1 Corinthians · Chapter 11

Verse 1. Be ye followers of me] This verse certainly belongs to the preceding chapter, and is here out of all proper place and connection.

Verse 1. Be ye followers of me — Carefully, therefore, follow my directions, and imitate my example, in condescension to the weaknesses and prejudices of others, for their good; even as I also — In this, and in every thing else, copy after the perfect pattern of our great Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. This verse evidently belongs to the preceding chapter, where the apostle had proposed himself as an example, and ought not to have been separated from it.

1. Followers—This verse belongs to the close of the last chapter, and should be read in continuation. Of Christ—He would have followers, not as being original and independent, but as he was imitator and follower of the divine model.

PAUL’S SIXTH RESPONSE:—REGARDING THE HEAD-COSTUME OF THE DIFFERENT SEXES IN RELIGIOUS SERVICES, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.

Stanley well describes the intense religions significance of modes of dress in ancient times. In earlier Greece the length of the garment decided whether a man was an Ionian, with one set of gods and rites, or a Dorian, with another. But it was in the religious duties that the dress of the head possessed a marked import. The Jews, as Grotius says, were accustomed to perform the services of the temple with the head covered, assigning as a reason for the symbolic act that their unworthy eyes might not behold the majesty of God. This mode of reverence they transferred to the synagogue; so that, following Hebrew custom, St. Paul would have required men as well as women to worship with covered head. The ancient Greeks, on the contrary, sacrificed with bared heads. In ancient Italy, before the Roman age, the Greek custom prevailed; but AEneas, it is said, brought from Troy the custom of sacrificing with covered head; the assigned reason being, that the eyes of the man might not, in performing the holy rite, chance to fall upon any unholy or ill-omened object. This became the permanent custom for all ages of pagan Rome. So that Paul, rejecting the covered head of both Jerusalem and Rome, enjoined the bared head of Greece upon the males of the Corinthian Church. This uncovered head symbolized holy cheer and boldness before men in worship according to Christ. Hence Tertullian tells the Pagans, “We Christians pray with outspread hands, as harmless; with uncovered heads, as unashamed: without a prompter, as from the heart.” The custom prevalent in modern Europe, derived from the ancient Germanic races, of baring the head in reverence to a superior, though it is the idea most obvious to an American Christian, has no actual place here. That custom presupposed that princes and nobles, wearing a crown as symbol of rank, would retain it on the head on all occasions of etiquette, and require an inferior’s head, as a reverse symbol, to be bare of any cover whatever; so that the bared head and the bow of the head are now the universal symbols of deference.

Equally various, among different tribes and times, was and is the mode of wearing the hair. The ancient Greeks wore the hair long; and “flowing-haired Acheans” was one of the customary epithets applied to them by Homer. But in Paul’s time the hair was uniformly cut, except upon religious vows. The long hair of a male, done up in elaborate style, was a symbol of base effeminacy, belonging to men of prostituted manhood. The Burmese, both men and women, wear long hair, and the Chinese wear long hair braided into a pigtail.

It will be seen, perhaps, in the course of our notes, that Paul’s directions were based, partly upon symbolic reasons, temporary in their character, partly upon the natural sense of beauty, and partly upon fixed divine law. It is in this last case only that the direction is specially permanent in its nature; in the other cases the maxim might apply, “The rule ceases when the reason of the rule ceases.”

V. 2. I praise you-The greater part of you.

Verse 2. That ye remember me in all things] It appears that the apostle had previously given them a variety of directions relative to the matters mentioned here; that some had paid strict attention to them, and that others had not; and that contentions and divisions were the consequences, which he here reproves and endeavours to rectify. While Paul and Apollos had preached among them, they had undoubtedly prescribed every thing that was necessary to be observed in the Christian worship: but it is likely that those who joined in idol festivals wished also to introduce something relative to the mode of conducting the idol worship into the Christian assembly, which they might think was an improvement on the apostle’s plan.

Verses 2, 3. Now I praise you, brethren — That is, the greater part of you; that you remember me — That you bear in mind all my directions; and keep the ordinances — Observe the rules of public worship in most points; as I delivered them to you — Formerly. But I would have you know — As if he had said, Yet I must further inform you respecting some things wherein you are defective in your attention to these rules. Consider, in particular, the subordination of persons appointed by God to be observed; That the head of every man is Christ — Who was the Creator, and is the immediate Supreme Governor of all mankind, especially of such as believe in him, being, in a peculiar sense, the head of his body the church, Colossians 1:18. So that every Christian should often recollect the relation in which he hath the honour to stand to Christ, as an engagement to observe the most respectful decorum in his whole behaviour toward him. And comparing the different sexes, it must be observed, the head of the woman is the man — To whom therefore she ought to be in subjection, and to pay a reverent respect, as in the Lord. And the head of Christ — As Mediator and man; is God — The Father, from whom he derives all his dignity and authority. Christ, in his mediatorial character, even considered in his whole person, acts in subordination to his Father, who rules by him, and hath constituted him sovereign of all worlds, visible and invisible. And, as the Father’s glory is interested in the administration of Christ, so is the glory of Christ, in some measure, interested in the conduct and behaviour of those men, whose more immediate head he is; and it may be added, of those women, whose heads such men are.

Verse 2. Keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. The apostle mentions these twice to the Thessalonians, and nearly in the same words. 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 3:6. What were they? General outlines of order in worship, and rules of private conduct for the members of the churches, whether male or female, married or single. How could the infant church subsist without traditions, that they might walk by the same rule, and mind the same things. These ordinances seem implied in the next words.

2. Now I praise you—Softening the warnings of the previous chapters. That—Literally rendered, All of mine ye have remembered, and all the deliverances I have delivered ye receive. This is to prepare the way for his now prescribing the methods of worship. Ordinances usually imply doctrines handed down from generation to generation; here, the directions personally imparted.

I CORINTHIANS

DIVISION V

ABOUT THE ABUSES IN CHURCH MEETINGS

CHAPTERS 11:2-34

SECTION 20 — WOMEN MUST NOT LAY ASIDE

THEIR APPROPRIATE AND DISTINCTIVE DRESS

CH. 11:2-16

I praise you that in all things you remember me, and that, according as I delivered to you the traditions, you hold them fast. But I wish you to know that of every man Christ is the head: and head of woman, the man is; and head of Christ, God is. Every man praying or prophesying with covered head puts to shame his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with the head unveiled puts to shame her head. For she is one and the same thing as the shaven woman. For, if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is a shameful thing to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For indeed a man ought not to have his head veiled, being an image and glory of God. But the woman is man's glory. For not the man is from the woman, but the woman from the man: for also man was not created because of the woman, but woman because of the man. For this cause the woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels. Except neither is woman without man nor man without woman. For, just as the woman is from the man, so also is the man by means of the woman. And all things are from God.

Judge in yourselves. Is it fitting that to God a woman pray unveiled? Does not Nature itself teach you? Because indeed a man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonor to him. But a woman if she have long hair, it is a glory to her. Because the hair is given to her instead of a covering. But if anyone thinks to be fond of strife, we for our part have no such custom, nor have the churches of God.

By a commendation (1 Corinthians 11:2) and a broad general principle (1 Corinthians 11:3) Paul opens the way to a new matter; on which in 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5a he at once pronounces sentence. This sentence he justifies in 1 Corinthians 11:5b-15; and in 1 Corinthians 11:16 concludes § 20 with a warning.

Ver. 2. In all things: limited (see under Romans 5:18) by Paul's mental horizon at the moment of writing. It refers probably to church-meetings only: for only of these does 1 Corinthians 11 treat. In all their conduct of public worship they think of Paul and of the directions he gave. This is a mark that underneath the disaffection implied in the factions there lay a genuine loyalty to the apostle. Of this loyalty, the mission of Stephanas and others (1 Corinthians 16:17) was a mark: and an enthusiastic outburst of it was evoked (2 Corinthians 7:11f) by this Epistle.

Delivered: cognate with tradition: 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3; Jude 1:3; Luke 1:2; Acts 6:14; 16:4; Romans 1:24; 4:25. Traditions: instructions about doctrine or practice (here probably the latter: for of this § 20 treats) handed on from one to another: 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8; Matthew 15:2.

The traditions: probably the more or less definite instructions given by Christ to the apostles for the church. Samples are found in 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3. These instructions Paul had, when present with them or by his former letter, given to his readers: and he now commends their careful remembrance of them. This does not contradict what follows: for §§ 20, 21 refer, not to omissions or alterations, but to new practices which had crept in. And Paul does not say, I praise you all. To these words, Estius appeals in proof that there is an unwritten, but binding, apostolic tradition. If we, like Paul's readers, had proof that certain instructions came actually from him, we should accept them as authoritative, even though unwritten. But I do not know of any unwritten tradition which can be confidently traced to an apostle.

V. 3. I would have you know-He does not seem to have given them any order before concerning this.

The head of every man-Particularly every believer.

Is Christ, and the head of Christ is God-Christ, as he is Mediator, acts in all things subordinately to his Father. But we can no more infer that they are not of the same divine nature, because God is said to be the head of Christ, than that man and woman are not of the same human nature, because the man is said to be the head of the woman.

Verse 3. The head of every man is Christ] The apostle is speaking particularly of Christianity and its ordinances: Christ is the Head or Author of this religion; and is the creator, preserver, and Lord of every man. The man also is the lord or head of the woman; and the Head or Lord of Christ, as Mediator between God and man, is God the Father. Here is the order-God sends his Son Jesus Christ to redeem man; Christ comes and lays down his life for the world; every man who receives Christianity confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father; and every believing woman will acknowledge, according to Genesis 3:16, that God has placed her in a dependence on and subjection to the man. So far there is no difficulty in this passage.

Verses 2, 3. Now I praise you, brethren — That is, the greater part of you; that you remember me — That you bear in mind all my directions; and keep the ordinances — Observe the rules of public worship in most points; as I delivered them to you — Formerly. But I would have you know — As if he had said, Yet I must further inform you respecting some things wherein you are defective in your attention to these rules. Consider, in particular, the subordination of persons appointed by God to be observed; That the head of every man is Christ — Who was the Creator, and is the immediate Supreme Governor of all mankind, especially of such as believe in him, being, in a peculiar sense, the head of his body the church, Colossians 1:18. So that every Christian should often recollect the relation in which he hath the honour to stand to Christ, as an engagement to observe the most respectful decorum in his whole behaviour toward him. And comparing the different sexes, it must be observed, the head of the woman is the man — To whom therefore she ought to be in subjection, and to pay a reverent respect, as in the Lord. And the head of Christ — As Mediator and man; is God — The Father, from whom he derives all his dignity and authority. Christ, in his mediatorial character, even considered in his whole person, acts in subordination to his Father, who rules by him, and hath constituted him sovereign of all worlds, visible and invisible. And, as the Father’s glory is interested in the administration of Christ, so is the glory of Christ, in some measure, interested in the conduct and behaviour of those men, whose more immediate head he is; and it may be added, of those women, whose heads such men are.

Ver. 3. The head of every man is Christ. He rose to be Lord both of the living and the dead. Romans 14:9. The head of the woman is the man: thy desire shall be to thy husband. Genesis 3:16. And the head of Christ is God, as the Father, and fountain of deity. John 5:19, 20. — Christ in his humiliation was the servant of rulers, Isaiah 49:7; and was made a little lower than the angels. Psalm 8:6. Hebrews 2:7, 9. But now he has no head, except the Father, who is in himself all in all.

3. Head of every man—Of every Christian, says Grotius. Yet in the redemption Christ has a headship of the race. See notes on Romans 5:12-21. Here, however, as a harmonious ruling and obeyed headship is implied, Grotius’s limitation is correct. Of every man, by Paul addressed, the Head was Christ.

The headship of our Lord over the Christian man is a headship of divine authority, in which, however, when complete and perfect, the authority merges into a blessed spontaneity and concurrence of wills. Such is the apostle’s view of marriage, of which the union of Christ and his Church is the type. A divinely-constituted headship similarly belongs to the husband in the family; but the true idea of the family is a unity of love, in which the command is the expression of the common happiness, and obedience is a loving concurrence of wills. If the realization of the idea is seldom complete, that is true of all sublunary constitutions, arising from the jars of sin. The man—That to the masculine side of humanity (as of all other living races of beings) belongs the force, the executive endowment, and the consequent headship, is plain to every eye that looks at male and female through all animated nature as they are created. It is shown in every quality of their respective human frames. Size of brain and body; strength of bone, fibre, and nerve; tendencies of instinct, feeling, and will; all proclaim that man should bear the brunt of the battle of life, and, therefore, must plan the campaign and order the particular manoeuvres. To talk of equality here contradicts God and nature. It is one of “the rights of woman,” as it is one of the instincts, to retire to the rear of the fight, and live under the protection of a stronger arm than her own. It is one of her “rights” to lean on that arm for aid, and to look to that head to plan for her well-being. And to this it is the noblest instinct of man that responds. It is the thought of wife and children, rather than thought of self, that prompts the soldier to the fiercest bravery, or the labourer to his cruelest toil. He can bear any thing; but how subject the tender ones at home to hardship, disgrace, or disgusts. To win for her at home honour, ornament, and happiness, is the crown of his own enjoyments. The whole history of civilization shows that the robust thought and toil are man’s. The pyramids, the temples, the capitoliums, the city walls and towers, the aqueducts and bridges, the railways and telegraphs, are all the products of man’s hand and brain. The battles by him are fought, and by consequence to him belong (save in exceptional instances) the diplomacies, the senates, the cabinets, and the executive chairs. In short, to man belongs, by nature and by God, the national as well as the domestic rule. If in a free government woman should ever possess the right of suffrage, it would be (like her consent or her veto in accepting or rejecting an offered husband) rather the particular right to choose her ruler than a power to rule.

Ver. 3. An important general principle, set up as a platform of approach to the specific matter of § 20.

The head: placed by God above the body but in closest and vital union with it, to direct its action. The same word in Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:19 suggests that every man refers only to believers, whom alone in 1 Corinthians. 11, Paul has in view. For, although the headship of Christ rests originally upon our creation “in Him” and “through Him and for Him,” (Colossians 1:16,) yet only those who believe are vitally joined to Him.

Head of woman: i.e. immediate head. For Christ is Head of the whole Church. Woman is placed by God under the rule and direction of the man. This is most conspicuously true of husband and wife. But since marriage is but a fulfillment of God's purpose in the creation of the sexes, these words are true of the sexes generally.

Head of Christ: even touching his divine nature. For the Eternal Son, though equal (John 16:15) to the Father is yet (John 5:26; 6:57) derived from and therefore (1 Corinthians 15:28) for ever subject to, Him. Of this eternal subordination, the eternal devotion and the historic obedience of the Son to the Father are an outflow. See under 1 Corinthians 3:23; 8:6. Notice that the headship is an objective relationship on which (Ephesians 5:22f) rests an obligation to obedience.

Before he warns women not to seek to escape, even in the matter of dress, from the subordinate position of their sex, Paul reminds them that order and subordination are a law of the kingdom of God; that the husband is himself under the direction of Christ; and that even within the divine Trinity the Son is, in accordance with the law of His being, obedient to the Father.

V. 4. Every man praying or prophesying-Speaking by the immediate power of God.

With his head-And face.

Covered-Either with a veil or with long hair.

Dishonoureth his head-St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head, reflects a dishonour on Christ, whose representative he is.

Verse 4. Praying, or prophesying] Any person who engages in public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that profhteuein, to prophesy, signifies to speak unto men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1 Corinthians 14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by exhortation, or even preaching.

Having his head covered] With his cap or turban on, dishonoureth his head; because the head being covered was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a representative of Christ, and on this account his being veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was veiled, for which they gave this reason. “He should veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and unworthy with open face to behold him.” See much in Lightfoot on this point.

Verses 4-6. Every man, &c. — Now upon this principle, with a reference to the usages that prevail at this time with you at Corinth, I may properly observe: Every man praying or prophesying — By an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, in a public assembly; having his head covered — With a veil, which is a sign of subjection; dishonoureth his head — Christ, who, having made him the head of the woman, and given him authority over her, is dishonoured when the man renounces that authority by appearing veiled in the presence of the woman, as her inferior. But every woman praying or prophesying — Under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church; with her head uncovered — Without any veil over her head and face; dishonoureth her head — Disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven — It is the same in effect as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures. Therefore, if the woman be not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection; let her also be shorn — Let her appear with her hair cut off like a man, or like a woman of bad character, such being sometimes punished in that manner: but if it be a shame for a woman — To appear in public shorn or shaven — Especially in a religious assembly; let her be covered — Let her for the same reason keep on her veil.

Ver. 4. Every man praying or prophesying, which latter word designates here unfolding the mysteries of Christ, who as head of the family, and prince on the throne, wears the crown. Now as the veil is a mark of subjection; and as the man openly preaching in the church acts as the ambassador of Christ, he would dishonour Christ to preach so covered as to hide his countenance, which shines with the image of Christ. The idea being here that of subjection, Paul, I think, who himself had a bald head, as stated in the introduction to the Acts, would not reprehend our Puritan and Lutheran divines for the velvet cap; neither did he mean to reprehend the women, “who helped him in the Lord.” — On the subject of decency in worship, St. Paul would not have christian women in their devotion to resemble the pythoness, who with dishevelled hair, and roaring voice, invoked three hundred gods.

Et crines effusa sacerdos

Tercentum tonat ore Deos.

ÆNEID. 4:509.

4. Every man praying… covered—Either from the Corinthian letter or the messengers that brought it, Paul learned that the Christian rule of worship was unsettled. Men following the Hebrew or Roman custom probably prayed with the head covered. Women, doubting what under the Christian system was the law for their sex, in what they perhaps considered Christian freedom removed the customary hood from their heads. The notion of Ruckart and others, that the motive of these uncovering women was to display their beauty, has not one syllable in the apostle’s rebuke or argument to sustain it. On the contrary, his whole force of reasoning goes to show that a proper subordination truly belongs to the female sex; and it is solely a questioning of this truth which his argument presupposes. It does not appear that any real disorders occurred. They were holy women endowed with spiritual gifts, who would need these directions from the higher authority of their founder apostle.

Paul gives caution to the men first here and in verse 7. The ancient commentators held that St. Paul wrote to check the men as well as the women; but later writers, as Ruckart, Alford, and Stanley, say that he refers to the men merely, in illustration of the case of the women. We hold that the former are clearly correct. As we have shown, different customs for men on this subject prevailed among the different nationalities and religions which were now promiscuously crowded into Corinth. Jewish and Roman converts would be predisposed to pray with heads covered, while the Greeks would uncover. The fact that Paul treats the case of woman so much more fully is because it was a question of propriety; and of the proprieties and refinements of life, woman, being the special guardian, needed to be very fully set right. From all this it is clear that St. Paul decides for the covered head, not from any divine command, or any immutable propriety, but because, in the existing state of customs, the covered head was the symbol of modesty. It is the modesty that is the permanent principle; the covered head is the transient expression of the principle. Dishonoureth his head—Stanley makes head, here, possess a double reference, namely, to Christ and to the man’s own head. The latter, however, is doubtless Paul’s real meaning; the former can be brought in only by inference. Josephus says, “Izates, throwing himself to the earth, and dishonouring his head with ashes, fasted calling upon God.” To the Christian man belonged a triumphant, unblushing worship. Christ, his head, not being visibly present, there was no mere humanity before which it became him to cover. See note verse 7. In modern times men are uncovered in Christian worship in consequence of Paul’s rule, but not for his reason. It is now rather the uncovering of reverence for the Divine presence, or respect for the congregation or service, which a Jew expressed by putting off his sandals. To the universal modern Christian practice of bared heads in church, Stanley says that “Holland is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only.”

Ver. 4. Does not even suggest that this abuse existed at Corinth. For to woman pertains the whole argument of § 20: and, for this argument, since it turns on the relation of the sexes, it was needful to explain the contrasted position of the man. By this contrast, as usual, Paul paves a way to his main argument.

Prophesy: see 1 Corinthians 12:10.

Puts to shame etc.: proved in 1 Corinthians 11:7a. He forsakes his place of honor in the race, which a correct instinct has ever marked by a distinction of dress; and thus does himself dishonor. And this dishonor is visible and conspicuous in his treatment of his own head.

V. 5. But every woman-Who, under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, (for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church,) prays or prophesies without a veil on her face, as it were disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head.

For it is the same, in effect, as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages, men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures.

Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth, &c.] Whatever may be the meaning of praying and prophesying, in respect to the man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some men, might speak to others to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel, Joel 2:28, and referred to by Peter, Acts 2:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on women, the prophecy could not have had its fulfilment. The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonour her head-her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.

Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that, considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus; “having cut off her hair, and stripped her before her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors.” And we know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Numbers 5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery, had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was reduced to a state of slavery: pepratai, dedouleuken, ghn eskayen, sesulhtai thv kefalhv to kallov, thn kouran orav. lib. viii. cap. 6, “she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its ornament,” &c. It was also the custom among the Greeks to cut off their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning for his wife Alcestis, says: penqov gunaikov thv de koinousqai lego, koura xurhkei kai melampeplw stolh. “I order a general mourning for this woman! let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on.” Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband, because suspected to be not very sound in her morals; so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil would be considered in the same light.

Verses 4-6. Every man, &c. — Now upon this principle, with a reference to the usages that prevail at this time with you at Corinth, I may properly observe: Every man praying or prophesying — By an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, in a public assembly; having his head covered — With a veil, which is a sign of subjection; dishonoureth his head — Christ, who, having made him the head of the woman, and given him authority over her, is dishonoured when the man renounces that authority by appearing veiled in the presence of the woman, as her inferior. But every woman praying or prophesying — Under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church; with her head uncovered — Without any veil over her head and face; dishonoureth her head — Disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven — It is the same in effect as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures. Therefore, if the woman be not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection; let her also be shorn — Let her appear with her hair cut off like a man, or like a woman of bad character, such being sometimes punished in that manner: but if it be a shame for a woman — To appear in public shorn or shaven — Especially in a religious assembly; let her be covered — Let her for the same reason keep on her veil.

5. Every woman that prayeth… prophesieth—Grotius thus comments: “So in the Old Testament women were prophetesses, as Miriam, sister of Moses, Exodus 15:20; Deborah, Judges 4:1, 5; the wife of Isaiah, Isaiah 8:3; Huldah, 2 Kings 22:14; so also in the New Testament, the daughters of Philip, Acts 21:9, and others. Such were accustomed also to expound the sacred prophecies publicly, as appears from the passages above quoted from the Old Testament. Wherefore Paul’s prohibition of women from performing the office of teaching, is to be understood with this exception, unless they have the special commandment of God.”

Wetstein says, similarly: “It was not permissible for women to teach or lead prayers in the congregation, (xiv, 34,) unless, for an exceptional reason and in a special manner, they were impelled to so doing by the Spirit of God. Acts 2:17; 21:9; Luke 1:41, 42; 1 Samuel 10:5, 10; 1 Chronicles 25:1-3; 2 Chronicles 29:30; 35:15.” It is sometimes denied that any female prophet ever prophesied in public. But in Judges 4:4, Deborah is styled “a prophetess” who “judged”—that is, ruled—Israel in peace and led her army in war. Her “judgment,” (Judges 4:5,) her generalship, and her chant of triumph, were all public. Her judging itself was by divine mission and impulse; and so was, strictly, in the biblical sense, prophecy. Her chant was prophecy, for 1 Chronicles 25:1-3 shows that music and psalm came under the head of prophecy. It is ludicrous to suppose that it was in accordance with feminine modesty for Deborah to judge the people and command an army in public, but a violation of that virtue to utter a supernatural sentence in a religions assembly! Miriam’s rhythmical prophecy was uttered with timbrel before Israel’s whole camp. Huldah was installed in the prophetic college, and it was permitted her to teach a body of men sent to her by the king, including the high priest. These cases completely negative the doctrine that an inspired or gifted woman was unauthorized to speak in public. To make Paul forbid a woman’s public prophesying is to make him nullify some of the most striking facts of Old Testament history.

Both the above eminent commentators (with whom Wesley concurs) maintain that Paul in this passage assumes the right of women in the proper exceptional cases to pray or prophesy in the congregation, and maintain that in 1 Corinthians 14:34 he forbids the mass of women to interrupt the service with their noisy chatter. Alford, Stanley, and others, maintain that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, not only forbids the uncovered head in these services, but forbids the service by women at all. Thus Calvin is quoted as saying: “In here disapproving of the one, he does not approve of the other. Paul attends to one thing at a time.” But the “one thing” which this makes him “attend to” seems a very unwise “thing.” Why should he forbid praying uncovered when he condemns and prohibits their praying at all? Such a view vacates this whole paragraph of sense, rendering it so much blank paper. The Corinthian query clearly was, Ought women to have the head uncovered in their public prophesying? And St. Paul’s brief, plain answer should have been, There is to be no women’s public praying or prophesying at all. Prohibiting the incident permits the main thing. It assumes that if the incident is set right, the whole thing is right. Both Grotius and Wetstein hold that feminine prophecy is “for exceptional reason,” and by divine specialty. Hence it is often said that the female at the present day must, in her own case, in order to be accepted, be able to show an express divine authorization to prophesy or preach. To this, however, it may fairly be replied, that even the male prophet must individually profess to be “moved by the Holy Ghost,” to his office. Such a “call,” in either case, is not miraculous, but is supernatural and individual. In the case of the man, it is in accordance with the nature of man, and with the ordinary rule of Providence. In the case of the woman, it is less accordant with the feminine nature, and is more extraordinary and special; especially where it implies the exercise of authority over both sexes. With her head uncovered—Before the gaze of masculinity it often is at once the modesty and the dignity of woman to vail herself. That unrestrained gaze is often profane; and it is a divine reserve that shrinks and conceals from it. In that reserve is contained even the proudest and noblest self-respect; so that under the forms of humiliation resides woman’s exaltation. Thereby she becomes, to man’s idea, a something sacred and imperial. Let her forfeit that ideal and she dethrones herself, and becomes an unlovely being. By most divine law each sex is confined to its own nature. It is equally shameful for manhood to become effeminate, and for womanhood to become masculine. All one as if… shaven—One in shamefulness, for both are an unwarrantable exposure, but different in degree; for the former is a beginning and the latter is the consummation. The covering of the head as a sign of womanly modesty before man was a rigid point with the Jews. And noblest was the woman that carried it out most nobly. “The lady Kimhith bore seven sons, of whom each one attained the high priesthood. They inquired of her what she had done to accomplish so great a felicity. She replied: “At no time did ever the ceilings of my house behold the locks of my head.” — Quoted by Wetstein. Doubtless this, however, was but a sample of the tone of her character on all other points. This energy of self-control and severity of obedience to law is the very essence of a lofty moral nature. No wonder the woman of such a nature should give a line of high priests to the world; she is a born high priestess.

Of course the apostle at the present day would not consider the hood as possessing any religious significance. Women now sit or stand before men with heads uncovered, not only in the social circle, but in large assemblies; nor is it any religious obligation that requires her to wear a bonnet in church, or forbids her to speak or pray with bonnet off. And all this, when the letter of the apostle’s language condemns the uncovered head in the most explicit terms. But really, Paul condemned the uncovered female head of his day because it then expressed the moving of woman from her sphere, and suggested a dishonouring association, calculated to bring the purity of the Church into suspicion.

Verse 5b.- 6. The shaven woman: words well understood by Paul's readers. There were women at Corinth, the most shameless women who shaved off their hair, to obliterate entirely from their appearance all distinction of sex. With proofs of this, I cannot stain my pages. Paul says that the woman who lays aside her usual head-dress is practically the same as these shameless women. Of this argument, 1 Corinthians 11:6 shows the force.

Shorn, or cropped: the hair cut short.

Shaven: the hair removed altogether with a razor.

