Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
Ch. 1Co 11:1. This verse belongs to the former chapter, and concludes the argument, as in ch. 1Co 4:16.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Be ye followers of me – Imitate my example in the matter now under discussion. As I deny myself; as I seek to give no offence to anyone; as I endeavor not to alarm the prejudices of others, but in all things to seek their salvation, so do you. This verse belongs to the previous chapter, and should not have been separated from it. It is the close of the discussion there.
Even as I also am of Christ – I make Christ my example. He is my model in all things; and if you follow him, and follow me as far as I follow him, you will not err. This is the only safe example; and if we follow this, we can never go astray.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 11:1-2
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Follow Paul and follow Christ
I. Be ye followers of Paul. But how can we be like a man who has been dead for centuries, whose language and occupations were wholly different from ours? Can the nineteenth century be changed into the first? No. There are hundreds of points in which we cannot be like him; and yet Paul is more capable of being an example to us than he has been to almost any previous age of the world. He is truly the apostle of Englishmen, because–
1. He is the apostle most congenial to our peculiar excellences. There is a real likeness between the English character and the freedom and love of truth which is the fibre and tissue of the teaching of St. Paul.
2. He is the apostle of progress. Are any of us inclined to think that Christianity is worn out, that it is too contracted for these broad, enlightened times? Some forms of it may have become so, but not the Christianity of St. Paul. He is the apostle of the vast and unknown future. St. Paul is always looking, not backward, but forward. He went beyond his own age, beyond the ages that followed; and, however far we have advanced in enlightenment and liberation, he has gone before us still.
3. The apostle of toleration. Have we outgrown the noble lessons of Rom 14:1-23.? Are we more able to bear with those who differ from us, more tender to the rights of conscience, than he? Let us separate the essential from the non-essential, the temporal from the eternal, as he did.
II. Even as he was of Christ.
1. In many forms this is the burden of all his Epistles (Rom 13:14; Col 2:6; Rom 8:29; Gal 6:14; Gal 2:20). He is but a servant of Christ. To carry in his own life a copy, however imperfect, of what Christ had said and done; to be one with Christ now and hereafter was his highest ambition and hope of salvation. And to this he calls us still.
2. True, we cannot imitate Christ in the letter, but we can in the spirit; we cannot put on His outward garb and actions, but we can put on the mind which was in Christ Jesus. We cannot attain to His perfection; in great part He is rather the likeness of God than the example of man; but we can study in His life and character the will of God and the duty of man. He should be to us as a second conscience, to fix our wills, to calm our scruples, to guide our thoughts, the conscience of our conscience, the mind of our mind, the heart of our heart.
III. How shall we bring home this joint example to ourselves? How shall we concentrate on our own lives the rays of this double light, the greater light for ever going before, the lesser light for ever moving behind? Turn from the text to the context, and you will find laid down two fundamental principles of Evangelical religion–
1. For the service of God (1Co 10:13.). Whatsoever ye do, in commerce and in labour, wheresoever it be, there is what you have to do to the glory of God. Here, joining in the prayers and hymns, etc., you are preparing for the service of God. But there, in your daily life, is the true Divine service, in which we must all bear our parts.
(1) Paul was ever employed in driving the enthusiasm of his followers into homely, useful, practical channels.
(2) What was true of Paul was still more true of Christ. He did not retire to the wilderness. He lived and died in blessed companionship with men. In labour and in festivity, in moving multitudes and in crowded ship, He found alike His Fathers work.
2. How are we to follow Paul and Christ in the service of man? (1Co 10:33; 1Co 9:22). Not by one uniform mode, but in ten thousand was, ever fresh, every varying with the wants and characters of each.
(1) Every face that looks up from this crowd is different from every other; it expresses a history, a character, a weakness, a strength of its own. To every one the apostle would have been, as it were, a different man; he would have transformed himself into the thoughts and would have borne with the infirmities of each. No outward difference would have prevented him from seeing the good which lay beneath. He would have made straight for that and built it up, and so would have saved the soul in the midst of which he had discovered it.
(2) And this example is not only for teachers or special times and places. It is for all times, places, and persons; for it is the example, not only of Paul, but of Christ Himself. He, too, became all things to all men, if by any means He might save some. He came with a gracious word and touch for each. And as Christ and Paul have done to us, so ought we in our humble measure to do to our brethren; so ought we humbly to hope that they each in their turn will do to us, if by any means some of us may be saved. (Dean Stanley.)
Following Christians and following Christ
I. We ought to follow the example of former saints, so far as they walk in the laws of God.
1. Though by nature all be sinners, yet by grace many in all ages have been saints.
2. The lives of many saints are recorded for our imitation (Jam 5:10-11; Jam 5:17; Php 3:17; Php 4:9).
3. But everything recorded of them is not to be followed.
(1) Not such actions as are condemned.
(2) Nor all such which are not condemned (Gen 19:8; Gen 27:25-27; Gen 42:15-16).
(3) Nor all such as are approved. For–
(a) Some things are only in part approved (Luk 16:8; Exo 1:19-20).
(b) Some things were done by the extraordinary call and instinct of God (Num 25:7-8; 2Ki 1:10; Luk 9:54-55). So Abraham offering Isaac.
4. In our imitation of the saints we must observe–
(1) Whether what they do be according to the law of God.
(2) The circumstances of their actions (Amo 6:5). Read, then, the lives of former saints, and follow their examples, especially the particular graces wherein they were eminent (Num 12:3; 1Sa 3:18; Job 1:21; Act 5:41).
II. Christ is the grand example which we ought to imitate.
1. What is it to imitate Christ?
(1) As He did it.
(a) Understandingly (Joh 4:22).
(b) Obediently (Luk 2:49; 1Sa 15:22).
(c) Sincerely Joh 4:24; 2Co 1:12).
(d) Wholly (Mat 3:15; Joh 17:4).
(e) Believingly (Joh 11:41-42).
(f) Cheerfully (Isa 53:7; Heb 10:34; Rom 12:8).
(g) Humbly (Mat 11:29).
(h) To the glory of God (1Co 10:31).
2. What are those works which we are to imitate Christ in? Christ was truly God from eternity (Joh 1:1; Joh 8:58). He became truly man in time (Joh 1:14; 1Ti 2:5), and He was and is truly both God and man in one person (Act 20:28). Whatsoever He did in the flesh He did under one of these three notions.
(1) We are not to follow Christ in what He did as God; such are His acts–
(a) Of omnipotence. Healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead, etc.
(b) Of omniscience (Luk 11:17; Luk 13:32).
(c) Of sovereignty (Mat 16:2; Mat 16:7).
(2) Nor in what He did as God-man, in the acts–
(a) Of His prophetical office (Deu 18:15; Joh 15:15; Act 3:22).
(b) His priestly office. Satisfying for our sins (1Jn 2:2), and interceding for our souls (Heb 7:25).
(c) His kingly office (Isa 9:7).
(3) But we are to follow Him in what He did as mere man.
(a) He was subject to His parents (Luk 2:51). This subjection consisteth in reverencing them (Lev 19:3); in obeying them, by hearkening to their instructions (Pro 13:1; Pro 23:22) and performing their lawful commands (Col 3:20; Eph 6:1); in thankfulness, by acknowledging their care and providing for their necessities (1Ti 5:4; Gen 47:12; Joh 19:26-27). Consider–This is pleasing to God (Eph 6:1), and hath a promised blessing (Eph 6:2-3; Exo 20:12).
(b) He committed no sin 1Pe 2:22; Isa 53:9; 1Jn 3:5). How are we not to sin? We are not to love it (Psa 119:1-176). We must imitate Christ in–
(c) Love.
(d) Submission.
(e) Meekness and holiness.
(f) Hearing.
(g) Finishing His work.
(h) Taking all opportunities of doing good.
3. Means.
(1) Watch always over thy heart (1Pe 5:8; Pro 4:23).
(2) Live as under the eye of God.
(3) Consider thou art a Christian. (Bp. Beveridge.)
A follower of Christ
It needs no argument to prove that all men do not follow Christ. Many profess to follow Him, and many boast that they do follow Him, but, oh, how few faithfully follow Christ! Indeed, the grand mistake of the world lies in this–that following Christ consists in mere attendance to a few forms and professions of religion, whereas it is wholly a spiritual service, and can never be taken up by any but spiritual men. Therefore the Scriptures assure us that a follower of Christ is–
I. One who has been quickened by Christ. A dead man cannot follow another. A man dead in trespasses and sins must be quickened by the Son of God before he will take one step in the way to heaven.
II. One who heartily loves Christ. We love Him, because He first loved us. The love of God constraineth us. All Christ asks in return for His love is Follow Me, and the grateful and redeemed spirit says, Lord, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest.
III. One who embraces the doctrine of Christ. When quickeing takes place, the soul receives the kingdom of heaven as a little child. Teach me, says such a spirit, Thy way, O Lord; I will walk in Thy truth; unite my heart to fear Thy name. It does not take the doctrines of the gospel and throw away the precepts; it does not reserve the precepts and cast away the doctrines, but it takes it as a whole, as the word of Christ, and the directory in the way to heaven.
IV. One who cheerfully walks in the ways of Christ. Religious labour is no drudgery to him. Never has a Christian any melancholy as long as he walks in Christs paths; it is when he turns out of them that occasions him sadness and pain.
V. One who copies the example of Christ. A follower of Christ is not one whose head is filled with well-digested schemes of theology. Christ hath left us an example that we should follow His steps. Following Christ is walking behind Him, putting our feet into the print of His footsteps, and so going on in the way to heaven. He has left His footprints–
1. In His meek and amiable spirit.
2. In heavenly behaviour and conversation.
3. In prayer.
4. In His abounding liberality.
5. In His diligent labours.
6. In His spirit of love.
VI. One who perseveringly continues with Christ. Some follow Christ from gain, some partially, as long as the truth does not touch their consciences; some in poverty and affliction; but when the sun of prosperity has arisen, when persecution or affliction cometh on account of the truth, then they desert Christ. But he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (J. Sherman.)
True following
Some men are destined to lead either in evil or in good. St. Paul, who had been a leader in persecution, was made a leader and commander of Christs people, and he removes every trace of human assumption when he qualifies the exhortation with even as I am also of Christ.
I. To follow Christ is the source of Christian influence. It is one thing to look at the life of Jesus with interest and admiration; it is another thing to regard it as our pattern and inspiration. To gain the higher influence of the Saviours life we must follow Him–
1. Wholly. The would-be followers of His day made loud professions of following Him, but when He said, If any man will come after Me, let him take up his cross, etc., the crowd dispersed, and only the twelve remained.
2. Constantly. When you sit for your likeness the photographer measures the time in which to take a deep and sharp impression. Half the time would only give half the result. If you only look at Jesus once in awhile, and if serious thought only possess you at times, the flood of worldly influence will sweep away the good impressions as the tide demolishes footsteps in the sand.
3. Openly. Conversion becomes more real, love to Christ more intense, and hatred of sin more forcible by the exhibition of the virtues of Him who has called us out of darkness into light. The light we shed on others is again reflected on ourselves. The voice of the echo is sweeter than your own; so is piety when it returns to us from its mission of mercy.
II. To exhibit Christ is the mission of the Christian life.
1. The power of example is great. The ancient Romans used to place the statues of distinguished men in their halls. When they left in the morning they were inspired by the remembrance of their noble deeds, and when they returned in the evening they were ennobled by the thought of the associations they enjoyed.
2. The power of Christian example is the greatest. Both in moulding and reforming characters it has not a rival. Its force is that of Divine love working through human actions. God in Christ Jesus made His life the noblest of all lives, because it has produced the greatest reforms in the race. The life of Jesus in His Church is its perpetuation. (Weekly Pulpit.)
Christs example
1. Once in the course of the worlds history there has been seen on earth a perfect life. It was a life not merely to admire, but to follow. It has been ever since the acknowledged human standard.
2. And we have not only the perfect example, but we have it declared why and how it is perfect. Lessons, teaching and enforcing, accompany each incident of our Lords ministry; they are drawn together into a solemn summary in the Sermon on the Mount. Here we have the highest moral guidance for the world.
3. That example and law of life were nothing less than universal. They were meant for all men. Differing so widely as men do, Christ calls them all alike to follow Him.
4. Christianity makes itself universal by making its moral standard, not verbal rules or laws, but a character. That character is one who is called in Scripture the Image of God. All that Christ did and said were the various expressions of the perfect goodness of the Father. And that is the Christian law. And this is what fits the Christian standard to be a universal one. For a character, if it is great enough, carries its force far beyond the conditions Under which it may have been first disclosed. If shown under one set of circumstances its lesson can be extended to another, perfectly different. It adapts itself with the freedom and elasticity of life. We can follow it on, from the known, to what it would be, in the new and strange. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day and for ever–the same in glory as in the form of a servant. Under conditions utterly changed, His goodness is that same very goodness which we saw. And so we can derive from that Character lessons for our state, which is so different from His. And not only so, but we can derive lessons from it for conditions of human life very far removed from those conditions under which His goodness was manifested to us here. Literal imitation may be impossible, but it is not impossible to catch its spirit and apply its lessons to altered circumstances. In that character, though shown to us in the form of servant, we know that everything is gathered which could make human nature what it ought to be. Consider Christ as a pattern for–
I. The life of faith.
1. All the while that He was on earth He was in heart and soul undivided for a moment from heaven. He does what is most human; but He lives absolutely in the Divine. However, we see Him: tempted, teaching, healing, etc., in the wilderness, in the temple, on the Cross–He is yet all the while even the Son of Man which is in heaven.
2. Men have compared the active and the contemplative life, and the life of practical beneficence with the life of devotion. We see great things done without the sense of religion, and we see the religious spirit failing to command the respect of those who have other ways of ministering to mens wants. But in Christ we have both lives combined. In Him we see man serving to the utmost his brethren; but we also see man one with the thought and will of God.
3. Here we see how character in itself, irrespective of circumstance, is adapted to be a guide; here is an example, shown under the most exceptional conditions, yet fit to be universal. But on what outward circumstances does such a life depend? Why is not equally to be realised in the calling of the ruler, the rich man, the student? How need their outward conditions affect their relationship to God?
II. The Life of Truth.
(1) To all, quite apart from the accidental conditions of their state, Christs life shows what alone is real and great in life; and surely there are ends and purposes in the life of each of us which are literally as real as the ends of His life. One is high and another low; one has much and another little, but to every one who believes in God and providence, the work of each is equally real: a call, a stewardship from God.
(2) What we see in Christs life is not only a purpose and work passing mans understanding, but that purpose followed, and that work done, in a way which man can understand. It is a life governed by its end and purpose, in which shows or illusions have no place; and further, a life in which its purpose is followed with absolute indifference to whatever sacrifice it may cost. He has put all this into words which mark for ever the change He made in our views of life–My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work; I must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day; and when all was over, I have finished the work that Thou gavest Me to do.
III. The Life of Love. It is the new commandment, new to the world, but as old as the eternal Word who brought it, which turns the Sermon on the Mount from a code of precepts into the expressions and instances of a character. Its words have their interpretation and their reason in that Divine temper which had come with Christ to restore the world. The purity, the humility, the forgiving mind, the unflagging goodness they speak of, were but some among the infinitely varied ways of acting out the meaning of His last charge, That ye love one another as I have loved you; and of His last prayer, That the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me, may be in them, and I in them. A great deal may be said of love without ever really touching what is its vital essence. But here our sympathies are appealed to. We see how Jesus Christ showed what it is to lead a life of love. Conclusion:
1. The mutable shapes of society, unfolded by Gods providence, fix almost without our will our outward circumstances. But for the soul, wherever it is, Christ our Lord has one unchanging call, Be perfect; and He has one unchanging rule for its fulfilment, Be what I am, feel what I felt, do as I should do. How shall we? How but by looking steadfastly at Him and trying to see and know Him? In the same Living Person each age has seen its best idea embodied; but its idea was not adequate to the truth–there was something still beyond.
(1) An age of intellectual confusion saw in His portraiture in the Gospels the ideal of the great Teacher, the healer of human error. It judged rightly; but that was only part.
(2) The monastic spirit saw in it the warrant and suggestion of a life of self-devoted poverty as the condition of perfection: who can doubt that there was much to justify it: who can doubt that the reality was something far wider than the purest type of monastic life?
(3) The Reformation saw in Him the great improver, the quickener of the dead letter, the stern rebuker of a religion which had forgotten its spirit; and doubtless He was all this, only He was infinitely more.
(4) And now in modern times there is the disposition to dwell on Him as the ideal exemplar of perfect manhood. He is all this, and this is infinitely precious. We may glorify Him for it and exalt Him as much as we can, but even yet will He far exceed. And as generations go on they will still find that Character answering to their best thoughts and hopes.
2. What is the lesson? Surely this: to remember when we talk of the example of Christ, that the interpretations and readings of it are all short of the thing itself; and that we possess, to see and to learn from, the thing itself. (Dean Church.)
Christ, our example
The apostle–
I. Directs our attention to Christ as the great model of the Christian. It is a marked characteristic of Christianity that all the truths are presented in no vague, intangible form, but as embodied in one living model. Note–
1. The fitness of Christ to be our model pattern. We needed one Divine and yet human. One all Divine would have been inimitable; one all human must have fallen below the necessities of the case. So Christ came, God manifest in the flesh. His divinity fitted Him to reveal Gods will, and uniting His Deity with humanity, He lived, laboured, suffered, and died as a Man, to present a visible picture which shall be the model of study and imitation for all time.
2. The perfection of this model. Perfect God and perfect man, He forms a perfect study for the believer. His love to God was supreme; the exercise of His will was ever in perfect harmony with the Divine will. In the hour of His temptation, He emerges from the furnace unscathed; and in the profoundest depth of agony there is the deepest submission to God.
3. Its surpassing loveliness. Look at His unearthly life–living in the world, and yet above the world. Look at His humility–the incarnate God though He was, yet stooping to wash His disciples feet. Look at Him as a Man of prayer–walking in the closest communion with His Father.
II. Delineates the character of a true believer as moulded upon that of Jesus. A follower of Christ.
1. Is a partaker of its spiritual nature. An unsanctified heart, an unrenewed soul, cannot be said to be cast into this mould. It becomes, then, a question of the deepest moment, Am I born again of the Spirit?
2. Has his hope of acceptance, as a lost sinner, entirely in Christ. He has renounced his own righteousness, and has received as his only justification the righteousness of God which is by faith in Christ Jesus.
3. Sits as a humble learner at the feet of Christ.
4. Follows Christ only. We may follow ministers and not Christ, Churches, and not the Head of the Church.
5. Is crucified with Christ: If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. (O. Winslow, D.D.)
Imitation of Christ
1. We find in the Word of God that the imitation of Christ is frequently laid down as the leading principle of the gospel (Mat 16:24; Joh 12:26; Joh 13:13; 1Pe 2:21; Eph 5:1.; 1Th 1:16). In these passages we are taught the importance of the principle of example. The Word of God has many ways of teaching. But especially it teaches by example. Example embodies precept, places it before us in pictorial form, which we can easily see and understand. And not only so, but example recommends precept; because where it is a good example, it evidently carries with it the proof of sincerity on the part of the person who sets it.
2. But it may be asked why, if Christ is the real standard and example, does St. Paul set himself before us? I think the reason is simply this, that while Christ is undoubtedly the example, St. Paul regarded himself as an illustration of that example. Note some of the leading features of our Lords character in which this principle of imitation is to be carried out.
I. In His spirit of self-renunciation (Php 2:6; cf Php 2:5.) How closely St. Paul copied our Lord in this! He counted all things but loss that he might win Christ, and glorify Him. And that same spirit lies at the foundation of all true religion. If any man will be My disciple, let him deny himself.
II. His spirit of obedience. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work. It was–
1. A willing obedience; one in which He delighted.
2. A constant, ceaseless obedience.
3. An obedience victorious, because it was through and after conflict. And so with St. Paul. Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? seems to have been the question which pervaded his whole career. Now, we love and value the privileges of the gospel; but do not let us lose sight of its responsibilities.
III. His spirit of zeal (Joh 2:1-25.). St. Paul followed Him in this. Men in the present day seem afraid of zeal. But it is good to be zealous in a good cause. Lukewarmness in religion is especially hateful in the sight of God.
IV. His spirit of meekness and gentleness–I beseech you, says St. Paul, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ. He never quenched the smoking flax. And so St. Paul, with all his fire and energy, observed the evident spirit of tenderness and sympathy with which he watched over the infant Church. There are rough and rugged characters which are full of energy in Christs cause, but which need to look at His example in this respect.
V. His spirit of love as shown in giving Himself for us; as shown towards the impenitent, and to the multitude scattered as sheep having no shepherd. All this was imitated by St. Paul.
VI. The spirit of blessed anticipation as regards the future (Heb 12:3). In the same way St. Paul tells us that his one desire was to finish his course with joy. We should endeavour in our seasons of trial to remember that the time is short, and that if we be faithful there is laid up for us an exceeding weight of glory, a crown of righteousness. Conclusion: The subject may be used–
1. By way of self-examination. It is exceedingly difficult to bring home to the sinners conscience, by the mere statement of truth, the guilt which attaches to him. But let the sinner place his own life by the side of Christs life.
2. As a principle of guidance. There are perplexing questions which continually arise in the Christian life. Whenever you can find Christs example as a guide to you in your conduct, you may be perfectly certain that yon are safe in the course you adopt.
3. As an encouragement for Christians. It is according to the will of God that we should be conformed to the image of His Son. In attempting, therefore, to reach this conformity, you are attempting that which is the revealed will of God concerning you, and, therefore, which you may reasonably expect. He will give you grace, at least in some measure, to attain. In the future we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And the more we see Him now, the more we live with Him now, the more like Him we shall become. (E. Bayley, D.D.)
Imitation and commendation
In these words we have–
I. The principle on which the characters of most men are formed. Men are imitative beings, and from a law of their nature those whom they most admire, and with whom they most associate, they become like in spirit and in character. The request of Paul at first sight seems somewhat arrogant, Be ye followers of me. No man has a right to make such an unqualified claim. Hence Paul puts the limitation, Even as I also am of Christ. The apostle undoubtedly refers to the preceding verses, in which he speaks of himself as not seeking his own pleasure or profit, but that of others. This Christ did. He pleased not Himself. He means to say, Be like me as I in this respect resemble Christ. Here is the principle that should regulate our imitation of men; imitate them just so far as they resemble Christ. Children should not imitate their parents, pupils their teachers, congregations their ministers, save so far as they resemble Christ.
