It is real blood that Christ has shed for us, and indeed the sacrificial blood which he has offered up in our behalf, the blood of atonement whereby we are reconciled, and hence the very thing whereby he has sealed the New Testament. Where the cup is wanting, there the supper is mutilated; for Christ did not bequeath his blood with the bread, but with the cup. As after having been born, we need food, not only once, but daily for the strengthening of our nature, so must this sacrament, which is designed to strengthen our new nature, be frequently repeated. And to this we should be urged not only by the command of the Lord, but also by a sense of our own need—because we crave the forgiveness of sins and spiritual invigoration. Besides we should be moved to it by the preeminent worth of the good things presented to us.
1Co_11:27. Judged according to our merits we are all too unworthy of food and drink, such as no angel has been honored with. Yet the super-abounding grace of our Lord Jesus Christ renders the lowest of us worthy of it. Those who approach the table of the Lord without repentance and faith, without reverence and holy resolves, without love and reconciliation, in short, without the perfect renunciation of all deliberate and presumptuous sins, offend as grievously against the body and blood of the Lord as did the godless Jews and heathen, who crucified the one and shed the other. (Heb_6:6).
1Co_11:28. Luther: To examine oneself means to consider whether we are fit: hence, it requires that we should not trust at once to our own thoughts, nor to the opinions of others, but keep these in abeyance until the matter has been well investigated before God and in the light of his word. And for this a person should be duly qualified. Hence, no unconverted man can properly examine himself, unless he first begins to yield to the prevenient and convicting grace of God, and thus a spark of divine light is kindled in him.—Examine thyself according to the law, as to whether thou dost realize thine own sin, and the well-merited wrath of God; also, according to the gospel, as to whether thou dost in faith comfort thyself solely with the all-availing merits of Jesus and whether this faith in thee is strengthened through a hearty love of God and of thy neighbor—through a profound hatred of all sin and evil—through a holy zeal for true godliness, through a high minded contempt of that which is seen and temporal and through a burning desire for that which is unseen and eternal. If this examination be sustained, be assured that this Holy Supper presents you that which heaven and earth cannot give. (Arndt): Prove thyself according to the language of the institution wherein the great mystery contained is set forth to be, that it exhibits to us the true body and blood of Jesus—that He, as an offered body and as atoning blood, yea as a testament with all well earned treasures and gifts is truly presented, to some for a blessing, to others for a condemnation. And remember also, that to be a worthy guest thou must be prepared by repentance and faith to be capable of spiritual communion with Christ and his spiritual body. Such are the blessed intents, fruits, operations of this mysterious testamentary feast of love and reconciliation.
1Co_11:29. It happens sometimes, that the children of God approach the table of the Lord without suitable reflection and proper preparation. These invite upon themselves severe temporal chastisements; while the utterly godless, provoke a greater damnation.
1Co_11:30. Hed.: Why are many sick? Why do many die? Why do many fall? Some reply; “it was a raging pestilence”—‘the physician failed’—‘we cannot avoid ill luck’.—I reply, ‘it is because they partake unworthily of the Lord’s Supper.’ God’s judgments yet endure. But who sees them? who suspects them?
1Co_11:31. If thou wilt judge thyself salutarily, keep from dissipating vanities; refrain from treacherous self-love; and think not to magnify the good and diminish the evil that is in thee. Pray God to enlighten thee; and take God’s word to counsel and reform thee in all particulars wherein thou canst and ought to be reformed. He who does not daily stand in judgment upon himself, cannot stand well in a state of grace. Amid many kinds of wordly avocations this may not be readily done; yet the spiritual and eternal welfare of our souls is of sufficient importance to demand and obtain some time for this purpose from every one; and time may be easily found for it if we will.
1Co_11:32. Behold the compassion of God towards the unworthy communicants at Christ’s table. He does not send them at once to hell; but searches them by means of temporal punishments, with paternal intent of leading them to repentance, and keeping them from being condemned with an impenitent world.
1Co_11:33. O happy fellowship, where in holy communion, one deems himself no higher than another, but rather each one thinks other better than himself! (Php_2:3).
Berlenb. Bibel: 1Co_11:16. It is always the duty of Christians to meet together, but it should be for edification. The tendency is ever to backslide. Steadfastness in the truth already known costs effort. By the grace of God only can we grow.—1Co_11:18-19. Were we to look into man’s condition and also to comprehend ourselves better, it would not astonish us to find so little perfect union among pious people. And were our hearts more simple and thoroughly freed from falsehood, how would we learn to look with others’ eyes at everything which now awakens, at first sight doubt, disgust and jealousy! We readily acquiesce in the most singular ways of Providence when we have learned how to bring good out of evil, and under all things to recognize God’s wisdom, truth, and blamelessness. Of many a church-communion at the present day Paul might well say, “How can ye, being unholy, have a holy table of the Lord? The world is full of hypocrites and mouth-Christians.
1Co_11:23. We must first receive the mystery of faith from the Lord, if we would so transmit it to others as to awaken their reverence. Those who profess to be the servants of Christ ought first to have tasted of the goodness of the Lord, and have derived strength from His love, in order that they may be the holy instruments of God in bearing witness of His gospel to others, and nourishing them with spiritual food. What is to be imparted to souls ought not to be taken at second-hand, or delivered without being first experienced in the soul.
1Co_11:24 ff. Through the apostasy, mankind have been betrayed into a frightful hatred of God, and into a slavish fear and distrust of Him. Hence they very reluctantly come to commemorate Him whom they regard only as their Judge, and not also as their Saviour and Helper.—In order to furnish weak and wretched souls with the guidance like that of a hand, Christ establishes the outward observance of the Holy Scriptures as His memorial—not as though He Himself were ever absent, since He has promised to be with us always, yea, to dwell in His own,—but because our ever forgetful disposition requires such constant reminding. Yet at the same time He aims to make such a powerful impression by means of it as shall deeply stamp on the heart His whole character and work—both what He has done and what He has suffered in our behalf.—And this memorial is intended also to effect an actual reunion and communion with the Lord; for when a poor, weary soul, in its great need, seeks anxiously for Christ, then does He knock at the heart, not only inwardly, by His attracting Spirit, but externally also, through the means of grace. And if the person opens to Him his whole heart, then does He at once become one with him forevermore; and if he is of one mind with Christ, then is he also a partaker of Him.—Through the envy and wrath of Satan, have mankind fallen into a condition of mutual hostility and passionate strife.—The hellish abyss of bitterness and falsehood lies deeply concealed in every one, and the fire of self-love and self-will burns by nature in us all. Thence arises wrath, strife, hatred, envying, and all the other hellish attributes and works of Satan, by which God’s wrath is kindled in the human heart. In this hellish torment would man be doomed to burn evermore, had not Mercy found a perfect means of deliverance in its great wisdom.—The Son of God, as the manifestation of God’s heart and love, has incorporated Himself with humanity, and thus have Divine love and grace been-again revealed and brought near to man. Those now who unite with Christ through faith become partakers of God’s life and love.—The new covenant is at the same time a Testament of the Divine promises which the Son of God has sealed for us with His death and blood. With him, who has enjoyed this blood in its purifying power, is this covenant ratified. If thou wilt then have a share in this covenant with God, thou must open thine heart to Him in order to receive His perfect will, together with all His grace and strength. For this is the power of the new covenant that God proposes to give to His saints His Spirit, whose work it is to draw us to Christ, glorify him in our eyes, and make us strong to obtain all things in Him.—He who has an earnest longing to know Christ, and to partake of Him, will find but little pleasure in transitory things, and be little disposed to think of and cleave to them. For the one must give place to the other, even in thought.
1Co_11:26. The first observance of the Supper is apt to be attended with the most earnest devotion. With time, devotion lessens. Constant reflection will, however, guard us against this evil. Our devotion ought to be ever increasing, and this will be the case if we so eat of the bread as not to forget the Lord, and devote ourselves entirely to each other, as the Lord has done for us, and thus allow the blood of Christ to kindle in us a holy zeal to be true to Him even unto death, and to stand by each other even unto blood, in the actual and active communion of the heart, and life and goods, as becometh members of one body. As we eat and drink with the mouth, so with the mouth do we also confess the Crucified, and incite each other to the fervent imitation of Him. This proclamation of His death involves our living as those who have been crucified, and are dead to the world with Christ; so that we can show that we have a perfect Saviour actually in us, who, as our High Priest has atoned for us, as our
Prophet, has instructed us, and as our Ruler, has strongly controlled us.—His death slays our death. His life quickens our life. And this we ought also to impress on each other: that as Christ died for us out of sheer love, so also ought we, out of the love which He has given as food for our souls, to die gladly unto iniquity, and to live no more unto ourselves, but unto God through Christ, who has suffered Himself to be slain in our behalf.—As the sacraments derive their power and active operation from the death of Christ, so is their most important end conformity to the death of Christ. (Php_3:10). Just in proportion as a person brings to mind the death of our Lord, holds Him in constant recollection, and thinks merely of His future glory, will he become dead to all evil lusts and desires from day to day. Then, when Christ comes, will He take the sovereignty, and liberate the creature from the curse, and from every evil which it has incurred in consequence of the fall. Until then we must hold fast to the memorials of His death.—He who abuses the creature in lust and vanity, and thus excites and nourishes lust and strengthens sin, poorly prepares himself for the coming of the Lord.
1Co_11:27. He who eats and drinks without true penitence and spiritual hunger, or renders himself unworthy by sorry pursuits, so far from being absolved from guilt, only doubles it.
1Co_11:28. Self-examination should be carried on by a sharp introspection and constant observance of what transpires within us—of our thoughts, aims and desires; by watching what proceeds from us in word and deed; and by reflecting on what the issue of all these things will be before God. At the same time there must shine in us the light of the Holy Spirit, who shall discover to us our secret faults, and disclose the evil we might otherwise overlook. New strength must also be invoked from Him for the overcoming of our selfishness. If we could only suffer ourselves to be examined by Him, then would questions such as these arise: ‘How is it with thee in respect to the love of God? Art not thou loving and serving the creature more than the Creator? Whereupon rests thy confidence—upon the living God, or upon thyself? Art not thou still constantly abusing the holy Name and will of God for hypocritical ends? Is there nothing false in thine act and on thy tongue? Dost thou not indeed represent thyself as more pious than thou art, and still performest in secret thine own will? Dost thou let God rest in thy heart, or art thou hindering Him with thine evil desires? How art thou dealing with God’s Word? Art thou employing the best of thy time for the true inward service of God? How does thy heart stand related to thy neighbor? Hast thou not injured or oppressed any one, so as to cause him to sigh because of thee? Is thy heart free from hatred, and envy, and wrath, even in the nicest particulars? Art thou disciplining and chastening thyself? Art thou practising nothing, even under cover of marriage, which stains thee before God? How art thou dealing with others’ goods? Art thou acting in all things honestly and truly before God?’—Under such searching inquiry, what a depth of impurity is opened up within? The discovery of it cannot but bow the heart mightily before God. This self-examination, accordingly, includes in itself the whole work of repentance which is demanded before the communion.
1Co_11:29. A person eats unworthily—1, when he fails to recognize his own need, and proves not himself; 2, when he hungers not after Christ, nor discerns His most holy and glorified Body. Such base contempt of Christ justly incurs upon itself the severest punishments. Plagues of every kind then ensue—the cause of which is not often seen—and we wonder why this or that person is so severely chastised.
1Co_11:30. The first inflictions are somewhat temporary, and they can be ameliorated by earnest repentance, so that the man shall not fall a prey to death. Under the prostration of the body, many a soul may be rescued. That there are, even among well meaning persons, so many sick and dead in faith, happens for this reason: were persons always helped, so as to go on successfully in their appointed conflicts, and to remain looking to Jesus, and to receive from Him grace and victory, they would at once give scope to their fancy, pride themselves on the gifts which they have received, and which were given to them for the purpose of being industriously improved, towards making their calling sure, and advancing in humility. But instead of this, they gradually abandon their humility, and exalt themselves. In this way their field is sown with thorns by the enemy; yet they deem it all good fruit, eat thereof, and fill full their pride and self-love.—Much evil arises when those who are weak separate themselves from such as are able to furnish them good guidance.
1Co_11:31. He who comes squarely up to the righteousness of God, and freely acknowledges himself as guilty before it, and subjects himself to its avenging sword by condemning himself, acts discreetly, and according to the mind and counsel of the Holy Spirit. For it is far more tolerable to manage our owe case with God secretly, and to take to shame ourselves, and bow before him here, than to be exposed to shame yonder in presence of the angels and of all the elect, and there incur His condemnation. A converted Christian judge himself alone, and trusts none less than himself. Such self-judgment also works in us the death of Christ, in that we judge ourselves as those who have deserved like death, yet for whom the Lord has died, in order that we, through His death, may die unto sin and live unto righteousness. How many a one would lie already in hell, if God, out of sheer mercy, had not taught him through great tribulations!
Rieger: 1Co_11:17 ff. In a church of Christ there ought to be manifest advance from year to year. In the present constitution of Christ’s kingdom, in which power is still left to the arch enemy to , and in which carnal security, levity and temerity are still peculiar to men, factions and class distinctions, those fruits of self-formed opinions, are unavoidable. Where the distinction between rich and poor is still maintained in the church, there it appears no more as it did in the upper chamber of the first Lord’s Supper.
1Co_11:23 ff. The observance of the Lord’s Supper falls in between two termini—on the one side, the night when our Lord’s ordinary intercourse with the world was broken off, and on the other His second coming, when we shall begin to eat and drink anew with him in his kingdom. It is therefore a special provision for those who, not having seen him yet believe.
1Co_11:31. To judge oneself, to be judged by the Lord, to be condemned with the world constitute three stages, just as in Mark 9—to be salted with the salt of heavenly discipline, or to be salted with fire, or to be cast into the fire which shall not be quenched.
Heubner: 1Co_11:17. Out from our worshiping congregations there ever depart those persons who are worse than when they came—persons who have been hardened and embittered against the word of Go.
Ver 19. God’s government in this world aims at disclosing evil in its true form, but this is ever connected with the glorification of that which is good
1Co_11:21. The holiest things are precisely those which are most exposed to desecration
1Co_11:22. The presence of God and the sanctity of His temple ought to impress every one with a sense of his own nothingness and of the vanity of earthly things
1Co_11:23. In that place where the friendship of Jesus was so bitterly requited He set up the memorial of His love; in that place where He suffered His fearful passion did He establish that ordinance through which He imparted Himself most intimately to others.
1Co_11:26. The Lord’s Supper should also refresh the sure expectation of His future coming, and be a foretaste of the heavenly Supper.
1Co_11:28. This Supper demands the most earnest preparation of mind, wherefore it becometh every Christian to experience some anxiety respecting himself as to whether he is honoring his Lord as he ought. 1Co_11:29. A deterioration of the heart is one result of unworthy communication.
1Co_11:30. the physical weakness which often gets the upper hand of us, is in various ways a sad token of moral degeneracy.
1Co_11:31. The more severe a man is upon himself, the more sparing is God toward him. To be sparing of self is to incur harm.
W. F. Besser; 1Co_11:17. Where the fountains of grace and of life are flowing, and where the guests of the Lord are to be nourished and strengthened with His body and blood, in order that they may grow in love toward each other even as Christ has loved them, these people can never assemble only to remain as they were before; they are either better or worse after it.
1Co_11:26. How can the death of our Lord move the hearts of those who habituate themselves only to carnal contentions and fleshly enjoyments?
1Co_11:29. He eats and drinks judgment to himself, who does not eat and drink blessing to himself. Therefore let every one see to it, that he does not eat and drink the judgment of the impenitent and the unbelieving.
[Calvin. 1Co_11:30. If in Paul’s times an ordinary abuse of the Supper could kindle God’s wrath against the Corinthians, so that He punished them thus severely, what ought we to think of the state of things now? We see throughout the whole extent of Popery, not merely horrid profanations of the Supper, but even sacrilegious abominations set up in its room. 1. It is prostituted to filthy lucre (1Ti_3:8) and merchandise. 2. It is maimed by taking away the cup. 3. It is changed into another aspect by the custom of partaking separately, communion being thus done away. 4. No explanation is given of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles than with the Lord’s Supper. 5. It is associated with an endless number of ceremonies, partly trivial, and partly superstitious—therefore polluting. 6. There is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy on the death of Christ. 7. It is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think to drive off every thing hurtful by this charm, and that too without faith and repentance. 8. An idol is there adored in place of Christ. In short, it is filled with all kinds of abominations].