It is a shameful thing: point of the argument in proof of “puts to shame” in 1 Corinthians 11:5a. Human propriety declares it to be a shameful thing to a woman to be shorn: and the case of those women at Corinth who actually were shorn or shaven confirmed this verdict. What is the ground of this sense of shame? A universal and correct sentiment that the distinction of sex ought to be seen very conspicuously in a person's dress. Now, for a woman to remove her hair, was in part to obliterate this outward distinction of sex; and was therefore a trampling under foot of this universal sentiment of propriety. And, as a matter of fact, in Paul's day it was a mark of desertion of the dignity of womanhood. Paul says, and leaves his readers to judge of the truth of his words, that to lay aside the distinctive head-dress of women is practically the same. For it arose from a similar motive, viz. a wish to lay aside an outward mark of the subordination of the female sex. He therefore urges the woman who is determined to pray with a veil to carry her own practice to its logical result, and lay aside her natural as well as her artificial headdress, that thus she may see the direction in which it is leading her; or, if she be conscious of the disgrace of this; to act consistently and abstain from conduct which differs from it only in degree. It is now evident that a woman who “prays with her head unveiled dishonors her head.” For, by her treatment of her head she does that which differs only in degree from what all admit to be shameful.

V. 6. Therefore if a woman is not covered-If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man's. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.

Verse 6. For if the woman be not covered] If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered-let her by all means wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the custom, by cutting off the ends of it only. Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death of her sister Clytemnestra, says: eidete parJ akrav wv apeqrisen tricav, swzousa kallov, esti de h palai gunh: “see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as before.” See the note on the preceding verse.

In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is considered an essential ornament. The veil of the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by the higher classes of women when they appear in the streets.-Ward’s Customs.

Verses 4-6. Every man, &c. — Now upon this principle, with a reference to the usages that prevail at this time with you at Corinth, I may properly observe: Every man praying or prophesying — By an immediate influence of the Spirit of God, in a public assembly; having his head covered — With a veil, which is a sign of subjection; dishonoureth his head — Christ, who, having made him the head of the woman, and given him authority over her, is dishonoured when the man renounces that authority by appearing veiled in the presence of the woman, as her inferior. But every woman praying or prophesying — Under an immediate impulse of the Spirit, for then only was a woman suffered to speak in the church; with her head uncovered — Without any veil over her head and face; dishonoureth her head — Disclaims subjection, and reflects dishonour on man, her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven — It is the same in effect as if she cut her hair short, and wore it in the distinguishing form of the men. In those ages men wore their hair exceeding short, as appears from the ancient statues and pictures. Therefore, if the woman be not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection; let her also be shorn — Let her appear with her hair cut off like a man, or like a woman of bad character, such being sometimes punished in that manner: but if it be a shame for a woman — To appear in public shorn or shaven — Especially in a religious assembly; let her be covered — Let her for the same reason keep on her veil.

6. Let her be—Let her carry out the principle, and see where it will land her. This is, of course, not a real command; the imperative being simply a form of the argument. Shorn—As with shears. Shaven—As with a razor. Be covered—The obvious impropriety alike of either of the three exposures brings to the conclusion that she should be covered. The shaving of the woman’s head assimilated her, in the existing state of customs, to the disreputable class. “The antiquaries and philologists,” says Bloomfield, “have proved that all the ancient nations agree in accounting this as the greatest dishonour and disparagement to the person of a woman. Hence it was adopted only as a sign of extreme grief, (see Deuteronomy 21:12,) or was imposed as a mark of infamy and disgrace.” Even among the Germans, as Tacitus informs us, the penalty for the adulteress was to be expelled from her husband’s house with a shaven head. A Jewish commentator on the words “uncover the woman’s head,” (Numbers 5:18,) says: “For what reason? Because it is not the custom of Israelitish women to have their heads uncovered. Wherefore he shaves her and says, ‘Inasmuch as thou hast seceded from the manner of the Israelite women, whose custom it is to cover their heads, and hast followed the manners of the Gentiles, who are accustomed to go with the head shaven, lo! it happens to thee as thou hast willed.’”

Verse 5b.- 6. The shaven woman: words well understood by Paul's readers. There were women at Corinth, the most shameless women who shaved off their hair, to obliterate entirely from their appearance all distinction of sex. With proofs of this, I cannot stain my pages. Paul says that the woman who lays aside her usual head-dress is practically the same as these shameless women. Of this argument, 1 Corinthians 11:6 shows the force.

Shorn, or cropped: the hair cut short.

Shaven: the hair removed altogether with a razor.

It is a shameful thing: point of the argument in proof of “puts to shame” in 1 Corinthians 11:5a. Human propriety declares it to be a shameful thing to a woman to be shorn: and the case of those women at Corinth who actually were shorn or shaven confirmed this verdict. What is the ground of this sense of shame? A universal and correct sentiment that the distinction of sex ought to be seen very conspicuously in a person's dress. Now, for a woman to remove her hair, was in part to obliterate this outward distinction of sex; and was therefore a trampling under foot of this universal sentiment of propriety. And, as a matter of fact, in Paul's day it was a mark of desertion of the dignity of womanhood. Paul says, and leaves his readers to judge of the truth of his words, that to lay aside the distinctive head-dress of women is practically the same. For it arose from a similar motive, viz. a wish to lay aside an outward mark of the subordination of the female sex. He therefore urges the woman who is determined to pray with a veil to carry her own practice to its logical result, and lay aside her natural as well as her artificial headdress, that thus she may see the direction in which it is leading her; or, if she be conscious of the disgrace of this; to act consistently and abstain from conduct which differs from it only in degree. It is now evident that a woman who “prays with her head unveiled dishonors her head.” For, by her treatment of her head she does that which differs only in degree from what all admit to be shameful.

V. 7. A man indeed ought not to veil his head, because he is the image of God-In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory.

But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it.

Verse 7. A man indeed ought not to cover his head] He should not wear his cap or turban in the public congregation, for this was a badge of servitude, or an indication that he had a conscience overwhelmed with guilt; and besides, it was contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks and Romans.

He is the image and glory of God] He is God’s vicegerent in this lower world; and, by the authority which he has received from his Master, he is his representative among the creatures, and exhibits, more than any other part of the creation, the glory and perfections of the Creator. But the woman is the glory of the man.] As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast of the field, &c.; so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man. I believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is speaking here principally concerning power and authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory, of which he speaks in this verse.

Verses 7-9. A man indeed ought not to cover, or veil, his head — As a sign of subjection; forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God — Namely, in respect of the dominion over the inferior creatures, with which he is clothed, representing the supreme dominion of God; for in respect of mental qualities, the woman is also the image of God: but the woman is the glory of the man — By being subject to him, and of all creatures coming nearest to him in all the excellences of his nature. For the man is not of the woman — In his first production; but the woman of the man — As we read in the sacred history, Genesis 2:21-23. Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman — To accommodate and assist her; but the woman for the man — That he might have a help meet for him, which before he found not in the whole creation, Genesis 2:20.

Ver. 7. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, in public worship, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, and equally so is the woman, comprehended in the man. It is not doubted but there was a high degree of moral glory about the countenance of Adam in a state of pristine felicity, and the remains of the law are still written on the heart. In regenerate men especially the countenance is sometimes illuminated like Stephen’s, which shone with angelic brightness. The priest of Asia says, that St. Paul sometimes looked like a man, and sometimes like an angel. The contrary is the case with bad men. The habitual wickedness of their heart alters their aspect, and gives to their countenance the impressions of vice. Coceijus cites Martial the poet as saying that they have devouring eyes, to which we add, “eyes full of adultery,” a brow of brass, a sneering insolence, and mockery at the faults of another. Sometimes their eyes are full of fire, their tongue emitting venom, and all their features pale with anger. — Ah, what need of a new heart, and a right spirit. The old man must be crucified.

7. Image and glory of God—As God is Lord of the universe, so man is authorized lord in the earth. Genesis 1:27. Hence, as having no visible superior in the world among the creatures of God, modesty never compels him to cover his head before any. Woman… glory of… man—As emanating from himself, as he emanates from God, and as a beautiful and wonderful second self, just as he is God’s representative or finite second self on earth.

Verse 7b.-10. Glory of man: a manifestation of his greatness. That God provided for him a consort and helper so noble as woman, proves the worth of man in God's sight, and thus adds dignity to him. “Image” is omitted now: for in the one point Paul has in view, viz. supremacy, she is not a pattern of man. The distinction between the sexes, asserted in 1 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Corinthians 11:8 justifies by a simple restatement of Genesis 2:18, 21. Man was not originally derived from the woman, but the reverse. To this simple historic fact, 1 Corinthians 11:9 adds a reason for it. Man was the goal of creation. Woman was created (Genesis 2:18) for his pleasure and assistance. To make this conspicuous, man was created first; and woman was derived from him. Similar argument in 1 Timothy 2:13.

Because of this: because woman is, by the purpose of her creation, subordinate to man

The woman ought: parallel to 1 Corinthians 11:7. Her head-dress proclaims that she belongs to the subordinate sex. Therefore, upon her head, the most conspicuous part of her body, the veiled woman bears a visible embodiment of the authority under which God has placed her. She bears aloft, and thus exalts before men, the great principle of authority which is the universal law of the kingdom of God and a source of infinite blessing to all who bow to it. Just so a soldier's obedience reveals and exalts the majesty of military discipline.

Because of the angels: a motive for obeying this obligation. The absence of “and” suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in 1 Corinthians 11:9. Already (1 Corinthians 4:9) we have seen the angels contemplating the apostle's hardships. They attend upon men, Hebrews 1:14; are placed side by side of the church militant, Hebrews 12:22; and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets, 1 Peter 1:12. Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong; and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word “shame” in 1 Corinthians 11:6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of woman's creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly.

To this exposition it may be objected that a feeling of shame would be strengthened still more by an appeal to the presence of God. But this objection would lie against all mention of angels in the work of redemption. For whatever they do God could do without them. Angels are mentioned, probably, in condescension to our weakness. We can more easily conceive of God by taking hold, in our thought, of those holy beings who, though creatures like ourselves, yet see His face and perfectly obey Him. Hence the mention of angels has been popular and effective in the religious teaching of all ages. Notice also that, after strengthening his appeal by mention of angels, Paul strengthens it still further in 1 Corinthians 11:13 by mention of God.

Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. v. 8, and Veiling of virgins ch. 7) understood these words to refer to the “angels whom we read to have been banished from God and from heaven because of desire for women,” according to the tradition embodied in the Alexandrian MS. (LXX.) of Genesis 6:2, “The angels of God saw etc.” But the word angels without further explanation suggests holy angels: and we cannot conceive such to be liable to be led into sin by sight of a woman's face; else they would be much weaker, in the matter of sensual desire, than average Englishmen now. Nor could spiritual damage, actual or feared, to angels good or bad, be a practical motive for women on earth.

See further in The Expositor, 1st Series vol. xi. p. 20.

V. 8. The man is not-In the first production of nature.

Verse 8. For, the man is not of the woman] Bishop Pearce translates ou gar estin anhr ek gunaikov, alla gunh ex androv, thus: “For the man doth not BELONG to the woman, but the woman to the man.” And vindicates this sense of ek, by its use in 1 Corinthians 12:15. If the foot shall say, ouk eimi ek tou swmatov, I am not of the body, i.e. I do not belong to the body. He observes that as the verb estin is in the present tense, and will not allow that we should understand this verse of something that is past, gar, for, in the following verse, which is unnoticed by our translators, will have its full propriety and meaning, because it introduces a reason why the woman belongs to the man and not the man to the woman. His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the woman, as if she was the principal; but the woman belongs to the man in that view.

Verses 7-9. A man indeed ought not to cover, or veil, his head — As a sign of subjection; forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God — Namely, in respect of the dominion over the inferior creatures, with which he is clothed, representing the supreme dominion of God; for in respect of mental qualities, the woman is also the image of God: but the woman is the glory of the man — By being subject to him, and of all creatures coming nearest to him in all the excellences of his nature. For the man is not of the woman — In his first production; but the woman of the man — As we read in the sacred history, Genesis 2:21-23. Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman — To accommodate and assist her; but the woman for the man — That he might have a help meet for him, which before he found not in the whole creation, Genesis 2:20.

8. For—Explaining how woman is man’s glory. Of, or literally, from the man—Woman is, according to the Genesis history, derived from man, as the glory is radiated from the luminary.

Verse 7b.-10. Glory of man: a manifestation of his greatness. That God provided for him a consort and helper so noble as woman, proves the worth of man in God's sight, and thus adds dignity to him. “Image” is omitted now: for in the one point Paul has in view, viz. supremacy, she is not a pattern of man. The distinction between the sexes, asserted in 1 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Corinthians 11:8 justifies by a simple restatement of Genesis 2:18, 21. Man was not originally derived from the woman, but the reverse. To this simple historic fact, 1 Corinthians 11:9 adds a reason for it. Man was the goal of creation. Woman was created (Genesis 2:18) for his pleasure and assistance. To make this conspicuous, man was created first; and woman was derived from him. Similar argument in 1 Timothy 2:13.

Because of this: because woman is, by the purpose of her creation, subordinate to man

The woman ought: parallel to 1 Corinthians 11:7. Her head-dress proclaims that she belongs to the subordinate sex. Therefore, upon her head, the most conspicuous part of her body, the veiled woman bears a visible embodiment of the authority under which God has placed her. She bears aloft, and thus exalts before men, the great principle of authority which is the universal law of the kingdom of God and a source of infinite blessing to all who bow to it. Just so a soldier's obedience reveals and exalts the majesty of military discipline.

Because of the angels: a motive for obeying this obligation. The absence of “and” suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in 1 Corinthians 11:9. Already (1 Corinthians 4:9) we have seen the angels contemplating the apostle's hardships. They attend upon men, Hebrews 1:14; are placed side by side of the church militant, Hebrews 12:22; and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets, 1 Peter 1:12. Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong; and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word “shame” in 1 Corinthians 11:6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of woman's creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly.

To this exposition it may be objected that a feeling of shame would be strengthened still more by an appeal to the presence of God. But this objection would lie against all mention of angels in the work of redemption. For whatever they do God could do without them. Angels are mentioned, probably, in condescension to our weakness. We can more easily conceive of God by taking hold, in our thought, of those holy beings who, though creatures like ourselves, yet see His face and perfectly obey Him. Hence the mention of angels has been popular and effective in the religious teaching of all ages. Notice also that, after strengthening his appeal by mention of angels, Paul strengthens it still further in 1 Corinthians 11:13 by mention of God.

Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. v. 8, and Veiling of virgins ch. 7) understood these words to refer to the “angels whom we read to have been banished from God and from heaven because of desire for women,” according to the tradition embodied in the Alexandrian MS. (LXX.) of Genesis 6:2, “The angels of God saw etc.” But the word angels without further explanation suggests holy angels: and we cannot conceive such to be liable to be led into sin by sight of a woman's face; else they would be much weaker, in the matter of sensual desire, than average Englishmen now. Nor could spiritual damage, actual or feared, to angels good or bad, be a practical motive for women on earth.

See further in The Expositor, 1st Series vol. xi. p. 20.

Verse 9. Neither was the man created, &c.] kai gar ouk ektisqh. for the man was not created upon the woman’s account. The reason is plain from what is mentioned above; and from the original creation of woman she was made for the man, to be his proper or suitable helper.

Verses 7-9. A man indeed ought not to cover, or veil, his head — As a sign of subjection; forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God — Namely, in respect of the dominion over the inferior creatures, with which he is clothed, representing the supreme dominion of God; for in respect of mental qualities, the woman is also the image of God: but the woman is the glory of the man — By being subject to him, and of all creatures coming nearest to him in all the excellences of his nature. For the man is not of the woman — In his first production; but the woman of the man — As we read in the sacred history, Genesis 2:21-23. Neither was the man created for the sake of the woman — To accommodate and assist her; but the woman for the man — That he might have a help meet for him, which before he found not in the whole creation, Genesis 2:20.

Ver. 9. The woman was created for the man, as a help meet, to bear him children, to keep his heart, and his house, that both might be as one soul in two bodies.

9. Woman for… man—The narrative of Genesis, which derives woman from man, and makes her his feeble and tender yet necessary and mighty auxiliary, if it were not true in history, is true in philosophy and in nature. If man, directly and solely, accomplishes the splendid works of civilization above described, yet it is man with his help-meet for him. She is his complement; and both male and female form the one composite MAN, by which all is achieved. Woman works not directly upon these products; but she works upon him by whom they are directly wrought.

Verse 7b.-10. Glory of man: a manifestation of his greatness. That God provided for him a consort and helper so noble as woman, proves the worth of man in God's sight, and thus adds dignity to him. “Image” is omitted now: for in the one point Paul has in view, viz. supremacy, she is not a pattern of man. The distinction between the sexes, asserted in 1 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Corinthians 11:8 justifies by a simple restatement of Genesis 2:18, 21. Man was not originally derived from the woman, but the reverse. To this simple historic fact, 1 Corinthians 11:9 adds a reason for it. Man was the goal of creation. Woman was created (Genesis 2:18) for his pleasure and assistance. To make this conspicuous, man was created first; and woman was derived from him. Similar argument in 1 Timothy 2:13.

Because of this: because woman is, by the purpose of her creation, subordinate to man

The woman ought: parallel to 1 Corinthians 11:7. Her head-dress proclaims that she belongs to the subordinate sex. Therefore, upon her head, the most conspicuous part of her body, the veiled woman bears a visible embodiment of the authority under which God has placed her. She bears aloft, and thus exalts before men, the great principle of authority which is the universal law of the kingdom of God and a source of infinite blessing to all who bow to it. Just so a soldier's obedience reveals and exalts the majesty of military discipline.

Because of the angels: a motive for obeying this obligation. The absence of “and” suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in 1 Corinthians 11:9. Already (1 Corinthians 4:9) we have seen the angels contemplating the apostle's hardships. They attend upon men, Hebrews 1:14; are placed side by side of the church militant, Hebrews 12:22; and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets, 1 Peter 1:12. Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong; and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word “shame” in 1 Corinthians 11:6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of woman's creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly.

To this exposition it may be objected that a feeling of shame would be strengthened still more by an appeal to the presence of God. But this objection would lie against all mention of angels in the work of redemption. For whatever they do God could do without them. Angels are mentioned, probably, in condescension to our weakness. We can more easily conceive of God by taking hold, in our thought, of those holy beings who, though creatures like ourselves, yet see His face and perfectly obey Him. Hence the mention of angels has been popular and effective in the religious teaching of all ages. Notice also that, after strengthening his appeal by mention of angels, Paul strengthens it still further in 1 Corinthians 11:13 by mention of God.

Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. v. 8, and Veiling of virgins ch. 7) understood these words to refer to the “angels whom we read to have been banished from God and from heaven because of desire for women,” according to the tradition embodied in the Alexandrian MS. (LXX.) of Genesis 6:2, “The angels of God saw etc.” But the word angels without further explanation suggests holy angels: and we cannot conceive such to be liable to be led into sin by sight of a woman's face; else they would be much weaker, in the matter of sensual desire, than average Englishmen now. Nor could spiritual damage, actual or feared, to angels good or bad, be a practical motive for women on earth.

See further in The Expositor, 1st Series vol. xi. p. 20.

V. 10. For this cause also a woman ought to be veiled in the public assemblies, because of the angels-Who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular.

Verse 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.] There are few portions in the sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than this verse, and 1 Corinthians 15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any where in their work; but this is only on the words power on her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means removes all the difficulty. Mr. Locke ingenuously acknowledged that he did not understand the meaning of the words; and almost every critic and learned man has a different explanation. Some have endeavoured to force out a meaning by altering the text. The emendation of Mr. Toup, of Cornwall, is the most remarkable: he reads exiousa, going out, instead of exousian, power; wherefore the woman, when she goes out, should have a veil on her head. Whatever ingenuity there may appear in this emendation, the consideration that it is not acknowledged by any MS., or version, or primitive writer, is sufficient proof against it. Dr. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Bishop Pearce, have written best on the subject, in which they allow that there are many difficulties. The latter contends, 1. That the original should be read, Wherefore the woman ought to have A power upon her head, that is, the power of the husband over the wife; the word power standing for the sign or token of that power which was a covering or veil. Theophylact explains the word, to tou exousiazesqai sumbolon, toutesti, to kalumma, “the symbol of being under power, that is, a veil, or covering.” And Photius explains it thus: thv upotaghv sumbolon to epi thv kefalhv kalumma ferein; to wear a veil on the head is a symbol of subjection. It is no unusual thing, in the Old and New Testament, for the signs and tokens of things to be called by the names of the things themselves, for thus circumcision is called the covenant, in Genesis 17:10, 13, though it was only the sign of it.

2. The word angels presents another difficulty. Some suppose that by these the apostle means the fallen angels, or devils; others, the governors of the Church; and others, those who were deputed among the Jews to espouse a virgin in the name of a lover. All these senses the learned bishop rejects, and believes that the apostle uses the word angels, in its most obvious sense, for the heavenly angels; and that he speaks according to the notion which then prevailed among Jews, that the holy angels interested themselves in the affairs of men, and particularly were present in their religious assemblies, as the cherubim, their representation, were present in their temple. Thus we read in Ecclesiastes 5:6: Neither say thou before the ANGEL, it was an error; and in 1 Timothy 5:21: I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect ANGELS, &c. Parallel to these is what Agrippa says in his oration to the Jews, Josephus, War, b. ii. chap. 16: I protest before God, your holy temple, and all the ANGELS of heaven, &c. All which passages suppose, or were spoken to those who supposed, that the angels know what passes here upon earth. The notion, whether just or not, prevailed among the Jews; and if so, St. Paul might speak according to the common opinion.

3. Another difficulty lies in the phrase dia touto, wherefore, which shows that this verse is a conclusion from what the apostle was arguing before; which we may understand thus: that his conclusion, from the foregoing argument, ought to have the more weight, upon account of the presence, real or supposed, of the holy angels, at their religious meetings. See Bishop Pearce, in loc.

The learned bishop is not very willing to allow that the doctrine of the presence of angelic beings in religious assemblies is legitimate; but what difficulty can there be in this, if we take the words of the apostle in another place: Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? Hebrews 1:14. And perhaps there is no time in which they can render more essential services to the followers of God than when they are engaged in Divine ordinances. On the whole, the bishop’s sense of the passage and paraphrase stands thus: “And because of this superiority in the man, I conclude that the woman should have on her head a veil, the mark of her husband’s power over her, especially in the religious assemblies, where the angels are supposed to be invisibly present.”

The ancient versions make little alteration in the common reading, and the MSS. leave the verse nearly as it stands in the common printed editions. The Armenian has a word that answers to umbram, a shade or covering. The Æthiopic, her head should be veiled. The common editions of the Vulgate have potestatem, power; but in an ancient edition of the Vulgate, perhaps one of the first, if not the first, ever printed, 2 vols. fol., sine ulla nota anni, &c.: the verse stands thus: Ideo debet mulier velamen habere super caput suum: et propter angelos. My old MS. translation seems to have been taken from a MS. which had the same reading: Wherefore the woman schal haue a veyl on her heuyd; and for aungels. Some copies of the Itala have also velamen, a veil.

In his view of this text, Kypke differs from all others; and nothing that so judicious a critic advances should be lightly regarded. 1. He contends that exousian occurs nowhere in the sense of veil, and yet he supposes that the word kalumma, veil is understood, and must in the translation of the passage be supplied. 2. He directs that a comma be placed after exousian, and that it be construed with ofeilei, ought; after which he translates the verse thus: Propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut velamen in capite habeat propter angelos; On this account the woman is subject to power, so that she should have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 3. He contends that both the Latins and Greeks use debere and ofeilein elegantly to express that to which one is obnoxious or liable. So Horace:—

——Tu, nisi ventis

Debes ludibrium, cave.

Carm. lib. i. Od. xiv. ver. 15.

Take heed lest thou owe a laughing stock to the winds; i.e. lest thou become the sport of the winds; for to these thou art now exposing thyself.

So Dionys. Hal. Ant. lib. iii., page 205: kai pollhn ofeilontev aiscunhn aphlqon ek thv agorav. They departed from the market, exposed to great dishonour. So Euripides, ofeilw soi blabhn. I am exposed to thy injury.

4. He contends that the words taken in this sense agree perfectly with the context, and with dia touto, wherefore, in this verse, “Because the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man, therefore she is subject to his authority, and should have a veil on her head as a token of that subjection; and particularly before the holy angels, who are present in the congregations of the saints.”

For Dr. Lightfoot’s opinion, that by angels we are to understand the paranymphs, or messengers who came on the part of others, to look out for proper spouses for their friends, I must refer to his works, vol. ii. fol., p. 772. The reader has now before him every thing that is likely to cast light on this difficult subject, and he must either adopt what he judges to be best, or else think for himself.

After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some light upon this place. As Nazarite means one who has separated himself by vow to some religious austerity, wearing his own hair, &c.; so a married woman was considered a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others, and joined to one husband, who is her lord: and hence the apostle, alluding to this circumstance, says, The woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear her hair and veil, for her hair is a proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her subjection to her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to the Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See Clarke’s notes on Numbers 6:5-7.

Verse 10. For this cause — As well as for the other reasons above mentioned; the woman ought to have power on her head — That is, a veil, as a token of her being under the power and subjection of the man: and so much the rather should she wear it in worshipping assemblies; because of the angels — Who are present there, and before whom all should be careful not to do any thing indecent or irregular. “Though there is no example, either in sacred or profane writers, of the word exousia, here rendered power, being used to denote a veil; yet all agree that it can have no other meaning in this passage.” Whitby understands the latter clause of evil angels, paraphrasing and commenting on the words thus: “She, being tempted by the prince of evil angels to that which is a perpetual cause of shame to her, and which increased her subjection to the man, (Genesis 3:16,) ought therefore to use this token of shame-facedness and subjection.” She is to have her head covered, say the Jews, “like one that mourneth, as a token of shame. Hence Philo calls the to epikranon, cover of the woman’s head, the symbol of her shame; and this shame, say they, is due to her, because she first brought sin into the world. It is with her as when one transgresseth and is ashamed; and therefore she comes forth with her head covered. She ought, saith Tertullian, by her habit to resemble Eve, a mourner and a penitent; ob ignominiam primi delicti,” for the shame of the first sin. See on 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The former interpretation, however, which supposes that good angels are meant, who, being ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, might be present in the religious assemblies of the Christians, seems much more probably to be the true one.

Ver. 10. The woman ought to have power on her head. The scope of this argument regards worship, and a hallowed approach to the table of the Lord. The women of the east, to the present time, wear veils; but poor women are often seen on the road, and at work without them. In England we follow the Parisian fashions: the women as well as the men show an open face, yet all must bow in prayer, and be engaged with God alone. Because of the angels, who according to Tertullian, attend the congregations, and mark the devotion of the people. Angelo adhuc orationis adstante, the angel of prayer standing by. Chrysostom, on the priesthood, has a similar thought, that ministers should be attentive to their sermons. He says, “I had a vision. I saw the communion rails crowded with angels, listening to the sermon.” In another place he asks, “Knowest thou not that thou standest with the angels? These ministering spirits assembled with the Lord in the temple, and led the worship in his celestial courts. They raised and hallowed the devotion of Jacob, when the God of his lathers met him at Bethel. Bless the Lord, ye his angels that excel in strength, that do his commandments.” Psalm 103:20. Another opinion, followed by some ancient commentators is, that the word angels in this place regards the prophets, elders, and ministers present in the church, “because the lips of the priest keep knowledge, and because they cry on the walls of Jerusalem.”