II. A commendation of merit which many are reluctant to render (verse 2). In some things, then, some of the Corinthians pleased Paul. There was much in them at which he found fault, but so far as they did the proper thing he praises them. To render generously credit where credit is due, is the characteristic of a great soul, but one which most men are reluctant to perform. A wife will go on lovingly attending to the wants and wishes of her husband, and perhaps not from one year to another does she receive from him one word of hearty commendation. So with servants and masters, and ministers and their congregations. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
A momentous example
In one of our western cities, high up on a very tall building, is a large clock. It registers what is called electric time, and is known to be very accurate because it is regulated by the calculations of scientific instruments. On a large sign is painted, Correct city time, and when one has any doubts about having the exact time, he sets his watch by this clock. Great mills, railroads, manufactories, run by its time. Should it lose or gain an hour the whole city would be thrown into confusion. Let us remember, one watch set right will do to set many by; while, on the other hand, the watch that goes wrong may be the means of misleading a whole multitude of others. So it is with life. A wholly consecrated person may become the example for many, and a wicked life of sin may, too, be the means of entangling a whole community of associates. Examine yourselves. (Sharpened Arrows.)
Imitation of the good
It is characteristic of St. Paul that in his Epistles, as in his ministry, he uses his own life, his own personality, almost as if they were not his own; they are as much at the service of his argument as of his work. Such was the nature of his self-surrender to Christ. There is much in the faculty of imitation, and in the facts connected with it, that is mysterious, much beyond our ken. Man is presented to us in Holy Scripture on the one hand in his first state before the fall, as a creature of imitation, made after the likeness of God. On the other hand, in his fallen state we find him wearying himself with all kinds of yearnings after the likeness of God manifested in every kind of idolatry. In the fulness of time Christ came on earth, in His human nature, both restoring the Divine image and making it possible for man to realise the long lost ideal. What wonder, then, that St. Paul, realising and profoundly impressed with this great feature of the Incarnation, should emphasise imitation of himself as leading to Christ, imitation of Christ, and imitation of God in Christ? What wonder if of all books (next to the Bible itself) the most dear to devout souls and spirits striving upwards after heavenly things should be the Imitatio Christi of Thomas A.Kempis? But before we go on to consider how this can become potent in our life and practice, we ought not to fail to observe one aspect of imitation which is of infinite importance to us in its effects for good or for ill. Imitation is not only a conscious activity, by which we can strive to follow and adapt ourselves to any example which we may select for ourselves. It is a part of nature; not only of human nature. It has its unconscious as well as its conscious side. It pervades animal life to an extent which we are apt to ignore or forget. It is the first didactic force. It is concerned with the simplest and most necessary problems of life. By it the young of many animals are first taught to take their food. For instance, in the case of chickens hatched by an incubator, if they are to be artificially reared, it is necessary that the example of picking up their food should be set them in some way. By imitation they learn to live. Imitation, as Darwin has pointed out, is one of the chief factors in the advancement and modification of such intellectual powers as animals possess. There are, indeed, subtle indications of its force in lower animal life, but it is most manifest in birds and in the apes, whose very name furnishes a verb of kindred meaning. And again, as we rise in the scale of animal life, it is very noticeable as a characteristic of savage races of men; of man, indeed, in what some are wont to call his primitive state. We need hardly dwell upon its development in civilised man. It is dominant in those arts which claim so large a portion in his education, his enjoyment of life, his material well-being. Again, as part of human nature, imitation has two functions, which it is important that we should observe, explanatory as they are in a measure of that which we have noticed in the history of man in relation to God. On the one hand he received the likeness, on the other hand he sought it outside himself. Even so, just as in the nervous and muscular system of the body we have the division into involuntary and voluntary, so the imitative faculty in man is unconscious and conscious, is passive as well as active. Much more of it perhaps is unconscious than conscious, and the mystery of its essential being and origin is more inexplicable in the former than in the latter. Why is it that such physical defects as squinting and tricks of movement are said to be infectious, capable of being communicated at sight to very young children? Why is it that, as so often happens, a boys handwriting becomes like his tutors? All these instances point to unconscious, involuntary imitation. The surroundings of a child, of a boy, of a young man, have more effect upon him than he himself can discern, or any one else can determine, and that because of this faculty of imitation, which is part and parcel of his nature. He assimilates them as he does his food, they become portions of his being, and affect his growth, his development, his ultimate destiny. Nay more, it seems as if these influences became hereditary in their effects. We cannot limit these effects to merely physical characteristics or physical results. If our intellectual and spiritual being is thus subject to the supreme influence of assimilation and unconscious imitation, can we doubt its power in the sphere of morality? Tell me who he lives with, and I will tell you who he is, is an old proverb. With the holy thou shalt be holy, and with the perfect man thou shalt be perfect. With the clean thou shalt be clean, and with the froward thou shalt learn frowardness. Youth is plastic. And without doubt the first and most important counsel is: Be not over hasty in making friends; take heed as to the associates whom you choose to live with. Remember you will probably become like them. All unconsciously your moral being will receive the impression of their moral being, their conversation, their tone, their virtues, or their vices. Unless the soul proposes to itself the imitation of good, it will prove unconsciously to be assimilating and imitating evil. The Apostle Paul had so devoted himself to the imitation of Christ, that as we have seen he regarded himself as living in Christ, and Christ living in him. This imitation cannot be without effort, and if, as in the mixed community of Corinth with all its blemishes, and weaknesses, and grievous sins, it was not easy to rise to the ideal of the unseen, yet still the nearer ideal of the good man is better than none, and the apostle did not hesitate to set his own example before them. There must be few of us who cannot find some such good example, some good and holy, some pure and honourable, some generous and manly life, to which we may look with satisfaction and hopefulness, and a desire so to follow it as to rise upon the stepping stones of our dead selves to higher things. But even so the imitation must ultimately be not even of good and holy men, but of Christ in them. Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ. The work of the Incarnation was not only to restore to humanity the image of the perfect man in Christ but also the power, to them that believe in Christ, of reflecting that image, and by conscious and unconscious imitation of becoming more and more like Him. I know not at what time of life this work of the imitation of Christ can be entered upon more freely, more reasonably, more joyfully, than that in which, when childish things are being put away, the young man reaching toward the maturity of his physical and mental powers, is still occupied with his own education and improvement, and is not yet immerged in the world-life with all its engrossing toil of business and pleasure, its triumphs, its disappointments, its sorrows, and soul-enthralling anxieties. (E. Warre, D.D.)
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you—
Apostolic commendation
I. Its grounds.
1. Personal, that ye remember me.
(1) We all like to be remembered, especially by those who owe us much, or between us and whom there exist the tenderest relationships. These Corinthians owed all their spiritual life and blessings to the apostle, and it comforted him amidst the toils and perils of his Ephesian ministry to know that he was not forgotten. Nothing would more sadden a father than to be forgotten by his children, a wife by her husband, a pastor by his church.
(2) We like to be remembered in all things. They remembered Pauls preaching, his labours at his handicraft, his sympathy and helplessness. And when we come across an acquaintance that we have not seen for years, how pleasant it is to be remembered by ones features: tone, gait, or some other characteristic, and to gather in conversation that this and that incident or word has been treasured up.
2. Moral. The Corinthians not only remembered Paul and what he said; they remembered to do what he told them. Not the most tender personal recollections would have compensated for the absence of this. Pauls wish was not to be popular, but to be permanently useful. This is what Christ wants: If ye love Me, keep My commandments. This is what we all want: parents, teachers, ministers, etc., and exact obedience is what is required–as I delivered them, adding nothing to them, taking nothing from them, but keeping them both in the spirit and in the letter.
II. Its expression. This was–
1. Frank and open. Encouraging sentiment is sometimes entertained where it is not expressed. This does no good. If you feel that a man deserves your praise, why not tell him so?
2. Large-hearted and generous. There were a good many things which the apostle could not praise, but was forced to blame the Corinthians; but where he felt he could praise conscientiously he did so unstintedly.
3. Fraternal, Brethren. He did not indulge them as children simply to spur them on, nor flatter them as superiors to secure their patronage. He treated them as equally next himself concerned about the prosperity of the Church, and in their efforts to promote that prosperity he felt them worthy of a brothers praise. (J. W. Burn.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XI.
The apostle reprehends the Corinthians for several
irregularities in their manner of conducting public worship;
the men praying or prophesying with their heads covered, and
the women with their heads uncovered, contrary to custom,
propriety, and decency, 1-6.
Reasons why they should act differently, 7-16.
They are also reproved for their divisions and heresies, 17-19.
And for the irregular manner in which they celebrated the Lord’s
Supper, 20-22.
The proper manner of celebrating this holy rite laid down by
the apostle, 23-26.
Directions for a profitable receiving of the Lord’s Supper,
and avoiding the dangerous consequences of communicating
unworthily, 27-34.
NOTES ON CHAP. XI.
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Interpreters judge, that these words do properly belong to the foregoing chapter, in the last verse of which he had propounded his own example to them; but whether they be applied to that chapter or this, is not much material. They teach us, that the examples of the apostles are part of our rule; yet the modesty of the apostle is remarkable, who requires of his people no further to follow him than as he followed Christ: nor indeed ought any man to require more of those that are under his charge, than to follow him so far forth as he imitates the Lord Jesus Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Rather belonging to the endof the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.
followersGreek,“imitators.”
of Christwho did notplease Himself (Ro 15:3); butgave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dyingas man, for us (Eph 5:2; Phi 2:4;Phi 2:5). We are to follow Christfirst, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. c] These words more properly close the preceding chapter, than begin a new one, and refer to the rules therein laid down, and which the apostle would have the Corinthians follow him in, as he did Christ: that as he sought, both in private and public, and more especially in his ministerial service, to do all things to the glory of God, and not for his own popular applause, in which he imitated Christ, who sought not his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him so he would have them do all they did in the name of Christ, and to the glory of God by him: and that as he studied to exercise a conscience void of offence to God and man, in doing which he was a follower of Christ, who was holy in his nature, and harmless and inoffensive in his conversation; so he was desirous that they should likewise be blameless, harmless, and without offence until the day of Christ: and that whereas he endeavoured to please men in all things lawful and indifferent, wherein he copied after Christ, who by his affable and courteous behaviour, and humble deportment, sought to please and gratify all with whom he conversed; so he would have them not to mind high things, but condescend to men of low estates, and become all things to all, that they might gain some as he did: and once more, that as he sought not his own pleasure and advantage, but the salvation of others, in imitation of Christ, who pleased not himself, but took upon him, and bore cheerfully, the reproaches of men, that he might procure good for them; so the apostle suggests, that it would be right in them not to seek to have their own wills in every thing, but rather to please their neighbour for good to edification.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Directions Concerning Attire; Female Subjection. | A. D. 57. |
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Paul, having answered the cases put to him, proceeds in this chapter to the redress of grievances. The first verse of the chapter is put, by those who divided the epistle into chapters, as a preface to the rest of the epistle, but seems to have been a more proper close to the last, in which he had enforced the cautions he had given against the abuse of liberty, by his own example: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (v. 1), fitly closes his argument; and the way of speaking in the next verse looks like a transition to another. But, whether it more properly belong to this or the last chapter, it is plain from it that Paul not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to imitate. “Be ye followers of me,” that is, “Be imitators of me; live as you see me live.” Note, Ministers are likely to preach most to the purpose when they can press their hearers to follow their example. Yet would not Paul be followed blindly neither. He encourages neither implicit faith nor obedience. He would be followed himself no further than he followed Christ. Christ’s pattern is a copy without a blot; so is no man’s else. Note, We should follow no leader further than he follows Christ. Apostles should be left by us when they deviate from the example of their Master. He passes next to reprehend and reform an indecency among them, of which the women were more especially guilty, concerning which observe,
I. How he prefaces it. He begins with a commendation of what was praiseworthy in them (v. 2): I praise you, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. Many of them, it is probable, did this in the strictest sense of the expression: and he takes occasion thence to address the body of the church under this good character; and the body might, in the main, have continued to observe the ordinances and institutions of Christ, though in some things they deviated from, and corrupted, them. Note, When we reprove what is amiss in any, it is very prudent and fit to commend what is good in them; it will show that the reproof is not from ill-will, and a humour of censuring and finding fault; and it will therefore procure the more regard to it.
II. How he lays the foundation for his reprehension by asserting the superiority of the man over the woman: I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Christ, in his mediatorial character and glorified humanity, is at the head of mankind. He is not only first of the kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a name above every name: though in this high office and authority he has a superior, God being his head. And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the tow sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man’s place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places. Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, v. 5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (Rom 14:34; 1Ti 2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle’s discourse, ch. xiv. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.
III. The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, Rom 11:4; Rom 11:5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,
IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely, Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. If she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made to be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks like a wish of having this order inverted. 2. Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v. 7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God’s representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the man, v. 8. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made. 3. The woman was made for the man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality. 4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. xxiv. 65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. ii. 14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. iii. 16. Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.
V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest the inference be carried too far (Rom 11:11; Rom 11:12): Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. They were made for one another. It is not good for him to be alone (Gen. ii. 18), and therefore was a woman made, and made for the man; and the man was intended to be a comfort, and help, and defence, to the woman, though not so directly and immediately made for her. They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh (Gen. ii. 24), and this for the propagation of a race of mankind. They are reciprocal instruments of each other’s production. As the woman was first formed out of the man, the man is ever since propagated by the woman (v. 12), all by the divine wisdom and power of the First Cause so ordaining it. The authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not his power.
VI. He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (v. 13-15): “Judge in yourselves–consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests–is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman’s hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.” Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.
VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Imitators of me ( ). In the principle of considerate love as so clearly shown in chapters 1Co 8-10 and in so far as () Paul is himself an imitator of Christ. The preacher is a leader and is bound to set an example or pattern () for others (Tit 2:7). This verse clearly belongs to the preceding chapter and not to chapter 11.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Followers [] . Lit., imitators, as Rev. This verse belongs to the closing section of ch. 10.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Be ye followers of me.” (minetai mou ginesthe) “Be ye or become ye imitators of me.” Paul pointed the Corinthian brethren, not so much to the personal, historical walk of Christ, as to His unselfish care, love, and concern for all, which motivated Him, 2Co 8:9; Php_2:5-11.
2) “Even as I also am of Christ.” (kathos kago christou) “Even as I also am of Christ.” Paul affirmed that it was an all consuming interest in others, after the pattern of Christ’s care for others, that motivated him in his ministry. Eph 5:2; Gal 6:2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. Imitators of me. From this it appears, how absurdly chapters are divided, inasmuch as this sentence is disjoined from what goes before, with which it ought to have been connected, and is joined to what follows, with which it has no connection. Let us view this, then, as the close of the preceding chapter. Paul had there brought forward his own example in confirmation of his doctrine. Now, in order that the Corinthians may understand that this would be becoming in them, he exhorts them to imitate what he had done, even as he had imitated Christ
Here there are two things to be observed — first, that he prescribes nothing to others that he had not first practiced himself; and, secondly, that he directs himself and others to Christ as the only pattern of right acting. For while it is the part of a good teacher to enjoin nothing in words but what he is prepared to practice in action, he must not, at the same time, be so austere, as straightway to require from others everything that he does himself, as is the manner of the superstitious. For everything that they contract a liking for they impose also upon others, and would have their own example to be held absolutely as a rule. The world is also, of its own accord, inclined to a misdirected imitation, ( κακοζηλίαν) (610) and, after the manner of apes, strive to copy whatever they see done by persons of great influence. We see, however how many evils have been introduced into the Church by this absurd desire of imitating all the actions of the saints, without exception. Let us, therefore, maintain so much the more carefully this doctrine of Paul — that we are to follow men, provided they take Christ as their grand model, ( πρωτότυπον,) that the examples of the saints may not tend to lead us away from Christ, but rather to direct us to him.
(610) “ Κακοζηλία, an absurd invitation The term is used in this sense by Lucian. (V. 70.) Our author makes use of the same term in the Harmony, vol. 1, p. 209, n. 2. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
[1Co. 11:1 belongs to chap. 10, where see. Evans (in Speaker), Stanley, and others divide this chapter at 1Co. 11:16, not 1Co. 11:17, making 1Co. 11:16 introduce the new topic]
1Co. 11:2. I praise you all things.Not qualified or limited by 1Co. 11:17, which refers to a new point, which had arisen in practice, outside the all things already delivered, whether orally, when Paul was at Corinth, or by the (possible) lost letter. Courteous, and no doubt true of the Church as a whole, though there were factious and rebellious exceptions. Certainly they deferred to his authority, when they submitted for his decision the questions the answers to which occupy so much of this letter. See also how this loyal feeling asserted itself in consequence of this letter (2Co. 7:11 sqq.). Ordinances.Traditions (R.V. and all Commentaries). The delivered instructions, directions in matters of discipline as well as of doctrine (Evans). Ellicott suggests such (esoteric) topics as 1Co. 6:2; 2Th. 2:5. Beet adds a new idea: Probably the more or less definite instructions given by Christ to the apostles for the Church. Samples in 1Co. 11:23; 1Co. 15:3. Important to note (as Stanley): Always delivered, not traditionally through many links, but direct from the teacher to the taught. Hence entirely without analogy to the technical traditions of, e.g., the Romish ecclesiastical theology: Not merely such acts and words as were supposed to have descended from Christ and His apostles, although orally transmitted instead of recorded in writing; but also the whole circle of dogmas and practices which had been instituted by Church councils and recognised by the Church (Luthardt, Saving Truths, lect. viii.); which became an authority concurrent with Scripture. All verbal or written Apostolic directions which are needed in order to a statement of Gods will, complete for the purposes of Christian practice, have been put on permanent record in Scripture.
1Co. 11:3.As to husband and wife and the illustrative force of their relationship, cf. throughout Eph. 5:22-33. There the stress lies upon their intimateness, their unity of relationship, and the obligation of mutual helpfulness and sympathy. In 1Co. 11:33 her subordination to him is introduced, and is here the prominent point dealt with. Head.Above the Body (Col. 1:18), though, in a true sense, belonging to it; in close, living, life-giving union; directing it, and so every particular man in it. Man is womans immediate head (Beet), for Christ is her head too; in the Body there is no male nor female. Also distinguish between her equality and parallelism with man in her relation to Christ in regard to her personal spiritual life (1Co. 11:11), and her social subordination to man (cf. 1Co. 15:27, 1Co. 3:23). The meaning of head must not be unduly limited or unduly extended. The general idea is that of supremacy or pre-eminence, but the particular character of that supremacy or pre-eminence must in each case be determined by the context and by the nature of the things specified. Thus, in the first member, [it] is in regard of nature and of headship of the whole human family; in the second, in regard of divinely appointed order and authority (Gen. 2:22-23; Gen. 3:16; see below, 1Co. 11:8-9); in the third, in regard of priority and office,the pre-eminence of the Father, as Bishop Pearson says, undeniably consisting in this, that He is God not of any other but Himself, and that there is no other person who is God but is God of Him (Ellicott).
1Co. 11:4.The Romans and Jews prayed with covered heads, the Greeks with uncovered. Hence no suggestion that the men at Corinth did draw over their heads any sort of covering, e.g. the loose lap or fold of the outer wrap, like a Moorish haik. The Greek Christian would do by mere habit what profound Christian truth declared to be right for Jew or Gentile men. To cover his head was to assume openly the womans condition of subordination, and to disavow his manly right to stand with unveiled face before Christ. He thus dishonours his head (i.e. his manly self, culminating there), and dishonours also that other Head in Whom he has, and to Whose work he owes, his own honour as a man.
1Co. 11:5. Prayeth or prophesieth.Act. 2:18; Act. 21:9. In apparent contrast see 1Co. 14:33. Sanctified good sense would draw a distinction between (say) a full, formal meeting of the whole Church for worship, where propriety dictated that she should ordinarily be silent, and smaller, half-social gatherings of Christian people in prayer meetings; or between her liberty at the family altar or in a gathering of women, and her seemly restriction in mixed or public gatherings. [Observe the antithesis, the men the women in 1Ti. 2:8-9.] In any case, whenever her praying is in any degree in public, let her not be unveiled, unsexing herself and making herself masculine, bearing herself like a short-haired man; she might as well go the whole length and be cropped [shorn] like a man. Modesty is the conscience of the body. A Corinthian womans veil would be the peplum, worn over the shoulders in the house, drawn over the face in public. [At Corinth a shorn woman would be a harlot.]
1Co. 11:7.Note, not merely made in the image; he is the image and glory of God. Note also, woman is [not the image, but only] the glory of man. She alsobut the thought is outside of Pauls view hereis man made in the image of God. The male sex, as holding the highest power on earth and exercising undisputed sway over all else, is a visible pattern of God and a shining forth of His splendour (Beet). Being what he is, man glorifies God Who made him thus; being what she is, woman glorifies man, to whom God has given her for a help-meet. The dependence found in both cases, of origin and relation, exalts and brings dignity to God and man respectively.
1Co. 11:10.Very difficult text; a crux interpretum.
(1) Pretty general agreement that power means her veil, the sign of mans authority over woman. [Perhaps also: It is a piece of natural fitness that nature herself should have put on the woman, in her long hair, a natural sign of subordination; though this fits with still greater difficulty into the next clause.]
(2) Because of the angels.Choose between (a) Good angels, present in the Christian assemblies, who will be grieved by anything disorderly or unseemly. In favour of this are: the far-fetched, obscure, precariously based, character of the argument involved in (b) below; the general use of Scripture, where angels means good angels, unless the contrary is made clear in some way; the wide concurrence of the Greek Fathers in this interpretation; the constant assertion in the New Testament of the vivid interest which these take in all that belongs to man and his redemption. Also, the worshipping heavenly company, of which good angels form a large part, and the companies of earthly worshippers, are really one great body of worshippers at the same throne of the same God, though locally divided or distributedpart here, part yonder; the human worshippers must do nothing unworthy of the angelic part of the great adoring company. (b) Evil angels; as many, from Tertullian to Farrar, who suppose Paul to refer to [and believe in!] the Rabbinic interpretation of Gen. 6:2. In favour of this are many Rabbinic sayings, and some fantastic Mahometan stories; against it, the consideration that a veil could hide nothing from spiritual beings, even though evil ones, and would neither defend the woman from their gaze nor shield them from temptation to which they might again at least desire to yield. To suppose that the veil is to defend the good angels [or the angels of the Churches (Revelation 2, 3)] from temptation (I) is to suppose them weaker, in the matter of sensual desire, than average Englishmen now (Beet). [The matter is of very little homiletic use in any detail.]
1Co. 11:12.Gods glory is His creature, man; mans glory is his companion, woman; womans glory is her covering, her hair and its symbolised modesty of subordination.
1Co. 11:16. Seemeth.Not in the usual sense of the frequent translation of the Greek word, thinketh that he is; but, is so pertinacious in disputing upon this point that, to put it kindly, he appears to others to contend, for the mere love of being in opposition. It would be true to observed facts of human nature to translate and expound thinks that he is, and is rather proud of being. We.As distinguished from the Churches of God will mean we apostles. Custom.Viz. of women praying with unveiled heads.
HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.1Co. 11:2-16
The Womens Veils.