Footnotes:
[11]1Co_11:17.—The Rec. has παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἑπαινῶ. The authorities are about equally balanced, but the internal probabilities are in favor of παραγγέλλω ο. ἐπαινῶν, the more difficult reading. [Lachmann, Tischendorf and Alford adopt this reading, from A. C.F.G., 10 cursives, the Syr. (both), Arm., Ital., Æth., Vulg., Ambrst., Aug., Pelag., Bede. The Rec. has in its favor, D. (3d hand) E. K. L. Sinait., several cursives, the Copt., Slav., Chrys., Theodt., and is defended by Reiche and Bloomfield.D. (1st hand), 137, and Sahid., have παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, and B. with a Lambeth cursive has παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν. The Rec. was probably a correction to suit 1Co_11:2; 1Co_11:22.—C. P. W.].
[12]1Co_11:18.—The Rec., which has τῆ before ἐκκλησίᾳ, is feebly sustained: [with Œcum., Theophyl. and a few unimportant cursives, from an idea that by ἐκκλ. was meant the church proper. Theodoret has instead of ἐν ἐκκλ. the words: ἐπὶτὸ αὐτὸ, from 1Co_11:20.—C. P. W.].
[13]1Co_11:19.—The καὶ after ἵνα is rather doubtful. Many very good MSS. are without it. [They are: A. C. D. (2d and 3d hand) E. F. G. K. L., Sinait., Syr. (later) Copt., Orig., Epiph., Chrys., Theodt., Damasc., Cypr.—C. P. W.].
[14][1Co_11:21.—For προλαμβάνει, a considerable number of cursives and Zonaras (Tisch.) have προςλαμβ., probably from an attempt to explain and make less difficult the fact here stated.—C. P. W.].
[15]1Co_11:22.—Lachmann has ἐπαινῶ for ἐπαινέσω, but not with sufficient authorities. It was probably a conformation to the preceding and following presents. [It is sustained only by B. F. G., the Italic, Vulg. and the Latin fathers.—C. P. W.].
[16][1Co_11:22.—Stephens (the Elz.), Griesb., Scholz, and Tisch., Sinait. and B. (1st cor.), the Vulg., Goth. and Syr. (later) punctuate so that ἐν πούτῳ is taken not with ἐπαινέσω, but with the following οὐκ ἔπαινῶ—C. P. W.].
[17]1Co_11:24.—After εἷπεν the Rec. has λάβετε, φάγετε; but the words are not genuine in this place, and are taken from Mat_26:25, etc. [The reading of the Rec. is sustained only by C. (3d hand) K. L., a few cursives, one copy of the Syr. (both), Chrys., Theodt., Damasc, Œcum., Theophyl. The Vulg., Arm., Slav. and Ambrst. also add καὶ after λάβετε. But A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Sinait. omit both words as well as καὶ.—C. P. W.].
[18]1Co_11:24.—The additions κλώμενον (Rec.), θρυπτόμενον, and διδόμενον are attempts which have been made to complete our Lord’s expression. The best MSS. have simply τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. [κλώμενον is omitted in A. B. C., Sinait., 17, 67 (2d hand). Athan., Cyr. and Vulg., but it is given by the second hands of C. D. and Sinait., and in F. K. L., the Syr. (both), Goth., Theodt., Damasc., Œcum., Theophyl. In D. (first hand) is θρυπτ, and in the Copt., and Arm. is διδόμ. The Vulgate has: quod pro vobis tradetur. Very properly the three words are thrown out by Lachm., Tisch., Bloomfield and Alford.—C. P. W.].
[19]1Co_11:26.—After ποτήριον the Rec. has τοῦτο, but in opposition to the best authorities. The same may be said of the ἄν instead of ἐὰν after γὰρ.
[20]1Co_11:27.—After ἄρτον the Rec. inserts τοῦτον, but it is feebly sustained. [The Eng. A.V. has and instead of or in this verse. Alford, in his work on “How to use the Epistles” (Sund. Mag., April, 1867), severely censures this misrendering. It is not impossible that our Translators were influenced by their hostility to the Romish construction. And yet their rendering is sustained by A., 4 cursives, one MS. of the Vulgate, the Syr. (both), Copt., Sahid., Clem., Pseudo-Athan, Orig., and some Latin writers. Some of these authorities, however, were not known to them. The ἤ is found in B. C. D. F. K. L., Sinait., Ital., Syr. (Philox.), Chrys., Theodt., Damasc., Cypr.—C. P. W.].
[21]1Co_11:27.—The Rec. omits τοῦ before αἵματὸς. The best MSS. insert it.
[22]1Co_11:29.—The words ἁναξίως after πίνων, and του κυρίου after σῶμα, are not to be found in the best MSS. See the Exegetical notes. [The former word is wanting in A. B. C. Sinait., 17, Sahid. and Æth., and the latter in the same MSS. with 67, and some copies of the Vulgate. They are thrown out by Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford and Stanley, but they are defended by Osiander, Bloomfield, Wordsworth and Hodge. They seem to be a gloss from 1Co_11:27, to complete what is certainly a difficult sense without them.—C. P. W.].
[23]1Co_11:31.—The Rec. has γάρ but δέ is sustained by better authorities.
[24][1Co_11:32—Before κυρίου, Tischendorf (7th ed.) and Wordsworth insert a τοῦ after B. C. Sinait. et al.; Alford brackets it; but Lachm., Bloomfield and Stanley cancel it, as “more likely to be added than removet”—C. P. W.].
[25]1Co_11:34.—The Rec. after εἰ has δέ. but in opposition to decisive authorities. [It is omitted in A. B. C. D. E. E. G. Sin. the Lat., Vulg. and Copt, versions, Chrys. (in comm.) and the Lat. Fathers.—C. P. W.].
[26][The unnaturalness of the construction here advocated by Kling furnishes a strong argument in favor of the interpretation given by Chrys., Grot., Bengel, Lachmann and others, which makes τοῦτο refer to what follows according to the well-known classic usage (Jelf, Grammar. § 657, 2), and takes παραγγέλλω in its original meaning, announce,—or, as translated by Tindal, Cranmer, in the Geneva Bible, warn you of; we should then have a fitting introduction to his new theme: “This moreover I declare unto you, or warn you of, not praising you,” ‘as in the former case, where in many particulars you did merit approval’].
[27][May there not be also an allusion here to the punitive consequences more fully set forth in 1Co_11:29-30, that in coming together “and eating unworthily they ate and drank condemnation to themselves,” and exposed themselves to bodily disorders and death? So understanding this clause, do we not here find a reason for his using the word παραγγέλω, which conveys the idea of a solemn announcement or proclamation, rather than the ordinary λέγω, I say or declare? For in thus interpreting to them the tokens of the Divine displeasure, Paul was in fact acting the part of a Divine herald (ἄγγελος)].
[28][Illustrations of the early use of this word may be seen in Gieseler’s Ch. Hist, Vol. I., p. 149 ff., and note 3].
[29][But one would suppose from the καί that there was also a stress to be laid upon αἱρέσεις, as indicating something worse than σχίσματα, and pointing to what would continue to happen in the future, q. d., ‘for it is necessary that there must arise even heresies among you, as an ordeal to test and exhibit those who are approved’—a truth which the whole history of the Church has signally illustrated, as may be seen in the instances of such men as Athanasius and Augustine, and Luther, and Calvin, and Edwards, and a host of others, who have made themselves illustrious in their conflicts with heresy (M. Stuart)].
[30][Such an extension of the meaning of the term is altogether unwarranted and wholly needless. The Lord’s Supper properly can only mean that particular ordinance which was instituted by our Lord, viz., the solemn participation of the bread and the wine, as the memorials of His death. This was ever kept distinct from the agape, although connected with it, until at a later period they were entirely separated. Wordsworth says, that “the non-insertion of the definite article to τὸ before κυριακὸν δεῖπνον Lord’s Supper, shows that by habitual use in the Church this term had now attained the force of a proper name”].
[31][Is not this a valid argument in proof of the fact that the wine used at the Lord’s Supper in the primitive church, was such as could intoxicate? See Bib. Sac. for 1843, p. 507 f.].
[32][Wordsworth, however, takes this test as “a proof of the setting apart of places for God’s worship in primitive times, and of the reverence due to them as such.” And he refers to Joseph Meade’s Essay on this text, for evidence collected on this matter, and also to Hooker V. 12, 5. And certainly the contrast here drawn between the private house and the place of church meeting, seems naturally to suggest the local interpretation of the word church ].
[33][“The flesh profiteth nothing; it is the Spirit that quicke neth,’ ’ saith our blessed Lord. And herein we have a key to the interpretation of the sacrament before us. Whatever benefit we derive from the bread and wine, must then be by virtue of the Spirit, who being then present, does, in and through the symbols that set forth to our senses the great sacrifice of our redemption, take of the things of Christ, and so show them to our spirits that we, through those faculties and powers of the soul, which alone can deal with the spirit, do feed on Christ—do come into veritable communion with our risen Lord—do have our whole being—body, soul, and spirit—quickened and sanctified, and eventually glorified by that Eternal Life which in Him clothed itself in our nature for the sake of effecting this very object—so that we are grafted into His mystical body, “become partakers of His Divine nature” in its entireness, and are prepared to unite with Him in glory at the resurrection. We are joined to Christ’s body and assimilated to it, not by the mere process of eating and drinking the elements, which are either transubstantiated into, or consubstantiated with, His flesh and blood; but by the faith which receives through the Spirit the life-giving power of that sacrifice which is represented and sealed to us through them. As Calvin says: “Christ’s body is not received as dead or even inactive, disjoined from the grace and power of His Spirit.” A great mistake is made when body is confounded with “flesh and blood,”—elements which Christ no longer possesses, and of which it is said that they “shall never inherit the kingdom of God.” We partake of the bread and wine, first, as the symbols of a sacrifice made once for all, and which is not to be repeated continually (as the Romish theory would have it); and then, as the condition of uniting with and becoming conformed to Christ’s glorified body, which is now in Heaven, where He is, the Head and Representative of the Whole Church, transforming, sustaining and gathering unto Himself all who truly believe on His name, and receive His Spirit.—On this whole subject consult Hooker, B. V, Chap. 67; Edw. Irving, Coll.Writt.,Vol. 2; Calvin’s Institutes, B. 3, Chap. 17,18; Kitto’s Exerc. Art. Lord’s Supper; Smith’s Dict of the Bible, ditto; Herzog, Real. Enc. Art. Abend-Mahl; Bib. Sac. for 1843, p. 584 f.; also for 1844, pp. 111, 225].
[34][It is to be regretted that the translators of the English version have followed the vulgate in uniformly translating διαθήκη by testament (testamentum), a meaning it nowhere has, save in Heb_9:15 ff. (and that it acquires by a subtle turn of the thought, without, howrever, altogether surrendering its original signification), and which greatly obscures the sense of the passages when it occurs. On “the import and use” of this word see Fairbairn’s. Hermeneuticul Manual, pp. 338–351.]
[35][But here it may be asked, “If Christ is really present in the sacrament, of what does the unworthy communicant partake? Does he actually partake of Christ himself? ”Certainly not. He shares only in that which he is capable of sharing in. As Calvin says: “receives nothing but the sign.” Or as Augustine: “he eats the bread of the Lord, but not the true bread who is the Lord.” Since Christ’s presence in the Supper is through His Spirit, only the spiritually-minded can there hold real communion with Him. But the unworthiness of the communicant does not destroy the supernatural character of the institution itself. It remains the same whether the communicant believes or not. So far as the administration is concerned “Christ’s body,” as Calvin says. “is present to the wicked no less than to the good: for God does not there represent in a delusive manner, to the wicked, the body of His Son, but He presents it in reality. As to their rejection of it, that does not impair or alter any thing as to the nature of the sacrament,” On the contrary, their guilt is enhanced by the sacred character of what they offend against.]
[36]A figure in which an epithet of a quite contrary signification is added to a word.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv16–19 A summary close to the argument by appeal to…
A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.
if any . . . seem--The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Mat 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (Co1 1:20).
Read full note →
we--apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to TERTULLIAN [ESTIUS]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--us" (Co1 4:9-10).
no such custom--as that of women praying uncovered. Not as CHRYSOSTOM, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [SCLATER] (Co1 7:17; Co1 14:33).
neither--nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv16–19 16. Contentious—The whole question had, it seems, been a…
16. Contentious—The whole question had, it seems, been a subject of Corinthian debate. Men, perhaps, maintained, that according to Jewish and Roman custom their heads should be uncovered in worship. Women, perhaps, maintained that Christ had emancipated woman from her reserve and subjection. The apostle replaces the law of propriety and of God in their proper authority.
Such custom—As these mistaken reformers would introduce.
Read full note →
Churches—The debate, probably, had scarce extended beyond Corinth. At least propriety and apostolic and churchly authority had elsewhere settled the question. The authority of the churches of God in this, the age of the gifted Church, was co-ordinate with the authority of the inspired apostles.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv16–19 16. But if any man seem to be contentious]…
16. But if any man seem to be contentious] Some commentators refer these words to what follows; but it would seem best to apply them to what has gone before. The Apostle would deprecate further argument, and appeal to the custom of the Churches as decisive on a point of this kind. See note on ch. 1Co_14:33.
we have no such custom, neither the churches of God] The word custom has been interpreted (1) as referring to contention, “it is not our custom to be contentious,” or (3) to the practice of permitting women to appear unveiled at the services of the Church. The latter yields the best sense. This appeal to the Churches must not be understood to imply that all Churches ought in all respects to have the same ritual. But in a matter such as this, involving the position of women in Christian society, it were far wiser for the Corinthian Church to follow the universal practice of Christendom.
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.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv16–19 (16) But if any man seem to be contentious.—The…
(16) But if any man seem to be contentious.—The argument, and the appeal to their own good sense having been completed, the Apostle now adds that if, after all, some one continues to argue the matter captiously, and is not satisfied with the reason given, the answer to such a one must be simply—We, the Apostles and the churches of God, have no such custom as that women should pray and teach with uncovered head. It has been suggested that the word “custom” refers, not to the uncovering the head, but to the “contention” just mentioned. But the former interpretation seems more natural; and the Apostle’s object here is, not so much to merely censure the contentious spirit, as to show how such an objector must be dealt with. It is noticeable that the appeal is made to the practice of the churches (plural), not the Church. Thus it is not the authority of the Church as such that is quoted, but it is the uniformity of practice in the several Christian churches that is appealed to. The Church in Corinth has no right to become exceptional.
It may be well to make two general remarks on the scope and bearing of this remarkable passage.
Read full note →
1. As St. Paul taught regarding Slavery (1Co_7:21) that the object of Christianity was not to suddenly efface existing political arrangements, so he teaches here that Christianity did not seek to obliterate these social distinctions which were universally recognised. We know now how mighty an instrument Christ’s Religion has been in elevating the social condition of woman, but this has been accomplished by gradually leavening the world with Christian principle, and not by sudden external revolution. The arguments and illustrations which the Apostle here employs have a more abiding and a wider application than the particular case to which he applied them. They have been written “for our learning” as well as for the instruction of those to whom they were originally addressed. And the lesson which they teach us is, that Christianity did not come to unsex woman, but to raise, dignify, and ennoble her as woman—to abolish for ever her real wrongs, but not to yield to a revolutionary clamour for imaginary rights. Old and New Testament alike emphasise the truth that (as has been quaintly and truly said) “woman was not made from man’s head to be his ruler, nor from his feet to be his slave, but from his side to be his equal, and from beneath his strong arm to demand his protection.”