10. Power on her head—Power to which she is subject, not power which is subjected to her. And by this abstract word exousia, power, Paul plainly designates the hood covering her head. it may be that this Greek word was the name of the hood; but there is no other instance of such a use of the term. Olshausen says, that in the Middle Ages imperium (a Latin word of the same meaning as this Greek) was certainly the name for a woman’s headdress. Similarly Diodorus Siculus says, that a certain queen “had three royalties (crowns) upon her head, to signify that she was daughter, wife, and mother of a king.” Because of the angels—In whose presence the worship of the Church below often is. So 1 Timothy 5:21, “I charge thee… before the elect angels;” as if the angels witnessed the charge and would mark and testify how it was fulfilled. So angels desire to look into the mysteries of redemption, 1 Peter 1:12; and we are “a spectacle to angels, and to men.” 1 Corinthians 4:9. The expedients of commentators to avoid this beautiful meaning are many, but absurd and useless. They are completely given and disapproved by Stanley. The Jewish writers, both before and after Paul, carried out a similar idea to a puerile extent. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai (quoted by Wetstein) says: “If the hair of a woman is uncovered, the evil spirits will come and sit upon her, and upon all in her house.” In a more Christian strain, Chrysostom says: “If you wish to see both martyrs and angels, open the eyes of your faith, and you shall behold the spectacle; for if the air is full of angels, much rather the Church. For that all the air is full of angels hear what the apostle says, admonishing the women to have a vail upon their heads,” etc. Again, “If you despise men, at any rate reverence the angels.” Perfectly accordant with all this is Bengel’s beautiful thought, that as angels vail their faces before God, so would they require that the female face should vail before men.” Harmony and order should prevail in their angelic presence.

Verse 7b.-10. Glory of man: a manifestation of his greatness. That God provided for him a consort and helper so noble as woman, proves the worth of man in God's sight, and thus adds dignity to him. “Image” is omitted now: for in the one point Paul has in view, viz. supremacy, she is not a pattern of man. The distinction between the sexes, asserted in 1 Corinthians 11:7, 1 Corinthians 11:8 justifies by a simple restatement of Genesis 2:18, 21. Man was not originally derived from the woman, but the reverse. To this simple historic fact, 1 Corinthians 11:9 adds a reason for it. Man was the goal of creation. Woman was created (Genesis 2:18) for his pleasure and assistance. To make this conspicuous, man was created first; and woman was derived from him. Similar argument in 1 Timothy 2:13.

Because of this: because woman is, by the purpose of her creation, subordinate to man

The woman ought: parallel to 1 Corinthians 11:7. Her head-dress proclaims that she belongs to the subordinate sex. Therefore, upon her head, the most conspicuous part of her body, the veiled woman bears a visible embodiment of the authority under which God has placed her. She bears aloft, and thus exalts before men, the great principle of authority which is the universal law of the kingdom of God and a source of infinite blessing to all who bow to it. Just so a soldier's obedience reveals and exalts the majesty of military discipline.

Because of the angels: a motive for obeying this obligation. The absence of “and” suggests that it is a motive, not additional to, but confirmatory of, that given in 1 Corinthians 11:9. Already (1 Corinthians 4:9) we have seen the angels contemplating the apostle's hardships. They attend upon men, Hebrews 1:14; are placed side by side of the church militant, Hebrews 12:22; and desire to look into the teaching of the prophets, 1 Peter 1:12. Now, if they take interest in men, they must take special interest in those assemblies in which men unitedly draw near to God, and which have so great influence upon the spiritual life of men. We must therefore conceive them present at the public worship of the church. Now the presence of persons better than ourselves always strengthens our instinctive perception of right and wrong; and deters us from improper action. And the moral impression thus produced is almost always correct. To this instinctive perception Paul appealed by the word “shame” in 1 Corinthians 11:6; and has revealed its source in the purpose of woman's creation. He now strengthens his appeal by reminding us that we worship in the presence of the inhabitants of heaven. For every right instinct in us is strengthened by the presence of those better than ourselves. Surely a remembrance of these celestial fellow-worshippers will deter us from all that is unseemly.

To this exposition it may be objected that a feeling of shame would be strengthened still more by an appeal to the presence of God. But this objection would lie against all mention of angels in the work of redemption. For whatever they do God could do without them. Angels are mentioned, probably, in condescension to our weakness. We can more easily conceive of God by taking hold, in our thought, of those holy beings who, though creatures like ourselves, yet see His face and perfectly obey Him. Hence the mention of angels has been popular and effective in the religious teaching of all ages. Notice also that, after strengthening his appeal by mention of angels, Paul strengthens it still further in 1 Corinthians 11:13 by mention of God.

Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. v. 8, and Veiling of virgins ch. 7) understood these words to refer to the “angels whom we read to have been banished from God and from heaven because of desire for women,” according to the tradition embodied in the Alexandrian MS. (LXX.) of Genesis 6:2, “The angels of God saw etc.” But the word angels without further explanation suggests holy angels: and we cannot conceive such to be liable to be led into sin by sight of a woman's face; else they would be much weaker, in the matter of sensual desire, than average Englishmen now. Nor could spiritual damage, actual or feared, to angels good or bad, be a practical motive for women on earth.

See further in The Expositor, 1st Series vol. xi. p. 20.

V. 11. Nevertheless in the Lord Jesus, there is neither male nor female-Neither is excluded; neither is preferred before the other in his kingdom.

Verse 11. Neither is the man without the woman] The apostle seems to say: I do not intimate any disparagement of the female sex, by insisting on the necessity of her being under the power or authority of the man; for they are both equally dependent on each other, in the Lord, en kuriw: but instead of this reading, Theodoret has en tw kosmw, in the world. Probably the apostle means that the human race is continued by an especial providence of God. Others think that he means that men and women equally make a Christian society, and in it have equal rights and privileges.

Verses 11, 12. Nevertheless, neither is the man, since the first creation, produced without the woman, neither the woman without the man — And they cannot subsist without the mutual help of each other in many cases: in the Lord — By God’s appointment, and according to that order he has fixed in the creation. As if he had said, Yet let not the man be proud of his superiority, nor the woman troubled at her subjection, for there is a kind of equality in some respects, and many mutual obligations to engage them both to love and kindness. For as the woman is, or was, of the man — At first taken out of him; even so is the man also by the woman — Now in the ordinary course of nature: and therefore let him not despise, but honour and love her. But all things are of God — The man, the woman, and their dependance on each other: or both the dominion of the one, and the subjection of the other, are by God’s appointment, and therefore they should acquiesce therein.

11. Neither… man… without the woman—Each is indispensable to the other. Neither can exist without the other. Each possesses what the other lacks.

Ver. 11.- 12. A corrective against undue depreciation of woman, which might seem to be implied in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. In the development of the spiritual life, of which Christ our Master is the element, each sex helps and needs the other. Both man's strength and woman's tenderness develop Christlike character in the other sex. As in 1 Corinthians 11:3, this is emphatically true of husband and wife; and is therefore true of the sexes generally as originally constituted. It is very conspicuous in the brothers and sisters of Christian families. Neglect of it is a great defect of monastic life. As usual, the stress lies in the second assertion, for which the first prepares the way. Just as in the Christian life woman needs man, so man needs woman. In 1 Corinthians 11:12. Paul proves this, from the original bodily relation of the sexes. He assumes that with this the spiritual life must accord. Cp. 1 Corinthians 11:3. It may, therefore, be quoted in proof of the relation of the sexes in the spiritual life.

From the man; restates Genesis 2:21f. The man enters the world by means of the woman. This suggests also our unspeakable debt to woman's maternal care. Paul thus places side by side, in the order of creation, the obligation of each sex to the other. And the differences noted are not so great as might appear. For man and woman and all else have alike sprung from God. Thus, as in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul concludes his argument in the presence of the Supreme.

V. 12. And as the woman was at first taken out of the man, so also the man is now, in the ordinary course of nature, by the woman; but all things are of God-The man, the woman, and their dependence on each other.

Verse 12. For as the woman is of the man] For as the woman was first formed out of the side of man, man has ever since been formed out of the womb of the woman; but they, as all other created things, are of God.

Verses 11, 12. Nevertheless, neither is the man, since the first creation, produced without the woman, neither the woman without the man — And they cannot subsist without the mutual help of each other in many cases: in the Lord — By God’s appointment, and according to that order he has fixed in the creation. As if he had said, Yet let not the man be proud of his superiority, nor the woman troubled at her subjection, for there is a kind of equality in some respects, and many mutual obligations to engage them both to love and kindness. For as the woman is, or was, of the man — At first taken out of him; even so is the man also by the woman — Now in the ordinary course of nature: and therefore let him not despise, but honour and love her. But all things are of God — The man, the woman, and their dependance on each other: or both the dominion of the one, and the subjection of the other, are by God’s appointment, and therefore they should acquiesce therein.

12. Of, rather, from the man—By derivation from his side, according to Genesis. By the woman—By natural birth. But all things of God—By whom the sexes and their relations have been constituted.

Ver. 11.- 12. A corrective against undue depreciation of woman, which might seem to be implied in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. In the development of the spiritual life, of which Christ our Master is the element, each sex helps and needs the other. Both man's strength and woman's tenderness develop Christlike character in the other sex. As in 1 Corinthians 11:3, this is emphatically true of husband and wife; and is therefore true of the sexes generally as originally constituted. It is very conspicuous in the brothers and sisters of Christian families. Neglect of it is a great defect of monastic life. As usual, the stress lies in the second assertion, for which the first prepares the way. Just as in the Christian life woman needs man, so man needs woman. In 1 Corinthians 11:12. Paul proves this, from the original bodily relation of the sexes. He assumes that with this the spiritual life must accord. Cp. 1 Corinthians 11:3. It may, therefore, be quoted in proof of the relation of the sexes in the spiritual life.

From the man; restates Genesis 2:21f. The man enters the world by means of the woman. This suggests also our unspeakable debt to woman's maternal care. Paul thus places side by side, in the order of creation, the obligation of each sex to the other. And the differences noted are not so great as might appear. For man and woman and all else have alike sprung from God. Thus, as in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul concludes his argument in the presence of the Supreme.

V. 13. Judge of yourselves-For what need of more arguments if so plain a case?

Is it decent for a woman to pray to God-The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?

Verse 13. Judge in yourselves] Consider the subject in your own common sense, and then say whether it be decent for a woman to pray in public without a veil on her head? The heathen priestesses prayed or delivered their oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptæ mansere comæ, as in the case of the Cumæan Sibyl, Æn. vi., ver. 48, and otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed to them would be very disgraceful to Christian women. And in reference to such things as these, the apostle appeals to their sense of honour and decency.

Verses 13-16. Judge in yourselves — For what need of more arguments in so plain a case? Is it comely — Decent, suitable to female modesty; that a woman pray unto God — The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have if, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered? Doth not even nature — The light of nature, or natural reason; teach you — Previous to any arguments on the subject; that if a man have long hair — Carefully adjusted, it is a mark of such effeminacy as is a disgrace to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory — An ornament; to her — Which does not incommode her, being suitable to her domestic state: for her hair was given her — Originally, and before the arts of dress were invented or needed; for — Anti, instead of; a covering — Or veil. “What a value the eastern ladies put on their hair may be known from this, that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen, Berenice, who loved him tenderly, vowed, as the most precious sacrifice she could offer, to cut off and consecrate her hair, if he returned in safety.” But if any man seem to be contentious — And will dispute this matter, on his own different views of what is naturally decent, I shall not controvert it further, but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom — For women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither the churches of God — In any other place, whether planted by me or any of my brethren. 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 not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious persons.

Ver. 13-16. Is it comely that a woman pray uncovered. The argument here is built on national customs, but customs which St. Paul regarded as important, corresponding with the natural law of modesty, and the peace of the church. The hair of Absalom was his pride, and caused his death. The long hair of the Argives is a frequent epithet of Homer, and the short-haired Englishman is a pleasantry with Zimmerman. Though the length of the hair be in itself a small object, yet it is not small when the peace and unity of the church is disturbed, as appears from ver. 19 to have been the case at Corinth, and which produced disorders that invoked divine correction.

13. In yourselves—Look into your own breasts and hearken to the dictates of your intuitive feelings. Man’s true nature affirms the truths of God. Comely—Accordant with an inborn sense of propriety.

Ver. 13.-15. When then you come together; takes up the same words in 1 Corinthians 11:18, and continues the justification of 1 Corinthians 11:17.

To the same place; 1 Corinthians 14:23; adds definiteness to when you come together, as does “in church-meeting” in 1 Corinthians 11:18.

The Lord's Supper: a meal provided by our Master, Christ; in contrast to his own supper. Cp. 1 Corinthians 10:21.

There is no etc.: i.e. it is impossible that that which they eat is a supper provided by Christ. Of this, 1 Corinthians 11:21a is proof. It seems to imply that at Corinth the Lord's Supper was kept by each one bringing bread, possibly also other food, and wine; and that each one, instead of putting his food into the common stock and thus sharing it with others, used to take back before the supper began the food he had brought. Takes (not eats) beforehand. Perhaps, before service began each appropriated to himself the food he had brought; and then, after the blessing had been pronounced, all began at the same time to eat what each had previously taken.

Each one; implies that the practice was universal. And, if those who brought the best food took it for themselves, there would be nothing left for the poorer members but what they had themselves brought. This would cause the “divisions” of 1 Corinthians 11:18: for it would create in the church-meetings a conspicuous distinction of richer and poorer members. Is hungry, is drunken: extreme cases of this distinction. But we have no right to say that they never occurred. These words imply either that the Lord's Supper was a real meal, capable of satisfying hunger, and at which it was possible to drink to excess, or that it was connected with such a meal. The hunger of some members in the midst of plenty, and the insobriety of others, were a gross and conspicuous abuse.

V. 14. For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him.

Verse 14. Doth not-nature-teach you, that, if a man have long hair] Nature certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it. In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great variety of places, karhkomowntev acaioi, the long-haired Greeks, or Achæans. Soldiers, in different countries, have been distinguished for their long hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St. Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why the apostle should condemn this practice:-1. Because it was a sign of humiliation; 2. Because it was womanish. After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Verses 13-16. Judge in yourselves — For what need of more arguments in so plain a case? Is it comely — Decent, suitable to female modesty; that a woman pray unto God — The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have if, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered? Doth not even nature — The light of nature, or natural reason; teach you — Previous to any arguments on the subject; that if a man have long hair — Carefully adjusted, it is a mark of such effeminacy as is a disgrace to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory — An ornament; to her — Which does not incommode her, being suitable to her domestic state: for her hair was given her — Originally, and before the arts of dress were invented or needed; for — Anti, instead of; a covering — Or veil. “What a value the eastern ladies put on their hair may be known from this, that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen, Berenice, who loved him tenderly, vowed, as the most precious sacrifice she could offer, to cut off and consecrate her hair, if he returned in safety.” But if any man seem to be contentious — And will dispute this matter, on his own different views of what is naturally decent, I shall not controvert it further, but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom — For women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither the churches of God — In any other place, whether planted by me or any of my brethren. 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 not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious persons.

Ver. 13-16. Is it comely that a woman pray uncovered. The argument here is built on national customs, but customs which St. Paul regarded as important, corresponding with the natural law of modesty, and the peace of the church. The hair of Absalom was his pride, and caused his death. The long hair of the Argives is a frequent epithet of Homer, and the short-haired Englishman is a pleasantry with Zimmerman. Though the length of the hair be in itself a small object, yet it is not small when the peace and unity of the church is disturbed, as appears from ver. 19 to have been the case at Corinth, and which produced disorders that invoked divine correction.

14. Nature itself teach—Our natural sense of beauty affirms that long and flowing hair (of the Caucasian woman, not of the African) is one of the permanent points of female attraction. To shear it diminishes woman’s beauty; to shave it off deforms her, for the naked scalp is ever and by nature a disagreeable object to the sight. On the other hand, for a man to imitate this beauty is effeminate and contemptible. And this effeminacy was especially exemplified by a class of infamous males guilty of unnatural basenesses. Note on Romans 1:24-25. Yet if nature—that is, the instinct of propriety—did teach that long hair was a shame to a man in Paul’s day, it equally taught the Homeric Greeks that it was a pride, and teaches the Chinese at the present day that a pigtail is a dignity to every male celestial. That is, the instinct varies its decisions according to circumstances, to customs and feelings of age and race, and to reasons derived from symbol and sign. Paul radically assumes that Christianity ratifies the authority of the instinct; but he gives the applications and decisions of the instinct as they suited his age and peoples.

Ver. 13.-15. When then you come together; takes up the same words in 1 Corinthians 11:18, and continues the justification of 1 Corinthians 11:17.

To the same place; 1 Corinthians 14:23; adds definiteness to when you come together, as does “in church-meeting” in 1 Corinthians 11:18.

The Lord's Supper: a meal provided by our Master, Christ; in contrast to his own supper. Cp. 1 Corinthians 10:21.

There is no etc.: i.e. it is impossible that that which they eat is a supper provided by Christ. Of this, 1 Corinthians 11:21a is proof. It seems to imply that at Corinth the Lord's Supper was kept by each one bringing bread, possibly also other food, and wine; and that each one, instead of putting his food into the common stock and thus sharing it with others, used to take back before the supper began the food he had brought. Takes (not eats) beforehand. Perhaps, before service began each appropriated to himself the food he had brought; and then, after the blessing had been pronounced, all began at the same time to eat what each had previously taken.

Each one; implies that the practice was universal. And, if those who brought the best food took it for themselves, there would be nothing left for the poorer members but what they had themselves brought. This would cause the “divisions” of 1 Corinthians 11:18: for it would create in the church-meetings a conspicuous distinction of richer and poorer members. Is hungry, is drunken: extreme cases of this distinction. But we have no right to say that they never occurred. These words imply either that the Lord's Supper was a real meal, capable of satisfying hunger, and at which it was possible to drink to excess, or that it was connected with such a meal. The hunger of some members in the midst of plenty, and the insobriety of others, were a gross and conspicuous abuse.

V. 15. Given her-Originally, before the arts of dress were in being.

Verse 15. But if a woman have long hair] The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.

It is a certain fact that a man’s long hair renders him contemptible, and a woman’s long hair renders her more amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same language; we may account for it as we please.

Verses 13-16. Judge in yourselves — For what need of more arguments in so plain a case? Is it comely — Decent, suitable to female modesty; that a woman pray unto God — The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have if, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered? Doth not even nature — The light of nature, or natural reason; teach you — Previous to any arguments on the subject; that if a man have long hair — Carefully adjusted, it is a mark of such effeminacy as is a disgrace to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory — An ornament; to her — Which does not incommode her, being suitable to her domestic state: for her hair was given her — Originally, and before the arts of dress were invented or needed; for — Anti, instead of; a covering — Or veil. “What a value the eastern ladies put on their hair may be known from this, that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen, Berenice, who loved him tenderly, vowed, as the most precious sacrifice she could offer, to cut off and consecrate her hair, if he returned in safety.” But if any man seem to be contentious — And will dispute this matter, on his own different views of what is naturally decent, I shall not controvert it further, but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom — For women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither the churches of God — In any other place, whether planted by me or any of my brethren. 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 not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious persons.

Ver. 13-16. Is it comely that a woman pray uncovered. The argument here is built on national customs, but customs which St. Paul regarded as important, corresponding with the natural law of modesty, and the peace of the church. The hair of Absalom was his pride, and caused his death. The long hair of the Argives is a frequent epithet of Homer, and the short-haired Englishman is a pleasantry with Zimmerman. Though the length of the hair be in itself a small object, yet it is not small when the peace and unity of the church is disturbed, as appears from ver. 19 to have been the case at Corinth, and which produced disorders that invoked divine correction.

15. A glory to her—And beauty is the rightful prerogative of womanhood, as force is that of manhood. And this divine gift of beauty it is her right to cultivate within the laws of modesty; and, united with cultured gifts of mind and character, it forms a loveliness which is the true source of her rightful power. A covering—The apostle sees, even in the glory of the woman’s long hair, the symbol of concealment and of modesty. It is nature’s sign, suggesting, if it does not require, that art and custom should follow and add a covering to the female head.

Ver. 13.-15. When then you come together; takes up the same words in 1 Corinthians 11:18, and continues the justification of 1 Corinthians 11:17.

To the same place; 1 Corinthians 14:23; adds definiteness to when you come together, as does “in church-meeting” in 1 Corinthians 11:18.

The Lord's Supper: a meal provided by our Master, Christ; in contrast to his own supper. Cp. 1 Corinthians 10:21.

There is no etc.: i.e. it is impossible that that which they eat is a supper provided by Christ. Of this, 1 Corinthians 11:21a is proof. It seems to imply that at Corinth the Lord's Supper was kept by each one bringing bread, possibly also other food, and wine; and that each one, instead of putting his food into the common stock and thus sharing it with others, used to take back before the supper began the food he had brought. Takes (not eats) beforehand. Perhaps, before service began each appropriated to himself the food he had brought; and then, after the blessing had been pronounced, all began at the same time to eat what each had previously taken.

Each one; implies that the practice was universal. And, if those who brought the best food took it for themselves, there would be nothing left for the poorer members but what they had themselves brought. This would cause the “divisions” of 1 Corinthians 11:18: for it would create in the church-meetings a conspicuous distinction of richer and poorer members. Is hungry, is drunken: extreme cases of this distinction. But we have no right to say that they never occurred. These words imply either that the Lord's Supper was a real meal, capable of satisfying hunger, and at which it was possible to drink to excess, or that it was connected with such a meal. The hunger of some members in the midst of plenty, and the insobriety of others, were a gross and conspicuous abuse.

V. 16. 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.

Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious] ei de tiv dokei filoneikov einai. 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 dokein, 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.

Verses 13-16. Judge in yourselves — For what need of more arguments in so plain a case? Is it comely — Decent, suitable to female modesty; that a woman pray unto God — The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have if, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered? Doth not even nature — The light of nature, or natural reason; teach you — Previous to any arguments on the subject; that if a man have long hair — Carefully adjusted, it is a mark of such effeminacy as is a disgrace to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory — An ornament; to her — Which does not incommode her, being suitable to her domestic state: for her hair was given her — Originally, and before the arts of dress were invented or needed; for — Anti, instead of; a covering — Or veil. “What a value the eastern ladies put on their hair may be known from this, that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen, Berenice, who loved him tenderly, vowed, as the most precious sacrifice she could offer, to cut off and consecrate her hair, if he returned in safety.” But if any man seem to be contentious — And will dispute this matter, on his own different views of what is naturally decent, I shall not controvert it further, but content myself with saying, that we have here no such custom — For women to appear with their heads uncovered; neither the churches of God — In any other place, whether planted by me or any of my brethren. 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 not. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious persons.

Ver. 13-16. Is it comely that a woman pray uncovered. The argument here is built on national customs, but customs which St. Paul regarded as important, corresponding with the natural law of modesty, and the peace of the church. The hair of Absalom was his pride, and caused his death. The long hair of the Argives is a frequent epithet of Homer, and the short-haired Englishman is a pleasantry with Zimmerman. Though the length of the hair be in itself a small object, yet it is not small when the peace and unity of the church is disturbed, as appears from ver. 19 to have been the case at Corinth, and which produced disorders that invoked divine correction.

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. 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.

Ver. 16. Reveals the probable source or support of the practice objected to.

Thinks: looks upon himself, and with approval, as one fond of strife. But strife is opposed to an abiding custom of the apostles and of the churches of God. This warning suggests that, from a boasted love of strife, some defended the women who rejected the head-dress. To such Paul says that in loving strife they stand alone among the churches.

REVIEW of § 20. Paul cannot pronounce what is virtually a censure without remembering his readers' care to follow his directions in all matters of worship. To his implied censure he paves a way by stating the great principle that subordination is a rule of the kingdom of God, one extending even to the Eternal Trinity. This suggests, and the tenor of the whole section implies that the real source of the evil before us was a desire of some Christian women to claim equality with men. This claim Paul meets by reminding us that in the order and purpose of creation woman was made subordinate to man; and says that upon this original distinction rests the universally admitted obligation that the sexes be visibly distinguished in dress. His readers' instinctive sense of the propriety of this, he seeks to strengthen by reminding them that they worship in the presence of angels and that in their prayer they draw near to God; and by pointing to the shameless women who obliterated still further than the women in question the visible mark of their sex, and who did so evidently because they had deserted the dignity of womanhood. To the propriety of the visible distinction of the sexes, even Nature bears witness, by giving to women a more abundant covering. But, while insisting thus upon the subordinate position of woman, Paul declares that, in the spiritual life as in the order of Nature, neither sex is independent of the other. That he treats so seriously a matter apparently so trivial, warns us that in the Christian life even small defects may be serious; either as implying forgetfulness of important principles, or as first steps in a dangerous path.

From this section we learn that whatever is purely human, i.e. whatever is older than man's sin, is not set aside, but is glorified, by Christ in the Christian life. We learn also the value of our instinctive sense of right and wrong; and that it is strengthened and purified by study of the great truths objectively revealed, and by thought of the presence with us of those heavenly beings who do perfectly and always the will of God and of the presence of Him before whom even angels veil their faces.

Verse 17. Now in this-I praise you not] In the beginning of this epistle the apostle did praise them for their attention in general to the rules he had laid down, see 1 Corinthians 11:2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly relative to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Through some false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the same way the Jews did their passover. That, we know, was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were, eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the crucifixion of his body, and the shedding of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear to have perverted the whole of this Divine institution; for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper appears to have been made among them a part of an ordinary meal. The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, mequei, was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they appear to have done something in reference to our Lord’s institution, but more resembling the Jewish passover. These irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by the Divine ordinance, they were injured; they came together not for the better, but for the worse.

Verses 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, (verse 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 — En th ekklhsia, 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 — Scismata, 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, 1 Corinthians 1:10, and 1 Corinthians 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 aireseiv 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.

PAUL’S SEVENTH RESPONSE:—AS TO DISORDERS AT THE LORD’S SUPPER, 17-34. The supper of our Lord the night of his betrayal was divisible into three parts: First, the proper passover service, according to the law of Moses; second, an ordinary meal for the natural satiation of hunger, according to custom; and, third, the eucharistic bread and wine which he then first established as a memorial of his death. Of course the first of the three disappeared at the commencement of Christianity, leaving the other two. Of these two the first became the agape, or love-feast; the last remained, forever, the Lord’s supper.

In Corinth the agape seems to have been slightly modified by two Grecian customs. One of these customs was the eranos, or symposium; a banquet to which the guests each brought a portion of the food and drink as in our modern picnic. A master of the feast was elected. Of course the most generous way was, for those best able to bring the most liberal amount, and then spread the whole on a common table for all. The second custom was the Grecian sacrificial feasts, in which an ample supply was furnished, and so moderately eaten that a rich remainder was left for the poor. While Paul remained at Corinth the best qualities of both these pagan customs were exhibited in the love-feasts of the Christians, with some Christian improvements.

Under the presiding presbyter the feast was opened with the washing of hands, and prayer; after which, the Scriptures were read and discussed. Then fraternal intelligence was received and discussed from brother Churches, maintaining the mutual sympathy of the Christian republic. Hereby wants were learned and aid supplied for distressed Churches and individuals. Money was collected for widows, orphans, and the poor. The eucharist was probably performed at the last, closing with the kiss of charity.

After Paul left, a more heathenish spirit gained ascendency. The meals were divided into different sets, resulting in quarrelsome cliques; the rich, with their plentiful furnishings, arrogated the lion’s share, became gluttonous, and left nothing for the poor; so that an institution intended to promote union, equality, and charity, was perverted into a means of division, caste, and insult.

Paul’s rebuke upon the Church is divisible into three paragraphs. In vv. 17-22 he states the report of their misconduct in regard to the Lord’s supper; in 23-27 he reproduces to their recollection the historic foundation and nature of the supper; and in 28-34 he recalls them to the true reformation of their dealings with so sacred an institution.

1. The Corinthian abuses of the Lord’s Supper, 17-22.

17. This—Refers, we think, not to what precedes, (as Alford,) but to the paragraph now commencing. Declare—Rather, enjoin. Alford says, that no injunction or command immediately follows; which is true: but all preceding vv. 23-27, which is injunction, does but state the case upon which the injunction is based. I praise you not—As he did in verse 2. Come together—Assemble in congregation. Worse—Result. Your assemblages do you more harm than good.