I. Solemn trifling, cries somebody, to think of putting these nug Paulin on permanent record as a piece of Gods revelation! But in Gods works, and in Gods words, we are no competent judges of what are nug. This a sample case of how to deal with and decide the many small points of Church order and worship; e.g. such as, in mission-fields, or in communities for the first time becoming organised and civilised on Christian lines, often get an accidental significance and importance. As the same laws give shape to a globe and a rain-drop, so the same great principles apply to and regulate the gravest or the most trivial matters of Christian practice. There is no limit, upward, or downward, to the concern God takes in whatever bears upon His redeeming work for the race of mankind. Everything connected with His Church may be brought to some of the tests suggested here.
II.
1. Customary observance and Church rule. There is a power in the very idea of a Great, Whole Community feeling its oneness, and showing it, by some observance which is its universal badge and token. E.g. the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at a supper in connection with the death of Christ and the Christian covenant, and in faith and hope of His second coming, is everywhereamidst all the varieties of ritual and interpretationa differentiating custom, as between Christian and non-Christian; a uniting custom, as between Christian and Christian of all types, and creeds, and ages, and lands. The Church sees its oneness at the Table. This indeed is no custom of optional observance. But, to take another, not thus binding: For centuries, almost as far back as the very beginning of the Church, there has never been a day on which, somewhere, Christian voices have not uplifted Psalms 95 to God in public worship. The sections of the Christian Church are far enough removed from each other; in doctrine, in practice, very often in spirit also, they have been as widely sundered as they could well be, to belong to the same Body at all. Yet in the use of this psalm one common life thrills through from Church to Church. The diversities and divisions are real and deep, but they do not destroy the unity, deepest when all are at worship. Thus, then, when Churches which as separate communions are but of yesterday, sing this psalm, which has been interwoven for ages with the prayers and praises of the Churches of, at all events, all Western lands, hoary some of them with the associations of ages, the gulf of time is bridged over by the custom; the Church of the present avows its oneness with the Church of the past, and each Church claims its place in the great company of the Christian worshippers of the One God and Father. [The unity of worship even goes further. The Jew in his Friday evening synagogue service begins his Sabbath worship with this same psalm.] This is poetry, sentiment; but any thing which manifests, and makes real, the sense of unity is not lightly to be regarded. That woman, that Church, would be ill-advised who went in the face of the custom of all the Churches of Christ. If the uncovered head for the man, and the veiled head for the woman, be the universal Christian custom, that is worth something as a test by which to decide such a question as had been raised at Corinth. [So Burialnot necessarily Intermentv. Cremation.] Christian custom should prevail, as against personal fad or the freak of undisciplined individuality. If there be no good reason against, fall into line with the universal Church. And this the more when there is reason as well as custom in the practice.
2. Universal instinct of propriety as against any unnatural, perverted, temporary fashion, or the crank of some contentious man, fond of, glorying in, being on the other side, and in a minorityhimself against the world. Propriety, indeed, may in regard to some points be read in the most opposite senses. To the Jew it means that a man cover his head with his hat, or turban, or tallith, when he prays. And that Jew would be censurable who in the synagogue, in mere freak or self-willed preference of his own course [= heresy, 1Co. 11:19], should go against the received proprieties of the place and of his co-religionists by praying with bared head. [In your prayers, in Churches and places of Religion, use reverent postures, great attention, grave ceremony, the lowest postures of humility; remembering that we speak to God, in our reverence to whom we cannot possibly exceed; but that the expression of this reverence be according to the law or custom, and the example of the most prudent and pious persons; that is, let it be the best of its kind to the best of essences (Jeremy Taylor, Holy Living, ii., 5).] But there are proprieties which are universal. The modesty which is the bodys conscience may, like the sense of sin which belongs to the souls conscience, be so violated and sinned against that it seems gone; but it is there, ineradicably deep in human nature, and can be awakened and appealed to in all. Nature has a voice, and can be heard speaking in her very physical differencing of the sexes. Long hair for the woman, shorter for the man; this is not fashion, it is of no one age or nation. Fall then into line with Nature in your rule for Church order. Your Jew and your Roman covers his head when he worships. He does not understand, as you Christians do, the headship of man in and with Christ. But even he does not tolerate that his women should worship with uncovered head. Pauls principle appeals to the universal womanly instincts and fine perceptions. In extraordinary circumstances a woman, like Philips daughters, may prophesy; the gift brings with it its own call for exercise, and overrules many prudential or conventional considerations. In quasi-domestic life she may pray (1Co. 11:5) openly and as the leader of the devotions of others. But the proprieties as well as the custom of the Churches will make this the exception (1Co. 14:33), only to be departed from under the clearest necessity. Womans place and work and open participation in the conduct of worship are all to be decided and adjusted in conformity with this second test. A local impropriety at Corinth made a shorn head, or uncovered, a shame to a woman. Even this local conventionalism must not needlessly be offended against by a Christian woman anxious to assert her equality with the men as before Christ. Even the Gentiles must be pleased, if possible (1Co. 10:32). And in many another small detail of Church order, an instinct which works for fitness and propriety is a criterion not to be left unused. The angels, too, have their sense of fitness which should have consideration. But this belongs rather to the next criterion.
3. Revealed truth is, however, the supreme standard of appeal. Where there are no express directions there may be exemplar facts. There may be leading cases, each of them carrying a principle. Yet example, even Apostolic example and practice, if certainly established, is not necessarily Church law, unless the apostles have made it so. [An argument often urged in the controversy re Episcopal v. Presbyterian system of government.] The Apostolic example may sometimes be more honoured in forsaking the literal and exact and mechanical copying of it, whilst seizing the essential principle and adapting its form and embodiment to the changed environment and necessities of a new time or a new world. The true law may lie deeper than the letter of their practice. But any practice of theirs put on permanent record in the Scripture is, with this proviso, legislation and Divine direction for the Churches (1Co. 11:16, we have no such custom). The histories of the Bible are didactic; they may be legislatory also; they are parts of the revelation, one of the methods of the revelation, of the mind and will of God. Nature, with its long and short hair for the two sexeshow comes it thus? Who made Nature? Who made such a detail of her arrangements so significant? How has it happened that a mere resultant of the processes which have evolved sex is ethical, and finds something innate in man and woman responsive to its dictate? All things of God (1Co. 11:12). Go back to Eden and the Creation story. See the finished work of the creative week (1Co. 11:7-11):
Two of far nobler shape, erect and tall,
Godlike erect, with native honour clad,
In naked majesty, seemed lords of all,
And worthy seemed; for in their looks divine
The image of their glorious Maker shone,
Truth, wisdom, sanctitude, severe and pure,
Whence true authority in men; though both
Not equal, as their sex not equal seemed;
For contemplation he and valour formed;
For softness she and sweet attractive grace;
He for God only, she for God in him:
His fair large front and eye sublime declared
Absolute rule; and hyacinthine locks
Round from his parted forelock manly hung
Clustering, but not beneath his shoulders broad;
She, as a veil, down to the slender waist
Her unadornd golden tresses wore
Dishevelled, but in wanton ringlets waved,
As the vine curls her tendrils, which implied
Subjection, but required with gentle sway,
And by her yielded, by him best received,
Yielded with coy submission, modest pride,
And sweet, reluctant, amiable delay.
Paradise Lost, iv. 288311.
Not in this particular case only, but in all, let men get back to Gods facts; let them dig down beneath the accretions of speculation, or fashion, or error, until in Gods own utterance of His will, above all in Revelation, they get to rock. In everything, not, What thinkest thou? but, What seest, hearest, readest, thou of the works of God? That only is final; the supreme arbiter of all, whether in actual use or only proposed, in connection with the order of the Church or the life of His people. [Revelation and propriety combine in the appeal made by Paul to the presence of angelic spectators, who are also, as is suggested in Critical Notes, co-worshippers in the great company of adoring ones to which believers are come already (Heb. 12:22), and with which in a glorious reality they are already associated in the one joint homage of Heaven and Earth. But so obscure is the whole matter, so small a corner of the veil is drawn back, so momentary and partial is the glimpse we get of these angelic critics of the proprieties of Christian observance and worship, that very little practical use can be made of the motive Paul appeals to. We dare take in the obscurity no step, except the one we here take with our inspired guide, in the unfamiliar world within the veil, where we have, indeed, planted our foot, but we hardly know what it is we see. Yet more thought and honour might perhaps be paid to the big brothers told off, sent forth, to take charge of us (Heb. 1:14), without our running into all the fanciful, Rabbinic, and apocryphal poetising about each mans guardian angel, and the like.]
SEPARATE HOMILIES
1Co. 11:11. Man and Woman.How all the arguments, 1Co. 11:2-15, assume the historic truth of the story of Genesis 1,
2. Paul, it is admitted, does so; to him the relation of the sexes, the order of the family life, originated in the history, and rest upon it. Possible to admit the truth of all the teaching here about the relative positions of man and woman, and to regard the history as myth. But in that case the truth stands without known basis, or without any unchallengeable basis. A mere happy use of an old myth will hardly afford an argument such asnot Paul only, butthe inspiring Spirit might employ. The creation facts, and the physical facts of everyday knowledge, say that, subordinate as she is, the man needs the woman; and that, though he has headship, the man is made for the woman, and not alone for himself or his God.
I.
1. Man and woman both are needed, to exhibit manhood in its perfection of idea; neither without the other. Fitted respectively for restless activity and quiet retirement; to fight in the battles of life, to heal the wounds of the combatants; the stronger mind, the better-disposed heart; men arriving at truth by slow reasoning, women by quick intuitions; men consequently gaining more by the way, but oftener missing their way altogether (Luthardt); hence men oftener sceptical, women naturally more religious; [an irreligious woman is a man spoilt, and doubly corrupting to those men over whom she acquires influence (Luthardt);] mans the initiative, generative, originating mind, womans the receptive and reproductive mind. Broadly true, and correspondent to, and founded in, physical differences; but with many exceptions in detail.
2. The distinction and the unification mount higher.God is both Father and Mother in His love. No woman ever misses anything in Him because He is Father. He is ideal Parenthood. So, too, the painters are guided by a right instinct when they give to the face of their ideals of Christ a somewhat feminine (not effeminate) manhood. He is Man and Woman; in Him neither is without the other. No girl ever feels that Christ does not understand her because He was only a boy; no woman ever feels that He is not for her because He is a man. His sex never occurs to the mind or heart. He is man and woman, strength and tenderness; the wisdom of both types of mind and heart are in Him; perfect Manhood.
3. The perfectly rounded Christian character combines and exhibits the best characteristics of both. If women are more religious than men, it is because it is easier for them to enter by Little-children Gate into the Kingdom. Dependence, docility, belief in what comes on authority,all that makes the little child typical of the character which alone can enter, all these are nearer akin to the womans character and habit than to the mans. The man enters the kingdom not without the woman, developed, or submitted to, in him. The perfect manhood of grace needs, however, to add to faith virtue (perhaps = courage). As between man and God there is no room in man for self-reliance, but, as between man and man, and in doing the work of God in the world, there is room and need for the man.
III. Christianity, the Church, the work of God, each needs, and has availed itself of, both man and woman.It would never have succeeded, it will never succeed, so far as human conditions of success are concerned, unless by the employment of both. The presence and interaction of the sexes is a valuable element in the educational effect of the Church upon its members. Sanctified family life, with the reciprocal, incessant, little-adverted-to, training of husband and wife, brothers and sisters, is the seminal instance and example of the training given by, and gained from, the brotherhood and sisterhood in the Church of Christ. Each sex has its gifts and capabilities complementary to, lacking in, those of the other. Woman can reach where man is excluded; man can dare where woman may not go. Wisest Church organisers utilise both to the utmost of possibility. Romans 16 is a picture of an early Church, and is full of women who, like the men, are in the Lord. Nor are they simply receivers of blessing; they labour, and even labour much in the Lord; they can with their husbands lay down their own necks in running risks and daring death to save an apostles life. Indeed, Priscilla may precede Aquila; possibly just as in a Church to-day there are godly women who, without unwomanly obtrusiveness, have so much more of initiative than their equally godly and devoted, but quieter, husbands, that every one says, or thinks, Mrs. and Mr. . In the Lord, in the sphere and realm where He is supreme, and where everything bears the stamp of His lordship and ownership, Woman and Man are both required. Neither is without the other. In the new creation in the soul, in that other new creation, the kingdom of God on earth, the original, natural order of the Creators idea is being perfectly restored.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Butlers Comments
SECTION 1
Opening Words (1Co. 11:1-2)
11 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
1Co. 11:1-2 Commendation: Clearly, the first verse of the eleventh chapter should be the closing verse of the tenth chapter. It belongs to that context. Paul changes the subject to disorder in worship in 1Co. 11:2. He commends the Corinthians for remembering to consult him about their problems, and for maintaining the apostolic teachings (traditions) he had taught them. Paul is using the word traditions to mean Holy-Spirit-inspired-doctrinesnot human traditions. He distinguished clearly between the two. In Gal. 1:14 and Col. 2:8 he speaks of human traditions. In 1Co. 11:2 and 2Th. 2:15; 2Th. 3:6, he refers to apostolic traditions which were delivered and taught by the apostles and received by the Christians as the word of God (see 1Th. 2:13). This is precisely why Paul could address this church, with all its faults and difficulties, as brethren, and saints. They may seem grossly immature, but they knew where to turn for the truth! The only source for solution for the problems that plague the saints is the apostolic word (traditions).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Appleburys Comments
When praying or Prophesying (116)
Text
1Co. 11:1-16 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, for as much as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God. 13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Commentary
Be ye imitators of me.This verse is, in all probability, the apostles concluding statement about limiting Christian liberty. He had said in the beginning of the discussion of the subject that if meat caused his brother to stumble he would eat no flesh for evermore. Now he urges his readers to follow his example and refrain from anything that would cause offense to anyone whether Jew or Greek or the church of God, for he was following the example of Christ. The object of such conduct was to save some. See Php. 2:5-11 for his explanation of what Christ did in order to save sinners.
Now I praise you.In this letter, the purpose of which was to rebuke those practicing sin and offer corrective measures to overcome such practices, the apostle is careful to praise his readers whenever possible. He had addressed them as the church of God and reminded them that they were his brethren and that he was their spiritual father. But when he did rebuke them, it was for the purpose of rescuing them from their sinful practices in the hope that they would follow Christ and be saved through obedience to Him. He seems at this point to be glad to say, I praise you.
ye remember me in all things.That the Corinthians did remember Paul and think of his instructions when questions arose among them is indicated by the fact that they wrote to him for further information about such matters as marriage, meats and other things that had to do with their, worship of the Lord.
He commended them for holding to the instruction which he had given them even though they may have failed to remember all that he had said. There seemed to be a disposition on their part to abide by his teaching. Otherwise, why would they have written to him? Of course, he wouldnt commend them on all things, for in matters such as the Lords supper they were not acting in accord with Christian principles. In this, he didnt hesitate to say, I commend you not.
It is evident that his praise was not mere flattery, for it was freely given when merited. It seems that in doing so he was helping them to see that it was with equal sincerity and concern for their welfare that he rebuked them when had to do so.
the traditions.Traditions, as they are mentioned in the New Testament, are in two classes. First, there are the traditions of the Jews which, Jesus said, were causing them to transgress the commandment of God (Mat. 15:3). These were customs that had grown up without divine sanction and transmitted from generation to generation. They became an evil thing since people soon put these traditions above the word of God. Second, the word as used by Paul simply means the oral instructions he had delivered to them as an inspired apostle. They were, of course, on a par with the written instructions he had given to them. It is this orally transmitted message that they were observing that called forth his expression of praise.
But I would have you to know.When it came to the problem of a man or a woman praying or prophesying, he wanted them to know the principle that governed this matter. This was the principle of headship. As it applied to their situation it was given in a three-fold relationship: The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Failure to grasp the significance of this principle led some of them, it would seem, to faulty conclusions.
the head of every man is Christ.The word head is used both literally and figuratively in this context. Literally, it means the head of the human body. But what does it mean figuratively? There is no question that in some instances it means supremacy and authority. But is that what it means here? While I do not find any other clear cut example except this one in the New Testament, it is possible that in this context it refers to source or origin. There is abundant evidence to support this meaning when used with reference to things. For example, the head of a river is its source or point of origin. The origin of man and woman is the basis of Pauls argument in this context. See 1Co. 11:7-9. Verse twelve also clearly refers to the Genesis account of the origin of man and woman. And, Paul adds, all things are from God.
The lesson of the paragraph is clear enough: man is to dress in a manner that marks him, according to the culture of Pauls day, as a man. To do otherwise is to disregard the fact that God created him a man. Woman also is to maintain her position as a woman and not attempt to become a man by forsaking the customary dress that marked her as a woman according to the culture of that day.
There is nothing in the context, as I see it, that suggests that man is superior to woman or has authority over her. Headship as it relates to man and woman is explained by the fact that man is the image and glory of God, but woman is mans glory. Origin or source makes good sense in this context.
The head of every man is Christ. Some would limit this to the man who is a Christian, but the facts are that Christ is the creator of all. God said, Let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:26). John says of the Word that all things were made through him (Joh. 1:1-2). Paul, speaking of Christ, says that in him were all things created (Col. 1:15-16).
the head of woman is the man.This is a reference to the creation of man and woman, not to husband and wife. The latter relationship is discussed by Paul in Eph. 5:23. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The church is the body of Christ, and without it He would be incomplete (Eph. 1:22). There cant be such a relationship as wife without husband. Subjection implies the necessity of faithfulness to her own husband, that is, a proper relationship between husband and wife just as the members of the church are to be in subjection one to another (Eph. 5:21).
Christs authority over His church is clearly indicated in many passages. See Mat. 28:18-20 for His own statement as to His authority. But there is a serious question about implying it in the figure of headship.
The problem that Paul is discussing in this context is that of distinctive dress that marks man and woman while praying or prophesying. It is true that the word translated man may also be rendered husband. But in this context there is no reason to do so. The fact that Paul uses the definite article with man in the statement, the head of woman is the man does not make it signify husband. It is logical to suppose that whatever head means in one of these three statements, it means in the others: Of every man, the head is Christ; and head of woman is the man; and head of Christ, God. The origin of man is Christ; of woman is the man; of Christ is God. Man was created by Christ; woman created from man; Christ sent from God.
Every man praying or prophesying.Praying is speaking to God; prophesying is speaking for God. In the early church, much of the prophesying (preaching) was done of necessity under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. See discussion on this point in chapter twelve. The issue is just this: Man speaking to God or speaking for God is to dress as a man, for he was created in the image of God and is the glory of God. To do otherwise is to dishonor his head. If he covers his head he appears to be a womanaccording to the culture of that day.
every woman praying or prophesying.Not wife, but woman. The activity is the same as in the case of man: praying or preaching. This does not overlook the fact that there are limitations placed on the activity of women. Woman is not to teach, nor have dominion over man, but to be in quietness (1Ti. 2:12). This regulation stems from the facts of creation of woman and the entrance of sin into the world (1Ti. 2:13-14). It seems quite evident that the men did the preaching in the general assembly where both men and women were present. Most godly women agree that this is proper in our society today. But it will be remembered that Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Act. 21:19). Priscilla, as well as her husband Aquila, was instrumental in instructing Apollos in the way of God (Act. 18:24-28). Women, it will be generally agreed, are superior teachers of children. Note also Pauls statement about aged women who are to be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Tit. 2:3-5). There is work for man and there is work for woman to do in the church; and, when it comes to the matter of salvation in the Lord, there is no distinction as to male and female, bond and free, since all are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
her head unveiled.Man was not to have his head covered, but woman was to have her head veiled while praying or prophesying. Why? If a woman assumes the position of man by dressing like a man and thus losing her womanly dignity, she disgraces her head by denying that God created man first and then woman to be his counterpart (Gen. 2:18-24). It dishonors God for either man or woman to attempt to remove this distinction. At no time is it more true than when one is praying to God or prophesying for God. To inject the thought of authority of husband over wife into this context is to forget that Paul is speaking about maintaining the relationship of man and woman as seen in the order of their creation; but priority is not superiority.
if a woman is not veiled.Cutting the hair and shaving were marks by which to identify a man. If a woman left off the veil which was a distinctive mark of a woman, she had just as well go farther and cut her hair and be shaved. If it was disgraceful to cut the hairassumed as true, since this was the distinctive mark of manlet her keep the recognized mark of womanly dignity, the veil.
Should this custom be observed today? Without doubt, the principle of maintaining womanly and manly dignity is to be observed. Since the use of the veil would not necessarily show respect for the principle, it would seem that its use is not called for where custom does not require it. It would be artificial to create the custom to support the principle. The principle can be supported by the distinctive marks of our culture just as it was by the requirements of Pauls day.
the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.What are we to understand about this verse in the light of the foregoing discussion? In the first place, let it be observed that the words sign of are in italics which means that they are not in the Greek text. They are inserted by translators in order to make the text clear. They become, in fact, matters of interpretation, not translation. This is often necessary in bringing thought from one language into another.
For the meaning of the word authority see notes on 1Co. 8:9 and 1Co. 9:4. Should it be translated authority in this context? There is no good reason to do so since the apostle is speaking of the issue of honor which man is to show toward his head and woman toward hers. This amounts to respect for the fact that God created man and that He created woman for man. This distinction is to be maintained when a man or a woman is praying or prophesying. Right is a better term to express this thought in this context. The veil was the distinctive mark of the right and dignity of woman. There is no reference in this context to husband and wife, nor a suggestion that a wife should wear a sign of the authority of her husband on her head. The wife, by divine injunction, is to be faithful to her own husband and to respect her husband. By the same divine instruction, the husband is to love and cherish his wife even as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:22-23). But in this context, Paul is speaking of the necessity of woman maintaining her honor and dignity as a woman. She is not, therefore, to give the impression that she is a man.
because of the angels.Woman is to keep the place for which God created her just as man is to keep his place. Angels who left their proper place were punished. This is a warning to women who try to be men or to men who try to pose as women. It is thought by some that the reference is to angels who do service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14). If this is so, the question is: How could they assist in the worship of those who dishonor God by disregarding the facts of creation?
neither is the woman without the man.Lest what Paul has been saying should cause difficulty between man and woman in the church, the apostle reminds each that he is dependent on the other. It is true that God made woman from man; but it is also true that in His divine providence and wisdom He decreed that man should be born into this world through woman. No man who properly respects his God and who honors his mother would be likely to mistreat the woman who is to be the mother of his children. For some men, however, there is neither respect for God nor honor for his mother or the mother of his children.
all things are of God.Both man and woman are reminded that God in His wisdom provided for the human race in every way. Neither man nor woman should seek to change His plan, and that is especially true of those who pray to God or who speak for Him.