2. The influence of St. Paul’s instruction as to women not uncovering their heads in public worship has lasted long after the necessity for that particular expression of her relationship to man has passed away. While, in succeeding ages, again and again, some have forgotten the principles of the teaching, which are eternal, the particular application of them, which was only temporary, has been continuously and universally observed. Surely this is an illustration and evidence of the Divine Wisdom which withheld the apostolic writers from, as a rule, laying down minute directions for worship, or dogmatic formulas of faith. Men would, in a servile obedience to rules, have soon and completely forgotten the living principles on which they were based. To this day the universal custom in Christian places of worship, of women being covered and men uncovered, and the increasing revolt against the acknowledgment of the subordination of woman to man, of which that practice was originally the avowed symbol, is a striking proof of how the same spirit, which led Jews of old to be scrupulous in their observance of certain external ordinances, while forgetting the weighter matters of which they were to be the outward expression, was not merely a Jewish but a human weakness.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv16–19 But if any man seem to be contentious. St.…
But if any man seem to be contentious. St. Paul cuts the question short, as though impatient of any further discussion of a subject already settled by instinctive decorum and by the common sense of universal usage. "Seem to be contentious" is (like the Latin videtur) only a courteous way of saying is contentious. If any of you wish to be disputatious and quarrelsome about this minor matter of ritual, I must content myself with saying that he must take his own course (for a similar use of the euphemistic "seem," (see Php_3:4; Heb_4:1; Jam_1:26) We have no such custom. The emphatic "we" means the apostles and the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem and Antioch. Such custom. Not referring to "contentiousness," but to the women appearing with uncovered heads. Neither the Churches of God. If you Corinthians prefer these abnormal practices in spite of reason, common sense, and my arguments, you must stand alone in your innovations upon universal Christian practice. But catholic custom is against your "self opinionated particularism."
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v17 Now … I praise you not, that ye come…
1Co_11:17-22
Now … I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
Read full note →
Unprofitable public worship
I. When do we come together, not for the better, but for the worse? This may be known--
1. By the principles which influence our attendance.
(1) Do we come to receive instruction, to get good that we may grow in conformity to God, or do we come only to gratify curiosity, to subserve our worldly interest, etc.?
(2) Do we come without any preparation of heart? Are we soon weary of the service (Eze_14:3)?
2. From the manner of our attendance. If we are either captious, careless, or sleepy; if we suffer the fowls to come down and devour the sacrifice, and the buyers and sellers to occupy the inward sanctuary; if we have no love for the work in which we are engaged, but can indulge in a trifling or stupid frame of mind, assuredly we come together, not for the better, but for the worse.
3. By the effects of our attendance. Some, like Festus, treat the Word with derision. Some, like Agrippa, are half convinced, but they stifle their convictions. Others, again, hear and approve, but never practise. In the parable of the sower we hear of four sorts of ground, and only one of them good.
II. The evil of such conduct. If we do not come together for the better, it will be for the worse. Where the Word does not soften it generally hardens; and where it does not make the heart contrite it often makes it desperate (1Co_2:16). More particularly--
1. It is highly displeasing to God.
2. It is a great grief to godly ministers; and what can be more unreasonable than to afflict those who labour for our good, and are seeking our everlasting salvation (Jer_13:17; Php_3:18).
3. In the end it will be a source of sorrow to themselves, and will issue in their ruin (Pro_5:11-14; 1Co_11:30). (B. Beddome, M.A.)
Religious institutions--their abuse
Observe--
I. That attendance on the institutions of religion may prove pernicious rather than beneficial (1Co_11:17). Men cannot be made religious; an irresistible moral force is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility in fact. Hence the highest redemptive forces on man often conduce to his ruin. The gospel is either the savour of life unto life, or of death unto death. Pharaohs heart was hardened under the ministry of Moses, and the hearts of the men of Chorazin, etc., were hardened under the ministry of Christ.
II. That assembling together for religious purposes does not necessarily imply unity of soul (1Co_11:18-19). It does not follow that because people are brought together in the same church that they are united together in spirit. Two people may sit in the same pew, hear the same discourse, etc., and yet in soul be as remote from one another as the poles. No real spiritual unity can exist where there is not a supreme affection for Christ, who is the only uniting place of souls.
III. That the very best institutions on earth are often sadly perverted by men. For many reasons the Lords Supper may be regarded as one of the best ordinances. But it was now perverted into a means of gluttony and drunkenness (1Co_11:20-21). Are not men constantly perverting Divine institutions, Churches, Bibles, the Christian Ministry, etc.? (D. Thomas, D.D.)
The abuse of the means of grace is
I. Very common. Through--
1. Carelessness.
2. The indulgence of an improper spirit, as enmity, pride, unbelief, etc.
II. Highly criminal--because a direct offence against the purity, majesty, mercy of God.
III. Exceedingly dangerous. It makes a man worse by increasing his sin, hardening his heart, augmenting his guilt and punishment. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Abuse of the Lords Supper
In this paragraph (1Co_11:17-34) Paul speaks of an abuse which can scarcely be credited in our times. A respectable citizen would hardly have permitted at his own table the licence visible at the table of the Lord.
I. How did such disorders arise?
1. It was common in Greece for clubs to meet periodically and to share a common meal. This custom, not unknown in Palestine, had been adopted by the primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians then felt themselves to be more closely related than the members of any trade guild or political club. Speedily love feasts (agape?) became prevalent institutions. On a fixed day, generally the first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing what he could as a contribution to the feast. In some places the proceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but in other places physical appetite was first appeased.
2. This mode of celebrating the Lords Supper was recommended by its close resemblance to its original celebration. It was at the close of the paschal supper that our Lord took bread and brake it. But when the first solemnity passed away the love-feast was liable to many corruptions. Those who had no need to use the common stock, but had houses of their own to eat and to drink in, yet, for the sake of appearances, brought their contribution to the meal, but consumed it themselves. The consequence was that from being truly love-feasts, these meetings became scenes of greedy selfishness, and profane conduct, and besotted excess.
II. To the reform of this abuse Paul now addresses himself.
1. Negatively.
(1) He does not propose to disjoin absolutely the religious rite from the ordinary meal. In the case of the richer members of the Church this disjunction is enjoined (1Co_11:22). But with those who had no well-provided homes another rule must be adopted. It would shame the Christian community, and undo its reputation for brotherly love were its members observed begging their bread on the streets.
(2) Although the wine of the holy communion had been so sadly abused, Paul does not prohibit its use. On infinitely less occasion alterations have been introduced with a view to preventing its abuse by reclaimed drunkards, and on still slighter pretext in the Church of Rome the lay communicant is only allowed to partake of the bread. Mohler says that this arose from a nice sense of delicacy, a pious dread of desecrating, by spilling and the like, even in the most conscientious ministration. In contrast to all such contrivances we recognise the sagacity which directed that the ordinance should not be tampered with to suit the avoidable weaknesses of men, but that men should learn to live up to the requirements of the ordinance.
(3) Paul does not insist that because frequent communion had been abused, this must give place to monthly or yearly communion. For some centuries it was expected that all members of the Church should partake weekly. That familiarity breeds contempt, or heedlessness, is a rule that ordinarily holds good. And by the same law it is feared, and not without reason, that if we observed frequent communion we should cease to feel the sacredness of the ordinance. But our method of procedure is first to find out what it is right to do, and then, though it cost us an effort, to do it. If our reverence for the ordinance in question depends on its rare celebration, may it not be a merely superstitious or sentimental reverence? Paul seeks to restore reverence in the Corinthians, not by prohibiting frequent communion, but by setting more clearly before them the solemn facts which underlie the rite. But does not our shrinking from communion often mean that we shrink from being more distinctly confronted with the love and holiness of Christ and with His purpose in dying for us--that we are not quite reconciled to be always living as the children of God, whose citizenship is in heaven ?
2. The positive counsel Paul gives regarding suitable preparation for participation in this sacrament is very simple. He offers no elaborate scheme of self-examination which might fill the mind with scruples and induce introspective habits and spiritual hypochondria.
(1) He would have every man answer the plain question, Do you discern the Lords body in the sacrament? The Corinthians were chastened by sickness, and apparently by death that they might see and repent of the enormity of using these symbols as common food; and in order that they might escape this chastening, they had but to recall the institution of the sacrament by our Lord Himself.
(2) The brief narrative gives prominence to the truth that the sacrament was intended primarily as a memorial or remembrance of the Saviour. As the dying gift of a friend becomes sacred to us as his own person, and we cannot bear to see it handed about by unsympathetic hands, and as when we gaze at his portrait, or use the pencil worn smooth by his fingers, we recall the many happy times we spent together, so does this sacrament seem sacred to us as Christs own person, and by means of it grateful memories of all He was and did throng into the mind.
(3) The form of this memorial is fitted to recall the actual life and death of the Lord. By the symbols we are brought into the presence of an actual living Person. Our religion is not a theory; we are saved by being brought into right personal relations by remembering Christ and by assimilating the spirit of His life and death.
(4) But especially by giving His flesh and blood He means that He gives us His all, Himself wholly; and by inviting us to partake of His flesh and blood He means that we must receive Him into the most real connection possible, must admit His self-sacrificing love into our heart as our most cherished possession. (M. Dods, D.D.)
When ye come together in the Church, I hear there be divisions among you.--
Divisions in the Church
I. Are a serious evil.
1. They hinder prosperity.
2. Demoralise many.
3. Occasion reproach.
4. Dishonour Christ.
II. Ought not to excite surprise. Because offences must come--
1. Through the imperfections of humanity.
2. The instigation of Satan.
III. Are overruled by God, as a test of the faith, purity, steadfastness of those who are approved before God. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
A spirit of disunion in the Church
1. Destroys edification.
2. Occasions divisions.
3. Profanes what is most holy.
4. Usually springs from selfishness and pride.
5. Is deserving of the strongest condemnation. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
And I partly believe it.--
Charitable judgments
I. Some of you are guilty of this fault, though others be innocent. General censures, condemning whole churches, are altogether uncharitable. Angle out the offenders, but take heed of killing all with a dragnet: and grant many, yea, most to be faulty, yet some may be guiltless. Wickedness was not so general in Sodom, but that righteous Lot was an exception. Obadiah was steward of Ahabs wicked household. Yea, seeing impiety intrudes itself amongst the thickest of Gods saints, just it is that God should have some names even where the throne of Satan is erected (Rev_3:4). Let us therefore follow the wary proceedings of Jehu (2Ki_10:23). When we are about with censuring to murder the credits of many together, let us take heed that there be not some orthodox amongst those whom we condemn to be all heretics; some that desire to be peaceful in our Israel, amongst those whom we condemn for all factious schismatics.
II. I believe these accusations only in part, and hope they are not so bad as they are reported. When fames are brought unto us from good hands, let us not be so incredulous as to believe no part of them; nor so uncharitable as to believe all; but with St. Paul partly believe it.
1. Because fame often creates something of nothing, always makes a great deal of a little. It is true of fame what is said of the devil; it has been a liar from the beginning; yea, and sometimes a murderer. Absalom slew one of Davids sons, and fame killed all the rest (2Sa_13:30)
2. Because men in reporting things often mingle their own interests and engagements with their relations, making them better or worse, as they themselves stand affected. Water resembleth both the taste and colour of that earth through which it runneth; so reports relish of their relators, and have a smack of their partial dispositions; and therefore such relations are not to be believed in their full extent. Conclusion:
1. This confutes--
(1) Those that will believe nothing of what they hear reported, though warranted by never so good witnesses. I bear them witness, these men have charity, but not according to knowledge.
(2) But where too much charity hath slain her thousands, too little hath slain her ten thousands.
2. Let not our beliefs be altogether of clay to receive any impression; nor altogether of iron to receive none at all. But as the toes in the image of Nebuchadnezzars dream were partly iron and partly clay, so let our beliefs be composed of charity, mixed with our credulity; that, when a crime is reported, we may with St. Paul partly believe it. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
.
For there must be also heresies among you.--
Heresies
Consider--
I. What heresy is. There are two opinions upon this subject. One is, that it is a schism. But the apostle in the text and in verse 18 makes a distinction between the two. By heresies, all denominations mean false doctrines, contrary to, and subversive of, the gospel (Tit_3:10-11; Gal_1:6-9). Every error is not a heresy, yet every error which subverts the gospel is.
II. That heresies have been in the Church from the beginning. Immediately after the gospel was preached by Philip, Simon professed to believe it; but he soon propagated the grossest heresies. Paul intimates that there were heretics in the Church of Rome (Rom_16:17-18). Our text assures us that there were heresies in the Church of Corinth. And John mentions various dangerous heresies in the seven Churches of Asia. If we consult ecclesiastical history, we shall find that the Church has never been free from them. Christ predicted that there would always be tares among the wheat to the end of the world.
III. In what sense it is necessary that heresies should be in the Church. There never can be any natural necessity. Those who enjoy the gospel may always know the truth. Heresy is always the fruit of an evil heart of unbelief. There is, therefore, only a moral necessity arising from the corruption of the heart. As long as this is the case, some will love error better than truth.
IV. Why God chooses that heresies should exist.
1. To distinguish truth from error. Darkness renders light more visible, and light renders darkness more visible. The errors in the heathen would illustrate the truths believed in the Christian world. The errors in the Romish illustrate the truths professed in the Protestant Church.
2. That true believers may be distinguished from false professors. Paul gives this reason in the text. The heterodox everywhere are a foil to the orthodox, and exhibit their characters in a beautiful light.
3. That mankind may have a fair opportunity of choosing the way to life or the way to death. Accordingly, it had always been Gods method to exhibit both truth and error before their minds, and give them opportunity of choosing the one or the other, that they may be saved or that they may be damned.
V. Improvement.
1. If heresies are opposite to, and subversive of, the gospel, then we have reason to think that they have had a long and extensive spread in the world.
2. It appears, from the nature and tendency of heresy, that the Church ought to censure and reject any of its members who embrace it.
3. If it be one design of God in continuing heresies to distinguish real Christians from false and erroneous professors, then there is a palpable impropriety and absurdity in attempting to unite those together in Christian communion who differ essentially in their religious sentiments.
4. When fatal heresies greatly prevail, then is a time when God is about to purify the Church, and make manifest those who are approved among the professors of religion.
5. Learn the importance of ministers preaching the gospel fully and plainly. If the gospel had always been preached fully and plainly, it is hard to conceive how heresies should have abounded.
6. From the nature and tendency of heresy, we conclude that sinners are in the most dangerous situation, for they are surrounded by heretics on every side. (N. Emmons, D.D.)
Heresy
Heresies sin against faith and schism, against charity; and, as children say they love father and mother both best, so let us hate heresies and schisms both worst.
I. What is a heresy? An error in the fundamentals of religion, maintained with obstinacy.
1. Note those qualities which dispose a man to be the founder of a heresy.
(1) Pride. When one is elated with conceited sanctity above others, he will quarrel with those who are before him in place, which are behind him in piety.
(2) Discontent that his preferments bear not proportion to his supposed deserts. Thus Arius would be an Arian, because he could not be a bishop.
(3) Learning void of humility; or good natural parts, especially memory and a fluent expression. But if both be wanting, yet boldness and brazen-faced impudence will supply the place, especially if he trades with the vulgar.
(4) To varnish all these, there must be pretended piety and austerity of life. Put all these together, and they spell together hoeresiarcham. To prevent these mischiefs, let such men pray to God for humility. Let them beware of discontentment, which is a direct quarrelling with God, who is the Fountain of all preferment. Grant preferment is denied thee; be not so childish to cast away a crown, because thou canst not get a counter. Lastly, if God hath bestowed good parts upon thee, pray to Him to sanctify them; otherwise the greatest memory may soon forget itself, and a fluent tongue may cut his throat that hath it.
2. A plain follower of a heresy may be thus described. He must be--
(1) Ignorant; for he that knows nothing will believe anything (2Ti_3:6).
(2) Desirous of novelty. It is an old humour for men to love new things.
(3) As a result of these two, he must have the persons of men in much admiration, and entertaining anything that is said because they say it. To prevent these mischiefs, let the meanest labour to attain to some measure of knowledge in matters of salvation, that so he may not trust every spirit, but be able to try whether he be of God or no. Secondly, kill the itch of novelty in thy soul, practising the prophets precept (Jer_6:16). Lastly, love and admire no mans doctrine for his person, but rather love his person for his doctrine.