I CORINTHIANS

SECTION 21 — THE LORD'S SUPPER MUST BE

RECEIVED IN A MANNER SUITABLE TO THE

SOLEMN TRUTHS THEREIN SET FORTH

CH. 11:17-34

But, while giving this charge, I do not praise you that not for the better but for the worse you come together. For, in the first place, when you come together in church-meeting, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in some part I believe it. For there must needs be even sects among you, in order that the proved ones may become evident among you. When then you come together to the same place, there is no eating the Lord's Supper. For, his own supper each one takes beforehand in the eating; and one is hungry and another is drunken. Have you not (is this the reason?) houses for eating and drinking? Or, the church of God do you despise, and put to shame those that have not? What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you? In this matter I give no praise.

For, as to myself I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was being betrayed took bread, and, having given thanks, broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this for the remembering of me.” In the same way also the cup, after having taken supper, saying, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, for the remembering of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you announce the death of the Lord, till He come. So then, whoever may eat the bread or may drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Let a man prove himself, and thus let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks for himself judgment, if he do not recognize the body. Because of this, among you, are many sick and weak ones, and some sleep. But if we recognized ourselves we should not be judged. But being judged, by the Lord we are chastised, in order that we may not be condemned with the world.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait one for another; if any one is hungry, let him eat at home: in order that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters, whenever I come, I will set in order.

A second disorder at church-meetings, viz. improper conduct at the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:17-22: the facts and purpose of the institution of the Supper, and the proper way of receiving it, 1 Corinthians 11:22-32: exhortation to better conduct, 1 Corinthians 11:33-34.

Ver. 17. This charge: probably the very strong charge implied in § 20, viz. that women do not lay aside the veil. For 1 Corinthians 11:17b contains no definite charge; and 1 Corinthians 11:22 is too distant. Paul prefaced his charge in § 20 with words of praise. He now tells us that his praise does not extend to the matter of which he is going to speak, which he introduces by saying that their church gatherings tend to do them more harm than good.

V. 18. In the church-In the public assembly.

I hear there are 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, 1 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Corinthians 12:25; which are the only places in the New Testament, beside 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 schisms; 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 whilst 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 anything 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.

Verse 18. There be divisions among you] They had scismata, schisms, among them: the old parties were kept up, even in the place where they assembled to eat the Lord’s Supper. The Paulians, the Kephites, and the Apollonians, continued to be distinct parties; and ate their meals separately, even in the same house.

Verses 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, (verse 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 — En th ekklhsia, 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 — Scismata, 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, 1 Corinthians 1:10, and 1 Corinthians 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 aireseiv 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.

18. First—But what is the second to this first? Clearly, as Alford shows, the paragraph upon the Lord’s supper (17-34) is the first, and the entire subject of spiritual gifts, beginning at the next chapter, is the second to it. And Alford’s showing on this point shows, also, that declare takes in the commencing paragraph. Divisions—Scismata, schisms. In modern ecclesiastical phraseology schisms are secessions from the Church; and heresies (next verse) are doctrines contrary to the belief of the Church. Such is not the apostle’s use of the words. By schisms here he means the separations in feeling produced by the sets and cliques at the Lord’s supper. Partly—He believes some of the report, but cannot quite, in charity, believe the whole.

Ver. 18. Explains and justifies 1 Corinthians 11:17b. First: Without any “second” following it, as in Romans 1:8; 3:2; implying that the misconduct mentioned is not the only one. In 1 Corinthians 11:34 we find other matters which need to be set in order, but which are allowed to remain till Paul's arrival at Corinth; and in 1 Corinthians 14:23-35, other definite abuses when they come together, though perhaps not sufficiently great as was the matter of 1 Corinthians 11:20ff, to justify the strong language of 1 Corinthians 11:17.

In church: simplest meaning of the word, viz. a formal gathering of the people of God; as in 1 Corinthians 14:19, 35. See note 1 Corinthians 1:9.

I hear: contrast 1 Corinthians 1:11. The news continues to come in from various sources.

Divisions: not necessarily organized parties, but whatever separates brother from brother. They are mentioned only for a moment, to open a way for 1 Corinthians 11:20ff, where we find divisions at church-meetings based on different degrees of wealth. These divisions were, therefore, probably not coincident with those of 1 Corinthians 11:10.

In some part; suggests Paul's hope that, though he cannot doubt that the report is true in the main, it may be exaggerated. Notice the courtesy, mingled with seriousness, of these words.

V. 19. There must be heresies-Divisions.

Among you-In the ordinary course of things; and God permits them, that it may appear who among you are, and who are not, upright of heart.

Verse 19. There must be also heresies] aireseiv. Not a common consent of the members of the Church, either in the doctrines of the Gospel, or in the ceremonies of the Christian religion. Their difference in religious opinion led to a difference in their religious practice, and thus the Church of God, that should have been one body, was split into sects and parties. The divisions and the heresies sprung out of each other. I have spoken largely on the word heresy in Acts 5:17, to which place I beg leave to refer the reader.

Verses 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, (verse 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 — En th ekklhsia, 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 — Scismata, 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, 1 Corinthians 1:10, and 1 Corinthians 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 aireseiv 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.

Ver. 19. There must also be heresies among you, that those brethren may be approved who love the peace of the church more than parties and contention; while the heretic follows his own opinion to mischiefs unutterable. See the note on Acts 24:14.

19. Must be—Not from God’s purpose, but from man’s perverseness. See note on Luke 17:1. See also Matthew 24:6, and 26:54. Heresies among you—See note on last verse. Heresies is derived from a verb signifying to choose, and refers to the wilfulness of Church partisanship. It now includes false doctrine, as being adopted rather by the perverse will of the heretic than by any good reason. Church factionists, as Grotius remarks, often concoct some special dogma in order to give permanence to their faction. Approved—The divinely approved, upon test and trial. When commotion and secession prevail, the true sons of peace reveal themselves in calmness and firmness. In doctrines, also, error, by reaction, draws out investigation and defence on the side of truth, and renders its evidences more clear and the doctrine itself more defined. The creeds of the Church have thence arisen. They are attempts by the Church to state her doctrines in defence against disputers and gainsayers.

Ver. 19. Paul's reason for believing that there is some truth in the report. Sects: organized parties, Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5; 24:5, 14; 28:22; implying, but more (cp. Galatians 5:20) than, “divisions.” Must needs be: the defects of human nature render inevitable not only separations between brethren, but organized church-parties. But this necessity is no excuse for those who create divisions: for it rests upon their foreseen and inexcusable selfishness. Cp. Romans 16:17f; Matthew 18:7; Luke 17:1. These words do not necessarily imply that the sects already exist; nor do they suggest, as does Mt. 18., that they are still future, but says simply that there are, or will be, sects. Cp. Acts 20:30. Notice that Paul does not mention the sects with express blame or warning, but merely as a reason for his belief that the report he has heard is in part true. He knows what human nature is, and is therefore not surprised at the existence of divisions.

Approved-ones: 2 Corinthians 10:18; 13:7; James 1:12: they who have passed satisfactorily through the test and are thus proved to be genuine. In 1 Corinthians 11:19b, we have a purpose of God. He uses the inevitable and foreseen tendency to church-parties as a means of showing to the church-members (evident among you) those who already to His eye are the approved-ones. This suggests that not all the church-members had thus approved themselves to God. There is no severer test of loyalty to Christ than the existence around us of church-parties. They who in such circumstances behave aright are evidently approved. 1 Corinthians 11:18, 19 point out beforehand a serious consequence of the abuse in hand, viz. division in the church; and, even in that act of worship which is specially designed (1 Corinthians 10:17) to be a center of unity, divisions tending to the outward and formal separation of Christians. Nearly all sects have arisen from abuses within the church.

V. 20. Therefore-That is, in consequence of those schisms. It is not eating the Lord's supper-That solemn memorial of his death; but quite another thing.

Verse 20. This is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.] They did not come together to eat the Lord’s Supper exclusively, which they should have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary meal.

Verses 20-22. When ye come together therefore — In such a manner as you do; into one place — Under pretence of celebrating the holy ordinance of the eucharist, and have such strife and contention among you, and act in the disorderly manner which I shall now mention; this is not to eat the Lord’s supper — That solemn memorial of his death; nor does it deserve to be called by that name, unless ye eat it in fellowship together, and in mutual love, as the disciples of one master. Instead of regarding it in a holy and religious point of view, you seem to confound it with a common meal; and do not indeed behave in the manner that decency would require, if it were no more than a common meal. For in eating it — Or when you eat it; every one taketh before other his own supper — Or, as Macknight renders ekastov to idion deipnon prolambanei, every one taketh first his own supper; observing, that “what follows shows the apostle did not mean,” as in our translation, “that every one took before another his own supper; but that every one took his own supper before he ate the Lord’s supper. Christ having instituted his supper after he had eaten the passover, the disciples very early made it a rule to feast together before they ate the Lord’s supper. These feasts were called agapai, charitates, love-feasts. They are mentioned, Jude, verse 12, as also by some of the ancient Christian writers. From Xenophon, (see Memorab., lib. 3. cap. 14,) we learn that the Greeks, when they supped together, brought each his own provisions ready dressed, which they ate in company together. Probably the Corinthians followed the same practice, in their feasts previous to the Lord’s supper.” And one is hungry, and another is drunken — Or rather, is filled, or plentifully fed, “as mequein signifies here, being opposed to one is hungry. The word is used in this sense by the LXX., Psalm 35:9; Jeremiah 38:14; John 2:10; where it is rendered by our translators, when men have well drunk, drunk plentifully. According to the grammarians, mequein literally signifies to eat and drink, meta to quein, after sacrificing; on which occasions the heathen often drank to excess.” What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in — With your friends? Or despise ye the church of God — Which ye thus expose to contempt, and which you must greatly offend and grieve by such a conduct as this? That church of which the poor are both the larger and the better part; and shame — Expose to shame; them that have not — A supper to eat, while ye feast luxuriously? Do you act thus in designed contempt of them? What shall I say to you — On this occasion? Shall I praise you in this? — I wish I could fairly and honourably do it; but at present I praise you not — I must rather blame you, and exhort you to amend what is so grossly amiss.

20. Not… supper—The performances they came to enact were truly no Lord’s supper at all, but a burlesque and dishonour upon it, being only their own supper. The possessive, Lord’s, is in the Greek an adjective for which we have no proper English word, as Lordic. So the Lordic supper and the Lordic day (Revelation 1:10) are parallel terms. And the word Church is generally derived from a similar Greek phrase, which might similarly be Lordic house. The Lord’s supper, though primitively associated with, was distinct from, the agape. It usually, but probably not always, succeeded the agape.

Verses 20-22 may be illustrated by Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates, book iii. 14.1: “Whenever, of those who came together for supper some brought a small portion of food and others much, Socrates used to bid the attendant boy to put the small portion before the whole company, or to divide a part to each. They then who brought much could not for shame refuse to partake that which was set before the whole company, and in return to put their own food. They put therefore their own food before the whole company. And, since they had nothing more than they who brought little, they ceased bringing much food.” Probably from this Greek custom arose the practice of church-members bringing their own food to the Lord's Supper; and from this arose, even in a Christian church, the abuse which Socrates corrected. Paul condemns both (1 Corinthians 11:21a) the custom, as a mode of keeping the Lord's Supper, and (1 Corinthians 11:21b) its abuse. Whether this custom prevailed in other churches, we have no means of judging. At Corinth both the custom and its abuse were fostered by the worldliness of the church.

V. 21. For in eating what ye call the Lord's supper, instead of all partaking of one bread, each person brings his own supper, and eats it without staying for the rest. And hereby the poor, who cannot provide for themselves, have nothing; while the rich eat and drink to the full just as the heathens use to do at the feasts on their sacrifices.

Verse 21. Every one taketh before-his own supper] They had a grand feast, though the different sects kept in parties by themselves; but all took as ample a supper as they could provide, (each bringing his own provisions with him,) before they took what was called the Lord’s Supper. See Clarke on “1 Corinthians 11:17”.

Verses 20-22. When ye come together therefore — In such a manner as you do; into one place — Under pretence of celebrating the holy ordinance of the eucharist, and have such strife and contention among you, and act in the disorderly manner which I shall now mention; this is not to eat the Lord’s supper — That solemn memorial of his death; nor does it deserve to be called by that name, unless ye eat it in fellowship together, and in mutual love, as the disciples of one master. Instead of regarding it in a holy and religious point of view, you seem to confound it with a common meal; and do not indeed behave in the manner that decency would require, if it were no more than a common meal. For in eating it — Or when you eat it; every one taketh before other his own supper — Or, as Macknight renders ekastov to idion deipnon prolambanei, every one taketh first his own supper; observing, that “what follows shows the apostle did not mean,” as in our translation, “that every one took before another his own supper; but that every one took his own supper before he ate the Lord’s supper. Christ having instituted his supper after he had eaten the passover, the disciples very early made it a rule to feast together before they ate the Lord’s supper. These feasts were called agapai, charitates, love-feasts. They are mentioned, Jude, verse 12, as also by some of the ancient Christian writers. From Xenophon, (see Memorab., lib. 3. cap. 14,) we learn that the Greeks, when they supped together, brought each his own provisions ready dressed, which they ate in company together. Probably the Corinthians followed the same practice, in their feasts previous to the Lord’s supper.” And one is hungry, and another is drunken — Or rather, is filled, or plentifully fed, “as mequein signifies here, being opposed to one is hungry. The word is used in this sense by the LXX., Psalm 35:9; Jeremiah 38:14; John 2:10; where it is rendered by our translators, when men have well drunk, drunk plentifully. According to the grammarians, mequein literally signifies to eat and drink, meta to quein, after sacrificing; on which occasions the heathen often drank to excess.” What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in — With your friends? Or despise ye the church of God — Which ye thus expose to contempt, and which you must greatly offend and grieve by such a conduct as this? That church of which the poor are both the larger and the better part; and shame — Expose to shame; them that have not — A supper to eat, while ye feast luxuriously? Do you act thus in designed contempt of them? What shall I say to you — On this occasion? Shall I praise you in this? — I wish I could fairly and honourably do it; but at present I praise you not — I must rather blame you, and exhort you to amend what is so grossly amiss.

21. Every one—Each one. Instead of spreading a table for a common supper, each one made an own supper, of his own food, and preoccupied it entire. Thereby separate sets were established, and what was meant for union became disunion. Hungry—He whom persecution had made poor was left hungry; so that what was meant for liberality became insult. Drunken—At the symposium (which term was compounded of two Greek words, signifying a drink together) even Socrates was said not seldom to have appeared too vinous for a philosopher. The philosopher, therefore, sadly incurred the rebuke of the apostle. Paul, probably, uses as condemnatory a word as truth would allow. It does not necessarily follow from the word, yet it may have been, as Renan says, that some “went reeling from the table of the Lord.” The pagan Corinthians would doubtless consider the apostle as an extremist in temperance. Modern temperance reformers would, perhaps, think that Paul had better go further and prohibit the wine from the agape entirely; but the existence of more fiery liquors, like brandy and whisky, had not suggested the necessity of the law of entire abstinence for all persons from wine. Even now the law of abstinence from wine should be based not upon the intrinsic wickedness of a limited drinking of wine, but upon the obligation to abstain as part of a great reformatory enterprise, and as a prudential safeguard from moral danger. On the word drunken, see note on John 2:10. The antithesis to hungry would suggest that the opposite word would mean surfeited.

Verses 20-22 may be illustrated by Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates, book iii. 14.1: “Whenever, of those who came together for supper some brought a small portion of food and others much, Socrates used to bid the attendant boy to put the small portion before the whole company, or to divide a part to each. They then who brought much could not for shame refuse to partake that which was set before the whole company, and in return to put their own food. They put therefore their own food before the whole company. And, since they had nothing more than they who brought little, they ceased bringing much food.” Probably from this Greek custom arose the practice of church-members bringing their own food to the Lord's Supper; and from this arose, even in a Christian church, the abuse which Socrates corrected. Paul condemns both (1 Corinthians 11:21a) the custom, as a mode of keeping the Lord's Supper, and (1 Corinthians 11:21b) its abuse. Whether this custom prevailed in other churches, we have no means of judging. At Corinth both the custom and its abuse were fostered by the worldliness of the church.

V. 22. Have ye not houses to eat and drink your common meals in? or do ye despise the Church of God-Of which the poor are both the larger and the better part. Do ye act thus in designed contempt of them?

Verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?] They should have taken their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in the church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

Despise ye the church of God] Ye render the sacred assembly and the place contemptible by your conduct, and ye show yourselves destitute of that respect which ye owe to the place set apart for Divine worship. And shame them that have not?] touv mh econtav, Them that are poor; not them who had not victuals at that time, but those who are so poor as to be incapable of furnishing themselves as others had done. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 13:12”.

Verses 20-22. When ye come together therefore — In such a manner as you do; into one place — Under pretence of celebrating the holy ordinance of the eucharist, and have such strife and contention among you, and act in the disorderly manner which I shall now mention; this is not to eat the Lord’s supper — That solemn memorial of his death; nor does it deserve to be called by that name, unless ye eat it in fellowship together, and in mutual love, as the disciples of one master. Instead of regarding it in a holy and religious point of view, you seem to confound it with a common meal; and do not indeed behave in the manner that decency would require, if it were no more than a common meal. For in eating it — Or when you eat it; every one taketh before other his own supper — Or, as Macknight renders ekastov to idion deipnon prolambanei, every one taketh first his own supper; observing, that “what follows shows the apostle did not mean,” as in our translation, “that every one took before another his own supper; but that every one took his own supper before he ate the Lord’s supper. Christ having instituted his supper after he had eaten the passover, the disciples very early made it a rule to feast together before they ate the Lord’s supper. These feasts were called agapai, charitates, love-feasts. They are mentioned, Jude, verse 12, as also by some of the ancient Christian writers. From Xenophon, (see Memorab., lib. 3. cap. 14,) we learn that the Greeks, when they supped together, brought each his own provisions ready dressed, which they ate in company together. Probably the Corinthians followed the same practice, in their feasts previous to the Lord’s supper.” And one is hungry, and another is drunken — Or rather, is filled, or plentifully fed, “as mequein signifies here, being opposed to one is hungry. The word is used in this sense by the LXX., Psalm 35:9; Jeremiah 38:14; John 2:10; where it is rendered by our translators, when men have well drunk, drunk plentifully. According to the grammarians, mequein literally signifies to eat and drink, meta to quein, after sacrificing; on which occasions the heathen often drank to excess.” What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in — With your friends? Or despise ye the church of God — Which ye thus expose to contempt, and which you must greatly offend and grieve by such a conduct as this? That church of which the poor are both the larger and the better part; and shame — Expose to shame; them that have not — A supper to eat, while ye feast luxuriously? Do you act thus in designed contempt of them? What shall I say to you — On this occasion? Shall I praise you in this? — I wish I could fairly and honourably do it; but at present I praise you not — I must rather blame you, and exhort you to amend what is so grossly amiss.

22. Houses—Homes. If you sink the sacred supper to a secular rank, let the eating be done in a secular place. Despise ye—As too proud to eat in common with the commonalty. The church of God—Said emphatically to remind them what this despised commonalty truly was. Have not—Alford explains it, have not houses. But those who have not, is a phrase sometimes in Greek used for the poor. The poor and the rich are the have nots and the have alls. Praise you not—And so emphatic a withholding of praise was a strong dispraise and rebuke.

2. History and nature of the Lord’s Supper, 23-27.

To show the Corinthians what it is they are thus dishonouring, Paul now, with a formal solemnity, repeats the well-known origin of the Lord’s supper.

As the Lord’s supper was a divine institute, and the agape purely a Christian rite, Paul’s history shows only the guilt of desecrating the former. The guilt accompanying the latter was the schisms and disorders produced, and which resulted in the desecration of the supper.

Verses 20-22 may be illustrated by Xenophon's Memoirs of Socrates, book iii. 14.1: “Whenever, of those who came together for supper some brought a small portion of food and others much, Socrates used to bid the attendant boy to put the small portion before the whole company, or to divide a part to each. They then who brought much could not for shame refuse to partake that which was set before the whole company, and in return to put their own food. They put therefore their own food before the whole company. And, since they had nothing more than they who brought little, they ceased bringing much food.” Probably from this Greek custom arose the practice of church-members bringing their own food to the Lord's Supper; and from this arose, even in a Christian church, the abuse which Socrates corrected. Paul condemns both (1 Corinthians 11:21a) the custom, as a mode of keeping the Lord's Supper, and (1 Corinthians 11:21b) its abuse. Whether this custom prevailed in other churches, we have no means of judging. At Corinth both the custom and its abuse were fostered by the worldliness of the church.

V. 23. I received-By an immediate revelation.

Verse 23. I have received of the Lord] It is possible that several of the people at Corinth did receive the bread and wine of the eucharist as they did the paschal bread and wine, as a mere commemoration of an event. And as our Lord had by this institution consecrated that bread and wine, not to be the means of commemorating the deliverance from Egypt, and their joy on the account, but their deliverance from sin and death by his passion and cross; therefore the apostle states that he had received from the Lord what he delivered; viz. that the eucharistic bread and wine were to be understood of the accomplishment of that of which the paschal lamb was the type-the body broken for them, the blood shed for them. The Lord Jesus-took bread] See the whole of this account, collated with the parallel passages in the four Gospels, amply explained in my Discourse on the Eucharist, and in the notes on Matt. 26.

Verse 23. For I have received of the Lord — Doubtless by special revelation; that which also I delivered unto you — In my former preaching on this subject, in which, as in all things else, I have been careful most exactly to adhere to my original instructions. This epistle appears to have been written before any of the gospels, and it is probable from Galatians 1:17, &c, that when the apostle wrote it, he had seen none of the apostles. And that the institution of this ordinance should make a part of that immediate revelation, with which Christ honoured this apostle, is both very remarkable, and also affords a strong argument for the perpetuity of it in the church. “For had others of the apostles (as Barclay in his Apology for the Quakers presumes to insinuate) mistaken what passed at the last passover, and founded the observation of the eucharist on that mistake, surely Christ would rather have corrected this error in his new revelation to Paul, than have administered such an occasion of confirming Christians in it.” — Doddridge. That the Lord Jesus — In his own person; the same night in which he was betrayed — That is, in the night which preceded his crucifixion, which circumstance, with the others that follow respecting the nature and design of the sacred ordinance here spoken of, with the appointed form of its administration, Macknight thinks was made known to Paul by Christ himself, as a matter which merited particular attention, because it was a strong proof of his innocence. He knew he was to be crucified the next day as an impostor, for calling himself the Son of God. Having so near a prospect of his punishment, would he, by instituting his supper, have taken care that his punishment, as an impostor, should never be forgotten, if he had really been an impostor? No: such a supposition exceeds all rational belief. But knowing himself to be the Son of God, and being absolutely certain that God would acknowledge him as his Son, by raising him from the dead on the third day, he instituted his supper, to be preserved by his disciples till he should return to judge the world; because he foresaw that his death could not be remembered by his disciples, without recollecting his resurrection, and expecting his return. Further, if Christ did not rise from the dead according to his express promise, frequently repeated, can it be thought that his disciples, who thus must have known him to be a deceiver, would have perpetuated the memory of his punishment as an impostor, and of their own shame, by beginning a service, in which his death, that is, his punishment, would be openly published to the world? Wherefore, since the apostles, and the other first disciples, who were eye-witnesses of their Master’s death and resurrection, by beginning this service, and their successors by continuing it from age to age, have published to the world the death and resurrection of their Master, as matters of fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning; this certainly is an incontrovertible proof of the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection, and consequently it hath fully established his claim to be God’s Son, the true Messiah and Saviour of the world. Also, this ordinance hath been the source of unspeakable consolation to his disciples in every age, by assuring them that all his doctrines are true, and that all his promises shall be performed in their season; particularly his promise of returning to raise the dead, and carry his people into heaven. In this view the institution of the supper, in the night wherein he was betrayed, was a great instance of Christ’s love to men. And we are bound by continuing that excellent service in the world, to hand down to them who come after us those unspeakable consolations which we ourselves enjoy, through the pious care of our fathers, who believed in Christ before us.

Ver. 23. I received of the Lord that which also [even] I delivered unto you. The Lord did not make Paul an apostle to the gentiles without specially appearing to him, and giving him a full revelation of the gospel, in which the order of the holy sacrament was included. If so, no christian should neglect it. If so, it is far too assuming in the Friends to supersede it. Galatians 1:12.

23. Have received of the Lord—The question is raised whether Paul received from the Lord this narration by immediate revelation from Christ, or only mediately through the narration of eyewitnesses. Alford objects that in that case he would have said we rather than I. But he uses the first person singular as the founder-apostle of the Corinthian Church—I received… I delivered unto you. It is clear from these clauses that the Corinthians knew all this history, and that Paul is only calling it impressively to their recollection. Night—It is wonderful that the large body of Christian brethren who maintain that the word baptize signifies solely immersion, and that the example of Christ demands immersion, do not also insist that deipnon, supper, signifies an evening meal, and that the example of Christ requires his supper to be taken at night. And yet this Christian body excludes from that eucharist, which they perform in violation of the meaning of the word and the original example, all those whom they hold to be baptized in violation of verbal meaning and example. With the same persistence, in the same logic in the former as in the latter case, they could prove that a right supper has seldom been performed since Christ died. The same night—Full of pathos is the thought that we are re-enacting, the supper scene of the night before the crucifixion. It is an hour for weeping and not for revelry. It demands the purest, calmest thought, instead of the excitement of intoxication. Thought should go back to that solemn hour, should picture to the heart the agonizing scene, and melt us into contrition that our sins have their share in betraying and crucifying Him.

Verse 23-25. Reason why he cannot praise them. In contrast to their misconduct, Paul tells what he has learned from Christ.

I received: not “we received.” This implies that in some way peculiar to Paul, not by ordinary tradition, the risen Lord made known to him His own words at the Last Supper. Cp. Galatians 1:11f. The mode of this revelation, whether by angel, or direct voice of the Spirit, or a divinely-sent human messenger, is quite unknown to us. [Had the words come from the actual lips of Christ, another preposition would probably have been used, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:1, etc.] But the fact is plainly asserted here. Nor need we wonder that words so important were specially communicated to the one prominent apostle who was not present at the Last Supper. The close verbal similarity of 1 Corinthians 11:24f to Luke 22:19f, by no means implies that Paul learned from Luke, or from the same source as he. That Luke learned from Paul, (cp. Luke 1:2,) is much more likely. Notice here an account of the Last Supper unquestionably apostolic, and which an apostle declares that he received from Christ.

I also delivered: (1 Corinthians 11:2; 15:3;) emphatically directs attention to the communication, as well as the reception, of these facts. That Paul found it needful to repeat what he had said before, suggests to the readers that the abuses arose from their forgetfulness. In the night: graphic picture.

Bread: or a loaf.

Gave thanks: Matthew 15:36; John 6:11. That this is mentioned in all four accounts of the Last Supper, suggests that there was something in our Lord's demeanor while giving thanks which deeply impressed all present.

Which is for you: i.e. “My body exists for your good. For you it was created: and for you the historic facts of my earthly life took place.” But the broken bread was a silent and touching witness that Christ had specially in view the fact of His death.

Do this: break and distribute the bread: spoken probably while Christ was giving the bread to His disciples. Matthew 26:26. For the remembering of ME; by the disciples present and by His followers to the end of time. This was to Christ a definite object of thought; and was the aim of the Lord's Supper. The word denotes both remembering and bringing to others' remembrance, ideas closely associated.

In the same way: i.e. He took and gave thanks.

After having taken supper; Luke 22:20; directs attention to the fact that with the eating of the broken bread the Supper was finished. The New Covenant: see under 2 Corinthians 3:6.

In my blood. Because Christ's blood was shed, we have the Covenant with God of which the cup is a symbol and condition. The blood is the link between the cup and the Covenant.

As often as you drink it: only here. These words assume that the Supper will be repeated, and point out the spiritual purpose of it which must ever be kept in view.