Judge ye in yourselves.Paul puts the question up to the good judgment of his readers. Most people who understand the divine arrangement will gladly agree with it.
even nature itself.Paul has appealed to the facts of creation and to the good judgment of his readers. His last appeal is to nature. The long hair which woman has by nature proves his point. God gave her this covering as a sign of her womanly right and dignity. To cut it or to try to make it appear that she is a man is to dishonor God and nature. Most modern hair styles do not, it seems to me, violate the principle involved in the apostles directive. Some will disagree on his point. Long hair on a man makes him appear effeminate and is contrary to the divine principle under consideration.
we have no such custom.Apparently there were those in Corinth who were contending that the natural distinction between man and woman was removed by baptism into the church. It is true that there is no such thing as male and female when it comes to the matter of personal salvation, but this does not say that all such distinctions are to be disregarded for the facts of creation and of nature are not thus removed. The apostles had no such custom, neither did the churches of God. Since he has based his argument on the fact that God in creation and nature made this distinction, it is fitting that he should remind them that the church is the church of God.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XI.
(1) Be ye followers of me.See concluding Note on 1 Corinthians 10.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 11
THE LIMITS OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM ( 1Co 10:23-33 ; 1Co 11:1 ) 11:1 All things are allowed to me, but all things are not good for me. All things are allowed, but all things do not build up. Let no one think only of his own good, but let him think of the good of the other man too. Eat everything that is sold in the market place, and don’t ask fussy questions for conscience sake; for the earth and its fulness belong to god. If one of the pagans invites you to a meal, and you are willing to go, eat anything that is put before you, and don’t ask questions for conscience sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat that was part of a sacrifice,” don’t eat it, for the sake of him who told you and for conscience sake. I don’t mean your own conscience, but the conscience of the other man, for why has my liberty to be subject to the judgment of any man’s conscience? If I partake of something after I have given thanks for it, how can I unjustly be criticized for eating that for which I gave thanks? So then, whether you eat or whether you drink or whatever you do, do all things to God’s glory. Live in such a way that you will cause neither Jew nor Greek nor church member to stumble, just as I in all things try to win the approval of all men, for I am not in this job for what I can get out of it, but for what benefits I can bring to the many, that they may be saved. So then show yourselves to be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Paul brings to an end this long discussion of the question of meat offered to idols with some very practical advice.
(i) His advice is that a Christian can buy anything that is sold in the shops and ask no questions. It was true that the meat sold in the shops might well have formed part of a sacrifice or have been slaughtered in the name of some god lest the demons enter into it; but it is possible to be too fussy and to create difficulties where none need exist. After all, in the last analysis, all things are God’s.
(ii) If the Christian accepts an invitation to dinner in the house of a pagan, let him eat what is put before him and ask no questions. But, if he is deliberately informed that the meat is part of a sacrifice, he must not eat it. The assumption is that he is told by one of these brothers who cannot rid his conscience of the feeling that to eat such meat is wrong. Rather than bring worry to such a man the Christian must not eat.
(iii) So once again out of an old and remote situation emerges a great truth. Many a thing that a man may do with perfect safety as far as he himself is concerned, he must not do if it is going to be a stumbling-block to someone else. There is nothing more real than Christian freedom; but Christian freedom must be used to help others and not to shock or hurt them. A man has a duty to himself but a still greater duty to others.
We must note to where that duty extends.
(i) Paul insisted that a Corinthian Christian must be a good example to the Jews. Even to his enemies a man must be an example of the fine things.
(ii) The Corinthian Christian had a duty to the Greeks; that is to say he had to show a good example to those who were quite indifferent to Christianity. It is in fact by that example that many are won. There was a minister who went far out of his way to help a man who had nothing to do with the Church and rescued him from a difficult situation. That man began to come to Church and in the end made an astonishing request. He asked to be made an elder that he might spend his life showing his gratitude for what Christ through his servant had done for him.
(iii) The Corinthian Christian had a duty to his fellow Church member. It is the plain fact of life that somebody takes the cue for his conduct from everyone of us. We may not know it; but a younger or a weaker brother is often looking to us for a lead. It is our duty to give that lead which will strengthen the weak and confirm the waverer and save the tempted from sin.
We can do all things to the glory of God only when we remember the duty we must discharge to our fellow men; and we will do that only when we remember that our Christian freedom is given to us not for our own sake but for the sake of others.
1Co 11:1-34; 1Co 12:1-31; 1Co 13:1-13; 1Co 14:1-40 are amongst the most difficult in the whole epistle for a modem person in the western world to understand; but they are also among the most interesting, for they deal with the problems which had arisen in the Corinthian Church in connection with public worship. In them we see the infant Church struggling with the problem of offering a fitting and a seemly worship to God. It will make the section easier to follow if we set out at the beginning the various parts of which it is composed.
(i) 1Co 11:2-16 deals with the problem of whether or not women should worship with their heads uncovered.
(ii) 1Co 11:17-23 deals with problems which have arisen in connection with the Agape ( G26) or Love Feast, the weekly common meal which the Christian congregation held.
(iii) 1Co 11:24-34 deals with the correct observance of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
(iv) 1Co 12:1-31 discusses the problem of welding into one harmonious whole those who possess all kinds of different gifts. It is here that we have the great picture of the Church as the Body of Christ, and of each member as a limb in that body.
(v) 1Co 13:1-13 is the great hymn of love which shows men the more excellent way.
(vi) 1Co 14:1-23 deals with the problem of speaking with tongues.
(vii) 1Co 14:24-33 insists on the necessity of orderliness in public worship and seeks to bring under necessary discipline the overflowing enthusiasm of a newly born Church.
(viii) 1Co 14:24-36 discusses the place of women in the public worship of God in the Church of Corinth.
THE NECESSARY MODESTY ( 1Co 11:2-16 ) 11:2-16 I praise you because you remember me in all things and because you hold fast to the traditions as I handed them down to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and that the man is the head of the woman, and that God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or preaches with his head covered shames his head. Every woman who prays or preaches with her head uncovered shames her head, for she is in exactly the same case as a woman whose head has been shaved; for, if a woman does not cover her head, let her have her hair cut also. If it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or to be shaved, let her have her head covered. A man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man; for the man did not come from the woman but the woman from the man; for the man was not created for the sake of the woman but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else’s authority, for the sake of the angels. All the same it is true that, in the Lord, woman is nothing without man nor man without woman; for just as woman came from man, so man is born through woman, and all things are from God. Use your own judgment on this. Is it fitting for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach us that it is a dishonour to a man if he lets his hair grow long? But if a woman lets her hair grow long it is her glory, because her hair was given to her for a covering. All the same, if anyone wishes to go on arguing for the sake of arguing, it is sufficient to say that we have no such custom, nor have the Churches of God.
This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance; they look at first sight as if they had only an antiquarian interest because they deal with a situation which has long since ceased to have any relevance for us; and yet such passages have a very great interest because they shed a flood of light on the domestic affairs and problems of the early Church; and, for him who has eyes to see, they have a very great importance, because Paul solves the problems by principles which are eternal.
The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul’s answer was bluntly this–the veil is always a sign of subjection, worn by an inferior in the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public worship veiled and equally wrong for a woman to appear unveiled. It is very improbable that in the twentieth century we are likely to accept this view of the inferiority and subordination of women. But we must read this chapter in the light not of the twentieth century but of the first, and as we read it we must remember three things.
(i) We must remember the place of the veil in the East. To this day eastern women wear the yashmak which is a long veil leaving the forehead and the eyes uncovered but reaching down almost to the feet. In Paul’s time the eastern veil was even more concealing. It came right over the head with only an opening for the eyes and reached right down to the feet. A respectable eastern woman would never have dreamed of appearing without it. Writing in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, T. W. Davies says, “No. respectable woman in an eastern village or city goes out without it, and, if she does, she is in danger of being misjudged. Indeed English and American missionaries in Egypt told the present writer that their own wives and daughters when going about find it often best to wear the veil.”
The veil was two things. (a) It was a sign of inferiority. (b) But it was also a great protection. 1Co 11:10 is very difficult to translate. We have translated it: “For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else’s authority,” but the Greek literally means that a woman ought to retain “her authority upon her head.” Sir William Ramsay explains it this way–“In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd…. But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult…. A woman’s authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards.”
In the East, then, the veil is all-important. It does not only mark the inferior status of a woman; it is the inviolable protection of her modesty and chastity.
(ii) We must remember the status of women in Jewish eyes. Under Jewish law woman was vastly inferior to man. She had been created out of Adam’s rib ( Gen 2:22-23) and she had been created to be the helpmeet of man ( Gen 2:18). There was a Rabbinic piece of fanciful exegesis which said, “God did not form woman out of the head lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye lest she should lust; nor out of the ear lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth lest she should be talkative; nor out of the heart lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot lest she should be a wandering busybody; but out of a rib which was always covered; therefore modesty should be her primary quality.”
It is the unfortunate truth that in Jewish law a woman was a thing and was part of the property of her husband over which he had complete rights of disposal. It was true that in the synagogue, for instance, women had no share whatever in the worship but were segregated completely from the men in a shut-off gallery or other part of the building. In Jewish law and custom it was unthinkable that women should claim any kind of equality with men.
In 1Co 11:10 there is the curious phrase that women should be veiled “for the sake of the angels.” It is not certain what this means, but probably it goes back to the strange old story in Gen 6:1-2 which tells how the angels fell a prey to the charms of mortal women and so sinned; it may well be that the idea is that the unveiled woman is a temptation even to the angels, for an old Rabbinic tradition said that it was the beauty of women’s long hair which tempted the angels.
(iii) It must always be remembered that this situation arose in Corinth, probably the most licentious city in the world. Paul’s point of view was that in such a situation it was far better to err on the side of being too modest and too strict rather than to do anything which might either give the heathen a chance to criticize the Christians as being too lax or be a cause of temptation to the Christians themselves.
It would be quite wrong to make this passage of universal application; it was intensely relevant to the Church of Corinth but it has nothing to do with whether or not women should wear hats in church at the present day. But for all its local significance it has three great permanent truths in it.
(i) It is always better to err on the side of being too strict than on the side of being too lax. It is far better to abandon rights which may be a stumbling-block to some than to insist on them. It is the fashion to decry convention; but a man should always think twice before he defies it and shocks others. True, he must never be the slave of convention, but conventions do not usually come into being for nothing.
(ii) Even after he has stressed the subordination of women, Paul goes on to stress even more directly the essential partnership of man and woman. Neither can live without the other. If there be subordination, it is in order that the partnership may be more fruitful and more lovely for both.
(iii) Paul finishes the passage with a rebuke to the man who argues for the sake of argument. Whatever the differences that may arise between men, there is no place in the Church for the deliberately contentious man or woman. There is a time to stand on principle; but there is never a time to be contentiously argumentative. There is no reason why people should not differ and yet remain at peace.
THE WRONG KIND OF FEAST ( 1Co 11:17-22 ) 11:17-22 When I give you this instruction, I am not praising you, because when you meet together it is actually doing you more harm than good. Firstly, I hear that when you meet together in assembly, there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. There are bound to be differences of opinion among you, so that it may become clear which of you are of tried and sterling quality. So then when you assemble together in the same place it is certainly not the Lord’s meal that you eat; for each of you, when you eat, is in a hurry to get his own meal first, and the result is that some go hungry and some drink until they are drunk. Have you not your own houses for eating and drinking? Have you no reverence for the assembly of God? Are you going to shame those who are poor? What am I to say to you? Am I to commend you in this? I certainly do not.
The ancient world was in many ways much more social than ours is. It was the regular custom for groups of people to meet together for meals. There was, in particular, a certain kind of feast called an eranos to which each participant brought his own share of the food, and in which all the contributions were pooled to make a common meal. The early Church had such a custom, a feast called the Agape ( G26) or Love Feast. To it all the Christians came, bringing what they could, the resources were pooled and they sat down to a common meal. It was a lovely custom; and it is to our loss that the custom has vanished. It was a way of producing and nourishing real Christian fellowship.
But in the Church at Corinth things had gone sadly wrong with the Love Feast. In the Church there were rich and poor; there were those who could bring plenty, and there were slaves who could bring hardly anything at all. In fact for many a poor slave the Love Feast must have been the only decent meal in the whole week. But in Corinth the art of sharing had got lost. The rich did not share their food but ate it in little exclusive groups by themselves, hurrying through it in case they had to share, while the poor had next to nothing. The result was that the meal at which the social differences between members of the Church should have been obliterated only succeeded in aggravating these same differences. Unhesitatingly and unsparingly Paul rebukes this.
(i) It may well be that the different groups were composed of those who held different opinions. A great scholar has said, “To have religious zeal, without becoming a religious partisan, is a great proof of true devotion.” When we think differently from a man, we may in time come to understand him and even to sympathize with him, if we remain in fellowship with him and talk things over with him; but, if we shut ourselves off from him and form our own little group while he remains in his, there is never any hope of mutual understanding.
He drew a circle that shut me out–
Rebel, heretic, thing to flout–
But love and I had the wit to win–
We drew a circle that took him in.
(ii) The early Church was the one place in all the ancient world where the barriers were down. That world was very rigidly divided; there were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks and the barbarians–the people who did not speak Greek; there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman citizens and the lesser breeds without the law; there were the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one place where all men could and did come together. A great Church historian has written about these early Christian congregations, “Within their own limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem which baffled Rome and baffles Europe still. They had lifted woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour, abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom Christ died.”
A church where social and class distinctions exist is no true church at all. A real church is a body of men and women united to each other because all are united to Christ. Even the word used to describe the sacrament is suggestive. We call it the Lord’s Supper; but supper is to some extent misleading. Usually to us it is not the main meal of the day. But the Greek word is deipnon ( G1173) . For the Greek the breakfast was a meal where all that was eaten was a little bread dipped in wine; the midday meal was eaten anywhere, even on the street or in a city square; the deipnon ( G1173) was the main meal of the day, where people sat down with no sense of hurry and not only satisfied their hunger but lingered long together. The very word shows that the Christian meal ought to be a meal where people linger long in each other’s company.
(iii) A church is no true church if the art of sharing is forgotten. When people wish to keep things to themselves and to their own circle they are not even beginning to be Christian. The true Christian cannot bear to have too much while others have too little; he finds his greatest privilege not in jealously guarding his privileges but in giving them away.
THE LORD’S SUPPER ( 1Co 11:23-34 ) 11:23-34 For I received of the Lord that which I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night on which he was being delivered up, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body which is for you; this do that you may remember me.” In the same way, after the meal, he took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant and it cost my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, so that you will remember me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you do proclaim the death of the Lord until he will come. Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unfitting way is guilty of a sin against the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he who eats and drinks as some of you do, eats and drinks judgment to himself, because he does not discern what the body means. It is because of this that many among you are ill and weak and some have died. But if we truly discerned what we are like we would not be liable to judgment. But in this very judgment of the Lord we are being disciplined that we may not be finally condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together wait for each other. If anyone is hungry let him eat at home, so that you may not meet together in such a way as to render yourselves liable to judgment. As for the other matters, I will put them in order when I shall have come.
No passage in the whole New Testament is of greater interest than this. For one thing, it gives us our warrant for the most sacred act of worship in the Church, the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; and, for another since the letter to the Corinthians is earlier than the earliest of the gospels, this is actually the first recorded account we possess of any word of Jesus.
The Sacrament can never mean the same for every person; but we do not need fully to understand it to benefit from it. As someone has said, “We do not need to understand the chemistry of bread in order to digest it and to be nourished by it.” For all that we do well to try at least to understand something of what Jesus meant when he spoke of the bread and the wine as he did.
“This is my body,” he said of the bread. One simple fact precludes us from taking this with a crude literalism. When Jesus spoke, he was still in the body; and there was nothing clearer than that his body and the bread were at that moment quite different things. Nor did he simply mean, “This stands for my body.” In a sense that is true. The broken bread of the Sacrament does stand for the body of Christ; but it does more. To him who takes it into his hands and upon his lips with faith and love, it is a means not only of memory but of living contact with Jesus Christ. To an unbeliever it would be nothing; to a lover of Christ it is the way to his presence.
“This cup,” said Jesus, in the usual version, “is the new covenant in my blood.” We have translated it slightly differently, “This cup is the new covenant and it cost my blood.” The Greek preposition en most commonly means in; but it can, and regularly does, mean at the cost or price of, especially when it translates the Hebrew preposition be. Now a covenant is a relationship entered into between two people. There was an old covenant between God and man and that old relationship was based on law. In it God chose and approached the people of Israel and became in a special sense their God; but there was a condition, that, if this relationship was going to last, they must keep his law. (compare Exo 24:1-8). With Jesus a new relationship is opened to man, dependent not on law but on love, dependent not on man’s ability to keep the law–for no man can do that–but on the free grace of God’s love offered to men.
Under the old covenant a man could do nothing other than fear God for he was ever in default since he could never perfectly keep the law; under the new covenant he comes to God as a child to a father. However you look at things, it cost the life of Jesus to make this new relationship possible. “The blood is the life,” says the law ( Deu 12:23); it cost Jesus’ life, his blood, as the Jew would put it. And so the scarlet wine of the sacrament stands for the very life-blood of Christ without which the new covenant, the new relationship of man to God, could never have been possible.
This passage goes on to talk about eating and drinking this bread and wine unworthily. The unworthiness consisted in the fact that the man who did so did “not discern the Lord’s body.” That phrase can equally well mean two things; and each is so real and so important that it is quite likely that both are intended.
(i) It may mean that the man who eats and drinks unworthily does not realize what the sacred symbols mean. It may mean that he eats and drinks with no reverence and no sense of the love that these symbols stand for or the obligation that is laid upon him.
(ii) It may also mean this. The phrase the body of Christ again and again stands for the Church; it does so, as we shall see, in 1Co 12:1-31. Paul has just been rebuking those who with their divisions and their class distinctions divide the Church; so this may mean that he eats and drinks unworthily who has never realized that the whole Church is the body of Christ but is at variance with his brother. Every man in whose heart there is hatred, bitterness, contempt against his brother man, as he comes to the Table of our Lord, eats and drinks unworthily. So then to eat and drink unworthily is to do so with no sense of the greatness of the thing we do, and to do so while we are at variance with the brother for whom also Christ died.
Paul goes on to say that the misfortunes which have fallen upon the Church at Corinth may be due to nothing else than the fact that they come to this sacrament while they are divided among themselves; but these misfortunes are sent not to destroy them but to discipline them and to bring them back to the right way.
We must be clear about one thing. The phrase which forbids a man to eat and drink unworthily does not shut out the man who is a sinner and knows it. An old highland minister seeing an old woman hesitate to receive the cup, stretched it out to her, saying, “Take it, woman; it’s for sinners; it’s for you.” If the Table of Christ were only for perfect people none might ever approach it. The way is never closed to the penitent sinner. To the man who loves God and his fellow men the way is ever open, and his sins, though they be as scarlet, shall be white as snow.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Be you imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.’
Paul is conscious that he has been laying great stress on his own example, so now he sets the record straight. They are to be imitators of him because he is an imitator of Christ. What he has been saying is precisely what Christ would recommend and do, and indeed did do (see especially Php 2:4-11). By this he brings them back again to ‘Christ and Him the crucified One’. That is where it all began.
There may be a feeling in societies where food offered to idols is not a problem that much of what has been said in these chapters is not relevant to them. But if so they should quickly be disabused. For the basic lesson that lies behind Paul’s words is of the importance of living our lives in such a way as not to cause unnecessary offence, in living them so as to be able to present the best possible case for the Gospel, and in order to prevent other Christians being harmed by our over liberality, in avoiding all contact with the occult and with superstition. He is not out to please men so that he will be hailed as a wonderful fellow, but so that he might remove any unnecessary obstacle in their coming to Christ.
So it is right that we have concern for a nation’s customs, and where it will help in the spreading of the Gospel, be willing to conform to those customs. But once we face something in those customs which is offensive to the Gospel, or which suggests participation in other gods or other supernatural elements, or which causes doubts among fellow-Christians, or hinders our evangelism, then we must abstain from them for the sake of both ourselves and others.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Sanctification by the Holy Spirit In 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul takes the greater part of this epistle to teach them about the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, the ways in which these issues are presented reflect the sanctification of man’s mind, body, and spirit, in that order. For example, Paul’s discussion on church divisions (1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21) emphasizes the sanctification of our minds so that we learn not to prefer one church member, or church leader, above another. His discussion on fornication (1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40) emphasizes the sanctification of our bodies, as we offer them as holy vessels to the Lord. His discussion on meats offered until idols (1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1) emphasizes the sanctification of our spirits as we learn to walk and conduct our lifestyles with a clean conscience, which is the voice of the spirit. Paul then turns his attention to issues regarding public worship (1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40). Remember in the Old Testament how the priests and Levites had to sanctify themselves before entering into the service of the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore, Paul uses this same approach for the New Testament Church. As we allow our minds, bodies and spirits to yield to the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we become vessels in which the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit can operate.
Outline – Here is a proposed outline:
1. Divisions in the Church 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21
2. Fornication in the Church 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 6:20
3. Idolatry and foods offered to idols 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:34
4. Public Worship 1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40
The Two Issues of Fornication and Foods Offered Unto Idols Reflect Heathen Worship Note that the two major topics that are covered in this epistle of 1 Corinthians, fornication and meat offered to idols, are two of the four issues that those the Jerusalem council decided to ask of the Gentiles. Note:
Act 15:20, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
Act 15:29, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
Act 21:25, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”
In submission to the church apostles and elders a Jerusalem, Paul delivered these ordinances to the Corinthian church earlier while he lived there. In this epistle, Paul expands upon them:
1Co 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
Note also that Jesus told the church in Pergamos in the book of Revelation that these were the two doctrines of Balaam.
Rev 2:14, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication .”
Therefore, the practice of feasting in idolatry and fornication appears to have been a common practice in Asia Minor among the temple worship of the Greeks. We also see in Rom 1:18-32 how idolatry was followed by fornication as God turned mankind over to a reprobate mind. Thus, these two sins are associated with one another throughout the Scriptures. However, first Paul deals with church divisions.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Idolatry and Things Offered unto Idols: Sanctification of the Spirit to Learn how to Walk with a Pure Conscience In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul dedicates his longest discussion in this epistle to the topic of idolatry and things offered unto idols, using it as an opportunity to each on being led by the spirit by walking with a good conscience, which is voice of our spirit. The word “conscience” ( ) is used 9 times in this passage of Scripture. Paul opens ( 1Co 8:7 ; 1Co 8:10; 1Co 8:12) and closes (1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27-29) this passage with this word. This church was living in the midst of such heathen practices, and like many of us today, they were invited to attend certain functions that involved idolatry and foods offered unto idols. This is why Paul says, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go” Thus, these believers needed some guidelines to go by when confronted with such invitations. The guiding principle that Paul teaches in this passage is for the believer to be led by his conscience so that he does not offence his brother. Therefore, Paul’s concluding statement on how to deal with this issue is, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Eating meat offered to idols 1Co 8:1-13
2. A Positive Example: Paul’s carefulness not to offend 1Co 9:1-27
3. Negative Example: The idolatry of Israel in the wilderness 1Co 10:1-14
4. A Personal Example: The Lord’s Table vs. Pagan Worship 1Co 10:15-22
5. Conclusion 1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1
The Conscience, the Voice of the Human Spirit In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul deals with the issue of idolatry. Keep in mind the underlying theme of this epistle, which is practical ways in which the believer is to allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through them. Thus, Paul uses the word “conscience” nine times in this section of the epistle. This is because the voice of our human spirit is our conscience. In contrast, the voice of our mind is human reason, and the voice of our body is our physical senses that we call feelings. Thus, Paul is teaching the Corinthians to be led by the Holy Spirit on this issue by being led by their conscience.