II. There must be heresies. A conditionate necessity is this: for upon the pre-supposition of these two things, which cannot be denied--that the devil goeth about like a roaring lion, etc., and that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, making men prone to all wickedness; hence it followeth there must be heresies. Thus he that beholdeth a family, and findeth the master to be careless, the mistress negligent, the sons riotous, the servants unfaithful, he may safely conclude that family cannot be safe, but must be ruined (Luk_17:1). (T. Fuller, D.D.)
Heresies in the Church
I. The assertion--there must be heresies--is made in the same sense as It must needs be that offences come (Mat_18:7). Not that he is excusable who introduces heresies, or occasions offences; for woe unto him by whom they come. But in the natural course of things, such evils will happen.
1. Could no external cause be assigned, our common frailties and corruptions may prepare us to expect them in a society composed of men. Of all parts of our knowledge, we are inclined to be fondest of those in which we differ from other men. It appears dull and undistinguishing to tread on in the common road, and think and believe as other men do. And if we observe how deeply this is rooted in our nature, and how difficult it is even for good men to restrain it within due bounds; and if we take farther into our reflection that envy, resentment, and almost every other passion may accidentally concur in producing heresies, we must confess that these evils are, humanly speaking, unavoidable. And accordingly the Scriptures prepare us for them, as natural effects of the corrupt passions of mankind (Act_20:30; 2Ti_3:2-4; 2Pe_2:1).
2. From false teachers and seducers, then, the Church must never hope to be perfectly free in this world. Nor shall we be surprised at their success if we reflect that there will be hearers--light and unstable men with itching ears--strongly inclined to hearken after new discoveries.
II. The providential end assigned for Gods permission of these evils--the trial and manifestation of these who are approved (see Deu_13:1; Luk_21:13). This manifestation may be understood--
1. With respect to ourselves. It is a comfort unspeakable to a good man to find his graces of strength to endure this trial. Unless our constancy has been tried, we know not how far an esteem for the virtues and abilities of any man may prevail on us to desert the faith. If upon experiment we find ourselves equal to the trial, we may then hope well of our integrity, and that we shall hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.
2. With respect to the Church. Known unto God only are they who are His, by an internal inspection into their hearts. To the Church, however, this character can only appear by outward evidences; and, therefore, professions of faith have been always required, as terms of admission into its society. But these cautions are not always sufficient to reach the heart and discover the sincerity of the man. But he who has stood firm in the day of temptation has given an evidence of his integrity which cannot be suspected; and if to his faith he has added knowledge, and is able to convince gainsayers and defeat the craft of those who lie in wait to deceive, we must distinguish him in our esteem, not only as a sincere member, but as a light and ornament of the Church.
III. The advantages derived to the Church from these manifestations.
1. It is hereby enabled better to exercise its discipline, to separate the sound from the corrupted members of the body.
2. Hereby its enemies are discovered in their proper character.
3. Hereby Church governors are enabled to choose fit persons to serve in the sacred office.
4. By occasions of inquiry into heresy, the doctrines of the Church become more attentively considered and more firmly established. To the early heresies we owe many of the writings of the primitive fathers, and several parts of the Scriptures themselves.
5. By the appearance of these dangers, pastors are quickened to a more diligent attendance on the duties of their station, and at the same time carefully to examine their own lives, and, by an unblamable conduct, to keep up the dignity and influence of their ministry, that the enemy may have no occasion to blaspheme.
Conclusion:
1. It may hence appear with how little reason Rome reproaches us with those schisms and heresies which God has permitted to vex our Church, and to use them as an argument of our rejection by Christ. It may as reasonably be objected that it is composed of men, and has enemies. And least of all can this objection become those who are well known to have been the authors of these evils to us.
2. If, as the apostle affirms, the providential end of these heresies is that they who are approved by God may be made manifest, then it follows--
(1) That they who under these trials persist in the faith and communion of the Church are thereby manifested to be approved by God.
(2) That they who introduce heresies into the Church, or follow those who introduce them, are thereby manifested to be disapproved by God; and therefore that the Church may, and ought, to treat them in its discipline as sufficiently discovered under that character. (J. Rogers, D.D.)
That they which are approved may be made manifest among you.--
Heresy manifesting truth
Oftentimes goldsmiths, though they themselves be sufficiently satisfied of the goodness of the gold, yet put it to the touch, to content the beholders. Never had Athanasius so answered his name, and been so truly immortal in his memory, but for opposing of the Arians. Never had St. Augustine been so famous, but for quelling of Manicheans, Pelsgians, Donatlsts, etc. Many parts of true doctrine have been but slenderly guarded, till once they were assaulted by heretics; and many good authors in those points which were never opposed have written but loosely, and suffered unwary passages to fall from their posting pens. But when thieves are about the country, every one will ride with his sword and stand on his guard: when heretics are abroad in the world, writers weigh each word, ponder each phrase, that they may give the enemies no advantage. Again, the hardened will be made unexcusable, who obstinately persist in their errors. They cannot plead they lost their way for want of guides, but for mere wilfulness. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper.--
The love-feast and the Lords Supper
The Church of Corinth introduced what was called a love-feast previous to the reception of the Lords Supper--rich and poor bringing their own provisions. This idea seemed in strict accordance with the original institution of the Lords Supper, for that was preceded by a common meal. There was a great beauty in this arrangement, because it showed the conviction of the Church of Corinth that differences of birth and rank are but temporary, and are intended to join by reciprocal bonds the different classes together. Still, beautiful as the idea was, it was liable to great abuse. Thus there arises a perpetual lesson for the Church of Christ: it is never good to mix things religious with things worldly. In the highest conceivable form of the Church of Christ, the two will be identified, for the kingdoms of the world are to become the kingdoms of God and of His Christ. In order to make these two one, the Christian plan has been to set apart certain days as holy, that through these all other days may be sanctified: to set apart a certain class of men, through them to, sanctify all other men: to set apart one particular meal, that all meals through that one may be dedicated to God. The worlds way is rather this: to identify things religious and worldly by throwing the spirit of the week-day into the Sabbath; to make Christian ministers like other men, by infusing into them its own secular spirit; and to eat and drink of the Lords Supper in the spirit of a common meal. (F. W. Robertson, M.A.)
The heavenly banquet
Let me notice here the many words which are connected with the Lord by the apostle: the Lords body (verse 29), the Lords blood (verse 27), the Lords bread (verse 27), the Lords cup (verse 27), the Lords death (verse 26), the Lords Supper (verse 20). For in this ordinance Christ is all and in all; He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Why does the apostle call it the Lords Supper?
I. The lord appointed it. It is not mans feast, or the Churchs feast, it is the feast of the Lord.
II. He provides. The feast of fat things is of His providing, so is the table, so is the banqueting house, so is the raiment. All the viands are of His selection, His purchase, His setting out. He is both appointer and provider. The provisions must be rare and suitable and nourishing in such a case. His wisdom knows what we need, and His love prepares it all.
III. He invites. Come, is His message to us!
IV. He is himself the feast. He is the Paschal Lamb. He is the bread and wine. Yes; Christ is Himself the provision, as well as the Provider.
V. He partakes with us. He sits at the table Himself, and forms one of our number. Here we have fellowship with Him, and He with us. Seated at this table, and partaking of this Supper--
1. We look backward. And as we look back we see the passover, we see the shewbread, we see the Cross.
2. We look forward. For we show His death till He come. We fix our eye on the coming glory.
3. We look inward. In doing so, we ask, Is my soul prospering?
4. We look around. Brethren in the Lord are on each side--our fellow-believers, our fellow-pilgrims. Love circulates around, as well as joy and peace.
5. We look outward. We cannot, at a feast like this, forget a world which is famishing; shutting itself out from this heavenly feast, and revelling in its lusts and vanities. We pity, we pray for you, we plead with you to come. For here at this table we find all we need--the fulness of Christ. Here we taste--
(1) His love.
(2) His peace and joy.
(3) His consolations.
(4) His glory.
For that glory is our hope, specially at the table. Here we get the foretaste of it. (H. Bonar, D.D.)
Eating the Lords Supper
Those who do, and those who do not, sit at this board, may alike wish to understand what it is to eat the Lords Supper.
1. First, it is not to eat the Lords Supper to make it a feast for the satisfaction of outward appetite. Into so low an estate, as we learn from Pauls rebuke, had it degenerated among the Corinthians. They may, indeed, have but imitated an earlier example, set in the depravity of human nature. It was a custom at Athens, in the age of Socrates, for each person coming to a feast to bring his own provision; not that, as in some later social festivals, he might add it to the common stock, but to feed on it by himself alone. No wonder the apostle said this was not to eat the Lords Supper. It is upon something far different, even upon making a sensual feast of the Lords Supper, that Paul lays his ban. They fancied, forsooth, they were eating the Lords Supper because they came together in one place. Without hesitation he explodes the superstition, which, alas! has reached our own day, that any local sacredness of temple or altar made an act holy. The Lords Supper was a showing forth of the Lords death. The apostles admonition is still instructive. Some, in our own age, have complained of the grave and serious manner of observing the Lords Supper. They would have it more of a social and friendly feast. Surely, there should be no coldness round the Lords table. Yet this table cannot furnish what is like any other feast, the dinner given to a hero, or even the family thanksgiving of kindred and friends, eating and drinking, in gay, though innocent, hilarity together. In the Lords Supper is the presence of a spirit peculiar, awful in purity, as it is tender in love.
2. But the apostles description shows again, that it is not eating the Lords Supper to make it a mere form. Externally, no doubt, it is a form. But there are two kinds of forms, the dead and the living. The dead are those that have lost, or never had, life. The true form is the tree, that buds and blooms, to show in flower and fruit the hidden meaning which God set in its seed.
3. Once more, the meaning of our text shows that eating the Lords Supper is not to make a profession of holiness. This is a very common mistake. Many are prevented from coming to the table by their reluctance to make such a profession. Yet, so far from being a profession of holiness, it is, in truth, the very opposite. It is a declaration of our not having attained what we desire, because so anxiously we use this means of attaining it.
4. Still, again, eating the Lords Supper, as Paul describes it, is not to increase our moral obligations. Infinitely bound are we beforehand to love and serve God. Eating the Lords Supper reminds us of our obilgations, and may assist us to fulfil them, but does not originally impose them, or add to their essential weight or number.
5. In fine, according to the mind of the apostle, eating the Lords Supper is not swearing an oath. The Romish dogma, that the communicant eats the real flesh and drinks the real blood of Christ, and thus assumes a vow and performs a sacrament, such as men have sealed with awful ceremonies and signed in their hearts gore, is a fancy no less unscriptural than irrational, and contrary especially to the discourse of Christ. The words that I speak unto you are spirit, and they are life. As much as to say, It is no physical or literal meaning I intend by them, but a sense of spiritual, cordial communion with my own feeling and mind. So he stops their murmur at what they were at first inclined to think a hard saying. Let us now consider, more positively, what to eat the Lords Supper is.
(1) First, as a showing forth of His death, it is the highest manifestation of the Divine love. So, in the Scriptures, the death of Christ, the sinless Son of God, is described. This meaning of the Lords Supper, as the supreme sign of Divine love, let us now observe, falls in with all that is best in human thought and knowledge. It is a fact of singular and transcendent beauty, that all discovery, through all history, in all the world, has been but the gradual and ever cumulative discovery of the goodness of God. Now, all this scientific discovery of Gods goodness is but a ladder to the highest point of that goodness revealed in the gospel, whose crown is in the death of Christ, and whose celebration is in the Lords Supper. The Lords Supper, as the great peculiar symbol of the spiritual fact, especially tells us that our Father is pure, essential love, in long-suffering and willingness to forgive. Nothing can refute its witness, that, when He chastens, it is still love, not hatred, that wields the scourge; and that His wrath to the wicked is but His kindness for their case.
(2) But, as eating the Lords Supper is a recognition of this Divine love, it is, too, a corresponding expression of our own love. It should be regarded and observed in all the largeness and liberality of this idea. It was not meant by Christ, as it has been often made by man, to be a subtle, tormenting test, on minor points, of formal custom or intellectual opinion. But all the troublesome theories, arising or imposed, are, in the light of the new covenant itself, brought down to one which may indeed be sharper and stricter than any, or all beside, and to which those otherwise most rigid may give place. Do we love Jesus Christ?
(3) Furthermore, to eat the Lords Supper, according to the universal law of exercise, is to increase the love it expresses. This law holds peculiarly of all true affections and right exertions. The waxing love for Christ is its highest illustration. It especially is a magnet whose use enhances its power. It is true our love for Christ is a spiritual love for a now spiritual being, whom our fleshly eye never saw, or mortal ear heard. So the love of the Master and the follower is no antiquarian tradition. Truly, of what worth is love, if not personal? This Christian love passes and repasses, with Gods own spirit, the great conveyancer of all good things, like a dove through the air, and knits those who share it together. The feeling below tends to rise to the level of that from which it runs, on high.
(4) Eating the Lords Supper, thus expressing and increasing our love, furthermore supplies the loftiest and most efficient motive to all duty. All our life, all earnest labour, flows out of our heart. We give all, by natural and inevitable consequence, to Him to whom we have first given our heart. Eating the Lords Supper, therefore, while it may seem merely formal, is of all things most practical. It does not end as an exhibition or ceremony. It nerves to toil, endurance, and sacrifice, for the sake of God and humanity.
(5) In fine, the Lords Supper, while thus empowering for earthly duty, prepares us for scenes beyond this passing world. Its shadow falls two ways, back into time, and forth into eternity. It wings the soul to fly in another atmosphere, beyond this grosser air. It is preparation for the world to come. It is making ready for the second coming of Christ. Shall we extend this principle of preparation in all that is palpably useful, no further, but let it stop with the brink of the grave? Taking but a step in our little footing in this world, shall we not receive that staff of the bread of life which helps us to take the next, the second step, beyond the grave? Ah! in its true sense and meaning, both for present support and coming exigencies, we need the Lords Supper. All the ministrations of this world cannot satisfy our appetite, that immortal hunger and thirst with which God has made our souls to be hungry and thirsty. (C. A. Bartol.)
What … despise ye the Church of God?--
Despising the Church
Take the term in the sense of:--
I. The house of God. Do you undervalue the place set apart for Gods service, to convert it into an ordinary banqueting-house?
1. Duties public and not pious more befit a guild-hall or town-house; duties pious and not public more become a closet (Psa_4:4); whilst duties public and pious beseem a church, as proper thereto.
2. The use is to blame those that turn the church into a counting-house, there to rate their neighbours--both to value their estates, and too often to revile their persons. Others make it a marketplace, there to bargain in; yea, some turn it into a kennel for their dogs, and a mew for their hawks, which they bring with them. Surely if Christ drove out thence sheep and doves, the emblems of innocency, He would not have suffered these to have abode in His temple.
II. The spiritual Church. The rich Corinthians, in not inviting the poor, made chaff of good corn; yea, refuse of Gods elect.
1. Objection. But not inviting the poor, was not despising them. A freewill offering is no debt.
2. Answer. This is true of civil and ordinary entertainments: but these being entitled love-feasts, and charity pretended the main motive of them, poor people were the most proper guests. Besides, if not Christianity, yet good nature might have moved them, whilst they gorged themselves, to have given something to the poor which stood by. To let them look on hungry was to wrong their peers in grace here, and glory hereafter.
3. Doctrine. He that despiseth the poor, despiseth the Church of God. Whereof they are a member inferior to none in piety (Jam_2:5); superior to all in number. Now he that pincheth the little toe paineth the whole body; the disgracing any member is the despising the whole church. Let us beware of affronting those in want. He that seeth his brother in need … how dwelleth the love of God in him. (T.Fuller, D.D.)
Regard for the Church
I. There is such a thing as the Church of God. Nor need we travel far to find it. Wherever there is a congregation of believers among whom the gospel is preached and the ordinances observed, there is the Church of God. Such a church existed at Corinth. It was the assembly of them who were called to be saints, and had responded to that call in the confession of faith in Christ and in the observance of His commands.