The essential agreement of the four accounts (Matthew 26:26ff; Mark 14:22ff; Luke 22:19f* (* See Appendix B.)) of the institution of the Lord's Supper is a complete proof, apart from the authority of Scripture, of their historic correctness. That in all four, otherwise varying, accounts we have the words This is my body and The New Covenant, proves indisputably that these very words or their Aramaic equivalents were actually spoken by Christ. But, that each account was altogether verbally exact, is hardly possible. For it would involve a repetition unsuited to the solemnity of the occasion. But this does not disprove that the New Testament is, as Paul held the Old Testament to be, (see my Romans, Dissertation iii. 4,} the word and voice of God. For we can well conceive that the Holy Spirit, who, if Paul's view be correct, preserved the sacred writers from theological error and exerted upon them a directive influence which we cannot measure exactly, nevertheless forebore to save them from trivial verbal inaccuracies, and aided them only so far as His aid was needful for the ends He had in view. Indeed these trifling variations are a gain to us. For each supplements the others: and each is, if Paul's view of the authority of the Bible be correct, God's voice to us expounding the meaning of the Lord's Supper. In view of this gain we can afford to be in doubt about the exact form and order of the words which fell on that memorable night from the lips of Christ. We may perhaps reverently suggest that Paul's account is the more likely to be verbally exact. For the variation “This is my blood” (Mt. Mk.) may be accounted for by the similar words preceding, This is my body. Whereas, the changed form This cup is the New Covenant (Paul and Luke) cannot be accounted for except as being genuine. And we shall see that this change guards from abuse the words This is my body. Therefore, among four accounts, all which have for us divine authority, we may give a preference to that which Paul says he received specially from the Risen Saviour. How these words of Christ were likely to be understood by those who first heard them, we will now inquire. We place ourselves in thought among the assembled disciples. At the close of the supper the Saviour takes a loaf or cake of bread, breaks it, and gives the broken pieces to the disciples, saying, This is my body, which is for you. They could not possibly conceive Him to mean that the bread was actually His own body. Else He would have two bodies visible in the same room, each to be given for his disciples. And the body crucified the next day was then living and uninjured: whereas the bread was already broken. They could only understand His words to mean that the bread was symbolical, and the breaking and distribution of it prophetic, signifying and announcing that the body now living before their eyes was to die, for their spiritual nourishment. Cp. Isaiah 20:2ff; Hosea 1:4. Just as we point to a picture and say, without fear of being misunderstood, This is my father, or my house, so the disciples would naturally understand our Lord's words. And their interpretation of them would be confirmed by the words following. For the cup was not even practically identical with the Covenant. A cup given and received denoted that the Covenant was ratified: whereas the New Covenant was not ratified till the actual blood of Christ was shed. But the poured out wine was a prophetic symbol of the blood soon to be shed. And, therefore, the cup given and received was a silent announcement of the Covenant of which that blood was the pledge. This interpretation, which would naturally suggest itself at once would be confirmed by the repeated words, For the remembrance of Me. For the symbol of the broken body and of the Covenant ratified in blood would recall forcibly to those who in after years broke the bread and drank the wine the memory of Him who died that they might live.

This exposition does not assume that the disciples as they gathered on that night round the Saviour understood the full import of His words and actions. How these were understood by Paul, we must gather from his own exposition of his own narrative, and from 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, etc. This will enable us to test, and will supplement, the exposition just given of the words spoken by Christ.

V. 24. This is my body, which is broken for you-That is, this broken bread is the sign of my body, which is even now to be pierced and wounded for your iniquities. Take then, and eat of, this bread, in an humble, thankful, obediential remembrance of my dying love; of the extremity of my sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you, and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.

Verse 24. This do in remembrance of me.] The papists believe the apostles were not ordained priests before these words. Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non instituisse apostolos sacerdotes, anathema sit: “If any one shall say that in these words, ‘This do in remembrance of me,’ Christ did not ordain his apostles priests, let him be accursed.” Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Conc. 2. And he that does believe such an absurdity, on such a ground, is contemptible.

Verse 24. And when he had given thanks — The word eucaristhsav, thus rendered, is the term used also by Luke, whence Macknight infers, that the word euloghsav, used by Matthew and Mark, ought to be understood, not of Christ’s blessing the bread, but of his blessing God for saving sinners through his death, See on Luke 22:19. He brake it — Into several pieces; and — Distributing it to his disciples who were present, said — With great sweetness and solemnity, This is my body which is broken for you — “As the clause, which is broken, cannot be taken literally, because it would imply that Christ’s body was broken, or put to death on the cross, at the time he said this, contrary to truth; so the clause, this is my body, cannot be taken literally: for the two clauses making but one proposition, if the clause, this is my body, which is the subject of the proposition, be interpreted literally, the predicate, which is broken for you, must be so likewise. Consequently the proposition will import, that the bread in our Lord’s hands was converted into a thing which at that time had no existence. Both the doctrine of the Papists, and that of the Lutherans, therefore, [on this head,] ought to be rejected, as implying an evident falsehood; namely, that Christ’s body, at the time he spake, was broken, or put to death.” In other passages of Scripture, we frequently find expressions perfectly similar to, this is my body, as is proved in the note on Matthew 26:26, which see. The evident meaning of our Lord is, This bread is the representation of my body, which is to be broken for you. “The Papists contend, that in every age, by the priests pronouncing what they call the words of consecration, the same change is made in the bread and wine, which they affirm was made in these elements by Christ’s saying, This is my body, &c. But, to gain credit to their doctrine, they ought to show from Scripture, that the power of working that miracle was promised by Christ to all his faithful servants in the ministry to the end of the world. But this they cannot do. Besides, that St. Paul did not possess any such power is evident from verses 26-28 of this chapter, where he calls the elements bread and wine after their consecration, as he had named them before.” — Macknight. This do in remembrance of me — In an humble, thankful, obedient remembrance of my dying love, of the extremity of my sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you, and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.

24. This and the following verse have so many phrases identical with Luke 22:19 as to show them to be the same tradition. In regard to the passover consult our note, Matthew 26:2: in regard to the Lord’s supper, notes on Matthew 26:20-30. Yet it must be noted that this epistle and this passage may have been written before the gospel of Luke. Whether this is the earliest existing narrative of the Lord’s supper, as Stanley says, may he doubted. At any rate, we believe that the original Hebrew of Matthew’s gospel was written before this; and that the Greek Matthew is a translation of that document. Given thanks—From this giving thanks, eucharistia, the Lord’s supper has been called the eucharist. Brake—Note on Matthew 26:26. Matthew adds “and gave it to the disciples.” Take—This, with the analogy of the head of the family at the passover, implies that an administrator of the elements, who would be an apostle or presbyter, is one of the essentials to a proper communion. Body—See note on Matthew 26:26. In remembrance of me—With the Christian individual this remembrance appeals to the heart, touching his feelings with thoughts of Him who spake these words to his own soul—the dying Jesus. With the Church and the world they are an appeal to the intellect to demonstrate the historical truth of Christianity. There are several lines of evidence that fasten the belief to the historical Christ, the existence of which cannot be accounted for except upon the truth of the New Testament history. The rite of baptism can be traced from the present time to John the Baptist. The Christian sabbath forms line from the present to the resurrection of Christ. The succession of Christian bishops carries us, even on the loosest theory, through the great Churches to the apostolic age. These various lines all verify each other: they converge in the Christ history; and no other origin can be assigned. Baptism indicates the beginning of Christ’s mission; the eucharist his death; the Sunday-sabbath his resurrection; the line of bishops, the historic Church.

Verse 23-25. Reason why he cannot praise them. In contrast to their misconduct, Paul tells what he has learned from Christ.

I received: not “we received.” This implies that in some way peculiar to Paul, not by ordinary tradition, the risen Lord made known to him His own words at the Last Supper. Cp. Galatians 1:11f. The mode of this revelation, whether by angel, or direct voice of the Spirit, or a divinely-sent human messenger, is quite unknown to us. [Had the words come from the actual lips of Christ, another preposition would probably have been used, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:1, etc.] But the fact is plainly asserted here. Nor need we wonder that words so important were specially communicated to the one prominent apostle who was not present at the Last Supper. The close verbal similarity of 1 Corinthians 11:24f to Luke 22:19f, by no means implies that Paul learned from Luke, or from the same source as he. That Luke learned from Paul, (cp. Luke 1:2,) is much more likely. Notice here an account of the Last Supper unquestionably apostolic, and which an apostle declares that he received from Christ.

I also delivered: (1 Corinthians 11:2; 15:3;) emphatically directs attention to the communication, as well as the reception, of these facts. That Paul found it needful to repeat what he had said before, suggests to the readers that the abuses arose from their forgetfulness. In the night: graphic picture.

Bread: or a loaf.

Gave thanks: Matthew 15:36; John 6:11. That this is mentioned in all four accounts of the Last Supper, suggests that there was something in our Lord's demeanor while giving thanks which deeply impressed all present.

Which is for you: i.e. “My body exists for your good. For you it was created: and for you the historic facts of my earthly life took place.” But the broken bread was a silent and touching witness that Christ had specially in view the fact of His death.

Do this: break and distribute the bread: spoken probably while Christ was giving the bread to His disciples. Matthew 26:26. For the remembering of ME; by the disciples present and by His followers to the end of time. This was to Christ a definite object of thought; and was the aim of the Lord's Supper. The word denotes both remembering and bringing to others' remembrance, ideas closely associated.

In the same way: i.e. He took and gave thanks.

After having taken supper; Luke 22:20; directs attention to the fact that with the eating of the broken bread the Supper was finished. The New Covenant: see under 2 Corinthians 3:6.

In my blood. Because Christ's blood was shed, we have the Covenant with God of which the cup is a symbol and condition. The blood is the link between the cup and the Covenant.

As often as you drink it: only here. These words assume that the Supper will be repeated, and point out the spiritual purpose of it which must ever be kept in view.

The essential agreement of the four accounts (Matthew 26:26ff; Mark 14:22ff; Luke 22:19f* (* See Appendix B.)) of the institution of the Lord's Supper is a complete proof, apart from the authority of Scripture, of their historic correctness. That in all four, otherwise varying, accounts we have the words This is my body and The New Covenant, proves indisputably that these very words or their Aramaic equivalents were actually spoken by Christ. But, that each account was altogether verbally exact, is hardly possible. For it would involve a repetition unsuited to the solemnity of the occasion. But this does not disprove that the New Testament is, as Paul held the Old Testament to be, (see my Romans, Dissertation iii. 4,} the word and voice of God. For we can well conceive that the Holy Spirit, who, if Paul's view be correct, preserved the sacred writers from theological error and exerted upon them a directive influence which we cannot measure exactly, nevertheless forebore to save them from trivial verbal inaccuracies, and aided them only so far as His aid was needful for the ends He had in view. Indeed these trifling variations are a gain to us. For each supplements the others: and each is, if Paul's view of the authority of the Bible be correct, God's voice to us expounding the meaning of the Lord's Supper. In view of this gain we can afford to be in doubt about the exact form and order of the words which fell on that memorable night from the lips of Christ. We may perhaps reverently suggest that Paul's account is the more likely to be verbally exact. For the variation “This is my blood” (Mt. Mk.) may be accounted for by the similar words preceding, This is my body. Whereas, the changed form This cup is the New Covenant (Paul and Luke) cannot be accounted for except as being genuine. And we shall see that this change guards from abuse the words This is my body. Therefore, among four accounts, all which have for us divine authority, we may give a preference to that which Paul says he received specially from the Risen Saviour. How these words of Christ were likely to be understood by those who first heard them, we will now inquire. We place ourselves in thought among the assembled disciples. At the close of the supper the Saviour takes a loaf or cake of bread, breaks it, and gives the broken pieces to the disciples, saying, This is my body, which is for you. They could not possibly conceive Him to mean that the bread was actually His own body. Else He would have two bodies visible in the same room, each to be given for his disciples. And the body crucified the next day was then living and uninjured: whereas the bread was already broken. They could only understand His words to mean that the bread was symbolical, and the breaking and distribution of it prophetic, signifying and announcing that the body now living before their eyes was to die, for their spiritual nourishment. Cp. Isaiah 20:2ff; Hosea 1:4. Just as we point to a picture and say, without fear of being misunderstood, This is my father, or my house, so the disciples would naturally understand our Lord's words. And their interpretation of them would be confirmed by the words following. For the cup was not even practically identical with the Covenant. A cup given and received denoted that the Covenant was ratified: whereas the New Covenant was not ratified till the actual blood of Christ was shed. But the poured out wine was a prophetic symbol of the blood soon to be shed. And, therefore, the cup given and received was a silent announcement of the Covenant of which that blood was the pledge. This interpretation, which would naturally suggest itself at once would be confirmed by the repeated words, For the remembrance of Me. For the symbol of the broken body and of the Covenant ratified in blood would recall forcibly to those who in after years broke the bread and drank the wine the memory of Him who died that they might live.

This exposition does not assume that the disciples as they gathered on that night round the Saviour understood the full import of His words and actions. How these were understood by Paul, we must gather from his own exposition of his own narrative, and from 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, etc. This will enable us to test, and will supplement, the exposition just given of the words spoken by Christ.

V. 25. After supper-Therefore ye ought not to confound this with a common meal.

Do this in remembrance of me-The ancient sacrifices were in remembrance of sin: this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sins.

Verses 25-27. He also took the cup when he had supped — Or, after supper. “This circumstance is mentioned to show that the Lord’s supper is not intended for the refreshment of the body, but, as we are told verse 26, for perpetuating the memory of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, to the end of the world, and declaring our expectation of his return from heaven to judge all mankind; that by seriously and frequently meditating on these things, the faith, hope, and gratitude of his disciples may be nourished. Now, that these ends may be effectually answered, this service must be performed by the whole members of each particular church, not in separate companies, but together, as making one harmonious society, by whose joint concurrence and communion in the service, the death of their Master is not only remembered, but declared in the most public manner to the world, as a fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning.” Saying, This cup is the new testament — Or, new covenant, rather, as the word more properly signifies. That is, it is the solemn seal and memorial of the covenant which is established in my blood, by which all its invaluable blessings are procured for you. Our Lord did not mean that the covenant of grace was first made at the time he shed his blood. It was made immediately after the fall, on account of the merit of his obedience unto the death, which God then considered as accomplished, because it was certainly to be accomplished at the time determined. Now this likewise do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me — And in order to maintain the memory of my bleeding, dying love, in the church and in the world. The ancient sacrifices were offered in remembrance of sin; this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sin. According to the Papists, the expression, as oft as ye drink it, “implies that the cup, in the Lord’s supper, may sometimes be omitted; and on that pretence they have denied the cup to the laity;” but how justly, may be known by taking notice that the words, as often as, are applied (verse 26) to the bread as well as to the cup. Besides, Matthew hath told us, that when Christ gave the cup, he said, (Matthew 26:27,) drink ye all of it; which being both an invitation and a command, all Christians are as much entitled to the cup as to the bread.” For as often as ye — The church of God in any age; eat this bread and drink this cup — With proper solemnity and seriousness, faith, love, and gratitude; ye do show forth the Lord’s death — Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God and all the world; so the word kataggellete, here used, signifies: till he come — To close the present scene of things, and to receive all his faithful servants to a place where, for ever dwelling with him, they will no more need these memorials of an absent Saviour. Though at the institution of this ordinance our Lord spake nothing of his own second coming, yet in his discourse after the celebration of it, he connected his second coming with his death, John 14:3. The apostle therefore truly expressed his Master’s intention, when he told the Corinthians, that by publishing the Lord’s death, they published also his coming to judgment, and that the service of the supper was intended as a publication of both. Wherefore — Wste, so that; whosoever shall eat this bread, &c., unworthily — That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner, without properly regarding him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment; shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord — That is, of profaning that which represents his body and blood.

PAUL’S SEVENTH RESPONSE:—AS TO DISORDERS AT THE LORD’S SUPPER, 17-34. The supper of our Lord the night of his betrayal was divisible into three parts: First, the proper passover service, according to the law of Moses; second, an ordinary meal for the natural satiation of hunger, according to custom; and, third, the eucharistic bread and wine which he then first established as a memorial of his death. Of course the first of the three disappeared at the commencement of Christianity, leaving the other two. Of these two the first became the agape, or love-feast; the last remained, forever, the Lord’s supper.

In Corinth the agape seems to have been slightly modified by two Grecian customs. One of these customs was the eranos, or symposium; a banquet to which the guests each brought a portion of the food and drink as in our modern picnic. A master of the feast was elected. Of course the most generous way was, for those best able to bring the most liberal amount, and then spread the whole on a common table for all. The second custom was the Grecian sacrificial feasts, in which an ample supply was furnished, and so moderately eaten that a rich remainder was left for the poor. While Paul remained at Corinth the best qualities of both these pagan customs were exhibited in the love-feasts of the Christians, with some Christian improvements.

Under the presiding presbyter the feast was opened with the washing of hands, and prayer; after which, the Scriptures were read and discussed. Then fraternal intelligence was received and discussed from brother Churches, maintaining the mutual sympathy of the Christian republic. Hereby wants were learned and aid supplied for distressed Churches and individuals. Money was collected for widows, orphans, and the poor. The eucharist was probably performed at the last, closing with the kiss of charity.

After Paul left, a more heathenish spirit gained ascendency. The meals were divided into different sets, resulting in quarrelsome cliques; the rich, with their plentiful furnishings, arrogated the lion’s share, became gluttonous, and left nothing for the poor; so that an institution intended to promote union, equality, and charity, was perverted into a means of division, caste, and insult.

Paul’s rebuke upon the Church is divisible into three paragraphs. In vv. 17-22 he states the report of their misconduct in regard to the Lord’s supper; in 23-27 he reproduces to their recollection the historic foundation and nature of the supper; and in 28-34 he recalls them to the true reformation of their dealings with so sacred an institution.

1. The Corinthian abuses of the Lord’s Supper, 17-22.

17. This—Refers, we think, not to what precedes, (as Alford,) but to the paragraph now commencing. Declare—Rather, enjoin. Alford says, that no injunction or command immediately follows; which is true: but all preceding vv. 23-27, which is injunction, does but state the case upon which the injunction is based. I praise you not—As he did in verse 2. Come together—Assemble in congregation. Worse—Result. Your assemblages do you more harm than good.

Verse 23-25. Reason why he cannot praise them. In contrast to their misconduct, Paul tells what he has learned from Christ.

I received: not “we received.” This implies that in some way peculiar to Paul, not by ordinary tradition, the risen Lord made known to him His own words at the Last Supper. Cp. Galatians 1:11f. The mode of this revelation, whether by angel, or direct voice of the Spirit, or a divinely-sent human messenger, is quite unknown to us. [Had the words come from the actual lips of Christ, another preposition would probably have been used, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:1, etc.] But the fact is plainly asserted here. Nor need we wonder that words so important were specially communicated to the one prominent apostle who was not present at the Last Supper. The close verbal similarity of 1 Corinthians 11:24f to Luke 22:19f, by no means implies that Paul learned from Luke, or from the same source as he. That Luke learned from Paul, (cp. Luke 1:2,) is much more likely. Notice here an account of the Last Supper unquestionably apostolic, and which an apostle declares that he received from Christ.

I also delivered: (1 Corinthians 11:2; 15:3;) emphatically directs attention to the communication, as well as the reception, of these facts. That Paul found it needful to repeat what he had said before, suggests to the readers that the abuses arose from their forgetfulness. In the night: graphic picture.

Bread: or a loaf.

Gave thanks: Matthew 15:36; John 6:11. That this is mentioned in all four accounts of the Last Supper, suggests that there was something in our Lord's demeanor while giving thanks which deeply impressed all present.

Which is for you: i.e. “My body exists for your good. For you it was created: and for you the historic facts of my earthly life took place.” But the broken bread was a silent and touching witness that Christ had specially in view the fact of His death.

Do this: break and distribute the bread: spoken probably while Christ was giving the bread to His disciples. Matthew 26:26. For the remembering of ME; by the disciples present and by His followers to the end of time. This was to Christ a definite object of thought; and was the aim of the Lord's Supper. The word denotes both remembering and bringing to others' remembrance, ideas closely associated.

In the same way: i.e. He took and gave thanks.

After having taken supper; Luke 22:20; directs attention to the fact that with the eating of the broken bread the Supper was finished. The New Covenant: see under 2 Corinthians 3:6.

In my blood. Because Christ's blood was shed, we have the Covenant with God of which the cup is a symbol and condition. The blood is the link between the cup and the Covenant.

As often as you drink it: only here. These words assume that the Supper will be repeated, and point out the spiritual purpose of it which must ever be kept in view.

The essential agreement of the four accounts (Matthew 26:26ff; Mark 14:22ff; Luke 22:19f* (* See Appendix B.)) of the institution of the Lord's Supper is a complete proof, apart from the authority of Scripture, of their historic correctness. That in all four, otherwise varying, accounts we have the words This is my body and The New Covenant, proves indisputably that these very words or their Aramaic equivalents were actually spoken by Christ. But, that each account was altogether verbally exact, is hardly possible. For it would involve a repetition unsuited to the solemnity of the occasion. But this does not disprove that the New Testament is, as Paul held the Old Testament to be, (see my Romans, Dissertation iii. 4,} the word and voice of God. For we can well conceive that the Holy Spirit, who, if Paul's view be correct, preserved the sacred writers from theological error and exerted upon them a directive influence which we cannot measure exactly, nevertheless forebore to save them from trivial verbal inaccuracies, and aided them only so far as His aid was needful for the ends He had in view. Indeed these trifling variations are a gain to us. For each supplements the others: and each is, if Paul's view of the authority of the Bible be correct, God's voice to us expounding the meaning of the Lord's Supper. In view of this gain we can afford to be in doubt about the exact form and order of the words which fell on that memorable night from the lips of Christ. We may perhaps reverently suggest that Paul's account is the more likely to be verbally exact. For the variation “This is my blood” (Mt. Mk.) may be accounted for by the similar words preceding, This is my body. Whereas, the changed form This cup is the New Covenant (Paul and Luke) cannot be accounted for except as being genuine. And we shall see that this change guards from abuse the words This is my body. Therefore, among four accounts, all which have for us divine authority, we may give a preference to that which Paul says he received specially from the Risen Saviour. How these words of Christ were likely to be understood by those who first heard them, we will now inquire. We place ourselves in thought among the assembled disciples. At the close of the supper the Saviour takes a loaf or cake of bread, breaks it, and gives the broken pieces to the disciples, saying, This is my body, which is for you. They could not possibly conceive Him to mean that the bread was actually His own body. Else He would have two bodies visible in the same room, each to be given for his disciples. And the body crucified the next day was then living and uninjured: whereas the bread was already broken. They could only understand His words to mean that the bread was symbolical, and the breaking and distribution of it prophetic, signifying and announcing that the body now living before their eyes was to die, for their spiritual nourishment. Cp. Isaiah 20:2ff; Hosea 1:4. Just as we point to a picture and say, without fear of being misunderstood, This is my father, or my house, so the disciples would naturally understand our Lord's words. And their interpretation of them would be confirmed by the words following. For the cup was not even practically identical with the Covenant. A cup given and received denoted that the Covenant was ratified: whereas the New Covenant was not ratified till the actual blood of Christ was shed. But the poured out wine was a prophetic symbol of the blood soon to be shed. And, therefore, the cup given and received was a silent announcement of the Covenant of which that blood was the pledge. This interpretation, which would naturally suggest itself at once would be confirmed by the repeated words, For the remembrance of Me. For the symbol of the broken body and of the Covenant ratified in blood would recall forcibly to those who in after years broke the bread and drank the wine the memory of Him who died that they might live.

This exposition does not assume that the disciples as they gathered on that night round the Saviour understood the full import of His words and actions. How these were understood by Paul, we must gather from his own exposition of his own narrative, and from 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, etc. This will enable us to test, and will supplement, the exposition just given of the words spoken by Christ.

V. 26. Ye show forth the Lord's death-Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God, and to all the world. Till he come-In glory.

Verse 26. Ye do show the Lord ‘s death] As in the passover they showed forth the bondage they had been in, and the redemption they had received from it; so in the eucharist they showed forth the sacrificial death of Christ, and the redemption from sin derived from it.

Verses 25-27. He also took the cup when he had supped — Or, after supper. “This circumstance is mentioned to show that the Lord’s supper is not intended for the refreshment of the body, but, as we are told verse 26, for perpetuating the memory of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, to the end of the world, and declaring our expectation of his return from heaven to judge all mankind; that by seriously and frequently meditating on these things, the faith, hope, and gratitude of his disciples may be nourished. Now, that these ends may be effectually answered, this service must be performed by the whole members of each particular church, not in separate companies, but together, as making one harmonious society, by whose joint concurrence and communion in the service, the death of their Master is not only remembered, but declared in the most public manner to the world, as a fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning.” Saying, This cup is the new testament — Or, new covenant, rather, as the word more properly signifies. That is, it is the solemn seal and memorial of the covenant which is established in my blood, by which all its invaluable blessings are procured for you. Our Lord did not mean that the covenant of grace was first made at the time he shed his blood. It was made immediately after the fall, on account of the merit of his obedience unto the death, which God then considered as accomplished, because it was certainly to be accomplished at the time determined. Now this likewise do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me — And in order to maintain the memory of my bleeding, dying love, in the church and in the world. The ancient sacrifices were offered in remembrance of sin; this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sin. According to the Papists, the expression, as oft as ye drink it, “implies that the cup, in the Lord’s supper, may sometimes be omitted; and on that pretence they have denied the cup to the laity;” but how justly, may be known by taking notice that the words, as often as, are applied (verse 26) to the bread as well as to the cup. Besides, Matthew hath told us, that when Christ gave the cup, he said, (Matthew 26:27,) drink ye all of it; which being both an invitation and a command, all Christians are as much entitled to the cup as to the bread.” For as often as ye — The church of God in any age; eat this bread and drink this cup — With proper solemnity and seriousness, faith, love, and gratitude; ye do show forth the Lord’s death — Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God and all the world; so the word kataggellete, here used, signifies: till he come — To close the present scene of things, and to receive all his faithful servants to a place where, for ever dwelling with him, they will no more need these memorials of an absent Saviour. Though at the institution of this ordinance our Lord spake nothing of his own second coming, yet in his discourse after the celebration of it, he connected his second coming with his death, John 14:3. The apostle therefore truly expressed his Master’s intention, when he told the Corinthians, that by publishing the Lord’s death, they published also his coming to judgment, and that the service of the supper was intended as a publication of both. Wherefore — Wste, so that; whosoever shall eat this bread, &c., unworthily — That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner, without properly regarding him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment; shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord — That is, of profaning that which represents his body and blood.

26. As often—In some periods of the Church, daily communion has been the practice. But a wiser Christian custom is to consider it as more an extraordinary event than the Sabbath service. The monthly period preserves the medium between making it too ordinary and too unfrequent. Bread—As the bread of the passover was appointed by God with a significant purpose to be unleavened, there was some show of reason for using such bread by the Roman Church, but no show of reason for the Greek and Roman Churches making the use a matter of fierce contention. As it is a matter of mere inference, fixed by no definition or command, the Protestant Churches (except the Lutheran) have considered it a matter of indifference. Cup—See our note on Matthew 26:27. Show—Literally, ye announce, as a messenger or herald, to the world. The act, with its surrounding circumstances and utterances, proclaims to the world Christ’s atoning death, and the believer’s acceptance of its avails. Till he come— When the entire system of sublunary Church and probation will be closed. Thus the communion is a chain whose links connect the first and second advents of Christ. This corrects the error of the Quakers, who, aiming at too naked a spirituality, have rejected all ordinances, and have thus made their religion a soul without a body. It is, doubtless, owing to this cause that they are fading from existence as a Christian body. Neglecting the great injunction to show forth the Lord’s death, they have become (verse 30) weak and sickly, and are apparently going to sleep.

Ver. 26. Explains and justifies 1 Corinthians 11:25b, by showing how the Supper is a memorial of Christ.