1Co 8:7, “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.”
1Co 8:10, “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;”
1Co 8:12, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience , ye sin against Christ.”
1Co 10:25, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:”
1Co 10:27, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.”
1Co 10:28, “But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:”
1Co 10:29, “ Conscience , I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience ?”
The First Council of Jerusalem In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul dedicates his longest discussion in this epistle to the topic of idolatry and things offered unto idols, which was an important part of this Greco-Roman culture with their temple worship. This type of heathen worship consisted of fornication and feasting upon foods that had been offered up to Greek and Roman idols.
However, the issue of meats and their association with heathen idols had long been a problem with the Jews. Wherever they had settled throughout the Empire, they established their own butcheries in order to provide for themselves “clean” meats. This issue of meats and idolatry was a part of the first confrontations of the early Church. In the first Church council in Jerusalem, recorded in Act 15:1-35, the leaders chose to send instructions to the Gentile churches on four topics. Act 15:20 reads, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
Much of the meats offered in the markets were the residue of what had been sacrificed to idols. If these believers ate such meats, were they partaking of such worship? Or, if they were invited into a non-believer’s home and offered meats, should they abstain, or eat it so as not to offense the host? But if they ate it, would it not offend the weaker brothers in the church who were just coming out of such an idolatrous lifestyle and could easily fall back into it under similar conditions? All of these issues needed to be addressed. Thus, it was an important topic for Paul to deal with in the church of Corinth as well as in all the churches.
This church was living in the midst of such heathen practices, and like many of us today, they were invited to attend certain functions that involved idolatry and foods offered unto idols. This is why Paul says, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go” (1Co 10:27) Thus, these believers needed some guidelines to go by when attending such invitations. The key point that Paul tries to emphasize in this passage is, “Do not offend other believers.” The key words which are often repeated are “idols” and “offence”. Paul’s concluding statement on how to deal with this issue is, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31).
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Conclusion: All Things are Lawful, but all Things are not Beneficial In 1Co 10:15 to 1Co 11:1 Paul concludes this lengthy passage on foods offered until idols by giving them a divine principle to live by. In this passage he restates his original ruling principle that we must seek the well-being of others before seeking our own satisfactions; for the eternal soul of that person is at risk of falling. He first explains that as a believer they are free in many aspects of life. However, many things they may feel free to do may harm them or cause others to stumble. He gives the example of eating foods offer to idols. Paul explains that there in nothing evil about eating food, for Christ has set us free from many religious dietary rules, but eating meats offered to idols was closely associated in the Greek culture with temple prostitution, for both activities often took place in the same venue. Therefore, Paul was warning these believers to abstain from such festive occasions when invited if it causes another brother to stumble.
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1Co 10:23
1Co 6:12, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”
1Co 10:29 “why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience” Comments – That is, why should my liberty to eat anything become an opportunity to let another man’s conscience judge me as doing evil? So, Paul is saying do not put yourself in a situation to let another man who has not your knowledge judge you as an evildoer.
1Co 10:29 Comments – Feasting on foods offered to idols was a part of heathen temple worship. Thus, when we eat such foods, we may appear to our brother in Christ as a partaker of such temple worship and he would thus, be offended.
1Co 10:30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
1Co 10:30
[133] Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, M. Robinson, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 2006), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 1 Corinthians 10:30.
Comments Many modern English versions translate the word as “thankfulness, with gratitude, thankfully” rather than “by grace.”
ASV, “If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?”
Rotherham, “If, I, with gratitude, partake, why am I to be defamed, as to that for which, I, give thanks?”
RSV, “If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?”
YLT, “and if I thankfully do partake, why am I evil spoken of, for that for which I give thanks?”
1Co 10:32 Word Study on “Gentile” BDAG says the Greek word is used in the strict sense to mean a “Greek,” or referring to the “Greek language and culture”; however, in its broadest sense, the word also means, “gentile, polytheist, Greco-Roman.” In 1Co 10:32 BDAG translates the word as “Gentile.” Modern English translations are divided on this meaning, translating as both “Greek” and “Gentile.”
Comments 1Co 10:32 shows us that in God’s eternal plan of redemption for mankind, He sees the people of the earth in three groups; the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church. It lists these three groups in the order in which God has used them in His plan of redemption. The Jews represent the nation of Israel. During the time of Moses, God separated the Jewish nation as a holy people unto himself.
Exo 19:6, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”
The Gentiles refer to the nations of the earth:
Gen 10:5, “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”
The Old Testament placed emphasis upon the Jews as the nation of Israel. However, the book of Daniel stands alone in the Old Testament in much the same way that the book of Revelation is unique to the New Testament. Both are apocalyptic in nature, using symbolic figures to prophesy of future events. Daniel takes us through the Times of the Gentiles when God divinely works in this group of people to carry out His divine plan of election and redemption.
The New Testament reveals God’s plan of redemption as He works through the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Under the New Covenant, God created a third group of people. He took the Jews and the Gentiles and made one new man in Christ called the Church. This was the mystery that was kept hidden under the old covenant and reveled only in the New Testament. In Eph 2:11-22, we learn that through Jesus, God broke down the wall of division between the Jews and the Gentiles, creating the church (Eph 2:14).
Eph 2:14, “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;”
Thus, God created Himself again a holy nation (1Pe 2:9).
1Pe 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”
We see a reference to these three people groups in Act 26:17.
Act 26:17, “Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,”
The Lord spoke to Billye Brim about this verse in the 1970’s by saying, “If you will remember this verse, it will keep your end-time doctrine straight.” [134] She went on to say that God will always recognize the nation of Israel forever, even in eternity, then she quoted Jer 31:35-36 and Isa 66:22 to support this statement.
[134] Billye Brim, interviewed by Gloria Copeland, Believer’s Voice of Victory (Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Fort Worth, Texas), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program, 22 May 2003.
Jer 31:35-36, “Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.”
Isa 66:22, “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.”
Then Brim quoted Eph 3:20-21 to state that God will always recognize His Church throughout eternity.
Eph 3:20-21, “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”
The theological hermeneutical principle that guides us in the interpretation of Scripture based on these three people groups is called the “Ethnic Division Principle.” [135]
[135] J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1947), 26.
1Co 11:1 “Be ye followers of me” – Comments – From 1Co 10:33, they should not seek to please themselves, but to live a life that leads others to Christ, the ultimate example.
1Co 11:1 “even as I also am of Christ” Comments – Paul is saying to follow him just like he is following Christ. Most versions translation the phrase “even as” using the proposition “as” ( NAB, RSV) or “even as” ( ASV, Rotherham). However, Weymouth interprets it to mean “in so far as,” which mean, “to the degree that I follow Christ,”
NAB, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
RSV, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
ASV, “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.”
Rotherham, “Become imitators of me, even as, I also, am of Christ.”
Weymouth, “ Be imitators of me, in so far as I in turn am an imitator of Christ.”
1Co 11:1 Comments – 1Co 11:1 would seem to summarize the discussion on the discourse of idolatry found in chapters 8-10. In these three chapters, Paul has given himself as an example while making several points. He, therefore, concludes this topic of idolatry by asking the Corinthians to follow his example as he was following the example of Christ. The Corinthians had the zeal to serve the Lord, but they lacked the character and fortitude to crucify their flesh and walk in love. Thus, Paul gave himself as an example to follow in this epistle. The rest of Chapter 11 deals with two issues of assembly of the church, namely the role of women and the Lord’s Supper in the assembly.
John Calvin notes two observations from this verse. First, Paul is only offering to others what he himself has learned to walk in. Second, he points others to Christ as the final example of perfection, because Paul knew himself to be only a man who was subject to sin while still in the flesh. [136]
[136] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 350.
1Co 11:1 Scripture References – Note similar verses:
Eph 5:1, “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;”
1Th 1:6, “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:”
1Ti 4:12, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”
1Ti 4:15-16, “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
Tit 2:7, “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Conduct in Public Worship.
A preliminary admonition:
v. 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
v. 2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. The opening verse really belongs to the previous chapter, since it refers to the example given by Paul in making use of the proper Christian tact under all circumstances. Through his own pattern he points his readers to that of his Master and theirs: Imitators of me become, even as I of Christ. He wants them to follow the example which he has set before them by his conduct, in which he renounced all selfish interests for the sake of gaining souls for Christ. But incidentally he does not want them to become attached to his person, but they should recognize in his conduct the influence of the exalted Christ; they should imitate him in so far as he set forth the image of Christ before them. This would involve time and constant application, since a Christian is ever in the making, but their model was such as to incite them to emulation, to stimulate their Christian ambition at all times. And in order to inspire them to their most persistent efforts, the apostle does not hesitate to give the Corinthian Christians all credit for their attitude in certain matters: But I praise you that you remember all things which were given by me, that you have been keeping the remembrance of me in all things, and that you have been observing the instructions just as I have delivered them to you. The Corinthians, though in general far behind the apostle in self-denial, were nevertheless in general mindful of the divine ordinances which he had delivered to them. These instructions, 2Th 2:15; 2Th 3:6, which were transmitted both orally and by letter, concerned doctrine and life, and included also customs of worship and ceremonies. Although the latter are by no means equivalent to the former, they nevertheless serve for the edification of the Church, and their adoption may be advisable even at this time. Mark: The Pope has no hold in this passage for his insistence upon the value of oral tradition, for the word is used in the Bible only for the immediate instructions of inspired men and never for a conglomeration of tenets concerning which the Pope claims the right of sole arbiter.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
1Co 11:1
Followers of me; rather, imitators of me; follow herein my example, as I follow Christ’s. What Christ’s example was, in that he too “pleased not himself,” he sets forth in Rom 15:1-3; and the general principle of self abnegation for the sake of others in Php 2:4-8. This verse ought to be included in ch. 10. It sums up the whole argument, and explains the long digression of ch. 9. As I also am of Christ. This limits the reference to his own example. I only ask you to imitate me in points in which I imitate Christ.
1Co 11:2-16
Rules and principles respecting the covering of the head by women in Church assemblies.
1Co 11:2
Now; rather, but, on the other hand. That ye remember me in all things, and keep, etc. This is probably a quotation from their letter. He thanks them for this kind message, but points out one particular in which their practice was not quite commendable. The ordinances. The word literally means traditions, but is here rightly applied to rules which he had delivered to them. The Vulgate has praecepta. The word is used in Mat 15:2 of the rules and precedents laid down by the rabbis.
1Co 11:3
But I would have you know; rather, but I wish you to know. That the head of every man is Christ. St. Paul, as was customary with him, applies the loftiest principles to the solution of the humblest difficulties. Given a question as to what is right or wrong in a particular instance, he always aims at laying down some great eternal fact to which the duty or decision is ultimately referable, and deduces the required rule from that fact. The headship of Christ is stated in Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15; and its application to the superiority of man is laid down also in Eph 5:23. The subordinate position of the woman is also stated in 1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 2:12; 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:5, 1Pe 3:6, etc. This, however, is merely an ordinance of earthly application. In the spiritual realm “there is neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28). The head of the woman is the man. In Christ the distinctions of the sexes are done away. It was, perhaps, an abuse of this principle which had led the Corinthian women to assert themselves and their rights more prominently than decorum warranted. The head of Christ is God. That Christ is “inferior to the Father as touching his manhood,” that his mediatorial kingdom involves (so far) a subordination of his coequal Godhead, has been already stated in 1Co 3:23, and is further found in 1Co 15:27, 1Co 15:28. This too is the meaning of Joh 14:28, “My Father is greater than I.”
1Co 11:4
Prophesying; that is, preaching. Having his head covered. This was a Jewish custom. The Jewish worshipper in praying always covers his head with his tallith. The Jew (like Orientals generally) uncovered his feet because the place on which he stood was holy ground; but he covered his head by way of humility, even as the angels veil their faces with their wings. AEneas is said by Servius to have introduced this custom into Italy. On the other hand, the Greek custom was to pray with the head uncovered. St. Paulas some discrepancy of custom seems to have arisendecided in favour of the Greek custom, on the high ground that Christ, by his incarnation, became man, and therefore the Christian, who is” in Christ,” may stand with unveiled head in the presence of his Father. Dishonoureth his head. He dishonoureth his own head, which is as it were a sharer in the glory of Christ, who is Head of the whole Church. “We pray,” says Tertullian, “with bare beads because we blush not.” The Christian, being no longer a slave, but a son (Gal 4:7), may claim his part in the glory of the eternal Son. The head was covered in mourning (2Sa 15:30; Jer 14:13), and the worship of the Christian is joyous.
1Co 11:5
Or prophesieth. Although St. Paul “thinks of one thing at a time,” and is not here touching on the question whether women ought to teach in public, it appears from this expression that the rule which he lays down in 1Co 14:34, 1Co 14:35, and 1Ti 2:12 was not meant to be absolute. See the case of Philip’s daughters (Act 21:9 and Act 2:17). With her head uncovered. For a woman to do this in a public assembly was against the national custom of all ancient communities, and might lead to the gravest misconceptions. As a rule, modest women covered their heads with the peplum or with a veil when they worshipped or were in public. Christian women at Corinth must have caught something of the “inflation” which was characteristic of their Church before they could have acted with such reprehensible boldness as to adopt a custom identified with the character of immodest women. Dishonoureth her head. Calvin, with terse good sense, observes, “As the man honours his head by proclaiming his liberty, so the woman by acknowledging her subjection.”
1Co 11:6
Let her also be shorn. Not a command, but, a sort of scornful inference, or reductio ad absurdum. If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. When a woman was tried by “the ordeal of the water of jealousy,” her head was uncovered by the priest (Num 5:18). To be shorn or shaven was a sign of mourning (Deu 21:12), and was a disgrace inflicted on adulteresses.
1Co 11:7
He is the image and glory of God. Because he reflects and partakes in the glory of Christ, who is the effulgence of God and the impress of his substance (Gen 1:27; Psa 8:6; Heb 1:2). The woman is the glory of the man. As moonlight is to sunlight, or as the earthshine is to the moonshine. Man reflects God; woman, in her general nature in this earthly and temporal dispensation, reflects the glory of man.
1Co 11:8
But the woman of the man. An allusion to Gen 2:21, Gen 2:22.
1Co 11:9
But the woman for the man. As is expressly stated in Gen 2:18.
1Co 11:10
To have power on her head. A great deal of irrelevant guesswork has been written on this verse. Under this head must be classed the idle attempts to twist the word exousia, power, or authority, into some other readingan attempt which may be set aside, because it is not sanctioned by a single manuscript. We may also dismiss the futile efforts to make exousia have any other primary meaning than “authority.” The context shows that the word has here a secondary sense, and implies some kind of covering. The verse, therefore, points the same lessons as Gen 24:64, Gen 24:65. This much may be regarded as certain, and this view is adopted by the steadfast good sense of our English translators, both in the Authorized and Revised Versions. The only question worth asking is why the word exousia had come at Corinth, or in the Corinthian Church, to be used for “a veil,” or “covering.” The simplest answer is that just as the word “kingdom” in Greek may be used for “a crown” (comp. regno as the name of the pope’s tiara), so “authority” may mean “a sign of authority” (Revised Version), or “a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband”. The margin of the Revised Version, “authority over her head,” is a strange suggestion. Some have explained the word of her own true authority, which consists in accepting the rule of her husband; but it probably moans a sign of her husband’s authority over her. Similarly the traveller Chardin says that in Persia the women wear a veil, in sign that they are “under subjection.” If so, the best comment on the word may be found in the exquisite lines of Milton, which illustrate the passage in other ways also
“She, as a vei1, down to the slender waist
Her unadorned golden tresses wore
As the vine curves her tendrils, which implied
Subjection, but required with gentle sway,
And by her yielded, by him best received.”
The fact that Callistratus twice uses exousia of “abundance of hair” is probably a mere coincidence, resembling the Irish expression “a power of hair.” Nor can there be any allusion to the isolated fact that Samson’s strength lay in his hair. The very brief comment of Luther sums up all the best of the many pages which have been written on the subject. He says that exousia means “the veil or covering, by which one may see that she is under her husband’s authority” (Gen 3:16). Because of the angels. In this clause also we must set aside, as idle waste of time, the attempts to alter the text, or to twist the plain words into impossible meanings. The word “angels” cannot mean “Church officials,” or “holy men,” or “prophets,” or “delegates,” or “‘bridegroom’s men,” or anything but angels. Nor can the verse mean, as Bengel supposes, that women are to veil themselves because the angels do so (Isa 6:2), or because the angels approve of it. The only question is whether the allusion is to good or bad angels. In favour of the latter view is the universal tradition among the Jews that the angels fell by lust for mortal women, which was the Jewish way of interpreting Gen 6:1, Gen 6:2. This is the view of Tertullian (‘De Virg. Vel.,’ 7) in writing on this subject. A woman, in the opinion and traditions of Oriental Jews, is liable to injury from the shedim, if she appears in public unveiled; and these evil spirits are supposed to delight in the appearance of unveiled women. The objection to this view, that angeloi alone is never used of evil but always of good angels, is not perhaps decisive (see 1Co 6:3). The verse may, however, mean (in accordance with the Jewish belief of those days) that good angels, being under the possibility of falling from the same cause as their evil brethren, fly away at once from the presence of unveiled women. Thus Khadijah tested that the visitant of her husband Mohammed really was the angel Gabriel, because he disappeared the moment she unveiled her head. On the whole, however, the meaning seems to be, out of respect and reverence for the holy angels, who are always invisibly present in the Christian assemblies.. “Reverence the angels” is St. Chrysostom’s remark.
1Co 11:11
Nevertheless. The verse is meant to correct any tendency on the part of men to domineer. Man and woman are “all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
“The two-celled heart, beating with one full strokeLife.”
1Co 11:12
By the woman; that is, “born of a woman” (Job 14:1). But all things of God. And all things also “through him and to him,” made by him, and tending to him as their end (Rom 11:1-36 :56).
1Co 11:13
Is it comely, etc.? An appeal to the decision of their instinctive sense of propriety.
1Co 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you? “Nature” here has much the lame sense as “instinct.”
“His fair large front and eye sublime declared
Absolute rule; and hyacinthine locks
Round from his parted forelock manly hung
Clustering, but not beneath his shoulders broad:
She, as a veil, down to the slender waist
Her unadorned golden tresses wore.”
(Milton, ‘Paradise Lost,’ 4:304.)
1Co 11:15
It is a glory to her. Because it is at once beautiful and natural; and as Bengel says, “Will should follow the guidance of nature.”
1Co 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious. St. Paul cuts the question short, as though impatient of any further discussion of a subject already settled by instinctive decorum and by the common sense of universal usage. “Seem to be contentious” is (like the Latin videtur) only a courteous way of saying “is contentious.” If any of you wish to be disputatious and quarrelsome about this minor matter of ritual, I must content myself with saying that he must take his own course (for a similar use of the euphemistic “seem,” see Php 3:4; Heb 4:1; Jas 1:26). We have no such custom. The emphatic “we” means the apostles and the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem and Antioch. Such custom. Not referring to “contentiousness,” but to the women appearing with uncovered heads. Neither the Churches of God. If you Corinthians prefer these abnormal practices in spite of reason, common sense, and my arguments, you must stand alone in your innovations upon universal Christian practice. But catholic custom is against your “self opinionated particularism.”
1Co 11:17-34
Discreditable irregularities at the Eucharist and the agapae.
1Co 11:17
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not; rather, as in the Revised Version, But in giving you this charge, I praise you not. A reference to the “I praise you” of 1Co 11:2. Ye come together. As he advances, his rebukes become more and more serious; for the present reproach does not affect a few, but the Church assembly in general.
1Co 11:18
First of all. The “second” rebuke is not clearly stated, but is no doubt meant to refer to the abuses in “speaking with the tongue.” In the Church; rather, in congregation, or assembly. The reference is not to a particular building. The Lord’s Supper was administered frequently (originally every day, Act 2:46), and often in private houses. Divisions; schisms (1Co 1:10, 1Co 1:12). Here, however, he is referring to cliques and quarrels at the love feasts. Partly! cannot think, he says, in a tone of kindness, that these reports are wholly false. There must be some ground for them, even if the facts have been exaggerated.
1Co 11:19
There must be also heresies among you. It results from the inevitable decrees of the Divine providence. “It is impossible but that offences will come” (Luk 17:11). Heresies. The word does not mean “erroneous opinions,” but party factions. Originally the word only means “a choice,” and is not used in a bad sense; but since the opinionativeness of men pushes “a choice” into a “party,” and since it is the invariable tendency of a party to degenerate into a “faction,” the word soon acquires a bad sense (see its use in Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 24:5, Act 24:14 : Act 28:22; Gal 5:20; Tit 3:10; 2Pe 2:1; and Gieseler, ‘Church Hist.,’ 1:149). The mutually railing factions, which in their Church newspapers and elsewhere bandy about their false and rival charges of “heresy,” are illustrating the virulence of the very sin which they are professing to denouncethe sin of factiousness. That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. Similarly St. John (1Jn 2:19) speaks of the aberrations of false teachers as destined to prove that they did not belong to the true Church. Good is educed out of seeming evil (Jas 1:3; 1Pe 1:6, 1Pe 1:7). Approved; standing the test (dokimoi), the opposite of the “reprobate” (adokimoi) of 1Co 9:27.
1Co 11:20
Into one place. There were as yet no churches. The Lord’s Supper was held in private houses. This is not; or perhaps, it is not possible. The Lord’s Supper. The fact that there is no article in the Greek shows the early prevalence of this name for the Eucharist.