II. There be some who despise this Church of God.
1. The particular offence of the Corinthians was, that they misapprehended the character and spirituality of the holy Supper, and thought to celebrate it after the manner of a worldly festival. This the apostle sets down as equivalent to contempt of the whole institution of which they were members.
2. On the same principle there are many ways of despising the Church of God.
(1) By contemning the Churchs faith.
(2)By despising its ministry.
(3) By neglecting its services.
(4) By ignoring Church fellowship and relations.
II. There is much in and about the Church to tempt men to despise it; much with which the carnal reason and taste of man is naturally offended, and which he is therefore predisposed to dislike and disesteem.
1. Take the faith of the Church, the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., etc.
2. Its ordinances.
3. Its unimportance in the world in comparison with pompous organisations of mans devising!
4. Its members. How destitute of that style which is claimed amongst the worldly great and noble!
5. Its hypocritical adherents. Nevertheless--
IV. There is reason why the Church should not be despised. There is but one consideration to this effect named in the text; but that reason is ample. The Church is not of man, it is Divine. It is not a Masonic fraternity--a man-made institution.
1. God made the first Churches, and out of and through them He has made all Churches.
2. The faith of the Church is from Divine revelation.
3. Its sacraments are Divine ordinances.
4. The making of true members of the Church is by a new creation by the Holy Ghost.
5. And everything entering into the constitution of the Church is the work or gift of God. (J. A. Seiss, D.D.)
The Church: its note of universality
1. It is important to put the local church in its right Christian setting. The single congregation is a unit in the great multiple of communions which constitute the Church of God.
2. It is necessary that the kingdom of God should be localised in separate churches. The strong emotions gather around definite objects. Men in battle look to their regimental colours for their rallying-point; yet those colours would be nothing of themselves, did they not belong to and represent the country. To follow the colours of a particular church for its own sake might prove to be treason to the Church of God.
I. The Church of God is a universal institution for man.
1. If we listen to the gospel which Jesus preached we cannot fail to hear ringing in it this clear note of universality. It was not a gospel of individual election, nor of personal salvation simply, but the gospel of the Kingdom of a redeemed society organised in righteousness, and vital with the spirit of love.
2. His daily life was marked by the sign of universality. And so it was a constant surprise to His disciples. It was a larger humanity than Jerusalem could understand. Recall, e.g., that scene at which the Scribes and Pharisees were shocked, when Jesus sat at meat with publicans and sinners; and that scene at Jacobs well at which even the good disciples were surprised. He healed the impotent man, and restored the sight of the blind on the Sabbath day, and proclaimed that even an institution so sacred to God from the completion of the creation was made for man.
3. This note pervades also and harmonises all His doctrines. No teacher had ever used the universal adjectives in speaking to men. We cannot take all, any, whosoever, etc. out of the speech of Jesus without taking all the music from it.
4. The Person also of Jesus is distinguished from all others by this. He has named Himself in His human place in history, the Son of Man. When the disciples began to realise who and what manner of man the Son of man was, the other confession followed of itself, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And upon the man who confessed that whole truth Christ said the Church should be built.
5. The Church, therefore, whose promise was given in that moment should be characterised by the same note of universality. It is not to be a chosen school of disciples around their Teacher; it is not to be a national church--another temple in Jerusalem.
II. Three days of the Son of man, at least, in Christian history have preceded our day.
1. The apostolic age, that day of glorious beginnings of Christianity. It was necessarily, however, an era of but partial applications of Christs words to the life of the people. The apostles were called to liberate and set in motion the Christian ideas, but not to apply them universally to their world and its customs.
2. The age of the power of external law, and the era of the outward unity of the Church. The Roman age witnessed an external universality of the Church; but its method was the way of Caesar rather than the way of the Son of man.
3. A return from Roman Catholic supremacy to the authority of the Son of man followed next, in the Divine order of history, through the Reformation.
III. And now what is the next step forward?
1. What are the chief questions of life now the world over? How not only in this city, or this country, but how in the whole world shall men live together? All labour troubles, or wasteful competitions, or hurtful combinations, are symptoms and signs of this vital problem of society. No nation can live for itself alone. The fates of the modern nations are bound together. There is nothing so foreign that it may not become domestic to any country. The destiny of this world, it is increasingly evident, is to be one destiny.
2. To the Church of God providence is bringing home this one social question. How then are the churches to answer it?
(1) Not in the way of Rome. The Son of man will not be enthroned as Caesar. There is no way of legislation to the millennium.
(2) Neither shall the old man of Protestantism, shrunken in muscle, its separate members scarce hanging together, and living on the income of its capital laid up in other days, be the new man of the coming day.
(3) Verily, the days are coming--are they not now at hand?--when the Son of man will open His mouth, and bless the multitudes in our churches, and in the power of His Spirit our Christianity shall become as never before the Church of God for the world. The churches are becoming more deeply conscious that they exist not for themselves; but for some Divine blessing for all men. The Church belongs to you, whether you will belong to it or not. The Church is for the world, whether the world now be for or against it.
IV. Two consequences of great moment follow.
1. That we who belong to particular communions should be careful in our administration of them not to interfere with the Divine rights of any man in the Church of God. We must look carefully to it lest we exclude some souls from our churchly participation in the kingdom of God. All disciples have Divine rights to any table of communion which is spread in the name of Christ. The Divine rights of the world to the Church, and in the Church, impose upon us the present and urgent missionary obligation.
2. That men who are already in the Church have right to stay there, and to work out honestly and patiently within the Church any questions which may trouble them. The disciples of old were constantly going back to the Son of man with some new question, or from some fresh perplexity. Still, the Son of man dwells among the questionings of men. And there is no better place than within the communion of the Church for you to meet the questions of your lives. Thomas of old kept in the Church, although he doubted. And so Thomas, the honest sceptic, became an honest apostle. Conclusion: It follows from this truth that every man to whom the Church is presented has some corresponding obligation towards it. The world is redeemed in Christ, and it is a sin and a shame to live in it as though it were not redeemed. There is a Church of God forming, growing, having a glorious world-task committed to it; and it is ignoble not to have part in it and its work. (N. Smyth, D.D.)
Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.--
Ministerial blame and commendation
I. Pastors may and must praise their people wherein they do well.
1. Reasons.
(1) Hereby they shall peaceably possess themselves of the good-wills of their people, which may advance the efficacy of their preaching.
(2) Men will more willingly digest a reproof for their faults, if praised when they do well.
(3) Virtue being commended doth increase and multiply; creepers in goodness will go, goers run, runners fly.
2. Use. Those ministers are to be blamed which are ever blaming, God doth not always chide (Psa_103:9). These preachers use their reproofs so commonly, till their physic turns natural, and will not work with their people. Do any desire to hear what Themistocles counted the best music--namely, themselves commended? On these conditions, we ministers will indent with them: Let them find matter, we will find words; let them do what is commendable, and blame us if we commend not what they do. Such work would be a pleasure. To reprove is pressed from us, as wine from grapes; but praises would flow from our lips, as water from a fountain. But, alas! how can we build, when they afford us neither brick nor straw? If with Ahab they will do what is evil, then with Micaiah we must always prophesy evil unto them.
II. Ministers must not commend their people when they do ill.
1. Reasons.
(1) Dishonourable to God.
(2) Dangerous to the ministers. That ambassador who, being sent to proclaim war, pronounceth peace to rebels (Isa_57:21), deserves at his return to be preferred to the gallows.
(3) Dangerous to the people who are soothed in their sins. Honey-dews, though they be sweet in taste, do black and blast the corn: so those who praise their people without cause, are cruelly kind unto them: it is pleasent to the palate of flesh, but destroyeth and damneth the soul.
2. Use. It were to be wished, that as those that live under the equinoctial at noonday have no shadows at all; so great men should have no shadows, no parasites, no flatterers to commend them when they least deserve it.
3. Objection. But why doth St. Paul deal so mildly with the Corinthians, I praise you not? Me thinks he should have made his little finger as heavy as his loins.
(1) Theophylact answers that St. Paul reproves the rich men the more mildly, lest otherwise they should be implacably incensed against the poor as the causers of the apostles anger.
(2) It was the first time he told the Corinthians of their fault, and therefore used them the more gently, on hope of their amendment. This corrupt humour in the Corinthians was not as yet clodded in them by custom, and therefore the easier purged and removed. So ministers must use mildness, especially at their first reproving of a sin. Yea, God so blessed the mild severity of St. Paul, that the Corinthians reformed their errors. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv16–19 16. But if a man seem to be contentious.…
16. But if a man seem to be contentious. If, in spite of nature's lessons, a man contentiously opposes, let him know that no such custom exists in the churches. Many suppose that custom refers to being contentious. I think, rather, that it refers to covering the head, etc. The lesson of this whole passage is that we must not defy existing social usages in such a way as to bring reproach on the church.
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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v17 1Co_11:17.—Backward reference: the directions just given, and the general…
CRITICAL NOTES
NEW TOPIC: THE LORD’S SUPPER AND THE LOVE-FEASTS
Read full note →
1Co_11:17.—Backward reference: the directions just given, and the general praise of 1Co_11:2, are not to be taken to carry with them “praise” in regard to this further matter. Indeed, 1Co_11:16 precludes it, for in this they are out of line with the holier manner and “custom” of other Churches. Better … worse.—“Not for edification and spiritual improvement, but the reverse.”
1Co_11:18. First of all.—Not formally completed by any “second” topic; perhaps 1Co_11:34, “the rest,” covers all Paul had in his mind when he here says “first of all.” In the Church.—Of course not any building so called; only in “due and formal Church assembly.” Divisions are again “schisms” as in 1Co_1:10 [though not necessarily here the Church parties; perhaps only divisions of feeling arising from diversity of wealth and social position], 1Co_12:25. Partly.—Courteous, but serious; “charity hopeth all things.”
1Co_11:19. Must.—; Not stronger than in (say) Mat_18:7. “Fallen human nature being what it is, it is certain and inevitable that,” etc. So, whether we shall say, “with the result that” or “in order that,” goes down to the roots of things, as to the co-working of the free wills of God and of man. No doubt the Hebrew mind saw all history so full of God that it connected His will very closely indeed with the course of events, inclining always to “in order that”; to ordaining rather than merely overruling. A close parallel is in Mat_10:34-35. “I am come … to send a sword,” “to set … at variance,” etc.
1Co_11:19. Heresies.—Not yet in the technical sense; only divisions arising out of the choice of self-willed hearts, showing itself in open unbrotherliness, dissension, division. Approved.—As usual (e.g. Rom_16:10) those whom the testing shows to be the pure metal, genuine, true, loyal, to Paul, to the Church, to Christ. (2Co_10:18; 2Co_13:7; Jas_1:12.)
1Co_11:20.—Cf. 1Co_14:23; Act_1:15; Act_2:44; Act_3:1; quite general, perhaps including not only “place,” but time and purpose. Choose between:
(1) “Your way of doing things may be ‘eating a supper,’ but it is no ‘Lord’s supper’ ”; and
(2) “Such love-feast suppers as yours, conducted as they are, cannot suitably lead up to the ‘Lord’s Supper.’ Decision turns upon the historical question whether the Lord’s Supper itself was made a meal capable of (more than) satisfying hunger and including (even excessive and intoxicating, 1Co_11:21) use of wine; or whether it was associated with (preceded by) such a substantial meal. Further—
1Co_11:21.—Note, “other” is an insertion, depending in part for its warrant upon the decision as to the historical question. Choose between
(1) “Takes beforehand, with a greedy eagerness which will not even wait for the whole company to be gathered and the proper Church ordinance to begin, but ‘falls to’ forthwith, so soon as the place is entered, upon ‘its own supper,’ brought to the feast”; and
(2) “Takes first with selfish preference its own (rich man’s) supper; whilst the poor man, with his poor and scanty supper, must wait the rich men’s convenience and pleasure before partaking of anything they had professed to bring towards a communion meal.”
1Co_11:22.—Either way, the communion idea is sinned against and lost. “Hungry” and “drunken” sit side by side at the Lord’s table! Private meals should be eaten in private houses; natural hunger and thirst should be satisfied at home. [The historical questions involved are most variously decided upon, sometimes under (unconscious) theological bias. The facts are few; their interpretation is often still sub lite. (E.g. some would make the edict of Trajan [112, or earlier] occasioned by the well-known letter of Pliny the Younger,—that the “simple and harmless” meal of the Bithynian Christians, taken in the evening of the Lord’s Day, should cease,—the occasion of the disuse of the Love-feast, and of a morning use of the [distinctive] Lord’s Supper. But it is not agreed that the meal which he forbade was really taken in the evening, at a second meeting, in addition to the morning one which he so fully describes.) For homiletical purposes one important point is clear: the ordinance is to every participant’s thought and apprehension a Supper set out upon a Table. Whatever other meanings might lie latent—or even then be understood—in the eating of bread and wine together at Christ’s supper table, it was certainly a Meal, not without analogies to the feats in heathen temples, or to the Jewish peace-offering banquets, or (more appositely) to the actual “last supper” of Christ. The analogy of this last may lend some support to the frequent exposition of 1Co_11:17-20, that an ordinary meal (in part also reminiscent of the early community in Jerusalem, Acts 2, 4, 6): preceded the more definite “Supper,” as in Christ’s own instance. Without insisting too strongly upon “we break” (1Co_10:16) or “every one taketh” (1Co_11:21), it is also clear that this, like many more things in the Church, has not yet attained to much definiteness of form and manner of observance; there is little or no “rubric” as yet; differentiation of officials, and between Love-feast and Supper, is only in an inchoate stage.]
1Co_11:23. Received.—Two interpretations:
(1) “Hearsay” theory;
(2) “Inspiration” theory.
(1) supposes from, e.g., Peter during the fortnight of Gal_1:18, and asks where the necessity was of any independent narrative, straight from the risen Christ to Paul;
(2) Evans (in opposition to Meyer) insists upon the meaning of the Greek for “of,” though this again need not necessarily imply oral communication from Christ to Paul. At all events,
(2) is preferable, and gives an independent, original account (which may have influenced the closely similar one in Luk_22:19 sqq.) of the institution of the Supper. I also delivered.—The two links in the chain, “received,” “delivered,” solemnly certified and vouched for as being duly in order. Note, “I delivered … was being delivered.” Bread.—A cake of bread, a loaf; one of those lying on the table, so far as appears.
1Co_11:24.—Note the shortened, correct reading (seen in R.V.). Therefore “broken,” though true and suggested by the facts, does not exhaust the significance for His people’s life and salvation of the fact that He had a real human body. Still, this “broken” is the pre-eminent serviceableness “for you” of His having become an incarnate Saviour. This do.—Viz. “Take, give thanks, break, [take, eat,] as I have done, in remembrance of Me.” Himself, in all the developing discoveries of their reverent, Spirit-guided inquiry, is to be the object of thought and faith.
1Co_11:25. In like manner.—Viz. Taking, giving thanks, and giving to them. Observe this was “after supper”; the bread apparently being “during supper.” The “Last Supper,” then, would not set a very close precedent for any (assumed) sequence of definitely distinguished Agapæ meal and Lord’s Supper. Is.—Spoken of “the cup”; the Cup IS the Covenant; exegetical of “is” in 1Co_11:24. This do ye.—As in 1Co_11:24. Peculiar to this narrative, in connection with the cup. As oft as.—Contemplates the continuance of the ordinance. [Are we to prefer, as verbally more exact, this particular record of Christ’s words over the bread and over the cup?]
1Co_11:26.—Communion (1Co_10:14-21); Covenant (1Co_11:25); now also Commemoration. (For this and other points, see Separate Homily on 1Co_11:20.) Until He come “to be Executor as well as Testator” (Evans).