You announce: either by the very act of breaking and eating, or by concurrent word of mouth. Probably the former. For the word announce, used elsewhere only for verbal announcement, is very appropriate to remind us that the silent rite of the broken bread and poured out wine has a voice, and declares in plainest language that Christ died for us. And this silent announcement makes the rite a memorial of Christ.

Till He come: for a memorial is needful only while the remembered one is absent. These words teach us to eat the Supper in faith and hope, knowing that He who died still lives, and will return; and imply plainly that the rite is to be kept up till the end of time.

V. 27. Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily-That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner; without regarding either Him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment.

Shall be guilty of profaning that which represents the body and blood of the Lord.

Verse 27. Whosoever shall eat-and drink-unworthily] To put a final end to controversies and perplexities relative to these words and the context, let the reader observe, that to eat and drink the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper unworthily, is to eat and drink as the Corinthians did, who ate it not in reference to Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death; but rather in such a way as the Israelites did the passover, which they celebrated in remembrance of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Likewise, these mongrel Christians at Corinth used it as a kind of historical commemoration of the death of Christ; and did not, in the whole institution, discern the Lord’s body and blood as a sacrificial offering for sin: and besides, in their celebration of it they acted in a way utterly unbecoming the gravity of a sacred ordinance. Those who acknowledge it as a sacrificial offering, and receive it in remembrance of God’s love to them in sending his Son into the world, can neither bring damnation upon themselves by so doing, nor eat nor drink unworthily. See our translation of this verse vindicated at the end of the chapter. See Clarke “1 Corinthians 11:34”.

Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If he use it irreverently, if he deny that Christ suffered unjustly, (for of some such persons the apostle must be understood to speak,) then he in effect joins issue with the Jews in their condemnation and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, and renders himself guilty of the death of our blessed Lord. Some, however, understand the passage thus: is guilty, i.e. eats and drinks unworthily, and brings on himself that punishment mentioned 1 Corinthians 11:30.

Verses 25-27. He also took the cup when he had supped — Or, after supper. “This circumstance is mentioned to show that the Lord’s supper is not intended for the refreshment of the body, but, as we are told verse 26, for perpetuating the memory of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, to the end of the world, and declaring our expectation of his return from heaven to judge all mankind; that by seriously and frequently meditating on these things, the faith, hope, and gratitude of his disciples may be nourished. Now, that these ends may be effectually answered, this service must be performed by the whole members of each particular church, not in separate companies, but together, as making one harmonious society, by whose joint concurrence and communion in the service, the death of their Master is not only remembered, but declared in the most public manner to the world, as a fact known and believed by all Christians from the beginning.” Saying, This cup is the new testament — Or, new covenant, rather, as the word more properly signifies. That is, it is the solemn seal and memorial of the covenant which is established in my blood, by which all its invaluable blessings are procured for you. Our Lord did not mean that the covenant of grace was first made at the time he shed his blood. It was made immediately after the fall, on account of the merit of his obedience unto the death, which God then considered as accomplished, because it was certainly to be accomplished at the time determined. Now this likewise do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me — And in order to maintain the memory of my bleeding, dying love, in the church and in the world. The ancient sacrifices were offered in remembrance of sin; this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sin. According to the Papists, the expression, as oft as ye drink it, “implies that the cup, in the Lord’s supper, may sometimes be omitted; and on that pretence they have denied the cup to the laity;” but how justly, may be known by taking notice that the words, as often as, are applied (verse 26) to the bread as well as to the cup. Besides, Matthew hath told us, that when Christ gave the cup, he said, (Matthew 26:27,) drink ye all of it; which being both an invitation and a command, all Christians are as much entitled to the cup as to the bread.” For as often as ye — The church of God in any age; eat this bread and drink this cup — With proper solemnity and seriousness, faith, love, and gratitude; ye do show forth the Lord’s death — Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God and all the world; so the word kataggellete, here used, signifies: till he come — To close the present scene of things, and to receive all his faithful servants to a place where, for ever dwelling with him, they will no more need these memorials of an absent Saviour. Though at the institution of this ordinance our Lord spake nothing of his own second coming, yet in his discourse after the celebration of it, he connected his second coming with his death, John 14:3. The apostle therefore truly expressed his Master’s intention, when he told the Corinthians, that by publishing the Lord’s death, they published also his coming to judgment, and that the service of the supper was intended as a publication of both. Wherefore — Wste, so that; whosoever shall eat this bread, &c., unworthily — That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner, without properly regarding him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment; shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord — That is, of profaning that which represents his body and blood.

Ver. 27. Whosoever shall eat this bread, and [or] drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. The dispute whether and, or the disjunctive or be the true reading, our best critics think to be of no moment, because in this place the disjunctive is equivalent to a conjunction. It never can be construed into a justification of the Catholics in refusing the cup to the laity, by merely dipping the wafer into the wine. Drinking of the cup is here four times distinctly named; and dipping is not drinking.

27. Eat… and drink—The and, by the best readings, should be or. Alford thinks, apparently, that our translators have “unfairly” made it and to evade the Romish argument drawn from it in favour of withholding the cup from the laity. But the or does not aid the Romish practice. The or does make Paul say that dishonouring either one—the bread or the cup— renders guilty; but it does not, therefore, say that either one shall be withheld. Guilty of the body—That is, it is the body and blood of Christ which he slights or insults. He is guilty, not of dishonouring mere bread and wine; he is guilty of dishonouring what they represent—Christ’s body and blood.

3. A reform of treatment of the Lord’s Supper enjoined, 28-34.

Ver. 27. Practical inference from the words of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25, as explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:26. Unworthily: without self-examination, 1 Corinthians 11:28; or contemplation of the crucified body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11:29. Doubtless Paul refers specially to those who made his solemn rite an occasion of ostentation. All are unworthy. But they who receive the Supper as sinners for whom Christ died do not eat it unworthily. Guilty of the body etc.: more fully, “liable to penalty for sin against the body and blood of Christ.” So James 2:10. This follows from 1 Corinthians 11:24f as expounded in 1 Corinthians 11:26. In the Lord's Supper we set before ourselves and others, in the most solemn manner, Christ crucified for us and for the world. And this setting forth of His death is a condition (see note below) on which, and therefore a channel through which, we personally receive the blessings which come through His death. Consequently, every misuse of the sacred symbols keeps back from us these blessings; and is thus an insult to, and a sin against, the body nailed to the cross and the shed blood. Similarly, an insult to the symbols of royalty is an insult to the king, and in its measure a revolt against his government. This is very conspicuous in countries under foreign rule. Notice the change from “and” in 1 Corinthians 11:26 to or in 1 Corinthians 11:27. Whoever treats unworthily either symbol, sins thereby against Christ, and therefore against both the pierced body and the shed blood of the Master. But from this we cannot infer, as Estius does, that they who receive the bread only (according to the custom for laymen in the Roman Church) receive both the body and blood of Christ. For, that he who breaks one commandment breaks all, does not imply that he who keeps one has thereby kept all.

V. 28. But let a man examine himself-Whether he know the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his own desire and purpose throughly to comply therewith.

Verse 28. Let a man examine himself] Let him try whether he has proper faith in the Lord Jesus; and whether he discerns the Lord’s body; and whether he duly considers that the bread and wine point out the crucified body and spilt blood of Christ.

Verses 28-32. But — That none may be involved in such guilt; let each one examine himself — Whether he knows the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his sincere desire and purpose thoroughly to comply therewith, and to do honour to Christ by living, in all respects, conformably to his word and example. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily — In an irreverent, profane, and careless manner; eateth and drinketh damnation — Krima, judgment; condemnation and punishment to himself — Or temporal judgments of various kinds. Thus the Corinthians, in the following verse, are said to be punished with debility, sickness, and death, for eating unworthily. Not discerning the Lord’s body — Not considering that the death of Christ, and the benefits he hath thereby procured for us, with his astonishing love to us, are represented in that solemn ordinance; and not distinguishing it from his common food. For if we would judge ourselves — Bring all our dispositions, words, and actions, especially those that relate to the worship of God, to the rule of his word, and condemn ourselves for what is amiss, and repent of it; and particularly if we would inquire respecting our knowledge of the nature of this holy ordinance, and the design with which we approach the Lord’s table; we should not be judged — Or chastised so severely; or we should avoid those sins which bring down the divine judgments upon us. But when we are judged — Thus punished with temporal calamities; we are chastened of the Lord — Corrected for our instruction and amendment; that — Being thereby purged from sin; we should not be condemned with the world — Should escape future condemnation and wrath.

Ver. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat. Have I right ideas of the love of God, and of Christ who gave himself as an atoning sacrifice, that our sinful nature might be made clean, by the offering up of his body on the cross. Have I renounced all my sins, and with all the fruits of repentance in my power? Can I eat that bread in charity with every member attendant there? Am I weary of the yoke of sin? Then the invitation is mine: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters; come without money and without price.

28. Examine himself—The strict meaning is, try himself by tests; such tests as his rectitude of life, his purity of thought, his zeal for Christ. So— Either with the approval of his conscience of his spiritual state, or with repentance where wrong.

Ver. 28. Practical application of the foregoing solemn inference. Prove himself: inquire into his own motives in coming to the Lord's table and his disposition in relation to the death of Christ. And thus: i.e. having discovered that his motives are pure, or, having laid aside any impure motives he may detect. This Paul assumes. Eat and drink; teaches plainly that it was usual for all Christians to do this. Estius simply denies it without proof; and expounds 1 Corinthians 11:28b to mean “either eat or drink.”

V. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh so unworthily as those Corinthians did, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself-Temporal judgments of various kinds, 1 Corinthians 11:30. Not distinguishing the sacred tokens of the Lord's body-From his common food.

Verse 29. Eateth and drinketh damnation] krima, Judgment, punishment; and yet this is not unto damnation, for the judgment or punishment inflicted upon the disorderly and the profane was intended for their emendation; for in 1 Corinthians 11:32, it is said, then we are judged, krinomenoi, we are chastened, paideumeqa, corrected as a father does his children, that we should not be condemned with the world.

Verses 28-32. But — That none may be involved in such guilt; let each one examine himself — Whether he knows the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his sincere desire and purpose thoroughly to comply therewith, and to do honour to Christ by living, in all respects, conformably to his word and example. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily — In an irreverent, profane, and careless manner; eateth and drinketh damnation — Krima, judgment; condemnation and punishment to himself — Or temporal judgments of various kinds. Thus the Corinthians, in the following verse, are said to be punished with debility, sickness, and death, for eating unworthily. Not discerning the Lord’s body — Not considering that the death of Christ, and the benefits he hath thereby procured for us, with his astonishing love to us, are represented in that solemn ordinance; and not distinguishing it from his common food. For if we would judge ourselves — Bring all our dispositions, words, and actions, especially those that relate to the worship of God, to the rule of his word, and condemn ourselves for what is amiss, and repent of it; and particularly if we would inquire respecting our knowledge of the nature of this holy ordinance, and the design with which we approach the Lord’s table; we should not be judged — Or chastised so severely; or we should avoid those sins which bring down the divine judgments upon us. But when we are judged — Thus punished with temporal calamities; we are chastened of the Lord — Corrected for our instruction and amendment; that — Being thereby purged from sin; we should not be condemned with the world — Should escape future condemnation and wrath.

Ver. 29. He eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Erasmus reads eiv krima, to condemnation, which does not preclude future repentance. Then my afflicted brother, fear not; the rebuke of Paul to a few Gnostic drunkards at Corinth, does not apply to you. Live not without eating by faith of the true bread which came down from heaven to give you eternal life; for sacraments are the appointed means to obtain covenant blessings, and afore prepare you to drink new wine with the Saviour in the kingdom of God.

29. Damnation—Not eternal perdition; but, literally, judgment. And that judgment Paul seems to have considered as likely to be inflicted upon the body of the Christian offender, as intimated in the next verse. Discerning… body—Treating the elements as if they were mere bread and wine in disregard of their holy symbolism.

Ver. 29. Supports 1 Corinthians 11:28 by a modified restatement of 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Eats and drinks for himself judgment: i.e. by the very acts of eating and drinking he causes sentence (evidently God's sentence of condemnation) to be pronounced against himself. In other words, his unworthy reception will be followed by punishment. It is therefore, practically equivalent to “guilty of the body etc.” in 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Judgment: cp. Romans 2:27, and see notes.

The body: viz. that crucified for us. Further specification is needless. Recognize: or discern or distinguish: perceive its real worth and thus distinguish it from others. Similarly we might say, pointing to a picture, This is my father: do you recognize him? Unless, when we receive the symbols we look through them to the great reality they represent, to the precious body nailed to the cross for us, and receive them in a fitting manner, by our very acts of eating and drinking we cause sentence to be pronounced upon ourselves. For we thus sin against (1 Corinthians 11:27) the body and blood of Christ. For the various readings here, see Appendix B.

V. 30. For this cause-Which they had not observed. Many sleep-In death.

Verse 30. For this cause] That they partook of this sacred ordinance without discerning the Lord’s body; many are weak and sickly: it is hard to say whether these words refer to the consequences of their own intemperance or to some extraordinary disorders inflicted immediately by God himself. That there were disorders of the most reprehensible kind among these people at this sacred supper, the preceding verses sufficiently point out; and after such excesses, many might be weak and sickly among them, and many might sleep, i.e. die; for continual experience shows us that many fall victims to their own intemperance. How ever, acting as they did in this solemn and awful sacrament, they might have “provoked God to plague them with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death.” Communion service.

Verses 28-32. But — That none may be involved in such guilt; let each one examine himself — Whether he knows the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his sincere desire and purpose thoroughly to comply therewith, and to do honour to Christ by living, in all respects, conformably to his word and example. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily — In an irreverent, profane, and careless manner; eateth and drinketh damnation — Krima, judgment; condemnation and punishment to himself — Or temporal judgments of various kinds. Thus the Corinthians, in the following verse, are said to be punished with debility, sickness, and death, for eating unworthily. Not discerning the Lord’s body — Not considering that the death of Christ, and the benefits he hath thereby procured for us, with his astonishing love to us, are represented in that solemn ordinance; and not distinguishing it from his common food. For if we would judge ourselves — Bring all our dispositions, words, and actions, especially those that relate to the worship of God, to the rule of his word, and condemn ourselves for what is amiss, and repent of it; and particularly if we would inquire respecting our knowledge of the nature of this holy ordinance, and the design with which we approach the Lord’s table; we should not be judged — Or chastised so severely; or we should avoid those sins which bring down the divine judgments upon us. But when we are judged — Thus punished with temporal calamities; we are chastened of the Lord — Corrected for our instruction and amendment; that — Being thereby purged from sin; we should not be condemned with the world — Should escape future condemnation and wrath.

30. Weak and sickly… sleep—Commentators generally agree that Paul here ascribes a then prevalent sickliness and mortality in the Church to their desecration of the holy supper. That at a miraculous era the apostolic mind was given to know such to be the case might readily be conceded. The monstrous idea that disease and death were produced naturally by their excesses would imply that the apostolic excommunication was quite as much required as in the case of the fornicator. But the word sleep seems scarce the term the apostle would use of those dying by judgment of God. It naturally expresses a peaceful repose. We are strongly inclined to prefer understanding Paul as declaring the judicial effect of their dishonouring the communion to be their becoming weakly, sickly, sleeping Christians.

Ver. 30. Practical and actual outworking at Corinth of the foregoing general principle, supporting the warning therein implied. Among you: emphatic. You can see the consequences in your own church. Sleep: are dead, as in 1 Corinthians 7:39. These words refer probably to bodily sickness and death, inflicted by God as punishment for abuse of the Lord's Supper. For, though they might be correctly used of spiritual weakness and loss of spiritual life (cp. Ephesians 5:14) as consequences of such abuse, yet we must not, without any hint or any reason in the nature of things, set aside their simplest meaning. In the apostolic church the power of God manifested itself before men's eyes both in works of mercy and in punishment. Cp. Acts 5:5; 13:11, with which this verse is a coincidence. The severity of the punishments proves how great was the sin. Whether before receiving this letter, the Corinthian Christians knew the spiritual cause of this sickness and death, we cannot now determine.

V. 31. If we would judge ourselves-As to our knowledge, and the design with which we approach the Lord's table.

We should not be thus judged-That is, punished by God.

Verse 31. If we would judge ourselves] If, having acted improperly, we condemn our conduct and humble ourselves, we shall not be judged, i.e. punished for the sin we have committed.

Verses 28-32. But — That none may be involved in such guilt; let each one examine himself — Whether he knows the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his sincere desire and purpose thoroughly to comply therewith, and to do honour to Christ by living, in all respects, conformably to his word and example. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily — In an irreverent, profane, and careless manner; eateth and drinketh damnation — Krima, judgment; condemnation and punishment to himself — Or temporal judgments of various kinds. Thus the Corinthians, in the following verse, are said to be punished with debility, sickness, and death, for eating unworthily. Not discerning the Lord’s body — Not considering that the death of Christ, and the benefits he hath thereby procured for us, with his astonishing love to us, are represented in that solemn ordinance; and not distinguishing it from his common food. For if we would judge ourselves — Bring all our dispositions, words, and actions, especially those that relate to the worship of God, to the rule of his word, and condemn ourselves for what is amiss, and repent of it; and particularly if we would inquire respecting our knowledge of the nature of this holy ordinance, and the design with which we approach the Lord’s table; we should not be judged — Or chastised so severely; or we should avoid those sins which bring down the divine judgments upon us. But when we are judged — Thus punished with temporal calamities; we are chastened of the Lord — Corrected for our instruction and amendment; that — Being thereby purged from sin; we should not be condemned with the world — Should escape future condemnation and wrath.

31. We—Softening his rebukes by adopting the first person. Judge ourselves—God has given us a judge within our breasts—our conscience—before whose bar, enlightened by Scripture and quickened by the Holy Spirit, we may arraign ourselves and regulate and shape our character. By that judgment we may forestall the divine judgment, and escape the divine condemnation.

Ver. 31.-32. A double comment on the facts of 1 Corinthians 11:30. These penalties may be avoided; and are inflicted in mercy. Recognized ourselves: same word as in 1 Corinthians 11:29, and cognate to judge and condemn.

Judged: the sentence which they who (1 Corinthians 11:29) eat and drink without recognizing the body bring upon themselves, and which was followed in some cases by the penalties of 1 Corinthians 11:30. We: Paul puts himself by courtesy among the sick and weak ones. “If we recognized our own true character as compared with others and with what we ought to be, (and thus pronounced sentence upon ourselves,) sentence would not be pronounced upon us by God.” i.e. the condemnatory sentence implied in the punishments of 1 Corinthians 11:30. Chastised: by the above mentioned punishments. This word is expounded in Hebrews 12:6-11.

Condemned with the world: final sentence of eternal death. Paul says that the penalties of 1 Corinthians 11:30 were inflicted by the Master, in order to lead the smitten ones to repentance, and thus save them from the severer condemnation which will fall upon the unsaved world; (cp. 1 Corinthians 5:5;) and that, if they had recognized the true nature and impropriety of their own conduct, they would have escaped even this lighter sentence. Thus Paul discovers a purpose of mercy in the severe punishments of 1 Corinthians 11:30. If the death of those who “sleep” was preceded by sickness which gave opportunity for repentance, even this (cp. 1 Corinthians 5:5) might be in mercy. And the tone of 1 Corinthians 11:31, 32 suggests this. Otherwise, bodily death would be, as in Acts 5:5, itself a final condemnation.

V. 32. When we are thus judged, it is with this merciful design, that we may not be finally condemned with the world.

Verse 32. But when we are judged] See Clarke on “1 Corinthians 11:29”.

Verses 28-32. But — That none may be involved in such guilt; let each one examine himself — Whether he knows the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his sincere desire and purpose thoroughly to comply therewith, and to do honour to Christ by living, in all respects, conformably to his word and example. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily — In an irreverent, profane, and careless manner; eateth and drinketh damnation — Krima, judgment; condemnation and punishment to himself — Or temporal judgments of various kinds. Thus the Corinthians, in the following verse, are said to be punished with debility, sickness, and death, for eating unworthily. Not discerning the Lord’s body — Not considering that the death of Christ, and the benefits he hath thereby procured for us, with his astonishing love to us, are represented in that solemn ordinance; and not distinguishing it from his common food. For if we would judge ourselves — Bring all our dispositions, words, and actions, especially those that relate to the worship of God, to the rule of his word, and condemn ourselves for what is amiss, and repent of it; and particularly if we would inquire respecting our knowledge of the nature of this holy ordinance, and the design with which we approach the Lord’s table; we should not be judged — Or chastised so severely; or we should avoid those sins which bring down the divine judgments upon us. But when we are judged — Thus punished with temporal calamities; we are chastened of the Lord — Corrected for our instruction and amendment; that — Being thereby purged from sin; we should not be condemned with the world — Should escape future condemnation and wrath.

32. We—Christians. Are judged… chastened—Those divine earthly judgments which are wrathful punishments upon the wicked are discipline, severe blessings, to the righteous. Not be condemned—The very purpose of these judgments to the Christian is mercy and salvation. With the world—A sad assumption, therefore, that the world of that period was lying in wickedness and sinking to death.

Ver. 31.-32. A double comment on the facts of 1 Corinthians 11:30. These penalties may be avoided; and are inflicted in mercy. Recognized ourselves: same word as in 1 Corinthians 11:29, and cognate to judge and condemn.

Judged: the sentence which they who (1 Corinthians 11:29) eat and drink without recognizing the body bring upon themselves, and which was followed in some cases by the penalties of 1 Corinthians 11:30. We: Paul puts himself by courtesy among the sick and weak ones. “If we recognized our own true character as compared with others and with what we ought to be, (and thus pronounced sentence upon ourselves,) sentence would not be pronounced upon us by God.” i.e. the condemnatory sentence implied in the punishments of 1 Corinthians 11:30. Chastised: by the above mentioned punishments. This word is expounded in Hebrews 12:6-11.

Condemned with the world: final sentence of eternal death. Paul says that the penalties of 1 Corinthians 11:30 were inflicted by the Master, in order to lead the smitten ones to repentance, and thus save them from the severer condemnation which will fall upon the unsaved world; (cp. 1 Corinthians 5:5;) and that, if they had recognized the true nature and impropriety of their own conduct, they would have escaped even this lighter sentence. Thus Paul discovers a purpose of mercy in the severe punishments of 1 Corinthians 11:30. If the death of those who “sleep” was preceded by sickness which gave opportunity for repentance, even this (cp. 1 Corinthians 5:5) might be in mercy. And the tone of 1 Corinthians 11:31, 32 suggests this. Otherwise, bodily death would be, as in Acts 5:5, itself a final condemnation.

V. 33. The rest-The other circumstances relating to the Lord's supper.

Verse 33. When ye come together to eat] The Lord’s Supper, tarry one for another-do not eat and drink in parties as ye have done heretofore; and do not connect it with any other meal.

Verses 33, 34. Wherefore, my brethren — To conclude what I have to say to you on this subject; when ye come together to eat — To celebrate the Lord’s supper; tarry one for another — With decency and respectful love, till the whole assembly be convened, and then join all together at the same table and time, without such factions and divisions. And if any man hunger — Which probably was the pretence of those that were guilty of the fore-mentioned disorders; let him eat at home — At his own house; that ye come not together unto condemnation — That you may not, by profaning this holy ordinance, provoke God to punish you. And the rest — The other circumstances relating to the Lord’s supper, which require to be corrected; I will set in order — Will see regulated; when I come — To Corinth.

33. Wherefore—In view of the corrective and saving power of these judgments. Tarry—We do not understand the injunction to be to wait until the others had all arrived at the place of meeting. It does not appear that one could not come as early as the other. Nor does the discourteous taketh before of verse 21 refer to an earlier coming and eating before the others had appeared; but to the richer parties refusing to wait for a spreading of all the contributions before the whole company, and their hurrying to the consumption of their own supply. To tarry, or wait, therefore, would be a social, deliberate placing each share at the common disposal, as if all were one, and had an equal right, irrespective of the amount contributed. But Wordsworth, Bloomfield, and others render the Greek word for tarry, receive, entertain one another, by a free interchange of provisions. This is a usual meaning of the word, and is far to be preferred, as accordant with Paul’s unselfish and whole-hearted spirit of courtesy.

Ver. 33.-34. Practical inference from 1 Corinthians 11:23-32, in reference to the special abuse at Corinth.

Come-together (twice) marks the conclusion of the matter introduced in 1 Corinthians 11:17. That the words to eat are sufficient to specify what Paul refers to, suggest that they did not eat together except at the Lord's Supper.

Wait one for another: let each refrain from appropriating food till all are ready to do so together, in contrast to “take beforehand his own supper.” The context implies that, when the united meal is ready, the whole food, by whomever brought, must be eaten by all in common. Paul thus corrects the second abuse mentioned with astonishment in 1 Corinthians 11:22. Let him eat etc.: i.e. do not make the Lord's Supper a meal to satisfy hunger. This corrects the first and broader abuse of 1 Corinthians 11:22.

That you may not etc.: belongs to both abuses.

For judgment: parallel with “for the worse” (1 Corinthians 11:17) in the form assumed in 1 Corinthians 11:29. Paul bids his readers, instead of taking before others are ready the food they have themselves brought, to wait for the united meal; and, again, not to make the sacred rite a means of satisfying hunger, which ought to be done at home; lest their meetings tend to bring upon them condemnation and punishment. The remaining matters: perhaps those implied in the word “first” in 1 Corinthians 11:18. If so, these also pertained to church-meetings. Whenever I come: 1 Corinthians 4:18ff.

I-will-set-in-order; implies Paul's apostolic authority as a ruler in the church. This purpose implies that in various churches he left unwritten directions, which would naturally assume the form of the apostolic traditions of 1 Corinthians 11:2. But we cannot now say with certainty that any particular direction or teaching, not found in his epistles, came from his lips.

REVIEW. Paul has heard, and has reason to believe, that at Corinth the Lord's Supper has degenerated into a mere meal to satisfy hunger and thirst; and that the church-members take back for themselves the food they have brought, thus erecting barriers between brethren meeting together in one place. He rebukes these abuses by narrating and expounding the facts and words of the institution of the Supper as revealed to him by Christ. From this we learn that they who misuse the sacred symbols are guilty of sin against the body nailed to the cross and the shed blood; and that to them participation of the bread and wine brings condemnation and punishment. Indeed, upon some of their number bodily punishment of sickness and death has already fallen. This, the guilty ones would have avoided, had they understood the meaning of their own conduct. And it was inflicted in mercy, to save them from a more terrible condemnation. Paul therefore urges each one to put to the test, when coming to the Lord's Table, his own motives and disposition. And, in reference to the special abuses at Corinth, he bids them supply their bodily needs at home, and wait till all are ready to share together the sacred meal. The other matters which need attention may wait till his arrival at Corinth.

THE LORD'S SUPPER: its primitive mode of celebration, and its significance. That the excesses corrected in § 21 occurred at the sacramental Supper, is quite certain. For, the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20 can be no other than the bread and the cup of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 11:27. And Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11:21, viz. that to take beforehand each his own supper made it impossible for the meal to be the Lord's Supper, implies that the food thus taken was not merely eaten in connection with the sacred symbols, but was actually that food and drink which ought to be received by all together as a supper provided by Christ. This proof is confirmed by the solemn warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27, supporting the reproof in 1 Corinthians 11:22, that they who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. This warning Paul applies expressly in 1 Corinthians 11:33 to the abuses at Corinth. We cannot therefore accept the opinion of Chrysostom, Estius, and others, that these abuses occurred at a semi-spiritual repast connected with the Lord's Supper.