1Co 11:21
For in eating; rather, in your eating. Every one. All who have themselves contributed a share to the common meal. Taketh before other his own supper. It is as if they had come together only to eat, not to partake of a holy sacrament. The abuse rose from the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the agape, or love feast, a social gathering of Christian brothers, to which each, as in the Greek eranoi, or “club feasts,” contributed his share. The abuse led to the separation of the agape from the Holy Communion, and ultimately to the entire disuse of the former at religious gatherings. One is hungry. The poor man, who has been unable to contribute to the meal which was intended to be an exhibition of Christian love, looked on with grudging eyes and craving appetite, while the rich had more than enough. Is drunken. “St. Paul draws the picture in strong colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong?” (Meyer). Calvin says, “It is portentous that Satan should have accomplished so much in so short a time.” But the remark was, perhaps, dictated by the wholly mistaken fancy that the Church of the apostolic days was exceptionally pure. On the contrary, many of the heathen converts were unable at once to break the spell of their old habits, and few modern Churches present a spectacle so deplorable as that which we here find in the apostolic Church of Corinth. It is quite obvious that Church discipline must have been almost in abeyance if such grave scandals could exist uncorrected and apparently unreproved.
1Co 11:22
To eat and to drink in. The object of the agape was something higher than the mere gratification of appetite. Though not a sacrament, it was an accompaniment of the Lord’s Supper, and was itself intended to be a symbolical and sacred meal. Despise ye the Church of God! The congregation of your fellow Christians. Shame; rather, disgrace, or put to shame. Them that have not. It would be natural to supply “houses.” But the commentators found it difficult to suppose that any of the Corinthians had not “houses to eat and to drink in.” Hence most commentators give to the phrase its classic sense, in which “those who have” means the rich, and “those who have not,” the poor. They seem, however, to have forgotten that slaves at any rate could hardly be said to have “houses of their own,” and it is certain that not a few of the Corinthian Christians were slaves. I praise you not. As in 1Co 11:17, this is an instance of what is called litotes, a mild expression, suggesting a meaning much stronger than the words themselves. For. He is about to give his reason for thus strongly blaming their irregularities.
1Co 11:23
I have received; rather, I received. He thus refers the revelation to some special time, and this seems to point to the conclusion that he is not referring to any account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which may have been given him by St. Peter or one of the twelve, but to some immediate revelation from Christ. The terms in which he describes the institution of the Eucharist resemble most nearly those of St. Luke, who may very probably have derived his information from St. Paul. This passage should be compared with Mat 26:26-29; Mar 14:22-25; Luk 22:19, Luk 22:20. Was betrayed; rather, was being betrayed.
1Co 11:24
When he had given thanks. The same word is used in St. Luke ), and is the origin of the name Eucharist. St. Mark and perhaps St. Matthew have “having blessed it” (eulogesas). Hence the Eucharist is “this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” Take, eat. These words are omitted by all the best uncials, Which is broken for you. The word “broken” is of doubtful authenticity. Some manuscripts have “given,” and one (D) a milder word for “broken,” as though to avoid any contradiction of Joh 19:36, where, however, the word is “shall not be crushed.” Since the participle is omitted altogether by , A, B, C, there can be no doubt that it is a gloss, and accordingly the Revised Version reads, “which is for you.” The “broken” is nevertheless involved in the “he brake it,” which was a part of the ceremony as originally illustrated. The breaking of the bread ought not, therefore, to be abandoned, as in the case when “wafers” are used. This do. St. Luke also has this clause, which is not found in St. Matthew or St. Mark. The variations show that it was the main fact which was essential, not the exact words spoken. In remembrance of me. The words may also be rendered, for a memorial of me, or to bring me to your remembrance.
1Co 11:25
When he had supped (see Luk 22:27). ‘The cup, like the cos haberachah, was given after the meal was ended. The new testament; rather, the new covenant. The Greek word diatheke is indeed a “will,” or “testament;” but in the LXX., on which the Greek of the apostles was formed, it always stands for berith, covenant. The Jews knew nothing of the practice of “making wills” till they learnt it from the Romans. The only passage of the New Testament (an expression derived from this very passage through the Vulgate) in which diatheke means a “testament” is Heb 9:16, where the writer reverts for a moment only to this signification of the word to introduce a passing illustration. In my blood. The cup was a symbol of the blood of Christ, because the gospel covenant was ratified by the shedding of his blood. The Jews had an absolute horror, at once religious and physical, of tasting blood. This was the reason why the Synod of Jerusalem forbade even to the Gentiles the eating of “things strangled.” If the apostles had not fully understood that our Lord was only using the ordinary language of Semitic imagery, and describing only a horror and repulsion.
1Co 11:26
Ye do show the Lord’s death. The word literally means, ye announce, or proclaim, with reference to the repetition of the actual words used by our Lord. It will be seen that St. Paul does not lend the smallest, sanction to the unfathomable superstition” of a material transubstantiation. Till he come. Accordingly the antiquity and unbroken continuance of this holy rite is one of the many strong external evidences of the truth of the gospel history. The is omitted in the Greek, to indicate the certainty of Christ’s coming. The same Greek idiom is hopefully and tenderly used in Gal 4:19.
1Co 11:27
And drink this cup. This ought to be rendered, or drink this cup. It seems to be one of the extremely few instances in which the translators of our Authorized Version were led by bias into unfaithful rendering. They may have persuaded themselves that the apostle must have meant “and;” but their duty as translators was to translate what he said, not what they supposed him to have meant. What he meant was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or the cup. King James’s translators thought that, by rendering the word or, they might seem to favour communion in one kind only. St. Paul’s meaning was that a man might Lake either element of the sacrament unworthily. Unworthily. We are all “unworthy”” unworthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Christ’s table;” yet not one of us need eat or drink unworthily, that is, in a careless, irreverent, defiant spirit. Guilty of. He draws on himself the penalty due to “crucifying to himself the Son of God afresh,” by “putting him to an open shame.”
1Co 11:28
Let a man examine himself. The verb means “let him test his own feelings;” put them to the proof, to see whether they be sincere or not. He must “wash his hands in innocency,” and so come to God’s altar (see Mat 5:22, Mat 5:23; 2Co 13:5). And so. Soberly, that is; seriously, humbly, and with due reverence.
1Co 11:29
Unworthily. The word is not genuine here, being repeated from 1Co 11:27; it is omitted by , A, B, C. Eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; rather, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself There is reason to believe that the word “damnation” once had a much milder meaning in English than that which it now popularly bears. In King James’s time it probably did not of necessity mean more than “an unfavourable verdict.” Otherwise this would be the most unfortunate mistranslation in the whole Bible. It has probably kept thousands, as it kept Goethe, from Holy Communion. We see from verse 32 that this “judgment” had a purely merciful and disciplinary character. Not discerning; rather, if he discern not, the Lord’s body, Any one who approach? the Lord’s Supper in a spirit of levity or defiance, not discriminating between it and common food, draws on himself, by so eating and drinking, a judgment which is defined in the next verse.
1Co 11:30
Many are weak and sickly among you. St. Paul directly connects this general ill health with the abuse of the Lord’s Supper. It is not impossible that the grave intemperance to which he alludes in 1Co 11:21 may have had its share in this result; but apart from this, there is an undoubted connection between sin and sickness in some, though not, of course, in all cases (Joh 5:14). Many. The word is different from the previous word for “many,” and means a larger number” not a few,” “a considerable number.” Sleep; i.e. are dying.
1Co 11:31, 1Co 11:32
For if we would judge ourselves, etc. These verses are very unfortunately mistranslated in our Authorized Version. They should be rendered (literally), For if we discerned (or, discriminated) ourselves, we should not be undergoing judgment (namely, of physical punishment); but, in being judged by the Lord (by these temporal sufferings), we are under training, that we may not be condemned with the world. The meaning is that “if we” (St. Paul here identities himself with the Corinthians) “were in the habit of self discernmentand in this self discrimination is involved a discrimination between spiritual and common thingswe should nut be undergoing this sign of God’s displeasure; but the fact that his judgments are abroad among us is intended to further our moral education, and to save us from being finally condemned with the world.” Discernment (diakrisis), by saving us from eating unworthily (Psa 32:5; 1Jn 1:9), would have obviated the necessity for penal judgments (krima), but yet the krima is disciplinary (paideuometha, we are being trained as children), to save us from final doom (katakrima). Unworthy eating, then, so far from involving necessary or final “damnation,” is mercifully visited by God with temporal chastisement, to help in the saving of our souls. “Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord” (Psa 94:12; Heb 12:5-12).
1Co 11:33
Wherefore. He now briefly sums up the practical remedies for these discreditable scenes. My brethren. Introduced, as often, into a stern passage to show that the writer is only actuated by the spirit of love. Tarry one for another. This would prevent the scrambling greediness which he has already condemned in 1Co 11:21.
1Co 11:34
And if any man hunger, let him eat at home. A reminder of the sacred character of the agape as a symbol of Christian love and union. Unto condemnation; rather, judgment. In Greek, the same word (krima) is used which in 1Co 11:29 is so unhappily rendered “damnation.” But even “condemnation” is too strong; for that is equivalent to katakrima. The rest; all minor details. It is not improbable that one of these details was the practical dissociation of the agape from the Lord’s Supper altogether. Certainly the custom of uniting the two seems to have disappeared by the close of the first century. When I come; rather, whenever. The Greek phrase ( ) implies uncertainty. The apostle’s plans for visiting Corinth immediately had been materially disturbed by the unfavourable tidings as to the conditions of the Church.
HOMILETICS
1Co 11:1, 1Co 11:2
Imitation and commendation.
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am or Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” In these words we have
I. THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THE CHARACTERS OF MOST MEN ARE FORMED. “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Men are imitative beings, and, from a law of their nature, those whom they most admire and with whom they most associate, they become like in spirit and in character. The request of Paul here, at first sight, seems somewhat arrogant: “Be ye followers of me.” No man has a right to make such an unqualified claim on another. Hence Paul puts the limitation. “Even as I also am of Christ.” The apostle undoubtedly refers to the preceding verses, m which he speaks of himself as not seeking his own pleasure or profit, but that of others. This Christ did. We are told that he “pleased not himself.” He means to say, “Be like me in this respect, as I in this respect resemble Christ.” Here is the principle that should regulate our imitation of men; imitate them just so far as they resemble Christ. Children should not imitate their parents, pupils should not imitate their teachers, congregations should not imitate their ministers, only so far as they resemble Christ.
II. A COMMENDATION OF MERIT WHICH MANY ARE RELUCTANT TO RENDER. “Now I raise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as delivered them to you.” In some things, if not in all, some of the Corinthian Christians pleased Paul, did what he considered rightthey remembered him, and practically attended to his directions. There was much in them with which he could find fault, and did find fault, but so far as they did the proper thing he praises them. To render generously credit where credit is due is the characteristic of a great soul, but one which others have not. I take it to be a duty to render credit where credit is due; but how seldom is this attended to I In domestic matters how it is neglected! A wife will go on loyally and lovingly attending to the wants and wishes of her husband, and perhaps not from one year to another does she receive from him one word of hearty commendation. So with servants and masters: the employer, when he has paid the stipulated stipend to the most useful of his employes, feels he has done his duty, and gives not a word of commendation. So with ministers and their congregations. How many ministers are there in every Church, who give the best fruits of their cultivated minds, and, by their sweating brain and agonizing prayers, produce discourses every week admirably suited to serve the highest interests of their congregations; and yet seldom receive one generous word of hearty commendation for all their toils] Miserable criticisms they will get in abundance, but nothing else. Verily, I believe that no social service is more important, and at the same time more neglected, than the yielding of a generous commendation to the truly commendable.
1Co 11:3-16
The man and the woman.
“But I would have you know,” etc. Although there are some things in these verses that perhaps no one can rightly interpret, and that may have been written as personal opinion rather than as Divine inspiration, there are two or three points in relation to man and woman interesting and noteworthy.
I. THERE IS BETWEEN THEM A SUBORDINATION IN NATURAL RELATIONSHIP. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” The principle of subordination, it would seem, prevails throughout the spiritual universe; one rising above another in regular gradation up to God himself. God is over Christ, Christ is over man, man is over woman. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” The ideal women and the ideal men are here, I presume, meant. It is because the man is supposed to have more brain and soul than the woman that he is the master; but in casesand they are not fewwhere the woman is the greater, the greater in intellect, heart, and all moral nobleness, she, without her intention or even wish, will necessarily be the head. In the Marriage Service, the woman at the altar is called upon solemnly to vow to obey her husband. I confess I have often been struck at the incongruity of this, when I have seen a little-chested, small-brained man standing by the side of a woman with a majestic brow and a grand physique, when she is called upon to vow obedience to such a man.
II. THERE IS BETWEEN THEM AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION IN RELIGIOUS SERVICES. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head,” etc. It is here implied that both the man and the woman are to prophesy, teach, and pray; not one instead of the other, but each independently. However closely related the man and the wife may be, however dependent one is on the other, neither can perform the spiritual and religious obligations of the other. There is no sharing of duty here, no shifting of personal obligation; each must stand alone before God.
III. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IN OUTWARD ASPECT. There are two points here concerning the difference.
1. A difference in the way in which they are to appear in public. The man is to appear with an uncovered head, the woman with a covered head. “If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head.” The woman’s head is to be covered with her hair or a veil, or both. Who shall divine the meaning of the tenth verse?”For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” To me this is utterly incomprehensible. Probably there were at Corinth women who shaved off their hair in order to obliterate the distinction of sex: shameless women.
2. This difference is adventitious rather than natural. Is there any reason in nature why a man’s head should be uncovered and a woman’s covered; why one should wear long hair and the other short? No such thing seems reasonable; the uncivilized tribes know nothing of it. The reason can only be traced to custom. And is not custom second nature? “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” But original nature does not seem to teach us that, but custom and conventional propriety. Hence Paul says, “If any may seem to be contentious, we have no such custom;” by which he means, I understand, that, whoever may contend to the contrary, such a customas that woman should pray and preach with uncovered headswas not known by Paul in other Churches, and that the Church at Corinth should not allow it.
1Co 11:17-22
Religious institutions: their abuse.
“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not,” etc. Three practical truths may be fairly deduced from this paragraph.
I. THAT ATTENDANCE ON THE INSTITUTIONS OF RELIGION MAY PROVE PERNICIOUS RATHER TITAN BENEFICIAL. “Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” The apostle in this verse censures the Corinthians that they came together to the Lord’s Supper, and were made “worse” rather than “better.” Men cannot be made religious; an irresistible moral force is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility in fact. Hence it comes to pass that the highest redemptive forces on man often conduce to his ruin. The gospel proves in the case of all hearers either the “savour of life unto life, or of death unto death.” Pharaoh’s heart was hardened under the ministry of Moses, and the hearts of the men of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were hardened under the ministry of Christ.
II. THAT ASSEMBLING TOGETHER FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY UNITY OF SOUL. “For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” The factious and schismatic spirit seems to have existed in the same Church and even at the Lord’s table. It does not follow that, because people are brought together in the same religious assembly or Church, that they are united together in spirit. Two people may sit in the same pew, hear the same discourse, sing the same hymns, partake of the same bread and wine, and yet in soul be as remote from one another as the poles. No real spiritual unity can exist where there is not a supreme affection for the same being. Christ is the only uniting Centre of souls.
III. THAT THE VERY BEST INSTITUTIONS ON EARTH ARE OFTEN SADLY PERVERTED BY MEN. For many reasons the Lord’s Supper may be regarded as one of the best ordinances. But see how it was now perverted. It was made the means of gluttony and drunkenness; men used it as a common feast. “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.” Are not men constantly perverting Divine institutions, Churches, Bibles, the Christian ministry, etc.?
1Co 11:23-34
The Lord’s Supper.
“For I have received,” etc. These verses give an account of what is called the Lord’s Supper. This supper was instituted by Christ himself the night in which he was betrayed, while he was observing the Passover with his disciples. On that night he virtually directed the minds of men from all Jewish ritualism and centred them on himself. “Do this in remembrance of me.” True religion now has to do with a Person, and that Person is Christ. In reading the words of the apostle here, there are four things which strike us with amazement.
I. THAT ANY SHOULD DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF CHRISTIANITY. Here is an institution that was started the night previous to our Saviour’s crucifixion, which was attended to by the Church at Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost, celebrated by various other apostolic Churches as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and which Paul says here he “received from the Lord.” From the apostolic age down to this hour, through eighteen long centuries, it has been attended to by all the branches of the true Church. Since its origin hundreds of generations have passed away, many systems have risen and disappeared, nations have been organized, flourished, and broken up; but this ordinance continues; what for? To commemorate the great central fact of the gospel, viz. that Christ died. Is there any other fact in history sustained by evidence half so powerful as this?
II. THAT ANY SHOULD MISINTERPRET THE ORDINANCE. Here we are distinctly told that it is to “show the Lord’s death.” No language can more clearly show that it is purely commemorative. There are three abuses of this institution.
1. The gustatory. Some of the Corinthians thus used it. They introduced a love feast to immediately precede it, probably because a Jewish feast preceded its first celebration. This led to gluttony and other evils. The members of the Corinthian Church were converts from heathenism, and they had been accustomed in their heathen festivals to give way to gluttony and intemperance, Many of them, from the force of old habits, were tempted to use the Lord’s Supper in this way.
2. The superstitious. There are some who believe that, after the words of consecration are pronounced by the priest over these elements, the elements become literally the “body and blood of the Lord.” This is transubstantiation. Others who would not go thus far still superstitiously regard the ordinance as a mystic medium through which grace is poured into the soul of the recipient. Fearful abuse this!
3. The formalistic. There are those who partake of the bread and wine merely as a matter of form and ceremony. We evangelical Christians are not guilty of the first nor of the second, but we may be of the third. The text tells us it is to “show” or to teach; it is an educational ordinance.
III. THAT ANY SHOULD SAY THE INSTITUTION IS NOT PERMANENT IN ITS OBLIGATION. The apostle tells us distinctly that it was to “show the Lord’s death till he come.” When will that be? Not just yet. The human world seems to be only in its infancy, and Christianity only just beginning its work. The billows of a thousand ages may break on our shore before he comes. On to that distant point the obligation is binding. There are some professing Christians who think themselves too spiritual to observe such an ordinance. These very spiritual ones, to be consistent, should avoid all scientific studies, for science has to do with material forms; its principles are all embodied, are made palpable to the eye and ear. They should also avoid all Biblical studies, for Biblical truths are for the most part embodied in material facts and forms. Christ himself was “flesh and blood.”
IV. THAT ANY ACQUAINTED WITH THE BIOGRAPHY OF CHRIST SHOULD NEGLECT IT. Consider:
1. That it is to commemorate the world’s greatest Benefactor. It is to keep Christ in the memory of man. Here is a Benefactor that has:
(1) Served the world in the highest way. He has delivered it from sin and death.
(2) Served it by the most unparalleled sacrifice. He sacrificed his life to the work.
(3) Served it with the most disinterested love.
2. That it is enjoined by the world’s greatest Benefactor. He himself has enjoined it: “Do this in remembrance of me.”
HOMILIES BY C. LIMPSCOMB
1Co 11:1-16
Apostolic injunctions with regard to Church services.
Though the Corinthians deserved blame in some things, they were entitled to praise in that they had generally observed St. Paul’s directions. Despite their departure from certain of his instructions, he could say, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ;” by which he recognized that they had discernment enough to see the Lord Jesus in his personal and official character, and a sufficient brotherly sympathy to imitate his example. His commendation is hearty: “Ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” With this preface, short but conciliatory, he takes up his first topic, viz. the headship of man in the natural and spiritual order, established by Providence and maintained by the Spirit in the Church. In his writings, natural facts are ever reappearing in new and diviner connections, as if they had undergone a silent and wonderful transfiguration, and had been glorified in light and beauty. Instinct had always acknowledged the subordination of woman to man, nor, indeed, is the instinct of sex conceivable in the absence of this element in its nature. But St. Paul is careful to lay his doctrinal foundation on the fact “that the head of every man is Christ,” assured that the ultimate strength of all truth is in its spirituality. Be it a law, a principle, a motive, an end, “other foundation can no man lay.” Critics may entertain widely different estimates of the man, may be as broadly separated as M. Renan and Dr. Farrar, and yet none can deny that St. Paul had this incomparable advantage, namely, a great centre, from which he saw all objects that engaged his attention. His method is fully brought out in the third verse: the head of the man is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; the head of Christ is Goda statement clear, compact, exhaustive. One moment he is dealing with the relationship between man and woman: Eden rises to his view, the sleeping Adam wakening to find Eve at his side, “the woman of the man,” and “the glory of the man;” and the next moment he is contemplating the Trinity in its economic and immanent relations. Yet from this sublime height of Christ’s exaltation at the right hand of the Father there is no break when he descends to discuss woman’s behaviour in Church assemblies. The principle involved keeps him on ground far above dress and decorum as such, and, indeed, he will not touch the matter at all until he has set forth the dignity of its associations. Let us be careful, then, lest we err by supposing that St. Paul looked upon dress and decorum, in this instance, as simply conventionalities based on whims of taste and caprices of opinion. Conventionalities they were in a certain sense, but conventionalities to be respected and observed. In brief, they were customs that had a moral meaning. If a woman appeared in public unveiled, she was deemed immodest. To wear a veil was a sign of womanly delicacy, and hence, if she went to a public assembly without her veil, she acted shamelessly. To be consistent, argues St. Paul, “let her also be shorn,” and so assume the mark of a disreputable woman. A woman acting in this way sets public opinion at defiance; and as public opinion in many things is public conscience, and as such the aggregated moral feeling of a community, no woman could do this thing and not shock all right sensibility. Besides, the veil is a sign of subordination and dependence. Refusing to use this covering of the head was a mark of insubordination and independence. A symbol it was, but to cast off the symbol was to repudiate the thing signified. This was not all. If uncomely, it was also unnatural; “for her hair is given her for a covering.” The argument has one passage (1Co 11:10) which is confessedly difficult to understand, but this does not detract an iota from the general directness and force. St. Paul’s purpose is unmistakableto set forth the order of God’s economy in the relative positions of man and woman to each other, and the entire unity of their relation to God in Christ. Man’s authority is guarded against all excess, and woman’s dependence is beautified by delicacy, retiringness, and trustful love. So high an estimate is put on her character and attitude, that even her personal appearance, as to attire and demeanour, is a matter of moment, involving the honour and happiness of her husband, and intimately blended with the conservatism of society and the influence of the Church. Nor is the apostle’s manner of appeal to be overlooked. A great truth may be conveyed to the mind, while nevertheless the mode of its communication, left to haphazard impulse, or, forsooth, in downright contempt of the mind’s laws, may work an amount of harm for which the truth itself is no compensation. Rest assured that so discerning a man as St. Paul, whose eye took its seeing from sensibility no less than from reason, would not violate manner when he was discussing the worth of manners. Rest assured, too, that he would seek a very firm basis for the logic of his judgment. That such was the fact, “Judge in yourselves” demonstrates. At the very moment that he distinctly recognizes public opinion as public conscience, and counsels deference to its dicta as divinely authoritative, he yet addresses human intuitions. “There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” No other truth save this could have availed Elihu when he came to the perplexed Job and his well meaning but very mistaken friends, and, as a mediator, prepared the way to close the controversy. No other truth than the “spirit in man” and its “inspiration of the Almighty” can qualify any man to mediate where intellectual conflicts interblend with the moral and spiritual instincts. Inspiration in its highest form makes no war on inspiration in its lower form, since the inspiration that gives original truth, and that openness and sympathy which receive it, are both from God. St. Paul preached a gospel that commended itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God, and he acted in the same frame of mind when he treated of decorum and showed wherein manliness and womanliness consisted. Customs and habits vary; he goes back to the sense of custom and habit rermanent in the soul. He is not afraid of human instincts. Although he knows how they miss their way and sadly blunder in working out themselves through the mists and clouds of the intellect, yet trust them he will, nor can he suffer others to disparage their office. This inward consciousness the Holy Spirit acknowledges, and to it he brings light and warmth, in order that the intuitive judgment may be supplied with the conditions of its best activity. It is, indeed, a part of our fallen nature, but, notwithstanding that, it is a Divine remnant, and only awaits God’s voice to utter its response. The dark lumps of coal when dug from the earth give no sign of the sunbeams hidden in them, but, on being ignited, they attest their origin. Therefore, argues the apostle, “judge in yourselves,” since there is no knowledge of God unaccompanied by a knowledge of ourselves. Only let your judgment be in the Lord; for only in him can man and woman be seen in the perfection of their mutuality. After all, then, may we not say, in view of this argument no less than of all his methods of thinking, that St. Paul is peculiar among the apostles by his insight into the natural economy of the universe, the apostle of nature as well as of grace, because each was a portion of the same vast scheme of Providence? According to his view, the human race was in Christ from the beginning, and Adam’s federal headship took its whole meaning from the pre-existence of Christ, as the Creator of man.L.