1Co_11:27.—With no “worthy” appreciation of its meaning, or, this appreciated, with no care to behave in a manner “worthy” of what he believes, and of what the Supper is, Guilty of.—A fourfold use of the Greek word in New Testament; see
(1) Heb_2:15. “subject to bondage”;
(2) Mar_3:29, “guilty of eternal sin”;
(3) Mat_26:11, “guilty of death”;
(4) here, approximating to
(2). Held bound to the responsibility for the act, and to pay the penalty of it; in this case, of dishonour done to Christ, almost in the manner of the apostates in Heb_10:29—“hath counted the blood of the covenant … a (merely) common thing.” If the Corinthians evacuated the ordinance of its high and holy meaning, they made the bread and wine only the historical reminders of a malefactor who once was (perhaps justly) crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. What was this but to assent to His crucifixion—in fact, to “crucify Him afresh”; as He deserved, if He be not a Saviour Whose Supper has the full significance which Paul has expounded.
1Co_11:28. So.—I.e. having examined [“proved,” cognate with “approved” (1Co_11:19)] his heart, and his intention in partaking of the Supper; then, with all the personal unworthiness he no doubt discovers, but with a real desire to use the Supper as the Lord intended, “let him eat.”
1Co_11:29. Damnation.—“Judgment,” “condemnation”; but these also include, not only the verdict upon the sinner, but the penalty. At Corinth this last was sickness, and in many cases death (1Co_11:30). (Cf. Act_5:5; Act_13:11.)
1Co_11:31.—shows the verbal connection with 1Co_11:29. When will we choose to have ourselves appraised, and our true position and character estimated? Now, or at “the Day”? And by whom—ourselves, or the Judge? Punishment now is chastisement, which may chasten the “worldliness” out of our heart and thought, so that we shall not come into the world’s irreversible condemnation. [“He (Noah) condemned the world,” Heb_11:7.]
1Co_11:33.—Coming back to, as it might seem, the trivial piece of unseemly disorder out of which all this solemn profanity arose, with its sad sequel of punishment; disorder which also was symptomatic of their moral blindness to the meaning of the Supper.
HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—1Co_11:17-34
[The specific subject of the section is dealt with under 1Co_11:20. A general grouping of the many topics may be made around three nuclei of arrangement. Thus:—]
I. Evil mingling with good.
II. Good arising out of evil.
III. A good thing—only, and of many-sided good.
I. Their assembling for public worship, and even their “coming together” for “the Supper of the Lord,” issues in evil, not in help to man or glory to God,—“not for the better, but for the worse.” The fires of party “divisions,” always smouldering in the hearts of fellow-Corinthians, and fellow-Christians, are stirred into a fierce blaze so soon as they find themselves together within the same place of assembly, and are made to burn intensely by the behaviour of some of the rich towards the poor, as they sit down for the holy feast. Thus the place and the worship and its central ordinance—that which above all should be the sign and the bond of “communion”—are profaned, and the crucified Lord, Whose broken body and Whose poured-out blood they profess thankfully to remember as the foundation of all their common hope, is dishonoured. Can there be no “truce of God” from their “divisions” there, where of all other places should be peace? Is the distinction between rich and poor to be offensively obtruded, and their poverty flung in the faces of the poorer saints [? even “houseless” ones (1Co_11:22)] at that table where one [“wedding garment” of] undistinguishing redeeming love invests every guest alike, and covers and hides all such social rank and distinction? If there be one occasion in which should stand out conspicuous that glory of the Church of Christ as the home of all comers, of all races, ranks, ages, of both sexes, all sinners, all adopted children of God, alike,—it should be at the Table of their common Elder Brother. To accentuate there the inevitable social distinctions of the secular life outside—there, of all places—is the offence against the brotherhood the grossest; there, of all places, is the “worldliness” of such hearts shown up most staringly as sin against the Lord and Host of the Feast. How utterly “unworthy” is such “eating and drinking”! Do they, no better than that, “discern” and discriminate and judge between the covenant supper, where the Lord Himself is the true Passover Lamb, and the common meal in their own houses? Or, indeed, are they as heathenish still as those who eat at the table “of idols,” “of devils”? If their partisanship thus sins against the very idea of the unity; if their offensive flouting of the hungry poor of Christ’s flock by their greedy, selfish haste to demolish the heap of provisions they have brought to the common table, thus sins against the brotherhood; if such utter unpreparedness of heart and thought thus sins against the very Lord Himself, around whom they “come together,”—is it any wonder that His “judgments” are abroad amongst them? Any wonder that their very eating and drinking thus only brings “condemnation” upon them? Any wonder that sickness is abroad, and that even the “sleep” of death has fallen upon some most conspicuous offenders? They did not connect the disorder and the deaths? They did not trace any connection between the prevalent sickness and the “undiscerning,” “unworthy” communicating? Very likely not. “The world” never does. It stops at natural causes; had perhaps its (crude) sanitary theory of the epidemic sickness at Corinth; could perfectly account for every death in the membership; knew exactly what had carried off each particular man or woman. If they shared in the ignorance of the undiscerning “world” which does not see God in such things, and in the practical heathenism which made the gathering nothing but “a guild supper,” such as abounded around them, was it any wonder that they were “condemned with the world”? (1Co_11:32). “They come together,” indeed, “for the worse.” A Church in Corinth not three years old, a Church of Christ not fifty years old, and its most solemn assemblings have here come to this! Evil springing up amidst the good! “The world is out of joint!”
II. Good springing out of evil,—
1. Just as these two consummately important and valuable Epistles have found their occasion, if not their cause, in these miserable factions and these shocking disorders in the Corinthian Church. “All things have indeed thus worked together for good,” for the Church of all lands and of all ages. The apologist of to-day comes to these two Epistles for his weapons of defence, for his facts of cogent significance and value (e.g. chap. 15). The theologian comes to them for full and explicit and far-leading revelations of truth upon some of the deepest themes of the Christian faith. The humble believer finds every line in some pages full of “meat to eat” that the world, and even some of the apologists and theologues, “know not of.” How great is the worth to the Church of this earliest-written account of the Lord’s last supper, of His own solemn expository words of institution, and those derived from the Lord Himself. And yet Paul rises to this universally precious, monumental, declaration and testimony, from the temporary and local and personal. Dictated to his amanuensis as he sat working at his trade in some humble lodging in Ephesus, there falls from his pen a palmary document of the Christian faith: “received of the Lord, delivered unto” the truly Catholic Church! “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Him!” (Psa_76:10). “The world is out of joint” indeed; God’s fair order is sadly disturbed and marred. But every man can see, and can say, “He meant it not so; He Who did so much that was manifestly intended to work for good, never left His work so nearly finished and yet so mischievously incomplete, so admirably designed and yet so imperfect in its actual working.” And the wondering, grateful heart of His Church sees in a thousand instances God’s self-vindication for those who have hearts to feel its force and open eyes to see its facts; how He makes evil the seed-plot from whose very bosom good springs up; how not only parallel with evil, but occasioned by it, and helped forward by it, there arises the good. It is God working toward the restored order, the “restitution of all things” (Act_3:21), towards which the most potently effectual contribution are the Redemption and the Church in whose midst is the significant Supper so profaned at Corinth. In 1Co_11:19 is a particular example of the working of this ceaseless drift and movement of the Divine government of the world towards; “restitution” of the disturbed original order. It reads strongly: “There must be heresies … in order that.” How and where do the Human and the Divine meet and work together? Who can tell? There is a Holy of Holies of secrecy within which the most adventurous human inquiry or analysis or speculation have never yet been able to set foot. [Kindred with the question: “How and where do the Material and the Spiritual meet in Creation; e.g. in the chemistry, and the mechanics, and the mathematics, which are inwrought into the very structure of the natural world?”] In the Incarnation, for example? In Inspiration, for example? In the Answer of Prayer? And, as here, in the Providential rule of the will of God over, and in, and through, creaturely wills, created by Himself as free as His own? It is one and the same problem, worked with many sets of data, and insoluble for the same reason in each particular case. Approach the meeting, the midway, reconciling point from one side, and all is Man, his free activity, his passions, his plans, his limitations, his sins; so much Man that there seems no room—naturally, intellectually, morally—for God. Approach from the other, and all is God; so entirely God that it is difficult to find room for man’s freedom of thought and action, and for his responsibility or guilt. Yet it is noteworthy how seldom the heart raises or feels the difficulty. To the, not all unintelligent, bulk of God’s people, the every-day working hypothesis of life includes both: “Much is of man; all is of God.” The speculative difficulty is felt now and again, but the combination of man and God which defies intellectual analysis is a working principle which as a matter of fact does serve for the practical need of life. [How many readers, for example, or how many Jerusalem Christians in (say) A.D. 67 or 68, ever stopped to find any speculative difficulty in their Lord’s command, “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter”? And yet how many lines of military, and political, and domestic plan and arrangement must converge; how many “accidents” of the weather, of the year, of the month, of the week; of the longer or briefer resistance of an army or a city, advancing or retarding the march of a general, and opening or closing the gates of a city; must concur—with chances simply infinite, mathematically calculated, against all the needed elements of a secure flight, in mild weather, to an open Pella of refuge, being found in combination—in order that the prayer might be answered.] “In order that” is for the understanding a problem of bottomless darkness, here and in all similar cases. But we do see a little way down. If we cannot always dissect out and exhibit in their distinctness Purpose and Result, we are oftentimes moved to deep and thankful wonder as we see Good resulting from Evil. For example:
2. Open evil keeps good on the alert.—If only the Adversary were absolutely wise, he would oftener see that the game to play if he would win, is that of the subtle veiling of evil. The man, or the Church, that can, and does, “withstand” and struggle nobly and victoriously “in the evil day” (Eph_6:13), often needs the emphatic caution, “And having done all, to stand.” When Evil has drawn off its beaten forces from the field, and the hard-pressed victor for faith, or principle, or public morality is breathing hard but freely, now that there seems a moment’s leisure, then is the need that watchfulness shall not be relaxed the greatest. It is not the evil which stands revealed as a “heresy,” from which a Church has most to fear, but that which puts on the guise of the most perfect congruity with the highest aspirations and work of a Church, or which robes itself in some innocent or friendly phraseology. Troy is still captured by the harmless horse of wood, which forsooth “is really a thing devoted to the patron god of Troy!” The world and its mischief are often hidden away in the harmless, innocent piece of “politic concession” to the needs of the age, or to the necessities of the young people “whom we must keep with us, you know”; in the offered assistance to the activities of the Church, which though not exactly claiming to be “Christian,” really “is working, you see, towards the same end as yourselves.” “Let us help you,” said the enemies of Jerusalem in the days of Zerubbabel, “to build your temple; we seek your God as ye do” (Ezr_4:2). Zerubbabel and Jeshua would have no such “help”! The alliance, not the “heresy,” is to be feared. The “heresy” means that the uniforms of the opposing ranks are become more distinctive. When Confederate and Federal troops could hardly tell by speech or uniform whether friend or foe was stealing upon them and emerging from the mist, then was the peril of surprise and snatch-defeats. So again:
3. Defections and desertions have benefited the Church.—Such defections stiffen faithfulness; not by provoking any mere dogged “other-side-ishness,” but by leading to heart-searching as to personal loyalty or unfaithfulness, to truth and Christ, by inducing new consecration on the part of the “approved” ones, by occasioning new inquiry into the meaning and worth of what is being assailed and defended. The diminished numbers close up their ranks and feel themselves the fitter for the fight. [See how, at the supper table, Christ Himself “opened up” to the “approved” eleven after Judas had withdrawn, as if even He breathed more freely where now all were faithful. “Now is the Son of Man glorified,” etc. (Joh_13:31). The underlying idea of “approved” is well expounded e converso in 1Jn_2:19 : “[The many antichrists] went out from us that they might be made manifest that they were not of us.” The deep essential cleavage which all along had divided the Church stood revealed. It was seen that they who were not for Christ were against Him. They stood out ἀδόκιμοι, “reprobate,” sifted out from the “approved,” the δόκιμοι. In this instance the separation is made manifest by the secession of the antichrist party. In 2Ti_2:19; 2Ti_2:21 the secession is to be the action of the faithful party. Two “heretics”—where the word is beginning to take on its later ecclesiastical colour and associations—are specified, Hymenæus and Philetus. They had gone greatly wrong in doctrine (1Co_11:18), and perhaps also in morals (1Co_11:16); they were heretics who at least tended to become “ungodly,” immoral, heretics. They had gone out from the Church, or had been cast out; or, if not so much of separation had yet taken place, their “error” (1Co_11:18) ranged them as not really belonging to the Great House. They had never really belonged to it, or had ceased to do so. It was only a human reckoning, which was originally imperfect, or which had become so by their falling away in doctrine and heart, that had accounted them so. Either man’s hasty work had built in stones which never were “living stones,” or they had ceased to “live,” and so fell out from their place in the living temple, the “spiritual House,” to which they had ceased in any true sense to belong (1Pe_2:4-5). So far as they had any connection with the Great House, it was that of “vessels unto dishonor”—[not made to be broken in pieces; what house has any such?],—the “vessels” which are needed to carry away from the house its sweepings and gathered impurities. [The heavenly Jerusalem, like the earthly; the Church, like the literal city; have their Gehenna outside the walls (Mat_13:41). In the history of Churches, and of The Church, it is simple matter of observation that from time to time evil, error, disorder, and wilful, self-pleasing teaching seem to have gathered and gravitated toward some “vessel unto dishonour.” In some secessions—“heretical” or other—it has seemed as if the leaders have carried away with them the elements of turbulence and scandal. They have done good, indirectly. The vessel which carries away what cannot longer, for health or happiness, be suffered in the house, serves a useful turn. The Church has been left united, cleared in doctrine and life, purer and at peace, its “approved” ones “appearing” such to all.
4. It is an extension of the same principle to say that heresies (in the technical sense, not in Paul’s sense here) have served the good end that what is “approved” truth has stood out in clearer light and appreciation. The early Church found itself occupying its heritage of Truth, much as some pioneer settlers in a new land may plant themselves in the midst of a vast, vague territory whose limits are not easy to define; nor for a little while does any necessity to define them seem to press upon them. But as neighbours come and plant themselves in the same region, “Mine and Thine” must needs be ascertained and marked off. Sometimes claim is set up or occupation attempted where the first comer believes that he has already exclusive right. With much discussion, perhaps with more than a little of heat and temper, the matter is threshed out, and at last a boundary-mark is planted where the verdict determines that rightful Occupancy and wrongful Claim are parted. In the end the process has been repeated on all sides, until the original seat of our settlers is girdled with a series of boundary-posts, which have become a complete definition of their holding. So, beginning with a body of truth rather held experimentally than formulated for the intellect, the Christian Church had from time to time to investigate the claim, the pretension, of this teaching or that to be part of the Truth; and so, very often with heat and struggle, it became clear that thus far was Truth, beyond was Error; on this side and on that, in this direction and in that, the boundary-marks got planted, until a definition of doctrine more or less complete was arrived at. [E.g. truly God, perfectly man, without confusion two natures, without division one person, are four such boundary-posts, marking the limits within which the truth that takes in all the facts and declarations of Scripture has been ascertained to lie, and beyond which lie “heresies” in the ecclesiastical sense; sometimes imperfect or crude attempts after truth, which have overstated one aspect of the whole, or have omitted some of the data for determining the whole.] Heterodoxy has cleared Orthodoxy. The “heresies” have necessitated the Creeds. “That they which are approved”—the truths which have endured the scrutiny and the test and the fire of discussion and controversy—“may be made manifest among you.” An accommodation of Paul’s word, “heresy,” of course; but a legitimate application of the principle of the sentence.
III. Good, and only good.—
1. How restful the atmosphere of these verses (23–25). We are escaped where God “hides His people in a pavilion from the strife of tongues” (Psa_31:20); escaped from the noisy factions of Corinth into the calm of the upper room in Jerusalem, where every word of the Master of the Feast seems to come from within the penumbra of that Shadow which is creeping over His path, and into whose inmost darkness He will enter on the following day. Sitting at table in full health, He talks to His fellows at the table of His blood, the price, the pledge, of a “new,” better “covenant.” Still with them, He speaks of the days when it shall be “remembrance,” not “enjoyment,” of His presence, of Himself; as if with the accent of a dying parent or friend, giving last injunctions, and making, with a calmness hardly shared by any who stand around the bed, the little final arrangements for the days when all is over and he is gone. Still living, still the Teacher and Friend in their midst, yet His own hands give out and distribute “His body” the body of a true Passover Lamb,—a Sacrifice of redemption and deliverance, the Provision of a Supper whose strength shall be for the pilgrimage of God’s new, ransomed Israel. To these men, who had once heard Him declare Himself the true, the original, the archetypal “Bread from Heaven” (John 6); and who had seen, and shared in, the hushed perplexity with which men that morning listened in the synagogue of Capernaum, and at last said, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”—to these He says, “Take, eat.”