If these abuses occurred at the Lord's Supper, Paul's reference to them is our earliest and most valuable source of information about the primitive mode of its celebration. That private members were able to appropriate beforehand the food designed for the communion, implies that they were not in the habit of receiving the bread and wine from the officers of the church. That Paul did not reprove them for not receiving the elements thus, and did not even recommend it, although it would have effectually prevented the abuses in question, shows clearly that he did not look upon the reception of the elements from the hands of the church officers as essential to the validity of the sacrament. And the same is confirmed by the absence of any censure on the officers of the church, who, if the distribution of the sacred symbols had been committed to them only, would have been chiefly to blame. From this we infer with certainty that when Christ instituted the Supper, He did not direct, and that at the time when this Epistle was written the apostles had not directed, that it should be administered only by the officers of the church. Nor have we in the New Testament any hint that the apostles afterwards gave this direction. That the sacred feast was looked upon as a means of satisfying hunger and that drinking to excess was possible, reveals how widely different was the mode of its celebration then from that of succeeding ages. Contrast Justin, 1st Apology § 65: “After the prayers we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the leader of the brethren [tw hroeotwti twn adelfwn] a cup of water and mixed wine [kramatov] and he, having taken it, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of His Son and the Holy Spirit, and to some length makes thanksgiving for having been counted worthy of these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving all the people present confirm them by saying, Amen. The deacons, as we call them, give to each of those present to partake of the bread, wine, and water, over which thanks has been given; and for those not present we take them to their houses.” Also Tertullian, On the soldier's crown ch. iii.: “The sacrament of the eucharist we receive from the hands of none but those who preside.”

The force of the above arguments is felt, and put very clearly, by Estius. To evade it, he is compelled to suppose that the abuse in question occurred, not at the Lord's Supper, but at a repast partaken in connection with it. This opinion I have already attempted to disprove. The mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper during the latter part of the apostolic age, we have no means of tracing. Consequently, the limitations of its administration to the officers of the church cannot claim undoubted apostolic authority. But it has been, as a matter of church order, the universal, or nearly universal, practice of the entire Church of Christ in all its sections and in all countries, from the second century to the present day. From so general a practice, as a matter of church order, few will have, without very special reasons hardihood to dissent.

The spiritual meaning and purpose and operation of the Lord's Supper, now claim attention. Already, under 1 Corinthians 11:25, we have endeavored to expound the words of institution as they would be understood by those who first heard them. These words we will now study again in the light of the great doctrines of the Gospel assumed and taught in the Epistle to the Romans. And the results thus obtained we will compare with the references to the Lord's Supper in this Epistle. Paul taught (see my Romans, Dissertation i. 3) that God accepts as righteous, i.e. He pardons the sins of, all who believe the Gospel; that this pardon could not have been, had not Christ died; and that by the inward presence and activity of the Holy Spirit believers are so united to Christ that His purposes and life and love are reproduced in them. And this we accepted as the teaching of Christ.

These doctrines will explain John 6:33-59, which is a link connecting them with Christ's words at the Supper. Christ could correctly call Himself in John 6:35 “the bread of life:” for just as bread nourishes (and without such nourishment we must die) only by its own destruction, so Christ (see Romans 3:26) could give us life only by His Own Death. And that, to give us life, His body must needs be bruised and His blood shed, justifies abundantly, and fully accounts for, the strong words of John 6:53: “Except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God, you have no life in you.” How His hearers were to eat and drink etc., i.e. how they were to appropriate the results of His death, Christ tells them plainly in John 6:35, 40, 47, viz. by coming to Him and believing Him. And He tells them in John 6:56 that the spiritual results of this will be an inward, spiritual, mutually interpenetrating contact of themselves and Christ. We see then that in John 6:33-59 Christ does but assert the great doctrines of the Epistle to the Romans, and asserts one of them, No. 2, under the most forceful image possible. And in no other sense but this can I conceive men to eat and drink practically the body and blood of Christ.

We come now, prepared by our study of John 6:33-59, and of the Gospel as taught by Paul, to listen again to the words of Christ as recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:24f. In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul tells us that (just as the Gospel is a verbal announcement that through the shedding of Christ's blood God covenants to pardon sin and to give eternal life to all who believe so) the Lord's Supper is an announcement of Christ's death by visible emblematic action. And this is given as an explanation of the words of Christ. We infer then that “the remembrance of Me” is chiefly a memory that Christ by dying gave, and now gives, us life; and that Christ ordained the Supper in order to keep this great doctrine before the mind and in the heart of His people. And for this end no more effective means could be devised. For this doctrine is the only conceivable explanation of the prominence given to Christ's death both by the institution of the Supper and by the words of institution. We therefore cannot doubt that it was instituted in order to be an abiding monument in the Church of the truth and importance of this doctrine.

Again, the proclamation of this truth is the divinely chosen means of conveying, to those who believe it, the life which results from Christ's death. And, to those within sound of the Gospel, the Truth is the only channel through which this life flows. Now the preached word gives life only through the presence and agency of the Spirit of Christ, who breathes life and power into what would otherwise be empty sound. Cp. 1 Corinthians 2:10ff. The universality of this principle compels us to apply it also to the Truth as set forth visibly in the sacred emblems. Therefore, just as in the preached word, in some sense to all who hear it and in the fullest possible sense to those who receive it by faith, we have the real, living, active, objective presence of the Crucified and Living Saviour, so we need not hesitate to say that in the same sense we have His presence in the Lord's Supper.

Again, Christ has bidden us expressly, at the most solemn period of His life and in the most solemn manner possible, to keep the sacred feast; and Paul's exposition in 1 Corinthians 11:26 makes this command binding to the end of time. This command of Christ makes participation in the Supper an essential condition of salvation. For, not to eat and drink would be direct disobedience to Christ; and, therefore, a renunciation of the covenant of which the cup is an emblem. Consequently, with exceptions noted below, only by eating and drinking the bread and wine can we share the results of Christ's pierced body and shed blood. Now, practically, in our thought, we cannot distinguish between a condition performed in order to obtain that which depends upon it and an instrument with which we lay hold of something we desire. Consequently, we cannot but look upon both faith and the Lord's Supper (both being simply conditions of salvation) as instruments by which we lay hold of Christ. We may therefore say correctly, as in 1 Corinthians 10:16, that by receiving the material elements we become sharers of the body and blood of Christ; and that our entire spiritual life, (cp. 1 Corinthians 10:17a,) each moment received from Christ, is a result of our reception at intervals of the bread and wine. Yet the Lord's Supper is not another condition of salvation beside faith. Rather, Christ's command has made intelligent faith impossible without participation in the Supper; just as it is impossible to exercise faith without repentance or to retain it without confession. Cp. Luke 13:3; Romans 10:9. For we cannot believe that we enjoy Christ's favor while we deliberately disobey His word. Moreover, circumstances may prevent us from partaking the Supper: and our reception of it is at intervals. Under all circumstances and each moment we live by faith.

The suitability of the Lord's Supper as a condition of salvation, and the relation of this condition to faith, the one inward condition are not difficult to trace. The Lord's Supper is the most searching test of our faith that Christ is actually and supernaturally present and active in the hearts of His people. And, that Christ is thus objectively present in us, is an essential truth, and the great characteristic truth, of Christianity. Little faith is required to believe that a preached word may do good: for the connection between the means and end is evident. But, to expect spiritual good from material bread and wine, implies reliance upon the presence and infinite power of Him who fed the five thousand and made water into wine, and who has promised to be in His people as their life to the end of time and through eternity. Thus the sacramental feast tests, develops, and testifies, our faith in the supernatural presence and activity of Christ in His Church. Another purpose of the Lord's Supper is suggested in 1 Corinthians 10:17; viz. to give formal and visible unity to the followers of Christ. Such visible unity was of infinite importance for the continued existence of Christianity in the face of the hostile and powerful influences which beset its early course. And we cannot conceive any means so likely to secure visible unity as this simple rite. To perpetuate the rite and thus to give corporate form to His followers, Christ instituted it at the most solemn period of His life, and, by bidding us observe it in remembrance of Himself, made it practically a condition of salvation.

Again, that Christ commands, as a condition of salvation, a bodily reception of material bread and wine, gives to these elements a mysterious and unique dignity. (Similarly, God's choice of a spoken word as the channel of salvation gives to the human voice an incomparable dignity.) Since the eating and drinking which Christ requires are real, we may say that His command makes our reception of the spiritual, and ultimately material, benefits purchased by the death of His body and the shedding of His blood conditional, with exceptions marked below, on our reception into our own bodies of the material bread and wine. Christ has thus placed these elements of food in a unique relation to Himself. Remembering this, as we look at them we may almost forget the material food produced by nature and by human manipulation, and think only of the pierced body and shed blood, without which there had been no bread and wine on the sacramental table and of the spiritual nourishment we derive therefrom. To the eye of faith the symbols disappear, and the infinite and amazing reality alone remains.

We shall understand now all that Paul says about the Lord's Supper. Well might Christ say “this is my body.” For, had not the Eternal Son assumed a human body to be pierced for our life, there had been no broken bread in His hands then. Had not that body died, there would be no bread upon our sacramental table now. And, but for the pouring out of His blood, and but for the New Covenant between God and us (virtual in that night, ratified now) through His blood, there would be no poured out wine. Therefore, as setting forth and implying the most amazing event of all time, and as a solemnly appointed condition of sharing its eternal results, the broken bread is the body of Christ, and the full wine-cup is the New Covenant in His blood. And, as setting forth and implying and bringing about (as an essential condition and in some sense an instrument) a participation in the results of His death, the bread and the cup are (1 Corinthians 10:16) “fellowship in the body and blood of Christ.” In the same way all manifestations of the Christian life are results of the sacred feast. Therefore, the outward and visible unity of believers (1 Corinthians 10:17) is a result of their joint reception of the same symbolic food. Since the Supper was ordained by Christ, it is, with all its consequent blessings, (1 Corinthians 10:21) “a table of the Lord.” Since it is a visible symbol of Christ crucified and a solemnly ordained means of consolidating and extending His kingdom, any indignity done to the feast is done to Christ, and specially to the body and blood bruised and shed for us. Such indignity arises from oversight of the awful reality, even the crucified body of Christ, which the sacred symbols are designed to bring to mind. On this indignity sentence was already pronounced by Christ: and at Corinth upon many persons penalty was already inflicted. Consequently, they who receive the elements without a spiritual view and apprehension of Christ Crucified, receive thereby judgment. Thus Paul's entire teaching about the Lord's Supper (and to his teaching the New Testament adds nothing) is but a development of the words of institution in the light of the great principles asserted and expounded in the Epistle to the Romans.

I cannot overlook the fact that some godly men, I refer chiefly to the Society of Friends, set aside altogether the outward and visible celebration of the Lord's Supper. How they reconcile this with Christ's words, “Do this,” and with Paul's explanation of them in 1 Corinthians 11:26, I do not know. That they lose much by refusing, even in ignorance, to obey the express and solemn command of Christ, I cannot doubt. But, if their refusal arises from sincere, even though mistaken, loyalty to Christ, God will not refuse them a part in that New Covenant of which they refuse the visible pledge and condition. And for the loss they sustain by absence from the Lord's table, no small part of the blame rests upon those who by their misrepresentation and misuse have brought it into contempt. But, were I to absent myself as they do, I should thereby exclude myself from the Covenant. For I should refuse to do what I believe Christ has expressly and solemnly bidden. It is worthy of notice, in view of 1 Corinthians 10:17, that the united influence upon the world of the Society of Friends bears no proportion to the personal excellence of its members. In the New Testament the Lord's Supper is never said to be a sacrifice. But its connection with the Jewish Passover reminds us that it is in some sense a sacrificial act. The analogy of the Jewish rites and the Christian rite is very close. The Jewish sacrifices set forth in symbol the truth that man's salvation comes through the death of the innocent: and, as solemnly ordained by God at (Exodus 24:8) the ratification of the Old Covenant, they were a condition on which its benefits were obtained. Consequently, after disuse in times of spiritual declension, the sacrifices were restored (2 Chronicles 29:7ff; 2 Chronicles 29:20ff) in times of revival. Now the Lord's Supper is the one recurring rite of the New Covenant. Of this Covenant, the most conspicuous benefit is forgiveness of sins: Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 8:12. Therefore, while receiving the Supper in faith, we claim from God the benefits of the Covenant, and especially the forgiveness of our sins. We thus present to God, for our own sins, in our hearts and by faith, the pierced body and shed blood of Christ: for we hide us beneath His cross from the penalty of our sins. And, while we do so, the blood of Christ saves us from the anger of God: for (Romans 3:25) “in His own blood” Christ becomes through our faith a propitiation for our sins. Thus, in the Lord's Supper we do a spiritual act analogous to the sprinkling of the blood by the High Priest once a year in the Most Holy Place. But, since we do but present to God as a propitiation for our own sins the blood already once for all shed on Calvary, it is better to speak of the Sacrament as a sacrificial act rather than as a sacrifice. We conclude then that Christ ordained the Supper in order to give great prominence, in the eyes of even the humblest believer, to the great truth that our life comes through His death; also as a means of testing, developing, and confessing to the world, our belief that salvation is an outworking of a power which cannot be explained by, and is altogether above, the laws of mind and morals; and as a means of giving to His people corporate and visible unity in face of the world. In order to secure, to the end of time, the observance of the rite by all His followers, and thus to secure the aims just mentioned, Christ made the Supper, by expressly commanding it, an indispensable condition of salvation. And, since in the kingdom of God there are no useless conditions. He determined to make it a channel through which, by His own presence and activity, He would pour the spiritual benefits therein set forth. We infer that, as in the preached so in the symbolic word, the designed benefits are received only by those who believe. And, since unbelief in those who partake the Supper implies resistance to the truths therein conspicuously and forcefully portrayed, and great dishonor to Him who died even for those who reject Him, we infer that in a very terrible sense the sacred rite is, to those who misuse it for their own base ends, an thus betray their ignorance of its true significance, “an odor (2 Corinthians 2:16) from death tending to death.” About the Lord's Supper the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches, (Council of Trent, Session xiii. canon 1,) together with much important gospel truth, that “in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist is contained, truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and accordingly the entire Christ;” that (Session vii. canon 7) “Grace is conferred by sacraments of this kind always and to all, so far as God is concerned, if they receive them with correct ritual;” and that (Session xiii. ch. 4) “By consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ and of the entire substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is conveniently and appropriately called Transubstantiation.” The Roman Church guards (Session xxi. ch. 3) this doctrine by teaching that the entire Christ is present both in the consecrated bread and in the wine. The LUTHERAN CHURCH is fairly represented in the following extract from the Lutherische Dogmatik of Kahnis, § 21. 6. “Luther's teaching is this. When Christ said, “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you,” He said, in the form of syndoke, That which I give you to eat is my body which is given for you, i.e. is here imparted to you, for the forgiveness of sins, i.e. as sign, warrant, and medium, of the forgiveness of sins for believing receivers. According to the conception of a sacrament, which is a visible word, the chief matter in the Lord's Supper is the word of the forgiveness of sins. Thereby the promise of the Lord's supper is suspended on the condition of faith. But independent of faith is the reception of the body of Christ, which in, with, and under, the bread and wine is distributed.” Also the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg declares: “We defend the opinion received in the entire church that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly offered with those things that appear, viz. with the bread and wine.” Luther rejected Transubstantiation. But he and the Lutheran Church assert strongly that Christ is locally present in the bread and wine; and is thus received, as Saviour or as Judge, by all who receive the sacred symbols.

But no hint is given, in the words either of Christ or of Paul, of any change in the substance of the consecrated elements. Indeed, even after the blessing we read in 1 Corinthians 11:26 “eat this bread.” The words “This cup is the New Covenant” warn us not to infer such change from the words “This is my body:” and we have seen that Paul's argument is complete without it.

As proof that in the Lord's Supper Christ is actually received (to their condemnation) even by unbelievers, Lutherans appeal to the arguments of 1 Corinthians 10:16ff, and 1 Corinthians 11:27ff. But it is always perilous to assume an important doctrine not expressly taught in Scripture because it seems to be implied in a Scripture argument. That Paul's argument does not imply this doctrine, and that 1 Corinthians 10:21 directly contradicts it, I have in my notes endeavored to show. And we notice that in the New Testament Christ is never said to be spiritually present except to bless. We have also seen that, although the words of Christ imply a real and special presence of Christ in the sacred ordinances, they do not imply His local presence in the bread and wine and in the stomachs of those who receive them. Thus, in my view, the Lutheran doctrine falls to the ground. For, its advocates appeal in support of it only to Scripture: and Scripture does not teach it. But Roman Catholics appeal not only to Scripture but to the authoritative teaching of the Church; and thus introduce into the question before us an important and far-reaching element which cannot be discussed here. All that can be required from me as a commentator is, to show that the doctrines in question are not taught in the Bible.

In absolute opposition to both the Roman and the Lutheran churches, ZWINGLI taught (Confession to Charles V. Art. 7) “I believe, indeed I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even distribute it;” and that the Lord's Supper was nothing but a mode of recalling the death of Christ and of confessing faith in Him. How far this teaching falls below the great and solemn significance of the rite, my exposition has already shown. Yet we need not wonder that to this extreme and rationalistic view Zwingli was driven by the assumptions of the papacy. CALVIN asserted (Institutes bk. iv. 17. 10, etc.) in opposition to Zwingli the supernatural and life-giving presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, making the ordinance to be a special channel of spiritual blessing; and, in opposition to Luther, denied His local presence in the bread and wine, and asserted that only those who receive the elements with faith thereby receive Christ. His teaching has been accepted, to speak generally, by the Reformed Churches of the Continent, and in the articles of the Anglican Church. And it agrees in the main with the above exposition of the words of Christ and of Paul. I notice, however, that Calvin and many Anglican writers cling to the teaching that in some sense believers actually though spiritually receive in the Supper the body and blood of Christ. But to these words I can give no meaning except that believers receive the spiritual benefits which result from His incarnation and crucifixion: and, to express this by the words “receive the body of Christ” seems to be very inappropriate.

The teaching of the Lutheran, and of the Reformed, Churches is ably set forth in the Lutherische Dogmatik of Kahnis and the Christliche Dogmatik of Ebrard, each of which writers has given special attention to this matter. The Roman Catholic doctrine is defended with great ability, candor, and devoutness, in the Symbolik of Moehler. This last work I strongly commend to Protestant theologians. Only by a study of the best writings of those who differ from us can we understand their opinions and correctly estimate our own.

After all, the differences between the Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed teaching, as discussed above, are not so great as at first sight they appear; and are indeed rather verbal than real. Each doctrine contains important elements of truth. Many godly Roman Catholics cling to transubstantiation as being the strongest protest they can make against prevalent materialism. And even Zwingli, in his strong rebound from papal assumptions, still upheld the divine institution and perpetual obligation of the sacred feast. Luther and the Roman Church assert that, though all who receive the Lord's Supper therein receive Christ, it nevertheless depends upon themselves whether Christ comes into them to save or to condemn. And Calvin taught that, even to those who receive it unworthily, the Lord's Supper has terrible reality, a reality of condemnation. So far then the differences are not serious.

But I am compelled sorrowfully to believe that around and in close connection with the Lord's Supper are taught doctrines not only false but exceedingly hurtful. The Roman Church (Council of Trent, session xxii.) lays great, and not altogether improper stress, upon the sacrificial aspect of the Supper. Now sacrifice implies priesthood: and the universal priesthood of believers is plainly taught in 1 Peter 2:5. But, for this priesthood, the Roman Church practically substitutes a priesthood in the Christian Church similar to that of Aaron in Israel. In other words, it claims for its ministers the sole right of distributing the symbols which Christ commands His people to receive. And it requires, before the distribution of the bread, which only it gives to the laity, confession to a priest, and such confession as shall satisfy the priest. So Council of Trent, session xii. ch. 7; session xiv. 3, 6. By this claim the Roman Church places itself practically between the sinner and Christ; and claims virtually, for the support of its authority, the very solemn words of Christ and of Paul about the sacred Supper. I am compelled to say, in spite of my sincere affection for our brethren of the Roman Church I hope to spend eternity in the One Universal Church above, and while acknowledging our deep obligation to that Church for preserving the light of Christianity, often obscured but still burning, during the long night of the dark ages-I am compelled to believe that the claim of the Roman hierarchy to be the sole ordinary depositary of the benefits conveyed by Christ to His people through the Supper, has produced, directly and indirectly, terrible and wide-spread injury. So far as the New Testament teaches, this claim is met by the proof given above (p. 199) that neither Christ nor His apostles claimed for the officers of the church the exclusive distribution of the elements. They preferred the risk of the abuses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:21f; and even when these abuses actually existed, refrained from limiting the distribution of the elements to the church officers, rather than permit sacerdotal assumptions to have the smallest foothold in Scripture. It is right to say that the priestly monopoly of the right to administer the Lord's Supper is utterly rejected by both Luther and Calvin. This places an infinite distance between the otherwise similar teaching of Luther and of the Roman Church. It must not be thought that I look upon the foregoing arguments as sufficient to overturn the Roman claims. For these claims rest ultimately upon the authority of the Church, an authority resolutely maintained with increasing clearness and boldness by a succession of the greatest fathers of the Church and by a general consensus of the Church during many centuries. I have merely endeavored to show that these claims have no basis whatever in Scripture. The question whether we are bound to concede to the Catholic Church the authority which Cyprian and Augustine and others claimed for it, and the immense issues involved in this question, lie beyond the scope of the present work.

The priestly monopoly of the administration of the Lord's Supper, which Luther resisted, is claimed for the ministry of the Anglican Church by Anglo-Catholics. Their views are set forth with ability and fairness in Sadler's Church-Doctrine. With almost all he says in the long chapter on “Holy Communion,” I heartily agree. Indeed this chapter is little more than an able defense of Calvin's teaching. But in his chapter on the “Christian Priesthood,” an element is introduced which changes completely the aspect of the Lord's Supper. He reminds us that the “commission to celebrate the Lord's Supper was not given to the whole church gathered together, but to the twelve alone.” But from this we might infer as easily that the Supper was designed for the apostles only as that its administration was limited to them. Mr. Sadler then says that the apostles must have committed to others the power to administer the Supper; because, otherwise, apart from the apostles themselves the Supper could not have been held at all. But this takes for granted the chief point, viz. that the supper cannot be duly received except from the hands of a church-officer. And of this he gives no proof. Christ must have given, either verbally or through the guidance of His Spirit, directions about the details of the Supper fuller than His recorded words. What these directions were, we can learn only from the writings of the apostles and from the practice of the primitive church as portrayed in the New Testament. But here not one word is said limiting the administration of the Supper to church-officers. And we have found (1 Corinthians 11:21f) church-members actually receiving the Lord's Supper without official administration, and doing so without a word of reproof from Paul, even when reproving them for other irregularities in the same matter. Thus the claim to the sole right to administer the Lord's supper in this country, a claim made by Anglo-Catholics for the ministers of the Anglican Church, and involving most serious consequences, finds in Scripture no support whatever and finds there a clearly implied contradiction.

See further, from myself and various others, in a volume containing a Symposium on the Lord's Supper. (Hodder and Stoughton.)

Verse 34. And if any man hunger] Let him not come to the house of God to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home-take that in his own house which is necessary for the support of his body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should have the feeding of his soul alone in view.

That ye come not together unto condemnation] That ye may avoid the curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as those above mentioned; and that ye may get that especial blessing which every one that discerns the Lord’s body in the eucharist must receive.

The rest will I set in order, &c.] All the other matters relative to this business, to which you have referred in your letter, I will regulate when I come to visit you; as, God permitting, I fully design. The apostle did visit them about one year after this, as is generally believed. I HAVE already been so very particular in this long and difficult chapter, that I have left neither room nor necessity for many supplementary observations. A few remarks are all that is requisite.

1. The apostle inculcates the necessity of order and subjection, especially in the Church. Those who are impatient of rule, are generally those who wish to tyrannize. And those who are loudest in their complaints against authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are those who wish to have the power in their own hands, and would infallibly abuse it if they had. They alone who are willing to obey, are capable of rule; and he who can rule well, is as willing to obey as to govern. Let all be submissive and orderly; let the woman know that the man is head and protector; let the man know that Christ is his head and redeemer, and the gift of God’s endless mercy for the salvation of a lost world.

2. The apostle insisted on the woman having her head covered in the Church or Christian assembly. If he saw the manner in which Christian women now dress, and appear in the ordinances of religion, what would he think? What would he say? How could he even distinguish the Christian from the infidel? And if they who are in Christ are new creatures, and the persons who ordinarily appear in religious assemblies are really new creatures (as they profess in general to be) in Christ, he might reasonably inquire: If these are new creatures, what must have been their appearance when they were old creatures. Do we dress to be seen? And do we go to the house of God to exhibit ourselves? Wretched is that man or woman who goes to the house of God to be seen by any but God himself.

3. The Lord’s Supper may be well termed the feast of charity; how unbecoming this sacred ordinance to be the subject of dispute, party spirit, and division! Those who make it such must answer for it to God. Every man who believes in Christ as his atoning sacrifice should, as frequently as he can, receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. And every minister of Christ is bound to administer it to every man who is seeking the salvation of his soul, as well as to all believers. Let no man dare to oppose this ordinance; and let every man receive it according to the institution of Christ.

4. Against the fidelity of our translation of 1 Corinthians 11:27 of this chapter, Whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup unworthily, several popish writers have made heavy complaints, and accused the Protestants of wilful corruption; as both the Greek and Vulgate texts, instead of kai and et, AND, have h and vel, OR: Whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink this cup. As this criticism is made to countenance their unscriptural communion in one kind, it may be well to examine the ground of the complaint. Supposing even this objection to be valid, their cause can gain nothing by it while the 26th and 28th verses stand, both in the Greek text and Vulgate, as they now do: For as often as ye eat this bread, AND drink this cup, &c. Let him eat of that bread, AND drink of that cup. But although h, OR, be the reading of the common printed text, kai AND, is the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Claromontanus, two of the best MSS. in the world: as also of the Codex Lincolniensis, 2, and the Codex Petavianus, 3, both MSS. of the first character: it is also the reading of the ancient Syriac, all the Arabic, the Coptic, the margin of the later Syriac, the Æthiopic, different MSS. of the Vulgate, and of one in my own possession; and of Clemens Chromatius, and Cassiodorus. Though the present text of the Vulgate has vel, OR, yet this is a departure from the original editions, which were all professedly taken from the best MSS. In the famous Bible with out date, place, or printer’s name, 2 vols. fol., two columns, and forty-five lines in each, supposed by many to be the first Bible ever printed, the text stands thus: Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem, ET biberit calicem, &c.; Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread AND drink this cup, &c.: here is no vel, OR. The Bible printed by Fust, 1462, the first Bible with a date, has the same reading. Did the Protestants corrupt these texts? In the editio princeps of the Greek Testament, printed by the authority of Cardinal Ximenes at Complutum, and published by the authority of Pope Leo X., though h, OR, stands in the Greek text; yet, in the opposite column, which contains the Vulgate, and in the opposite line, ET, and, is found, and not VEL, or; though the Greek text would have authorized the editor to have made this change: but he conscientiously preserved the text of his Vulgate. Did the Protestants corrupt this Catholic text also? Indeed, so little design had any of those who differed from the Romish Church to make any alteration here, that even Wiclif, having a faulty MS. of the Vulgate by him, which read vel instead of et, followed that faulty MS. and translated, And so who ever schal ete the breed or drinke the cup.

That kai, AND, is the true reading, and not h, or, both MSS. and versions sufficiently prove: also that et, not vels is the proper reading in the Vulgate, those original editions formed by Roman Catholics, and one of them by the highest authority in the papal Church, fully establish: likewise those MSS., versions, fathers, and original editions, must be allowed to be, not only competent, but also unsuspected and incontrovertible witnesses. But as this objection to our translation is brought forward to vindicate the withholding the cup from the laity in the Lord’s Supper, it may be necessary to show that without the cup there can be no eucharist. With respect to the bread, our Lord had simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup, he says Drink ye all of this; for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it, therefore he says, Drink ye ALL of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God’s institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood poured out, i.e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this,) that can be said to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it that the very men who plead so much for the bare, literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has, in the most positive manner, enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! See the whole of this argument, at large, in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist. I CORINTHIANS

Verses 33, 34. Wherefore, my brethren — To conclude what I have to say to you on this subject; when ye come together to eat — To celebrate the Lord’s supper; tarry one for another — With decency and respectful love, till the whole assembly be convened, and then join all together at the same table and time, without such factions and divisions. And if any man hunger — Which probably was the pretence of those that were guilty of the fore-mentioned disorders; let him eat at home — At his own house; that ye come not together unto condemnation — That you may not, by profaning this holy ordinance, provoke God to punish you. And the rest — The other circumstances relating to the Lord’s supper, which require to be corrected; I will set in order — Will see regulated; when I come — To Corinth.