1Co 11:17-34
Special consideration of the Lord’s Supper; uses of self judgment.
And what is St. Paul’s mood of mind now? “I declare unto you” (command you), and I praise you not, since I hear of “divisions” among you, and “I partly believe it.” “Heresies [sects] must be among you,” for in the present state of our nature there is no way to develop the good without the evil manifesting itself. The evil has its uses; the evil is not a cause but an occasion of good; the evil is overruled by the Holy Ghost and turned to the advantage of the Church; the evil does not change its character and become a good, but is instrumentally employed to, subserve other and very different purposes than itself contemplates. Thereby the genuine advocates of truth are made to appear, and truth itself is brought out in a more luminous aspect. The standpoint is that God is not only the Author of the institutions of the Church, but their Divine Guardian. The institutions are not left to themselves, nor are circumstances outside of them surrendered to their own operation, but God himself is in the workmanship of his hands, and presides over all external things, so that his providences are in behalf of a providence which has a supreme object and end. Now, the Lord’s Supper is a holy sacrament, and St. Paul approaches the discussion of it in a very marked way. We understand him to claim a direct revelation from the Lord Jesus on this subject, and, by virtue thereof, to “declare,” or command, as he states in the seventeenth verse. Truth is truth, whether mediately or immediately received. Yet we do know that there are circumstances under which truth affects us in a manner singularly personal. Only one such scene as that “near Damascus” is reported in the New Testament, and only one such unique individuality as that of St. Paul is recorded for our instruction. So that we are moving in the line of all the precedents of his career when we suppose that this account of the supper was communicated directly by the Lord Jesus to the apostle of the Gentiles. In a previous discussion (1Co 10:1-33.) he had referred to a specific aspect of the supper as a communion or participation. Beyond this the argument then in hand did not require him to go. Now, however, he is full and explicit as to detailsthe time when it was instituted, the circumstances, the manner of the Lord Jesus, the formula employed; so that nothing might escape observation, but the utmost depth and solemnity of impression be secured. “In remembrance of me” is the heart of the holy ordinancethe “remembrance” of the broken body and the shed bloodthe penalty of the violated Law endured, satisfaction offered to the Lawgiver, the sense of justice met in the human heart, the love of God expressing itself as the grace of God, and the means therewith provided for the sense of God’s grace to be awakened and developed in the human heart. Memory is the power in man this holy institution addresses. “In remembrance of me.” Now, looking at memory in its position among the mental faculties, we may perchance get some light on the words just quoted. Memory is a very early and energetic activity of the mind. It begins our development and is the chief stimulant of progressive development. It is the spinal column of the faculties. Sensation, per caption, imagination, associative and suggestive functions, reasoning and conclusions reached, are all very intimately identified with its operations. Memory is the first of the intellectual powers to attain perfection, as judgment is the last, and this law of rapid maturity would seem to indicate, by its exceptional character, that memory sustains a very near relation to the growth of our moral nature. It is clear that the Lord Jesus adopted the method of storing facts in the minds of the twelve apostles, and leaving them in latency, the truths in these facts being reserved for subsequent realization. And it is equally certain that one of the chief offices of the Holy Ghost, as the Executive of the Father and the Son, was “to bring all things” to their “remembrance.” Naturally, indeed, a past was formed in the memories of the twelve, but it was made a spiritual past by the Divine agency of the Spirit as a Remembrancer. Furthermore, the apostles were to be witnesses, or testifiers: “Ye also shall bear witness;” but the importance of the Spirit as a Remembrancer exhibits itself in this, that, out of the miscellaneous mass of facts deposited in the memories of the twelve, selection was to be made, for, according to the fourth Gospel, there were “many other things which Jesus did” that were not “written,” while those “written” were such as were adapted to Christian faith. It seems, then, that memory was inspired by the Holy Ghost in accordance with the principle contained in the words, “These are written”only these”that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his Name.” Aside, however, from the apostles, is there not a principle here which is recognized by the Spirit in all its gracious administrations? Memory is ordinarily the starting point in religious life when that life becomes positive and decided. It enters largely into conviction for sin and into repentance. Further back than recollection extends, impressions of God’s goodness and the need of Christ for pardon and peace were made on the soul, and there they lay like old deposits in the strata of the globe, till the Holy Ghost uncovered them to our consciousness, God keeps for us his witness in this faithful register of the past. Without being Platonists on the subject of reminiscence, or accepting all that Wordsworth teaches in the grand ‘Ode on Intimations of Immortality from Early Recollections of Childhood,’ we may well believe that memory is the master organ through which grace is imparted to men. A simple hymn of Dr. Watts’s or Mrs. Barbauld’s learned in childhood; the little prayer, “Now I lay me down to sleep;” and most of all, “Our Father which art in heaven,” taught by a mother’s lips; our first sight of death; our first walk in a graveyard;come back to us in after years, and suddenly the hard grip of the world on our hearts is relaxed, and the “little child is set in the midst” of life’s scenes, and we know that Jesus has set it there for our restoration to its long lost image. No wonder, then, that it should have pleased the Lord Jesus to make the Holy Supper an institution appealing to memory. There, in that upper room, a few hours on earth remaining to him, the past three years with his disciples were gathered in a few most solemn moments. The righteousness of his perfect life of obedience, all he had taught and done and suffered, had come into this final interview, and were going forward into his expiatory death. The motive and blessedness of the act in the celebration of the Eucharist are drawn from “In remembrance of me.” Christ in all his fulness, Christ in his one personality as Son of God and Son of man, Christ in the entire compass of mediation, is in this “me.” At the same time, the act shows forth the “Lord’s death till he come,” and accordingly is prospective. As a natural fact, memory is the great feeder of the imagination, and is ever exciting it to picture the future. Except for memory, the imagination could not exist, or, if existing, would be a very imperfect because torpid faculty. As a religious organ, the medium as we have seen of the Spirit, the memory stimulates the imagination and qualifies it to “show the Lord’s death till he come.” St. Paul mentions first the “remembrance” in connection with the broken body and again with the blood, and then comes the idea of showing, or proclaiming. Of course, the supper had to be a memorial before it could be an anticipation, but the order involves more than chronological sequence. It is an inner order of ideas, and it states, we think, with force and precision the relativity of these ideas. If this analysis be correct, then the determinative idea in the institution is its memorial character (remembrance), and by this idea we are to judge its nature and influence. Yet not alone by this abstractly viewed, since memory is supplemented by imagination and its vivid sense of futurity. From this point of view we understand why St. Paul should protest so strongly against the shocking abuse of the Lord’s Supper among the Corinthians. With this feast, instituted and consecrated by Christ himself, its purpose being to bring him back into their midst and to enable them to realize his coming again, the two ideas being closely joined,with this tender remembrance and expectation they had associated sensual pleasures, eating and drinking to excess, separating themselves into classes, despising the Church of God, and bringing condemnation upon themselves. What of Christ was in all this? Instead of memories of his sacrificial death, instead of their personal recollections of his providence and grace in their behalf, instead of touching and humbling recallings of how he had dealt with each of them, what utter forgetfulness, what a closing up of every avenue of the past opening into the present, and what a concentration in the animal gratifications of the hour! Instead of anticipation and joyous hope, looking to the Lord’s coming, what blindness to all but the transient festivities of the carnal senses! On this account (therefore) “many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” The reference is not to the weakness and sickliness that follow the violations of natural laws, nor is the sleep the falling asleep in Jesus, but a punishment sent from God and executed under the directive agency of providence. Just in proportion as a man realizes Christ in the past will he realize him in the future. Just in the degree that he loses him from the past of his own heart, in that same degree will he vacate the future of his glorious image. The present is all, and it is all of the senses. And when God arises to judgment, as in the case of the Corinthians, what a sudden intensity surcharges the present, the blessedness of the old yesterdays and the awaiting tomorrows all extinguished, and the immediate moments, once so fugitive and so eager to glorify themselves by larger additions, lingering now and lengthening in the keener consciousness of pain and remorseful anguish! “Judge yourselves,” O Corinthians! Examine your hearts; return to your memories and expectations; go to the cross of Christ and learn the lesson of its self sacrifice; condemn and punish yourselves for the guilty past; and make this discipline of self a chastening for future well being. But let no true and humble soul be tortured by the thought of eating and drinking “unworthily,” and thereby incurring “condemnation.” Whoever comes to the Lord’s Supper after a close self examination aided by the Spirit, and brings to it a meek and trustful mind; whoever repairs to it after he has communed with his memories of Christ’s goodness to him,will be a worthy participant in the sacred rite, and may surely expect the seal of God’s approbation. A Christian child may understand the essential idea and spirit of the institution. And yet it has connections that transcend all thought, and the soul of every devout communicant welcomes the mysterious glory with which it is invested. Charles Wesley sings for every believer when he says
“His presence makes the feast,
And now our bosoms feel
The glory not to be expressed,
The joy unspeakable.”
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
1Co 11:1
Imitation.
The personal feelings of the apostle come out in these Epistles to the Corinthians perhaps more than in any other of his writings. This may well have been because at Corinth his authority was questioned, and other teachers were by some exalted as his rivals or superiors. That he should resent such treatment from those who were under peculiar obligations to him we can well understand; and it is very natural that he should be led all the more boldly to vindicate his apostolic character and to assert his apostolic authority. There is self confidence of a just and warrantable kind in the admonition and challenge of this language: “Be ye imitators of me.”
I. THE PRINCIPLE TO WHICH THE APOSTLE HERE APPEALSIMITATION.
1. It is a principle natural to all mankind. Most conspicuous is it in the case of children and young people, and in the case of the uncivilized and untutored, who cannot easily acquire knowledge through symbols, but who learn arts with great facility through imitation.
2. Its range of operation is as extensive as the nature of man. We trace it in exercise in the bodily life, for multitudes of acts and of arts are acquired by those who carefully copy the proceedings of others. We trace it in the mental life: ways of thinking, of regarding life generally and one’s fellow men in particular, moral judgments and habits,all are owing largely to imitation.
3. It is of set purpose employed in all education; for the discipline and culture of the young is almost dependent upon the operation of this interesting and most powerful principle of human nature.
II. THE GREAT AND GENERAL USE WHICH CHRISTIANITY MAKES OF THIS PRINCIPLE.
1. In the Holy Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, men are summoned to be followers, imitators of God, in all his moral perfections. It is represented that the excellences which are supreme and glorious in him may inspire us with the desire and resolve to copy and to acquire them in our measure for ourselves.
2. Jesus Christ is set before us as the especial Object of our reverence, as the highest Model for us to study and to imitate. It is possible that, through our reverence for him as our Divine Saviour, we may lose sight of the fact that he is also our human Exemplar. We are summoned to grow up in all things unto him.
3. Yet this grace of imitation is to be ours, through our response to the love of Jesus and our participation in the Spirit of Jesus. It is not a mechanical, but a spiritual, intelligent, living process. We must love with the love of admiration, sympathy, congeniality, in order that we may be changed into the same image.
III. THE SPECIAL APPLICATION PAUL MAKES OF THIS PRINCIPLE.
1. Religion permits us to study human models of excellence and to aim at conformity with such. Thus the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews sets before his readers illustrious examples of faith, as a practical and powerful principle governing and inspiring human nature and life. And here Paul requires of the Corinthians that they should be imitators of him. How many Christians in all ages have been fired with this noble ambition! And how wonderfully has it proved for the advantage of the Church and of the world that it has been so!
2. The limitation set to this principle: “Even as I also am of Christ.” This was an acknowledgment of the Lord’s supremacy; in copying Paul, the Corinthians were only to be copying Christ, as it were, at one remove.
3. The extent to which this imitation was designed to go. Surely they might, and we may, be imitators of the apostle, in his love to Christ, in his devotion to Christ’s cause, in his affliction for Christ’s people, in his obedience to Christ’s laws, in his willingness to suffer for Christ’s sake, in his wise forbearance with the infirmities of the brethren, and in his overflowing and very practical brotherly kindness and charity. In these respects it is not possible to follow Paul without at the same time following Christ.T.
1Co 11:2
Apostolic authority and traditions.
In using language so imperious to all seeming as this is, St. Paul spake as an apostle, i.e. as one sent and commissioned by the Divine Head and Ruler of the Church. That he should use such language at all is very instructive and significant to all who read the Epistles and desire to receive them in the appropriate and intended spirit.
I. APOSTOLIC INDIVIDUALITY AND AUTHORITY ASSERTED, “That ye remember me.” What an assumption is here of importance and peculiar authority! It was Paul’s great concern that his converts should remember Christ: does he here set himself up as a rival of the Lord? By no means. But he claims to be the minister, the ambassador of Christ to the Churches, whose words are to be received as the words of one speaking by the Spirit of Christ. Readers of the New Testament are by such language reminded that the inspired writers, through their personal, intimate, official relation to Christ, have a claim upon the respectful attention and the cordial faith of those who profess to be Christ’s.
II. THE OBSERVANCE OF INSPIRED TRADITIONS ENJOINED. In Christianity there is an element of law and an element of liberty; and these two elements are in harmony each with the other, the two being necessary in order to the completeness of the dispensation In some passages even of this Epistle stress is laid upon freedom; whilst in this verse stress is laid upon subjection. Traditions, communications, of a religious kind had been committed by the apostle to these Corinthians. What were these?
1. Traditions of doctrine. It was from Paul’s lips that many of them had first heard the gospel; to him all were indebted for the systematic exposition of its glorious truths.
2. Traditions of precept and conduct. This letter is itself full of such; for Paul combined, in a remarkable and admirable manner, the functions of the teacher of truth and those of the ethical instructor.
3. Traditions of discipline. As soon as societies were formed, it became necessary to draw up and promulgate regulations for the internal government and ordering of such societies. They naturally looked to inspired apostles for directions how to proceed, and they did not look in vain. The context shows us how dependent the first Churches were upon apostolic guidance for the maintenance of their order and the administration of their offices and affairs.
III. SUBJECTION TO APOSTOLICAL DIRECTIONS COMMENDED. We gain here an insight into the very mixed character of the members of the primitive Churches. Much in their conduct is in this very Epistle censured with something like severity; yet praise is not withheld where praise is due. There is a kind of praise which is dangerous, which involves insincerity on the part of those who offer, and fosters pride on the part of those who receive it. Yet the general fault amongst men and amongst Christians is unduly to withhold praise. Such commendation as this of the apostle could not but encourage and stimulate to a cheerful and resolute obedience to the injunctions of apostolic and Divine authority.T.
1Co 11:3
The hierarchy.
Before entering upon particular counsels with regard to the attire of the two sexes respectively in the Christian assemblies, St. Paul lays down a great general principle, from which, rather than from custom or from experience, he deduces the special duties devolving upon the members of Christ’s Church. The case upon which he was consulted, and upon which he gave his advice, has lost all practical interest, and is to us merely an antiquarian curiosity; but the great principle propounded in connection with it holds good for all time.
I. THE APPOINTED SUBORDINATION OF WOMAN TO MAN. There is a sense in which there is equality between the sexes. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. The gospel is intended for and is offered to both men and women. Both are equally dear to him who died for all. As in Jesus’ earthly ministry he wrought cures and expelled demons for the relief of women, and as he chose certain women as his personal friends, and as he willingly accepted the affectionate and generous ministration of other women; so in the dispensation of the Spirit he numbers women amongst his people, and honours them by promoting them to his service. There is, so to speak, spiritual equality. But domestic and social equality is quite another thing. In the household and in the congregation there must be subjection and submission. “Order is Heaven’s first law.” “The head of the woman is the man.” And this notwithstanding that many men are base and unworthy of their position and calling; notwithstanding that many women are not only pure, but noble and well fitted for command.
II. THE ARCHETYPE IN SPIRITUAL AND HEAVENLY RELATIONS TO WHICH THIS ORDER CONFORMS.
1. Man is not supreme, though invested with a limited authority. “The head of every man is Christ.” He, the Son of man, has the primacy over this humanity. In wisdom and in righteousness, in power and in grace, the Lord Jesus is superior and supreme. The law is revealed in him and administered by him. Every man is morally bound to subjection and submission to the Divine Man. And he is Head over all things to his Church. This is the truth, the ideal, the purpose of eternal wisdom; though, alas! often misunderstood, or forgotten, or denied by men.
2. Even in the Godhead there is an official subordination of the Son to the Father; “the head of Christ is God.” This language takes us into the region of heavenly things, of Divine mysteries. But it reveals to us the fact that the universe is one great hierarchy, of which not every member is mentioned here, only certain leading dominant notes being successively sounded in the celestial scale. Men may suppose that order and subordination in human society, civil and ecclesiastical, are merely expedients for peace and quietness. But it is not so; there is Divine archetype to which human relationships and affairs conform. Let there be nonconformity to this, and there is discord breaking in upon the harmonious minstrelsy of the spiritual universe. Let there be conformity, and the sweet concert proves that earth is in tune with heaven.T.
1Co 11:7
Man the image and glory of God.
The Bible is the book of paradoxes; and, if it were not, it would not correspond with the facts of human nature and history. Nowhere do we find such an exposure of human sin and such denunciations of human guilt as in the Scriptures. And, on the other hand, nowhere do we meet with such majestic representations of man’s grandeur and dignity. There is a depth in this simple but inspiring language which we cannot fathom; but we may remark some particulars in which it is verified by facts.
I. MAN IS GOD‘S IMAGE AND GLORY IN HIS FORM AND FEATURES. This seems to be asserted in this passage. Why must not man’s head be veiled when in the sacred assembly he draws near to the Father of spirits, the Lord of the universe? Because “he is the image and glory of God.” This does not imply that the Divine Being possesses a body as man does. No such anthropomorphism is suggested in the text. But so far as matter can be moulded into a form which shadows forth the Divine majesty, it has been so fashioned in the construction of the human frame and features. High thoughts, noble impulses, pure desires, tender sympathy, thesethe glory of humanityare written upon the countenance of man.
II. IN HIS INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL ENDOWMENTS. This is probably what is meant by the declaration in Genesis that God made man in his own image. In his capacity to apprehend truth, in his recognition of moral excellence, in his power of will, man resembles his Maker. And there is no way by which we can arrive at a knowledge of God in his higher attributes other than by the aid of the nature with which he has endowed us, and which he has declared to be akin to his own.
III. IN HIS POSITION OF SUBORDINATE RULE OVER THE CREATION. The psalmist asserts that God crowned man with glory and honour, and set him over the works of his hands, putting all things under his control. Thus did the Lord of all delegate to his vicegerent an authority resembling his own.
IV. IN THE BROTHERHOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The assumption of human nature by the eternal Word was only possible because man was originally made in the Divine image. It is wonderful to find language so similar used concerning man and concerning the Son of God, who is described as “the emanation from the Father’s glory, and the very image of his substance.” The Incarnation seems a necessity even to explain the nature of man; it casts a halo of glory and radiance around the human form, the human destiny. For the Incarnation was the condition, not only of a Divine manifestation, but of the redemption of humanity; and Christ’s purpose was to bring many sons unto glory.
V. IN HIS FUTURE OF ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. All things which show forth God’s glory are passing and perishing. Man alone of all that is earthly is appointed for immortality. The mirror that reflects so bright a light shall never be broken; the glory which man receives from heaven and returns to heaven shall never fade.T.
1Co 11:20
“The Lord’s Supper.”
The abuses and disorders which prevailed in the Corinthian Church served as an occasion for an apostolic exhibition and inculcation of a more excellent way. Incidentally, we are indebted to them for the account given by the apostle of the original institution, and for instructions as to the proper observance of the ordinance. The designation here applied to the distinctive observance of the Christian Church is one of beautiful simplicity, and suggests an exposition of the acknowledged nature and benefit of the ordinance.
I. THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD‘S SURFER.
1. It is an ordinance of Christ, and its observance is consequently an act of obedience on the part of his people. It is not a service of man’s device; the Lord himself has said, “Do this.”
2. It is a tradition of apostolic times. Paul professed to have “received from the Lord that which he delivered.” The sacrament was accordingly celebrated within a generation of Christ’s own lifetime, and has been celebrated in unbroken continuity from that time to our own.
3. It was in the first century a regular observance of the Christian societies. This is apparent from the way in which it is mentioned in this Epistle; it is treated as something actually existing, although in some cases misunderstood and abused. And as Paul writes, “As oft as ye,” etc., it is presumed that the observance took place regularly and frequently.
II. THE DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD‘S SUPPER.
1. It is a memorial of Christ, and especially of his death. He himself appointed that it should be observed “in remembrance of” himself and of his sufferings whose body was broken and whose blood was shed for his people.
2. It is a Eucharist, or service of thanksgiving. The Institutor of the ordinance “gave thanks,” or “blessed,” probably upon the suggestion of the cup of which the Jews partook during the Paschal meal. The sacrament is a reminder of all the benefits which we have received from God, and especially of the “unspeakable gift.”
3. It is a symbol and means of spiritual nourishment. Spiritually, the communicants eat the body and drink the blood of their Saviour, partaking and feeding upon Christ by faith. The real presence of the Redeemer is experienced in the heart of the faithful recipient.
4. It is a bond of fellowship and brotherhood. Hence called a communion, or the communion, as the appointed means and manifestation of a true spiritual unity. The brethren of the family are seated at one table, they join in one meal or sacred feast, they eat of one loaf and drink of one cup.