2. “As oft as ye shall drink it”; His words look forward through the long vista of years before His Church, as, each time they sit down at His table, they look backward down the years. “He is with them always,—all the days.” The Supper board is never spread but He takes His place as the Head of the table. [As He who sat quietly eating, the invited guest in the inn at Emmaus, suddenly, significantly, took their bread into His hands, and did the host’s part, blessing and breaking, and vanishing! (Luk_24:30-31). See Appended Note.]
3. And they are not to allow the simple feast to be dissevered from Himself, and their grateful, believing “remembrance” of His whole work. “As oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance.” No other meaning is to be attached to, to be accreted round, the simple arrangement; Himself, their “communion” in Him, “the covenant in His blood,”—these are to be “remembered,” not repeated, nor extended, nor forgotten. They may institute, may disuse, [like Moravians and Methodists] may restore, love-feast suppers in the Churches, as matters of prudential, profitable arrangement and order; simple fellowship meals. But only He can institute in “remembrance”—in this fullest sense—a supper; and so long, so often, as they profess to continue His supper, they must always take care that this significance is attached to it. It must not be so stripped of meaning that it becomes only the simple love-feast, or the sub-Pentecostal common table of the Christian brotherhood.
4. Only He could institute it, and only He can abolish it. There will be a last celebration of the Lord’s Supper, somewhere, somewhen. How happy that company “eating and drinking” when the Son of Man comes,—by His lightning-sudden appearing breaking in with startling abruptness upon all the medley of human employment (Mat_24:38),—if they are “eating and drinking” at His table; a celebration of “the Lord’s Supper” interrupted by the coming of the Lord! And even then the fit word will hardly be “abolish.” The analogy of the creation history, and of the redemption history, in the past will again be followed, and the only abolition will be that of the temporary, accidental clothing of the Idea. The “Lord’s Supper” is but one form of, one testimony to, the Communion between God and man in Christ, towards which “the ages” (1Co_10:11) have all been convergently working. All the persistently repeated supper-imagery of the Gospel parables concerning the future bliss of the saved will be fulfilled when, and where, “the Lord’s Supper” has given place to His “drinking of the new wine with us in the kingdom of God” (Mat_26:29, etc.). The words will have had their suggestive, anticipatory fulfilments all along; these may suffice “until He come” (1Co_11:26).
5. When He comes, the Lord of the feast will declare the feast ended; the Heavenly Supper begins. The witness of the Supper to the faith of His Church, that the Unseen Lord is only unseen, not dead, and that He will one day again step out from behind the veil and appear with a visible intervention in human affairs, will be crowned with its triumphant vindication. It will need the vindication. Christ shall step forth just when Antichrist is lording it over men with fullest-blown blasphemy; when the love of many shall have waxed cold; when faith shall be hard to find in the earth, a few poor embers of its old fire almost smothered beneath the heap of ashes of men’s dead beliefs (2Th_2:8; Mat_24:12; Luk_18:8). “Till He come.” Happy the dwindling band who still spread the table, and eat the supper, “preparing it in the midst of their enemies” (Psa_23:5), with dogged faith looking out for Him who is “their hope” (1Ti_1:1); “waiting for the Lord, as they that watch for the morning,”—not only as eagerly, but in as assured certainty that the morning whose breaking delays longest nevertheless will dawn (Psa_130:6).
6. “In the midst of, and in spite of, evil.” And how the repeated celebration of the little supper will have sustained faith. [The old argument of Leslie in his Short and Easy Method with the Deists is essentially sound wherever there are:
(1) A fact of the past, near or remote, e.g. the Exodus of Israel;
(2) An ordinance, repeatedly celebrated, in professed commemoration of the fact, e.g. the Passover;
(3) the connection between the fact and the ordinance, asserted and embodied in a record, written or other, whose repetition is part of the commemorative rite; and
(4) this repetition resting upon a command to that effect which professes to go back to the time of the original institution, e.g. Exo_12:26. He shows how impossible it is to conceive of a nation accepting the fact on the joint evidence of
(2) and
(3), unless on the supposition of its truth, seeing that
(4) guards against the subsequent attachment of a pretended significant connection with
(1)—whether this also be pretended or be real—to an existing ordinance of a different or unknown origin. Could a newly-devised Passover feast have been, at any but the contemporary date, offered to, or accepted by, a nation as an original and ancient memorial of the events connected with an Exodus itself perhaps a myth? Or, supposing that the only new thing was the asserted memorial significance, then with what success could those who propagated this, hope to attempt to attach it to a really ancient feast, when part of their assertion was also that the feast always had been celebrated with this commemorative meaning; and that, from the first, at least the instructions for celebrating it had included a prescribed question and answer expressly connecting the events and the festival? Presuming, that is, that this direction had always been obeyed, and that there had been no considerable periods during which the observance had not been kept up, Leslie’s argument was strong, and has close correspondence with the argument often built up upon the fact and manner of the observance of the Supper in the Christian Church.] This undisputed letter of St. Paul is the first of a long series of testimonies, patristic and other, that from the first the Church of Christ has celebrated a supper with this significance. Moreover, in the four great families of Liturgies, the Oriental, the Alexandrian, the Roman, the Gallican and Spanish, can be found evidence mounting up to the fourth century, and almost to the third, that the bread has always been broken and the wine poured out in connection with a memorial use of the original words of institution. Very strong historical evidence this that, even though in this last particular we cannot make the ascending chain of evidence demonstrably link itself to the use of the institutory formula by Christ Himself, yet the lines so manifestly converge, that they must have a meeting-place in a fact, which—reversing the direction of thought—is also their common point of origin. [For a brief, popular, accurate sketch of this argument and its foundation facts, see Present Day Tracts, No. 36, by Sir William Muir.]
7. Indeed, the solemn tone of the opening words of the account in 1Co_11:23, it is suggested, betrays an already fixed “monumental” form of the teaching as to the origin and meaning of the supper. It is suffused with a tender solemnity, as it recalls in briefest suggestiveness the origin of the simple acts. Every stroke tells: “The Lord Jesus”; “In the same night that He was betrayed.” Jesus is in the foreground of the picture; but Judas is also there in the gloom of the background. “Took up a loaf,” and afterwards “a cup.” We can see His uplifted eyes; His as yet unpierced hands; we can hear His voice, “giving thanks,” even then, and the “betrayal” so nigh! “In the same night,” when selfishness touched the lowest depth it ever reached, and treachery sold the Lord of heaven for a slave’s paltry price, in that night and no other, did unselfish, atoning, redeeming Love solemnly devote itself to death for the lost objects of its benevolence. On that night, when death was so nigh, and the toils of the hunters were every moment being drawn closer round the Object of human and devilish hatred, was His heart “at leisure from itself,” not only to speak words of comfort and instruction to a sorrowing company in an upper room in Jerusalem, but also to take care for a Church in all ages and places and peoples, and to institute His tenderest, simplest memorial to the understanding and the heart, of Himself. Good uplifting itself in undimmed, immaculate, undefilable beauty in the midst of Evil. Light shining in the very midnight of black, defiling darkness. We who read will at least “give thanks … in remembrance of” Him and of His Supper table and its grace and love.
SEPARATE HOMILIES
1Co_11:20. “The Lord’s supper.”
I. Supper.—
1. The proper, Scriptural name of the ordinance. Jewish Christians familiar with the idea. Judaism had its supper. The birthday supper of their nation and “Church.” The Supper, the Sabbath, the Holy Place, the Circumcision-rite [with exactly the same continuity of “development” which obtains between successive stages of God’s creative work—neither less nor more close], have been brought forward into Christianity, but modified—preserving the basal principle, their raison d’être—and stamped with the seal of Christ, “the Lord.” In these “days of the Son of Man” everything has become “the Lord’s,” implicitly or expressly. We have “the Lord’s Day”; “Church” is [etymologically (see Skeat, Dict.) and in fact] “the Lord’s House”; Baptism is (at least closely connected with) the “Circumcision of Christ” (Col_2:11); in our chapter occur “the Lord’s Table, Cup, and Supper.” He had taken one of the many cups drunk at the Passover supper; and of it, with a simple loaf from the table, had made His own new Supper, belonging to a new order of things in which “the Lord Christ” is all, and in all.
2. Not a sacrifice.—
(1) A very large, historically important section of the Church affirms it is. “Body and blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ, bread and wine no longer remaining.” (Conc. Trid., Can., § 13, 1.) A transformation the more marvellous because not cognisable or verifiable by any of the senses. Men who alone can effect it are of a special order—“priests”; the service they conduct is a “sacrifice” of this “body,” etc.,—a real sacrifice, making expiation for the sins of the living, and (if they please) of the dead; in connection with it and with auricular confession of sins, they claim the power to remit (and, by consequence, to withhold) the “temporal” penalty of sin.
(2) Basis of all this is, “This is My body.” But cf. “This cup”—not even the wine in it—“is the New Testament in My blood” (Luk_22:20). Rigid literalism of interpretation carried consistently through ends in absurdity of interpretation.
(3) The Epistle to the Hebrews negatives all this. In it Christianity knows only one altar (1Co_13:10), one sacrifice for sins (1Co_10:12), one Priest to offer it (1Co_10:21). Many priests, repeated sacrifices, belonged only to the imperfection of the type. But even the type was right in this: one only place for offering this atoning sacrifice. Synagogues (in later days) were everywhere; but in Damascus, or Tarsus, or Rome, or (the later) Babylon, for an altar and a priest and an atoning sacrifice, a devout Jew must look toward, or visit, Jerusalem. On that one spot only might such a sacrifice be found. So in every place the Christian worshipper must turn to the Heavenly Sanctuary only, trusting that there the One High Priest, long ago “entered within the veil,” is presenting His one perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for sins. No priest, then, at an altar, but a fellow-guest,—representing, perhaps, the great Host Himself,—at a supper table:—the minister.
II. Three words gather up the teaching of the New Testament as to the ordinance:
1. Commemoration;
2. Communion;
3. Covenant.—
1. Commemoration.
(1) Luk_22:19 : “This do, in remembrance” (spoken when distributing the bread); revealed to Paul, “Do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance” (as He gave the cup). Paul adds the inspired comment: “As often as ye eat … ye do show the Lord’s death until He come.” The act looks backward to Calvary [as well as forward to the Second Coming. In the face of denials of the resurrection—and of His resurrection—or the scoffer who asks, “Where is the promise of His coming?” the Church at the Table proclaims, “We look for Him to appear the second time,” etc. (Heb_9:28); and we purpose to proclaim our hope and confident expectation “until He come”]. The Church at the Supper says: “We believe in Jesus Christ, … Who suffered under Pontius Pilate, … crucified, dead, and buried, … rose again, … ascended, … sitteth.” The Creed, with its facts of History, is implied in the celebration of the Supper.
(2) The very fact of the observance of such a Supper does something to prove our faith reasonable. [And, given the past facts, the hope for the future is reasonable too.] Impossible, travelling backward, to find an age when the Church did not meet to break bread together, and that as a token of faith in the Cross and its Atonement; all but impossible to account for their doing it—above all with this meaning—unless on the supposition that the events commemorated are really historical. These are reasons of no slight force on which may rest the faith of the heart of the Church of Christ.
(3) “The heart”; for this no mere commemoration of a fact of history. Conceivable that an annual public reading of the narratives, perhaps with some suitable ceremonial accompaniment, might have sufficed for that. The Lord made the commemoration one for the heart, as well as for the understanding, when He made the celebration itself symbolise the truths to be kept in view and enshrined in the history. The broken bread, the poured-out wine, lift the heart’s eyes to the body broken with scourge, thorn, nail, spear; to the blood poured forth to secure remission of sins. “The Lord’s death” is not merely the crucifying of one Jesus of Nazareth at a particular date, outside the walls of Jerusalem, but “God setting forth Christ Jesus a propitiation,” etc. (Rom_3:25-26); “setting Him forth” in full view of three worlds—angelic, infernal, human; in full view of the heart of the guest at the Supper. So from age to age the Church hands on the deposit of testimony—to the history and to the meaning of it—which each generation receives from its preceding one; [each generation receives the torch of Hope from its predecessor, and in turn hands it on to the waiting next one; only to be quenched when He comes].
2. Communion.—
(1) Paul’s comment in 1Co_10:16. Significant in the East, and not without meaning in the colder, prosaic West, to eat food together; it very early meant to establish a compact of peace, friendship, mutual defence. The persecuted Church of early ages felt vividly how sitting side by side at a common meal was an avowal of their unity in the face of heathen neighbours and kindred, and a pledging of themselves to love and fidelity each to other. The little Christian host, warring in an enemy’s country, at the Supper table join hands, and go forth again to fight [“strengthened as with bread of life”], to stand shoulder to shoulder, back to back, foursquare to the assault of the world and sin. “The club-feast of the Christian society” (Ecce Homo); this, though more. A periodical reunion of all believers in Christ, which may remind them of their separateness from the world, and of their close-drawn brotherhood and association for common aims, work, help, and in a common hope. [Here the close resemblance to the Love-feast, which was the “club-feast” and no more. Hence their conjoint, confluent celebration in early times; especially remembering how the first Lord’s Supper was the emphasising of a particular point in the course of a prolonged meal.]
(2) This satisfies, lawfully, the craving for some continuous linking with the Early Church, and for some visible linking with the world-wide Church of to-day, or of any one century. The gulf of nearly nineteen centuries is bridged over by an unbroken succession of little companies, who—kneeling, sitting, with gorgeous ritual, or with none at all—have broken bread and drunk wine together in memory of their common Lord and Founder. At the Supper table the humblest Christian joins hands with apostles and martyrs; with the living, fighting, working Church, in all Churches and lands to-day; with the living, resting, glorified Church of those “who have departed this life in His faith and fear.” The front ranks of God’s great sacramental host—one in every time and place—have long ago, or recently, passed into the skies; rear ranks are not yet come into view; midway at the Supper the Christian of to-day vindicates and confesses his place in the host. [No rank, or social distinction, known at the Table. Master, servant, children, all there.] “Ye being many,” etc. (1Co_10:17).
(3) “Partakers of that one body.” This to be noted. Not only association, brotherhood, fellowship, but all these resting upon, rooted in, a “communion,” a common sharing in the One Lord. He called the personal appropriation of Himself, so as to make Him the strength and sustenance of our spiritual life, “eating His flesh,” “drinking His blood” (John 6), “living by eating Him.” The same Holy Ghost—the Life of the Body, Who dwelt in a Corinthian Christian, dwells in a Christian in a foreign land to-day, dwells in the English Christian who sits at the “Communion” Supper.
3. Covenant.—
(1) The Covenant significance, announced in Christ’s words of institution, and in Paul’s report upon the matter, makes the Supper a Sacrament. [In old Church Latin, a symbol of some hidden truth.] Conceivably, as matter of expedient ceremonial and teaching, a man might have instituted a custom of a united supper as a memorial and communion ordinance. But only Christ could say Luk_22:20, or Mat_26:28.
(2) The writer of the Hebrews (1Co_9:19-20) carries back exegesis and thought to Exo_24:6-8. Under shadow of Sinai, newly given law read in hearing of Israel; that done, the book, with its precepts inwritten, the altar, the people, were sprinkled with the blood of their [own provision of] peace offerings. Moses cried, “The blood of the covenant.” etc. “The blood of the Old Testament”; “the blood of the New Testament.” The people provided the offerings; Moses, on behalf of God, ordained, accepted, used, the shed blood. God and Israel entered into covenant. They were pledged to obedience; God was pledged to faithfulness in blessing. As it means the Creed; so the Supper involves on man’s side the Commandments; and, on God’s side their preface, “I am the Lord thy God,” interpreted as in Luk_20:38.