34. Hunger—The very name agape indicated that these love-feasts were for the cultivation of the affections, not the gratification of the appetite, or the sustenance of, at any rate, the well-off class. The rest—Referring, doubtless, to other matters in regard to the good order of their assemblages contained in the letter of the Corinthians. From this passage Romanists argue in favour of traditional customs added by them to the institutes of the Church, and especially to the Lord’s supper: such as having a thin wafer for bread, withholding the cup from the laity, and the worshipping the wafer as the body of Christ. We may easily concede that the apostles did make regulations in the Church. If any institute can be shown to have been established by apostles for the universal Church, it must, doubtless, be accepted as part of the Christian system. But of most of the peculiarities of Rome we know the date of their origin, and reject them as innovations and novelties. We have known in our own day, in the Romish enactments of the immaculacy of the Virgin, and the infallibility of the pope, how dogmas are manufactured. And in the last dogma we find the amplest power provided for the pope to enact, with a sentence a new Christian doctrine whenever he pleases.

Ver. 33.-34. Practical inference from 1 Corinthians 11:23-32, in reference to the special abuse at Corinth.

Come-together (twice) marks the conclusion of the matter introduced in 1 Corinthians 11:17. That the words to eat are sufficient to specify what Paul refers to, suggest that they did not eat together except at the Lord's Supper.

Wait one for another: let each refrain from appropriating food till all are ready to do so together, in contrast to “take beforehand his own supper.” The context implies that, when the united meal is ready, the whole food, by whomever brought, must be eaten by all in common. Paul thus corrects the second abuse mentioned with astonishment in 1 Corinthians 11:22. Let him eat etc.: i.e. do not make the Lord's Supper a meal to satisfy hunger. This corrects the first and broader abuse of 1 Corinthians 11:22.

That you may not etc.: belongs to both abuses.

For judgment: parallel with “for the worse” (1 Corinthians 11:17) in the form assumed in 1 Corinthians 11:29. Paul bids his readers, instead of taking before others are ready the food they have themselves brought, to wait for the united meal; and, again, not to make the sacred rite a means of satisfying hunger, which ought to be done at home; lest their meetings tend to bring upon them condemnation and punishment. The remaining matters: perhaps those implied in the word “first” in 1 Corinthians 11:18. If so, these also pertained to church-meetings. Whenever I come: 1 Corinthians 4:18ff.

I-will-set-in-order; implies Paul's apostolic authority as a ruler in the church. This purpose implies that in various churches he left unwritten directions, which would naturally assume the form of the apostolic traditions of 1 Corinthians 11:2. But we cannot now say with certainty that any particular direction or teaching, not found in his epistles, came from his lips.

REVIEW. Paul has heard, and has reason to believe, that at Corinth the Lord's Supper has degenerated into a mere meal to satisfy hunger and thirst; and that the church-members take back for themselves the food they have brought, thus erecting barriers between brethren meeting together in one place. He rebukes these abuses by narrating and expounding the facts and words of the institution of the Supper as revealed to him by Christ. From this we learn that they who misuse the sacred symbols are guilty of sin against the body nailed to the cross and the shed blood; and that to them participation of the bread and wine brings condemnation and punishment. Indeed, upon some of their number bodily punishment of sickness and death has already fallen. This, the guilty ones would have avoided, had they understood the meaning of their own conduct. And it was inflicted in mercy, to save them from a more terrible condemnation. Paul therefore urges each one to put to the test, when coming to the Lord's Table, his own motives and disposition. And, in reference to the special abuses at Corinth, he bids them supply their bodily needs at home, and wait till all are ready to share together the sacred meal. The other matters which need attention may wait till his arrival at Corinth.

THE LORD'S SUPPER: its primitive mode of celebration, and its significance. That the excesses corrected in § 21 occurred at the sacramental Supper, is quite certain. For, the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20 can be no other than the bread and the cup of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 11:27. And Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11:21, viz. that to take beforehand each his own supper made it impossible for the meal to be the Lord's Supper, implies that the food thus taken was not merely eaten in connection with the sacred symbols, but was actually that food and drink which ought to be received by all together as a supper provided by Christ. This proof is confirmed by the solemn warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27, supporting the reproof in 1 Corinthians 11:22, that they who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. This warning Paul applies expressly in 1 Corinthians 11:33 to the abuses at Corinth. We cannot therefore accept the opinion of Chrysostom, Estius, and others, that these abuses occurred at a semi-spiritual repast connected with the Lord's Supper.

If these abuses occurred at the Lord's Supper, Paul's reference to them is our earliest and most valuable source of information about the primitive mode of its celebration. That private members were able to appropriate beforehand the food designed for the communion, implies that they were not in the habit of receiving the bread and wine from the officers of the church. That Paul did not reprove them for not receiving the elements thus, and did not even recommend it, although it would have effectually prevented the abuses in question, shows clearly that he did not look upon the reception of the elements from the hands of the church officers as essential to the validity of the sacrament. And the same is confirmed by the absence of any censure on the officers of the church, who, if the distribution of the sacred symbols had been committed to them only, would have been chiefly to blame. From this we infer with certainty that when Christ instituted the Supper, He did not direct, and that at the time when this Epistle was written the apostles had not directed, that it should be administered only by the officers of the church. Nor have we in the New Testament any hint that the apostles afterwards gave this direction. That the sacred feast was looked upon as a means of satisfying hunger and that drinking to excess was possible, reveals how widely different was the mode of its celebration then from that of succeeding ages. Contrast Justin, 1st Apology § 65: “After the prayers we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the leader of the brethren [tw hroeotwti twn adelfwn] a cup of water and mixed wine [kramatov] and he, having taken it, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of His Son and the Holy Spirit, and to some length makes thanksgiving for having been counted worthy of these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving all the people present confirm them by saying, Amen. The deacons, as we call them, give to each of those present to partake of the bread, wine, and water, over which thanks has been given; and for those not present we take them to their houses.” Also Tertullian, On the soldier's crown ch. iii.: “The sacrament of the eucharist we receive from the hands of none but those who preside.”

The force of the above arguments is felt, and put very clearly, by Estius. To evade it, he is compelled to suppose that the abuse in question occurred, not at the Lord's Supper, but at a repast partaken in connection with it. This opinion I have already attempted to disprove. The mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper during the latter part of the apostolic age, we have no means of tracing. Consequently, the limitations of its administration to the officers of the church cannot claim undoubted apostolic authority. But it has been, as a matter of church order, the universal, or nearly universal, practice of the entire Church of Christ in all its sections and in all countries, from the second century to the present day. From so general a practice, as a matter of church order, few will have, without very special reasons hardihood to dissent.

The spiritual meaning and purpose and operation of the Lord's Supper, now claim attention. Already, under 1 Corinthians 11:25, we have endeavored to expound the words of institution as they would be understood by those who first heard them. These words we will now study again in the light of the great doctrines of the Gospel assumed and taught in the Epistle to the Romans. And the results thus obtained we will compare with the references to the Lord's Supper in this Epistle. Paul taught (see my Romans, Dissertation i. 3) that God accepts as righteous, i.e. He pardons the sins of, all who believe the Gospel; that this pardon could not have been, had not Christ died; and that by the inward presence and activity of the Holy Spirit believers are so united to Christ that His purposes and life and love are reproduced in them. And this we accepted as the teaching of Christ.

These doctrines will explain John 6:33-59, which is a link connecting them with Christ's words at the Supper. Christ could correctly call Himself in John 6:35 “the bread of life:” for just as bread nourishes (and without such nourishment we must die) only by its own destruction, so Christ (see Romans 3:26) could give us life only by His Own Death. And that, to give us life, His body must needs be bruised and His blood shed, justifies abundantly, and fully accounts for, the strong words of John 6:53: “Except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God, you have no life in you.” How His hearers were to eat and drink etc., i.e. how they were to appropriate the results of His death, Christ tells them plainly in John 6:35, 40, 47, viz. by coming to Him and believing Him. And He tells them in John 6:56 that the spiritual results of this will be an inward, spiritual, mutually interpenetrating contact of themselves and Christ. We see then that in John 6:33-59 Christ does but assert the great doctrines of the Epistle to the Romans, and asserts one of them, No. 2, under the most forceful image possible. And in no other sense but this can I conceive men to eat and drink practically the body and blood of Christ.

We come now, prepared by our study of John 6:33-59, and of the Gospel as taught by Paul, to listen again to the words of Christ as recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:24f. In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul tells us that (just as the Gospel is a verbal announcement that through the shedding of Christ's blood God covenants to pardon sin and to give eternal life to all who believe so) the Lord's Supper is an announcement of Christ's death by visible emblematic action. And this is given as an explanation of the words of Christ. We infer then that “the remembrance of Me” is chiefly a memory that Christ by dying gave, and now gives, us life; and that Christ ordained the Supper in order to keep this great doctrine before the mind and in the heart of His people. And for this end no more effective means could be devised. For this doctrine is the only conceivable explanation of the prominence given to Christ's death both by the institution of the Supper and by the words of institution. We therefore cannot doubt that it was instituted in order to be an abiding monument in the Church of the truth and importance of this doctrine.

Again, the proclamation of this truth is the divinely chosen means of conveying, to those who believe it, the life which results from Christ's death. And, to those within sound of the Gospel, the Truth is the only channel through which this life flows. Now the preached word gives life only through the presence and agency of the Spirit of Christ, who breathes life and power into what would otherwise be empty sound. Cp. 1 Corinthians 2:10ff. The universality of this principle compels us to apply it also to the Truth as set forth visibly in the sacred emblems. Therefore, just as in the preached word, in some sense to all who hear it and in the fullest possible sense to those who receive it by faith, we have the real, living, active, objective presence of the Crucified and Living Saviour, so we need not hesitate to say that in the same sense we have His presence in the Lord's Supper.

Again, Christ has bidden us expressly, at the most solemn period of His life and in the most solemn manner possible, to keep the sacred feast; and Paul's exposition in 1 Corinthians 11:26 makes this command binding to the end of time. This command of Christ makes participation in the Supper an essential condition of salvation. For, not to eat and drink would be direct disobedience to Christ; and, therefore, a renunciation of the covenant of which the cup is an emblem. Consequently, with exceptions noted below, only by eating and drinking the bread and wine can we share the results of Christ's pierced body and shed blood. Now, practically, in our thought, we cannot distinguish between a condition performed in order to obtain that which depends upon it and an instrument with which we lay hold of something we desire. Consequently, we cannot but look upon both faith and the Lord's Supper (both being simply conditions of salvation) as instruments by which we lay hold of Christ. We may therefore say correctly, as in 1 Corinthians 10:16, that by receiving the material elements we become sharers of the body and blood of Christ; and that our entire spiritual life, (cp. 1 Corinthians 10:17a,) each moment received from Christ, is a result of our reception at intervals of the bread and wine. Yet the Lord's Supper is not another condition of salvation beside faith. Rather, Christ's command has made intelligent faith impossible without participation in the Supper; just as it is impossible to exercise faith without repentance or to retain it without confession. Cp. Luke 13:3; Romans 10:9. For we cannot believe that we enjoy Christ's favor while we deliberately disobey His word. Moreover, circumstances may prevent us from partaking the Supper: and our reception of it is at intervals. Under all circumstances and each moment we live by faith.

The suitability of the Lord's Supper as a condition of salvation, and the relation of this condition to faith, the one inward condition are not difficult to trace. The Lord's Supper is the most searching test of our faith that Christ is actually and supernaturally present and active in the hearts of His people. And, that Christ is thus objectively present in us, is an essential truth, and the great characteristic truth, of Christianity. Little faith is required to believe that a preached word may do good: for the connection between the means and end is evident. But, to expect spiritual good from material bread and wine, implies reliance upon the presence and infinite power of Him who fed the five thousand and made water into wine, and who has promised to be in His people as their life to the end of time and through eternity. Thus the sacramental feast tests, develops, and testifies, our faith in the supernatural presence and activity of Christ in His Church. Another purpose of the Lord's Supper is suggested in 1 Corinthians 10:17; viz. to give formal and visible unity to the followers of Christ. Such visible unity was of infinite importance for the continued existence of Christianity in the face of the hostile and powerful influences which beset its early course. And we cannot conceive any means so likely to secure visible unity as this simple rite. To perpetuate the rite and thus to give corporate form to His followers, Christ instituted it at the most solemn period of His life, and, by bidding us observe it in remembrance of Himself, made it practically a condition of salvation.

Again, that Christ commands, as a condition of salvation, a bodily reception of material bread and wine, gives to these elements a mysterious and unique dignity. (Similarly, God's choice of a spoken word as the channel of salvation gives to the human voice an incomparable dignity.) Since the eating and drinking which Christ requires are real, we may say that His command makes our reception of the spiritual, and ultimately material, benefits purchased by the death of His body and the shedding of His blood conditional, with exceptions marked below, on our reception into our own bodies of the material bread and wine. Christ has thus placed these elements of food in a unique relation to Himself. Remembering this, as we look at them we may almost forget the material food produced by nature and by human manipulation, and think only of the pierced body and shed blood, without which there had been no bread and wine on the sacramental table and of the spiritual nourishment we derive therefrom. To the eye of faith the symbols disappear, and the infinite and amazing reality alone remains.

We shall understand now all that Paul says about the Lord's Supper. Well might Christ say “this is my body.” For, had not the Eternal Son assumed a human body to be pierced for our life, there had been no broken bread in His hands then. Had not that body died, there would be no bread upon our sacramental table now. And, but for the pouring out of His blood, and but for the New Covenant between God and us (virtual in that night, ratified now) through His blood, there would be no poured out wine. Therefore, as setting forth and implying the most amazing event of all time, and as a solemnly appointed condition of sharing its eternal results, the broken bread is the body of Christ, and the full wine-cup is the New Covenant in His blood. And, as setting forth and implying and bringing about (as an essential condition and in some sense an instrument) a participation in the results of His death, the bread and the cup are (1 Corinthians 10:16) “fellowship in the body and blood of Christ.” In the same way all manifestations of the Christian life are results of the sacred feast. Therefore, the outward and visible unity of believers (1 Corinthians 10:17) is a result of their joint reception of the same symbolic food. Since the Supper was ordained by Christ, it is, with all its consequent blessings, (1 Corinthians 10:21) “a table of the Lord.” Since it is a visible symbol of Christ crucified and a solemnly ordained means of consolidating and extending His kingdom, any indignity done to the feast is done to Christ, and specially to the body and blood bruised and shed for us. Such indignity arises from oversight of the awful reality, even the crucified body of Christ, which the sacred symbols are designed to bring to mind. On this indignity sentence was already pronounced by Christ: and at Corinth upon many persons penalty was already inflicted. Consequently, they who receive the elements without a spiritual view and apprehension of Christ Crucified, receive thereby judgment. Thus Paul's entire teaching about the Lord's Supper (and to his teaching the New Testament adds nothing) is but a development of the words of institution in the light of the great principles asserted and expounded in the Epistle to the Romans.

I cannot overlook the fact that some godly men, I refer chiefly to the Society of Friends, set aside altogether the outward and visible celebration of the Lord's Supper. How they reconcile this with Christ's words, “Do this,” and with Paul's explanation of them in 1 Corinthians 11:26, I do not know. That they lose much by refusing, even in ignorance, to obey the express and solemn command of Christ, I cannot doubt. But, if their refusal arises from sincere, even though mistaken, loyalty to Christ, God will not refuse them a part in that New Covenant of which they refuse the visible pledge and condition. And for the loss they sustain by absence from the Lord's table, no small part of the blame rests upon those who by their misrepresentation and misuse have brought it into contempt. But, were I to absent myself as they do, I should thereby exclude myself from the Covenant. For I should refuse to do what I believe Christ has expressly and solemnly bidden. It is worthy of notice, in view of 1 Corinthians 10:17, that the united influence upon the world of the Society of Friends bears no proportion to the personal excellence of its members. In the New Testament the Lord's Supper is never said to be a sacrifice. But its connection with the Jewish Passover reminds us that it is in some sense a sacrificial act. The analogy of the Jewish rites and the Christian rite is very close. The Jewish sacrifices set forth in symbol the truth that man's salvation comes through the death of the innocent: and, as solemnly ordained by God at (Exodus 24:8) the ratification of the Old Covenant, they were a condition on which its benefits were obtained. Consequently, after disuse in times of spiritual declension, the sacrifices were restored (2 Chronicles 29:7ff; 2 Chronicles 29:20ff) in times of revival. Now the Lord's Supper is the one recurring rite of the New Covenant. Of this Covenant, the most conspicuous benefit is forgiveness of sins: Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 8:12. Therefore, while receiving the Supper in faith, we claim from God the benefits of the Covenant, and especially the forgiveness of our sins. We thus present to God, for our own sins, in our hearts and by faith, the pierced body and shed blood of Christ: for we hide us beneath His cross from the penalty of our sins. And, while we do so, the blood of Christ saves us from the anger of God: for (Romans 3:25) “in His own blood” Christ becomes through our faith a propitiation for our sins. Thus, in the Lord's Supper we do a spiritual act analogous to the sprinkling of the blood by the High Priest once a year in the Most Holy Place. But, since we do but present to God as a propitiation for our own sins the blood already once for all shed on Calvary, it is better to speak of the Sacrament as a sacrificial act rather than as a sacrifice. We conclude then that Christ ordained the Supper in order to give great prominence, in the eyes of even the humblest believer, to the great truth that our life comes through His death; also as a means of testing, developing, and confessing to the world, our belief that salvation is an outworking of a power which cannot be explained by, and is altogether above, the laws of mind and morals; and as a means of giving to His people corporate and visible unity in face of the world. In order to secure, to the end of time, the observance of the rite by all His followers, and thus to secure the aims just mentioned, Christ made the Supper, by expressly commanding it, an indispensable condition of salvation. And, since in the kingdom of God there are no useless conditions. He determined to make it a channel through which, by His own presence and activity, He would pour the spiritual benefits therein set forth. We infer that, as in the preached so in the symbolic word, the designed benefits are received only by those who believe. And, since unbelief in those who partake the Supper implies resistance to the truths therein conspicuously and forcefully portrayed, and great dishonor to Him who died even for those who reject Him, we infer that in a very terrible sense the sacred rite is, to those who misuse it for their own base ends, an thus betray their ignorance of its true significance, “an odor (2 Corinthians 2:16) from death tending to death.” About the Lord's Supper the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches, (Council of Trent, Session xiii. canon 1,) together with much important gospel truth, that “in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist is contained, truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and accordingly the entire Christ;” that (Session vii. canon 7) “Grace is conferred by sacraments of this kind always and to all, so far as God is concerned, if they receive them with correct ritual;” and that (Session xiii. ch. 4) “By consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ and of the entire substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is conveniently and appropriately called Transubstantiation.” The Roman Church guards (Session xxi. ch. 3) this doctrine by teaching that the entire Christ is present both in the consecrated bread and in the wine. The LUTHERAN CHURCH is fairly represented in the following extract from the Lutherische Dogmatik of Kahnis, § 21. 6. “Luther's teaching is this. When Christ said, “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you,” He said, in the form of syndoke, That which I give you to eat is my body which is given for you, i.e. is here imparted to you, for the forgiveness of sins, i.e. as sign, warrant, and medium, of the forgiveness of sins for believing receivers. According to the conception of a sacrament, which is a visible word, the chief matter in the Lord's Supper is the word of the forgiveness of sins. Thereby the promise of the Lord's supper is suspended on the condition of faith. But independent of faith is the reception of the body of Christ, which in, with, and under, the bread and wine is distributed.” Also the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg declares: “We defend the opinion received in the entire church that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly offered with those things that appear, viz. with the bread and wine.” Luther rejected Transubstantiation. But he and the Lutheran Church assert strongly that Christ is locally present in the bread and wine; and is thus received, as Saviour or as Judge, by all who receive the sacred symbols.

But no hint is given, in the words either of Christ or of Paul, of any change in the substance of the consecrated elements. Indeed, even after the blessing we read in 1 Corinthians 11:26 “eat this bread.” The words “This cup is the New Covenant” warn us not to infer such change from the words “This is my body:” and we have seen that Paul's argument is complete without it.

As proof that in the Lord's Supper Christ is actually received (to their condemnation) even by unbelievers, Lutherans appeal to the arguments of 1 Corinthians 10:16ff, and 1 Corinthians 11:27ff. But it is always perilous to assume an important doctrine not expressly taught in Scripture because it seems to be implied in a Scripture argument. That Paul's argument does not imply this doctrine, and that 1 Corinthians 10:21 directly contradicts it, I have in my notes endeavored to show. And we notice that in the New Testament Christ is never said to be spiritually present except to bless. We have also seen that, although the words of Christ imply a real and special presence of Christ in the sacred ordinances, they do not imply His local presence in the bread and wine and in the stomachs of those who receive them. Thus, in my view, the Lutheran doctrine falls to the ground. For, its advocates appeal in support of it only to Scripture: and Scripture does not teach it. But Roman Catholics appeal not only to Scripture but to the authoritative teaching of the Church; and thus introduce into the question before us an important and far-reaching element which cannot be discussed here. All that can be required from me as a commentator is, to show that the doctrines in question are not taught in the Bible.

In absolute opposition to both the Roman and the Lutheran churches, ZWINGLI taught (Confession to Charles V. Art. 7) “I believe, indeed I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even distribute it;” and that the Lord's Supper was nothing but a mode of recalling the death of Christ and of confessing faith in Him. How far this teaching falls below the great and solemn significance of the rite, my exposition has already shown. Yet we need not wonder that to this extreme and rationalistic view Zwingli was driven by the assumptions of the papacy. CALVIN asserted (Institutes bk. iv. 17. 10, etc.) in opposition to Zwingli the supernatural and life-giving presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, making the ordinance to be a special channel of spiritual blessing; and, in opposition to Luther, denied His local presence in the bread and wine, and asserted that only those who receive the elements with faith thereby receive Christ. His teaching has been accepted, to speak generally, by the Reformed Churches of the Continent, and in the articles of the Anglican Church. And it agrees in the main with the above exposition of the words of Christ and of Paul. I notice, however, that Calvin and many Anglican writers cling to the teaching that in some sense believers actually though spiritually receive in the Supper the body and blood of Christ. But to these words I can give no meaning except that believers receive the spiritual benefits which result from His incarnation and crucifixion: and, to express this by the words “receive the body of Christ” seems to be very inappropriate.

The teaching of the Lutheran, and of the Reformed, Churches is ably set forth in the Lutherische Dogmatik of Kahnis and the Christliche Dogmatik of Ebrard, each of which writers has given special attention to this matter. The Roman Catholic doctrine is defended with great ability, candor, and devoutness, in the Symbolik of Moehler. This last work I strongly commend to Protestant theologians. Only by a study of the best writings of those who differ from us can we understand their opinions and correctly estimate our own.

After all, the differences between the Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed teaching, as discussed above, are not so great as at first sight they appear; and are indeed rather verbal than real. Each doctrine contains important elements of truth. Many godly Roman Catholics cling to transubstantiation as being the strongest protest they can make against prevalent materialism. And even Zwingli, in his strong rebound from papal assumptions, still upheld the divine institution and perpetual obligation of the sacred feast. Luther and the Roman Church assert that, though all who receive the Lord's Supper therein receive Christ, it nevertheless depends upon themselves whether Christ comes into them to save or to condemn. And Calvin taught that, even to those who receive it unworthily, the Lord's Supper has terrible reality, a reality of condemnation. So far then the differences are not serious.

But I am compelled sorrowfully to believe that around and in close connection with the Lord's Supper are taught doctrines not only false but exceedingly hurtful. The Roman Church (Council of Trent, session xxii.) lays great, and not altogether improper stress, upon the sacrificial aspect of the Supper. Now sacrifice implies priesthood: and the universal priesthood of believers is plainly taught in 1 Peter 2:5. But, for this priesthood, the Roman Church practically substitutes a priesthood in the Christian Church similar to that of Aaron in Israel. In other words, it claims for its ministers the sole right of distributing the symbols which Christ commands His people to receive. And it requires, before the distribution of the bread, which only it gives to the laity, confession to a priest, and such confession as shall satisfy the priest. So Council of Trent, session xii. ch. 7; session xiv. 3, 6. By this claim the Roman Church places itself practically between the sinner and Christ; and claims virtually, for the support of its authority, the very solemn words of Christ and of Paul about the sacred Supper. I am compelled to say, in spite of my sincere affection for our brethren of the Roman Church I hope to spend eternity in the One Universal Church above, and while acknowledging our deep obligation to that Church for preserving the light of Christianity, often obscured but still burning, during the long night of the dark ages-I am compelled to believe that the claim of the Roman hierarchy to be the sole ordinary depositary of the benefits conveyed by Christ to His people through the Supper, has produced, directly and indirectly, terrible and wide-spread injury. So far as the New Testament teaches, this claim is met by the proof given above (p. 199) that neither Christ nor His apostles claimed for the officers of the church the exclusive distribution of the elements. They preferred the risk of the abuses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:21f; and even when these abuses actually existed, refrained from limiting the distribution of the elements to the church officers, rather than permit sacerdotal assumptions to have the smallest foothold in Scripture. It is right to say that the priestly monopoly of the right to administer the Lord's Supper is utterly rejected by both Luther and Calvin. This places an infinite distance between the otherwise similar teaching of Luther and of the Roman Church. It must not be thought that I look upon the foregoing arguments as sufficient to overturn the Roman claims. For these claims rest ultimately upon the authority of the Church, an authority resolutely maintained with increasing clearness and boldness by a succession of the greatest fathers of the Church and by a general consensus of the Church during many centuries. I have merely endeavored to show that these claims have no basis whatever in Scripture. The question whether we are bound to concede to the Catholic Church the authority which Cyprian and Augustine and others claimed for it, and the immense issues involved in this question, lie beyond the scope of the present work.

The priestly monopoly of the administration of the Lord's Supper, which Luther resisted, is claimed for the ministry of the Anglican Church by Anglo-Catholics. Their views are set forth with ability and fairness in Sadler's Church-Doctrine. With almost all he says in the long chapter on “Holy Communion,” I heartily agree. Indeed this chapter is little more than an able defense of Calvin's teaching. But in his chapter on the “Christian Priesthood,” an element is introduced which changes completely the aspect of the Lord's Supper. He reminds us that the “commission to celebrate the Lord's Supper was not given to the whole church gathered together, but to the twelve alone.” But from this we might infer as easily that the Supper was designed for the apostles only as that its administration was limited to them. Mr. Sadler then says that the apostles must have committed to others the power to administer the Supper; because, otherwise, apart from the apostles themselves the Supper could not have been held at all. But this takes for granted the chief point, viz. that the supper cannot be duly received except from the hands of a church-officer. And of this he gives no proof. Christ must have given, either verbally or through the guidance of His Spirit, directions about the details of the Supper fuller than His recorded words. What these directions were, we can learn only from the writings of the apostles and from the practice of the primitive church as portrayed in the New Testament. But here not one word is said limiting the administration of the Supper to church-officers. And we have found (1 Corinthians 11:21f) church-members actually receiving the Lord's Supper without official administration, and doing so without a word of reproof from Paul, even when reproving them for other irregularities in the same matter. Thus the claim to the sole right to administer the Lord's supper in this country, a claim made by Anglo-Catholics for the ministers of the Anglican Church, and involving most serious consequences, finds in Scripture no support whatever and finds there a clearly implied contradiction.

See further, from myself and various others, in a volume containing a Symposium on the Lord's Supper. (Hodder and Stoughton.)