(3) So, though we provide the materials for the meal, it is “the Lord’s Supper.” We procure,—He directs that we shall, and accepts and uses,—the bread and the wine; and He, as really as we are, is covenanted. Hence 1Co_11:28 : “So let him eat”; i.e. having examined himself; having renounced the sin he finds; purposing to avoid it by the covenanted help of Christ.
(4) No special appropriateness then for this Supper to a dying hour or a sick-chamber. Certainly no passport thence to a surer heaven; the bread is no heathenish obolus on the tongue, to fee some other-world ferryman or doorkeeper. Also, no special privilege of “good people” as such. All living in covenant communion with God in Christ, or seeking to do so; all sincere penitents “trying” to cast themselves with all reliance upon Christ; may come, guests welcome to the Supper, and may there learn to know, or to know better, the Lord Whose guests they are.
1Co_11:31. Self-judgment.
I. “If we would.”—Why do we not?
1. We are too indolent.—It is troublesome to go thoroughly into an incessant analysis of motives and inclinations and desires. These are often not single and undivided, but exceedingly complex. “A motive” is the resultant of the interaction of a whole set of motives. It is easier, it disturbs our comfortable adjustment of ourselves to our social environment less, it involves no inconvenient, “ungentlemanly” necessity of condemning what our “good sort” of neighbours are and do, to accept some ready-made, external, customary standard of character and behaviour, and to be content, in our own case at all events, with a tolerably close approximation to even this—so close that we pass muster with, it may be, not a little credit amongst our fellows. Yet such a standard must needs be concerned only with the outside of the man; the judgments of which it is the instrument must needs be somewhat “rough estimates.” It convicts only the few specially prominent points which it touches. All the detail of the outer life, and all the inner life, it ignores. So long as we are content to live outside our true self, and to be only on terms of acquaintance and not intimacy with ourself, the average or minimum character which passes muster in our “set,” whether Christian or “worldly,” may satisfy us. But we do not know the man whom that other Judge knows.
2. We are too proud.—Such experiment as men do sometimes make, under the constraint of that “moral honesty” which is really part of the Holy Spirit’s preliminary work in the human soul, so constantly ends in very uncomfortable, disquieting, unsatisfactory discoveries, that they will go no further. Now and then some unusually marked incident of moral failure forces upon them what is to them an amazing revelation; for a moment there yawns within them, and they must look down into, a moral abyss of darkness and defiling sin, such as they never suspected or believed was possible. Their new discovery may issue in a penitent, self-loathing prostration of the man at the feet of Him who can “create a clean heart” within; or it may be followed by a refusal to look any longer, or to learn any more; by a resolute endeavour to forget what has been seen and to avert the mind’s glance altogether from the direction in which such unwelcome discoveries may again by possibility lie. The natural heart rebels against the accusation, and still more against the conviction, of sin. Pride will not let men “judge themselves.”
3. Moral inability.—Not any original inability. “If we would” assumes that, normally, men may. There is, as a matter of fact, no total blindness, no total ignorance of God’s moral standard, no utter want of spiritual power; the grace of a Redeemer has secured some measure of these for every man—enough to “begin upon.” And this restored, gracious power of perception and judgment may grow by exercise; it will be increased on every act of obedience to its decisions; but it may also be disregarded and disobeyed until it is lost. The inner standards of right and wrong may be depraved, and the power to apply them be lost altogether. Blind man could not have given himself again an eye to see, or light to see by; but these given, he can create darkness for himself and renew his blindness. Too many cannot “judge themselves,” because the standard is lost and the faculty for applying it gone. But, short of that, there are, in varying degrees, the obscuration, the deadening, the blunting of the moral sensibility or sensitiveness, till, even with the objective standard in the Word of God still clearly legible, and comparison with it inevitable and constant, many men are, in popular phrase, “no judges of themselves.” They are in David’s case, who for more than nine months after the murder of Uriah the Hittite seems to have lived in happy enjoyment of his shameful possession of the murdered man’s wife, and to have occupied himself with the ordinary round of royal duty and pleasure, without any sense of remorse or of sin at all; conscience silent [or forcibly silenced: cf. Psa_32:3-5, which usually are connected with this episode in David’s career]; fear of God’s wrath hardly, if at all, felt. Such sensuality as that of Corinth, if even only allowed to enter and contaminate the imagination, thus dulls the moral sensibility and weakens the moral “judgment,” with fearfully cumulative effect. “If we would” means living with such a guard upon ourselves, that nothing is tolerated, encouraged, cultivated, which will interfere with the instant readiness of conscience to judge, with a growing fineness of perception, our actions, and our whole position before God.
II. What if we will not?—Then we come before another Judge, Whose decision goes a stage further than our own would do. Ours is the judgment of the jury—the verdict; His is the judgment both of the jury and of the judge—verdict and sentence and penalty. At Corinth it came as physical evil—sickness, and even death in many cases. But His penalties on this side the grave are not irrevocable nor merely penal; they may be corrective, reformatory, if with them a man will seek to have and to use the grace of God; the chastenings of a Father, not the punishments of a King, “condemning the world.” Three stages are marked out:
(1) Come into condemnation at your own court of first instance within, and then it may be you will not need to come into God’s condemnation.
(2) Come under the temporal, reformatory chastisements of a Divine Father. If these are tried and fail, if neither He nor your heart is suffered to rebuke, convict, reform, then
(3) You come into condemnation, to a judgment which knows no issue but the doom of “the world.” (Cf. the obscure passage, 1Co_5:5.)
HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS
1Co_11:30. The connection between moral and physical evil is:—
I. Clearly revealed.
II. Daily exemplified.
III. In accordance with true philosophy.
IV. Should be an incentive to holiness.—[J. L.]
1Co_11:30-32. Temporal judgments are:—
I. Usually occasioned by sin; yet the absence of them is no proof of innocence (Luk_13:1-5).
II. Mercifully designed to save us from final condemnation.
III. May possibly be averted by faithful dealing with ourselves.—[J. L.]
APPENDED NOTE
Note the suggestion of some upon 1Co_10:31, that the Lord’s Supper is [only] the highest instance of the sanctification of even the lowliest, most material, most nearly animal, part of our common life. Note also how at Emmaus the ordinary supper which is in progress is in a moment glorified into, at any rate, a suggestion of the “Last Supper.” Note how, similarly, in 1Co_11:25, the express statement of time makes the blessing, etc., of the bread to have taken place during supper, and the differentiating of the meal from the sacrament to have only become patent in connection with the sanctification of the cup to its new use. Well illustrated by the incident told of Fletcher of Madeley by James Rogers, the husband of the well-known Hester Ann Rogers: “I had long desired to converse with … Mr. Fletcher, and now an opportunity offered itself. Stopping at Bristol for a few days to rest myself and horse, I heard of his being at Mr. Ireland’s, about three miles off, in a poor state of health, and, with two of my brethren, took a ride to see him. When we came there, he was returning from a ride.… Dismounting from his horse, he came towards us with arms spread open and eyes lifted up to heaven, His apostolic appearance, with the whole of his deportment, amazingly affected us.” [Then, after a brief conversation, all in keeping with his habitual spirituality of mind], “We were about to take our leave, when Mr. Ireland sent his footman into the yard with a bottle of red wine and some slices of bread upon a waiter; we all uncovered our heads, whilst Mr. Fletcher craved a blessing upon the same; which he had no sooner done, than he handed first the bread to each, and then, lifting up his eyes to heaven, pronounced these words: ‘The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.’ Afterwards, handing the wine, he repeated in like manner, ‘The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ etc. But such a sacrament I never had before. A sense of the Divine presence rested upon us all; and we were melted into floods of tears. His worthy friend, Mr. Ireland, grieved to see him exhaust his little strength by so much speaking, took him by the arm, and almost forced him into the house; while he kept looking wishfully, and speaking to us, as long as we could see him. We then mounted our horses and rode away.”—Early Methodist Preachers, iv. 301–303.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv16, 18 16. “If any one seem to be contentious, we…
16. “If any one seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do the churches of God.” During Paul’s absence of three years in Asia many changes had taken place among them. A multitude of preachers from Judea, and other countries, had been there preaching; Peter, Apollos and other godly heralds of truth and righteousness, and still others whose Christian character was probably to be discounted. Many had backslidden. The church was racked with controversies on many different lines. Among other things, they wrote to Paul in reference to the women who were preaching among them bareheaded, like men, raising no controversy about their preaching and praying and taking an active part in the public worship, as Priscilla and others had done while Paul was with them. But there was quite a criticism against the habit of some of their women preaching and praying bareheaded, like men, the costume at that day being so identical among men and women that the veil of the latter and the shorn locks of the former became the ordinary designation of the sexes. While Paul is disposed to lay no emphasis on the latter, stating to them that it is unworthy of controversy, because the churches have no fixed custom requiring the woman to have something on her head when she exercises in public, yet, for the sake of harmony and to obviate unprofitable criticism, he advises all of the sisters to put something on their heads when they pray and preach in the meetings, setting forth a beautiful concatenation, beginning with God, then Christ, then the husband and then the wife. God is over Christ, and Christ over the husband, and the husband over the wife in the domestic government, which is the basis of all civil society and state government. The man is to have nothing on his head, indicative of the fact that he is king in the home government, no earthly authority being over him; while the woman is to have something on her head, symbolic of her husband’s authority over her. The apostle reminds them that the angels are present in their meetings, which is a beautiful and consolatory truth. We should remember that a portion of our congregations is unseen by mortal eyes, and yet present, i. e., “ministering angels hovering round.” As we fix up to go out in company, we ought to be decorous in the presence of the angels. Hence he advises the women to extend courtesy not only to the human portion of the audience, but to the angels present, by putting something on their heads so they wouldn’t look odd nor uncouth. While he thus answers their questions, advising the women praying and preaching to wear something on their heads by way of decorum, relieving them of unnecessary criticism, at the same time he attaches no gravity to it, as there is no such principle settled in the churches.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv16–19 But if any man seemeth to be [a mild…
But if any man seemeth to be [a mild way of saying, "if any man is"] contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God . [Knowing the argumentative spirit of the Greeks, and being conscious that it was likely that some would even yet want to dispute the matter, despite his three reasons to the contrary, Paul takes it entirely out of the realm of discussion into that of precedent. The settled and established practice of the church had from the beginning followed the course outlined by Paul, which showed that other apostles besides himself had either established it by rule, or endorsed it in practice. In this appeal for uniformity Paul makes it clear that all churches should strive to make their practices uniform, not variant. Paul is here discussing how men and women should be attired when they take a leading part in public worship. He will speak later as to whether or not women should take any such part at all in public worship ( 1Co_14:34-35 ; 1Ti_2:12 ). We to-day as males worship with uncovered heads in consequence of Paul's instruction; but not for his reasons. It is now an expression of reverence, which the Jew then expressed by taking off his sandals. "Holland," says Stanley, "is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only." In Western countries a woman's hat has never had any symbolism whatever. We see nothing in Paul's argument which requires us to make it symbolic. The problem in Western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on. The principle, however, still holds good that the woman is subordinate to the man, and should not make any unseemly, immodest, vaunting display of an independence which she does not possess.]
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v17 Unseemly behavior in public worship:
Unseemly behavior in public worship:
v. 17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
Read full note →
v. 18. For, first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
v. 19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
v. 20. When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.
v. 21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
v. 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.
The matter which the apostle now broaches is not one of mere custom or usage which proper Christian judgment may adjust to suit the needs of the situation, but a rule to which he demands assent: But in giving you this command I do not praise you, in that not for the better, but for the worse you come together. The charge concerns the proper form of public worship, especially if connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He does not praise them, he cannot withhold his displeasure, his censure: Because not for the better, but for the worse you come together. Instead of being edified, aided in their spiritual growth, they were harmed in their faith; their meetings were held in a spirit of frivolousness that took no account of the sanctity of the occasion. The reason for this was, in the first place: Whenever you come together in assembly, it is continually reaching my ears that schisms, dissensions, have their place among you; and in part I credit the stories. The service that Paul is speaking of is that which was connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, which was held often, at least every Sunday. This service was entirely within the congregation, no outsider being admitted, no unbeliever or Gentile being present. A common meal was first eaten (the so-called love-feast), after which followed the Holy Communion. In Corinth the congregation had split up into cliques, separated from one another partly by social distinctions, partly by the feeling due to the divisions in their midst. Instead of holding a common meal, each clique chose a corner for itself, leaving the other strictly alone. As Paul says, he could very well believe this to be true, since that seemed to be a necessity of the case: For indeed also heresies, parties, must exist among you, in order that the really approved might become evident in their midst. This was in accordance with the divine administration by which evil, far from hindering, is made a servant of good. God will finally give up the persistent wranglers, that delight in wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, to their evil mind, the result being that the true Christians, that are approved of God, are made manifest in the congregation. Augustine very properly says: Heresies are the grindstone of the Church. Their sin serves to reveal them and thus to purge and purify the Christian congregation of an unpleasant discordant element.
The apostle now makes a specific charge: When, then, you assemble at the same place, it is not an eating of the Lord’s Supper. It appears that the Corinthian congregation, even at this early day, had a definite place for meeting, since Paul is evidently not speaking of house congregations. Their purpose undoubtedly was to celebrate the Eucharist, and the earthly elements, bread and wine, were not lacking, but the manner in which they came together rendered the celebration a farce and a blasphemy. For in eating, as the hour for the meal came, every one took out, brought forward hastily, his own supper, seeking out and sitting down with his own particular friends. The custom formerly had been for the members to bring what they wished, what they could afford for the purpose, the food then being divided equally among all. But now that the new selfish custom became prevalent, the poor people had little or nothing, and therefore went hungry, while the wealthier members had more than sufficient for their needs and became intoxicated. "The scene of sensual greed and pride might well culminate in drunkenness. " Surely a disgraceful spectacle for a Christian congregation to present!
The reproof of Paul, therefore, did not lack sharpness: Have you no houses to eat and drink in? Surely they could not have been in such straits as to make the satisfying of their appetites in public worship necessary. Or, on the other hand, do you despise the congregation of God and put those that are without means to shame? If that was their deliberate intention, to heap scorn upon the Church of God and to make the poor members feel their poverty, their inability to keep up their end of such profligate behavior, then their action was all the more reprehensible. What could and should the apostle say to them under the circumstances? Was it possible for him to praise them for such behavior? He frankly told them that this was out of the question. How could he have excused such inexcusable frivolousness, especially since it occurred in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist!
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v17 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
As Paul talks about communion, the Lord's supper, he reminds them to have right attitudes as well as unity. He reminds them that if they fail in those things when taking communion, they will become sick and die, as has already happened to some of them.
Read full note →
in the following instructions, I do not praise you. For when
Another possible meaning is "as I give you these instructions, there is something for which I cannot praise you: when"
the following instructions
"the instructions I am about to talk about"
come together
"gather together" or "meet"
it is not for the better but for the worse
"you do not help each other; instead, you harm each other"
in the church
"as believers." Paul is not talking about being inside a building.
there are divisions among you
"you divide yourselves into opposing groups"
For there must also be factions among you
Possible meanings 1) The word "must" indicates that that this situation is likely to happen. AT: "For there will probably be factions among you" or 2) Paul was using irony to shame them for having factions. AT: "For you seem to think that there must be factions among you" or "For you seem to think that you must divide yourselves" (See: Irony)
factions
opposing groups of people
so that those who are approved may be recognized among you
Possible meanings are 1) "so that people will know the most highly regarded believers among you" or 2) "so that people can display this approval to the others among you." Paul may have been using irony, saying the opposite of what he wanted the Corinthians to understand, to shame them. (See: Irony)
who are approved
Possible meanings are 1) "whom God approves" or 2) "whom you, the church, approve."
translationWords
praise
church
believe
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv16–19 11:16 if anyone wants to argue about this: Some…
11:16 if anyone wants to argue about this: Some in the cosmopolitan Corinthian church did not agree with Paul. • Paul’s final argument is that the use of a head covering was an established custom of the church. Most contemporary interpreters take this verse to mean that the custom was culturally based.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.