III. THE SPIRITUAL PROFIT OF THE LORD‘S SUPPER.
1. It is a divinely appointed means of increased and more vivid fellowship with the unseen Redeemer, who in this service draws near to those who draw near to him.
2. It is a profession of faith, attachment, and loyalty, the admitted and enjoined method of declaring aport which side we stand in the moral conflict which rages, under whose banner we have enlisted, and whom we purpose loyally to serve.
3. It is a testimony to the unbelieving world around. The death of Christ is proclaimed, not only to those within, but to those without. More effectively than by words, men are reminded that the grace of God and the salvation of Christ have come very nigh unto them.T.
1Co 11:26
The Church’s proclamation.
What so fitted to rebuke those who profaned the Supper of the Lord, what so fitted to arouse them to a sense of their high calling, as a solemn declaration like this? The noisy, greedy, quarrelsome gatherings which seem at Corinth to have been associated with the professed observance of one of the highest mysteries of the Christian faith, naturally awakened the indignation and the reproaches of the apostle. Recalling them to a sense of the dignity of their position as witnesses to God in an ignorant and sinful world, the apostle summons the Corinthian Christians so to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Eucharist as to declare to all the sacred tidings of a Redeemer’s death.
I. THIS SACRAMENT IS A COMMEMORATION OF THE PAST. The Lord’s death was an admitted fact; and if anything was needed to establish the historical fact, the existence of this ordinance was sufficient and more than sufficient for the purpose. But men may forget and lose sight of an event which they do not dream of denying. And it seemed good to Divine wisdom that the crucifixion and sacrifice of the Son of God should be held in everlasting memory by means of this simple but most significant observance. It was not simply as an historical fact that the death of Christ was to be recorded, but as a Christian doctrine. Christ’s was a redeeming, atoning, reconciling death; and as such was cherished in everlasting memory by those who profited by it, who owed to it their eternal hopes.
II. THIS SACRAMENT IS A PROCLAMATION TO THE PRESENT. “Ye set forth, or proclaim, the Lord’s death,” says the apostle. And from his expression, “as often,” it may be inferred that periodically and frequently the primitive Christians kept the feast, remembering and declaring that “Christ our Passover is slain for us.” There is something very affecting and at the same time very inspiring in this representation. From generation to generation and from age to age the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood publishes salvation to mankind, telling of him who tasted death forevery man, and in his cross reconciled the world unto God. It is an aspect of the Holy Communion which should not be left out of sight, upon which great stress should be laid; for some, whom words may fail to reach, may have their hearts opened to the grace and love of Christ by witnessing the silent yet eloquent declaration concerning the Saviour which is presented when the members of Christ’s Church partake of the symbols of their redemption.
III. THIS SACRAMENT IS A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE. “Till he come!” Our Lord, in instituting the ordinance, had turned the gaze of his disciples towards the future, speaking of drinking wine new in the kingdom of God, And here the eye of faith is pointed on to the glory which shall be revealed when he who came to die shall come to judge, shall come to reign!
“And thus that dark betrayal night
With the last advent we unite
By one bright chain of loving rite,
Until he come!”
T.
HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL
1Co 11:1-16
Decency in public worship.
When we appear before God we should observe the greatest propriety. Externals should not be lost sight of, for they are significant. Often they are indicative of inward condition. The apostle had occasion to blame the women of Corinth for laying aside the veilthe mark of modesty and subjectionin public assemblies. On the ground of the abolition of distinction of sex in Christ, they claimed equality in every respect with men, and the right to appear and act as men did. Whilst women, they would be as men. Equality as believers they had a right to claim, but they forgot their “subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness.” When women leave their proper sphere, it is never to rise, but to fall. Men women are failures. In the apostle’s argument valuable truths are enunciated.
I. HE DEFINES MAN‘S POSITION.
1. Man is the head of the woman. (1Co 11:3.) Woman is subordinate to man, is largely dependent upon him. He is her natural guide, defender, supporter. Authority lies with him, not with her. “I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man for Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1Ti 2:12, 1Ti 2:13). Woman is the “weaker vessel” (1Pe 3:7). She is to be “in subjection” (1Co 14:34). This is after the Divine order, and any subversal of it is sure to lead to injurious results.
2. The head of man is Christ. (1Co 11:3.) Man is not a monarch; he is subordinate to the God Man as his Head. Man can only act aright as head of the woman when he recognizes Christ as his Head. The apostle does not mean to intimate that Christ is not the Head of the woman as of the man. He is pointing out the order in the Divine economy, and “by the term ‘head’ he expresses the next immediate relation sustained.” Man is subordinate to Christ; woman is subordinate, though not in the same sense, to man as well as to Christ. To further illustrate the Divine order, the apostle states that:
3. The head of Christ is God. That is, of Christ the God Man. There is nothing here which conflicts with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ or of the equality of the Son with the Father. Rather is there here additional evidence of the former, since the distinction between the position of man and woman obtains where there is identity of nature. Christ is here spoken of as he assumed “the form of a servant.” Christ in his mediatorial capacity is lower than the Father (Joh 14:28).
4. Man is the Image and Glory of God. (1Co 11:7.) Man was made in the likeness of God (Gen 1:26). How great is the dignity of human nature! But how that dignity is lost when God is blotted out of a man! How eagerly should fallen creatures seek recovery, that the blurred image may be restored to its original beauty, and the impaired glory made once more lustrous! Through the Son of man, the ideal Mandeclared to be “the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person “this may be effected. The apostle does not intend to convey that woman is not in many respects the image and glory of God, but that man is this first and directly, woman subsequently and indirectly.” Man represents the authority of God; he is the ruler, the head.
II. HE DEFINES WOMAN‘S POSITION.
1. She is subject to man as her head. She sprang from him (1Co 11:8). She was created for him (1Co 11:9). Still, there is mutual dependence: “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man” (1Co 11:11). “In the Lord”this is of Divine appointment. And man and woman constitute complete humanityone supplying what the other lacks; and thus forming in Christ “the Bride,” the Church redeemed by his blood. And further, although at first woman sprang from man, now the man is of the woman (1Co 11:12). But “all things are of God”man and woman. Man has a real but qualified supremacy; so qualified as to save woman from any humiliation, and to allow her a position of peculiar dignity and beauty.
2. She is the glory of the man. (1Co 11:7.) Woman is not directly the glory of God; she does not directly represent God as the head of creationshe rather is man’s representative, as man is God’s. She is the glory of man directly, of God indirectly. Man is the sun, woman the moon (Gen 37:9).
III. HIS CONCLUSIONS AS TO PROPRIETY OF DRESS IN PUBLIC WORSHIP.
1. That man should not have his head covered. The covering would indicate subjection, which, in relation to those joining with man in public worship, was not man’s true condition. There he appeared as “the image and glory of God,” representing the Divine headship, and to assume the badge of subjection would be to “dishonour his head.” This may mean to dishonour his Own head by placing upon it something unsuitable, or to dishonour Christ, the Head of man, who has placed man in his position of honour. We should not usurp a higher position than God has appointed for us; we should not take a lower. Our best place is where God places us.
2. That woman should have her head covered. The veil was a recognition of subordination and an indication of modesty. To discard it was to claim man’s position and thus to dishonour man, her heador to dishonour her own head by depriving it of a mark of propriety and even of chastity. For by discarding the head covering a woman put herself in the class of the disreputable. It was but a carrying out of the principle involved for a woman to have her head shaved (1Co 11:5, 1Co 11:6), which was sometimes done in the case of those who had forfeited their honour, and became thus a brand of infamy. Thus a woman snatching at the position of man would descend far below her own. An apparent rise is sometimes a very real fail. The apostle enforces his argument by:
(1) An appeal to nature (1Co 11:14, 1Co 11:15). Paul evidently thinks that there is accord between the kingdom of nature and of grace. Both are from one hand and one mind, and conflicts between the two may be very apparent, but can never be real. Nature gives the man short hair and the woman long; here is a natural distinction which should be observed, and which indicates that woman specially needs the head covering. Or by nature the apostle may mean what obtains among men who are not instructed by revelation. Among many of the heathen the wearing of the hair long by men was ridiculed, but long hair for women was generally recognized as appropriate.
(2) The presence of angels in Christian assemblies (1Co 11:16). Earth looks on, but heaven also. Woman should have the symbol of power, of subjection to man, upon her head, because any usurpation of improper position or flaunting boldness would be offensive to these heavenly visitors.
(3) Apostolic authority (1Co 11:10). Where reasoning fails, authority must utter her voice. Paul always preferred to convince rather than to compel. But he possessed the right to determine when the contentious persevered in contention. The regulation was according to the mind of an inspired apostle, and was observed by Churches founded by himself or other like minded leaders. In estimating the teaching of the passage, we must discriminate between the necessary and the accidental. The principle is that women should be so attired as to indicate, or at all events so as not to conflict with, their rightful position. Amongst those to whom the apostle wrote, the veil was the symbol of modesty and subordination. Because women in Western Churches are not so attired, it does not follow that they are acting antagonistically to the apostle’s precept, though it will be admitted by most that the preposterous headgear of many female worshippers, in our own land calls loudly for reform, and is frequently an outrage upon all propriety and a sarcasm upon womanly modesty. I do not understand that the apostle has here specially in view the praying and preaching of women in public assembliesthis he deals with further on in the Epistle (1Co 14:34, etc.); but he is now insisting upon what is appropriate in the attire of woman (and incidentally of man) on public occasions. His primary reference is to public worship, and surely when we come to “appear before God,” we ought to be most specially anxious that everything about us shall be decent and in order. Whilst nothing that is outward can compensate for absence of the inward, that which is external is often an index of the internal, and has its influence upon the internal.H.
1Co 11:17-22
Some hindrances to the right observance of the Lord’s Supper.
Holy institutions may become unholy by perversion. That which is bestowed upon us as a peculiar blessing may prove a very real curse by misuse. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is for our spiritual help and joy, but we may “come together not for the better, but for the worse.” This was so with many of the Corinthians. They had conjoined to the Lord’s Supper the love feast. To this feast each brought his provision, the rich bringing more, so as to supply the deficiencies of the poor. From this supply the bread and wine required for the Lord’s Supper were taken. These feasts were the occasions at which the evils reprobated by the apostle occurred. The poor were despised and neglected, the congregation became divided into cliques, some communicants were hungry, and others had drunk to excess. The apostle insists that, under such circumstances, it was impossible to observe aright the sacred feast of the Lord’s Supper. Note some hindrances to right observance thus suggested.
I. PRIDE. At the Lord’s table all are equal. Conventional distinctions disappear. There is one Lord, and “all ye are brethren.” Arrogance and conceit, always out of place and intolerable, are most strikingly so where all should be humbled and subdued. it is not for us to think there how excellent we are, but how vile, and to admire the amazing grace which rescued us from the dominion of sin. Instead of despising others there, we should rather despise ourselves for our sins which crucified Christ, and we should feel, like Paul, that we are “the chief of sinners.” It is utterly impossible for a proud heart to rightly show forth the death of him who was meek and lowly. It is preposterous and absurd to attempt it.
II. SELFISHNESS. How can the selfish have communion with the infinitely unselfish One! If we have a self seeking, grasping, greedy spirit, what part can we have with him who “gave himself for us”? How alien to the spirit of Christ is the spirit of selfishness! If we sit with it at the table of the Lord, we sit there as Judas did.
III. ESTRANGEMENT. Christ calls us ever to union, and most specially and pathetically at his table, where we eat of the one bread (1Co 10:17). To cherish a spirit of disunion is to run directly counter to one of his commands at the moment when we profess to observe another. And the spectacle of estrangement at the Lord’s Supper must be one of utmost offensiveness in the Divine sight, as it is one of greatest scandal in the eyes of men. If we seek to be one with Christ, we must also seek to be one with the brethren. He is the Head; we are the members of his body. How utterly incongruous to be disunited at that feast which specially sets forth our union with Christ and with one another!
IV. HATRED. This in some form generally accompanies division. But where is the place for hatred at the feast of dying love? God is love, Christ is love, and we arehatred. How can two walk together unless they are agreed? What reason our Saviour had to hate us! “He was despised and rejected of men,” crucified by men; and yet he loved men, and at his table his love is specially set forth. How can we there cherish our animosities, for which we have such little cause! “We know that we have passed from death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death” (1Jn 3:14). The Lord’s Supper is a song of love; hatred at it is a terrible discord.
V. GLUTTONY. Some of the Corinthians loved their meat more than they loved their brethren. They ate greedily, not even tarrying for others to arrive. A singular carnality for so spiritual a season. Men with the manners and unrestrained appetites of beasts are scarcely fit for the table of Christ. Sensuality and spirituality are at opposite poles. These who abandon themselves to gratify the lower nature sacrifice the higher. “Man shall not live by bread alone.”
VI. DRUNKENNESS. It seems scarcely credible that any should have drunk to the excess of intoxication at the love feast so intimately associated with the Eucharist; but it is to be feared that this was so. And there are degrees of intoxication, so that the danger of imitating the Corinthians in this matter may not be so remote from some as they imagine. There is a great deal of semi intoxication. And if this sin be not committed immediately before the Lord’s table is approached, undue indulgence at all is surely a fatal hindrance to right observance. No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. And no drunkard, whilst he cleaves to his degrading habit, is entitled to a place at the Lord’s table.
VII. IRREVERENCE. There must have been vast irreverence in the Corinthians rebuked by Paul, or such abuses could never have obtained amongst them. There may be as much irreverence in us, though we do not commit the same sins. Anyway, to approach the Lord’s table irreverently is to instantly demonstrate our unfitness. There we should be filled with godly fear, and our hearts should be subdued to greatest devoutness and awe as we marvel over the justice of Jehovah, the amazing sacrifice of Christ, and the tender ministry of the Divine Spirit, whereby we who were once afar off are brought nigh.H.
1Co 11:23-26
The sacred feast.
Paul’s description is singularly beautiful. His information apparently came directly from Christ (Gal 1:12). Additional importance attaches to the observance of the Lord’s Supper, since an express revelation was made to the great apostle of the Gentiles. The supper was for the Gentile worm as well as the Jewish. Its institution was associated with the preaching of the gospel throughout the world.
I. ITS INSTITUTION. By the Lord Jesus (1Co 11:23).
1. Personally. Evidently important in his eyes. Specially precious to us because instituted personally by our Master. Appropriate; for he in his great redemptive work is set forth. Christ is “all in all” at his table. As Christ was present at the first celebration, he should be looked for at every celebration.
2. Under most affecting circumstances. “The same night in which he was betrayed;” whilst betrayal was proceedingand this known to him.
(1) He thought of others rather than of himself. Might have been expected to think of his sufferings; he thought of our needs. He had sorrow, but no selfish sorrow. The unselfishness of Christ is here shown in unrivalled beauty.
(2) His love was not quenched by treachery. The betrayal by Judas did not dry up his fount of affection. When treachery was at its height, love was at its height also. When men are most anxious to injure us, we should be most anxious to do them good.
(3) His sacrifice was not arrested by hate. The multitude were hotly against him when he prepared to give himself for them. Outside the upper room and inside in the breast of Judas there was bitter hate, but Christ was not checked in his purpose for an instant. He resolved to go on and to fulfil all that had been foretold respecting him, and so he quietly and calmly instituted the supper which should in every after age testify to incomparable self sacrifice under alladverse conditions. If we would be like Christ, hostility must not hinder sacrifice.
II. ITS MODE.
1. Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for the bread and wine. We should not “say grace” but really “give thanks.” Perhaps to teach us that our thanksgivings should ascend for what the bread and wine typify.
2. Bread.
(1) Symbolic of Christ’s body. Not actually his body, seeing that that was intact and before the eyes of the disciples. If Rome’s teaching were true, the disciples would have required a very lengthy explanation to enable them to grasp the meaning. We have no such explanation recorded; we might have expected it in this place, if anywhere.
(2) Broken. Many see in this a symbol of the violent death of Christ. But the better rendering of 1Co 11:24 is, “This is my body which is for you.” Breaking the bread was, I rather think, the mere adoption of a custom suited to the kind of bread used at that time in Palestine. We read, “A bone of him shall not be broken.”
(3) Eaten. Indicating that we are to feed upon Christ spiritually, to appropriate, to assimilate, him.
3. Wine. Symbolic of Christ’s blood shed for the remission of sins. Partaken of to indicate the application of the blood of Christ to our hearts and consciences. The blood must not only be shed, it must be applied.
III. ITS SIGNIFICANCE.
1. Remembrance of Christ. Of his dying love specially; and of his life, lordship, etc.
2. Communion with Christ and with each other. (See 1Co 10:16, 1Co 10:17.)
3. A feast. We feed upon Christ spiritually. As bread and wine support the body, so he supports the soul. There is a physical symbol and a spiritual reality. Joy should be one element in the observance; it is a feast, not a funeral.
4. A covenant. We enter into covenant with God for pardon, peace, service, and the covenant is ratified by the blood of Christ typified by wine: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The Hebrews entered into covenant with God when the blood of the heifer was sprinkled upon them; they bound themselves to obedience, and God bound himself to bestow the promised blessings; so when we receive the cup, we commemorate the covenant which we have entered into with God through the shed blood of Christ and the covenant which he has entered into with us.
5. Proclamation of Christ’s death. Christ’s death is the great central fact shadowed forth. The cross is exalted. Not a new sacrifice offered, but the old yet ever new sacrifice of Calvary commemorated and shown forth.
6. A pledge of the Lord’s second coming. “Till he come.” He will come, and it is not for us to any, “My Lord delayeth his coming.” He will come not too soon and not too late. “Till he come” we must be watching.
IV. ITS INCUMBENCY. “This do in remembrance of me.” A dying command. Some believers have many excuses for not coming to the Lord’s table; they do not find one here: “This do.” Last requests of loved ones are held precious: should not the request of this loved One be also? In this command our welfare is consulted as in all Divine commands laid upon us. We lose much if we refrain from doing this in remembrance of our Mastermuch spiritual joy, enlightenment, strengthening, and not a little usefulness. The Lord’s table is the Elim of Christians; we act foolishly if we fail to embrace opportunities of resting beneath its palm trees and drinking from its many wells of living water.H.
1Co 11:24
Remembering Christ.
The Lord’s Supper is very specially a feast of remembrance. Is there in it a suggestion that we are very prone to forget Christ? This is, alas! our tendency, and here we are in strange contrast to our Lord. He needs nothing to keep us in his remembrance; he ever thinks of his people. In the institution of the Lord’s Supper he thinks of our forgetfulness, of its perils, of its certain sorrows. He remembers that we are prone not to remember him. What should we remember concerning Christ?
I. HIS HOLY SPOTLESS LIFE. What a life that was! The greatest and best of human leaders have been marked by defects, but our Leader was “without blemish.” In the lives of heroes there is always something which we should be glad to forget; but there is nothing in the life of Christ. Jealousy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness could find in him “no fault.” Many great men have grown small, many holy men questionable in character, many honoured men dishonourable, under the ruthless criticism of modern times; but not Jesus of Nazareth. The fiercest light has been focussed upon his earthly course; the brains of sceptic and of scoffer have been racked in prolonged endeavour to discover the flaw; but it has not been discovered yet! The voices of all the centuries cry, “Without fault!” “Holy and undefiled!” “Separate from sinners!” Well may we remember that life.
II. HIS TEACHING. When compared with Christ, all the other teachers of the world seem to have nothing to teach upon matters of high moment. At best they guess, and often they guess folly. He teaches with the authority of knowledge; all other teachers seem hidden in the valley, imagining what the landscape may be. He alone has climbed the hill and beholds what he speaks about. We need to remember, more than we are accustomed to do, the utterances of the world’s great Teacher. Seekers after knowledge should be careful lest after all they miss the richest mine of truth. Learned scoffings and atheistical ribaldries are naught but devil blinds to hide from our view the beautiful form of truth as it is in Christ. In him “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3). When God broke the dread silence upon the Mount of Transfiguration it was to exclaim, “This is my beloved Son: hear him.” The Holy Ghost was promised as One who would “bring to remembrance” what Christ had declared. Through the Lord’s Supper, as a means, the Divine Spirit works now for this end.
III. HIS MIRACLES. These speak eloquently of his power. Nature bows before her God. How weak the mightiest of the earth are compared with this mighty One! When the kingdom of Christ is about to be overwhelmed and shattered and generally annihilated by blatant wiseacre warriors, with their sceptical pea shooters and atheistical popguns, I laugh as I remember that it is the kingdom of Christ which is being assailed! We do well to bear in mind what Christ did when he was upon earth, and then to say quietly to ourselves, “The same yesterday, today, and forever.” What he did, he can do; what he was, he is. His miracles illustrated his beneficence. They meant the supply of human need, the binding up of wounds, the restoration of the outcast, the arrest of sorrow, the wiping away of tears, the cheer of lonely hearts. We must remember his miracles; they show so truly what the Christ was. With all his omnipotence, how gentle and tender!
IV. HIS DEATH. This was the grand culmination of his life; it gave to him the great title of Saviour; to it the Lord’s Supper specially points. We must remember him as the One who laid down his life for us, who bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, who was wounded for our trangressions and bruised for our iniquities, who died the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God. The Lord’s Supper leads us to Calvarythrough the motley crowd, past the weeping Marys, beyond the penitent thief, to the central figure in the Judaean tragedy, and there we see salvation! “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psa 85:10). Remembrance of Christ’s death will mean remembrance of our sinfulness. And when we remember that “he endured the cross, despising the shame,” we may ask ourselves the suggestive question, “What would be our present condition and prospect if he had not done so?”
V. HIS RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION. The Lord’s Supper was for the remembrance of Christ both after he had died and after he had risen from the dead. We must not forget the dying Christ; but neither must we forget the triumphing Christ. The resurrection of Christ is the counterpart of the cross; one is not without the other, The Lord died, but the Lord is risen indeed. He came to this world in abasement; he lived so, he died so, but he did not depart so. He rose from the dead, and ever liveth. We remember the dying Christ, but we remember also the living Christ, exalted at God’s right hand, our Advocate, preparing our heavenly home, looking down upon us, present with us by his Spirit. We remember the reigning Christ, the One who has completed his glorious redemptive work, who has triumphed openly, and we remember him thus “till he come.”
VI. HIS MARVELLOUS LOVE. Shown in every incident and every instant of his course. In his coming; in his words, deeds, spirit; and pre-eminently in his sufferings and death. God is love; Christ is God; Christ is love.
VII. HIS PERSONALITY. Not only what he said and what he did, but what he was. All his acts and words of beneficence and love were only expressions of himself. They were but manifestations of what dwells in perpetual fulness in his heart. Remember him. “This do in remembrance of me.” This is a dying request. Are we observing it? The dying request of him who “gave himself” for us.H.
1Co 11:27-29
Perils at the Lord’s table.
A frequent question, “Who should come to the Lord’s table?” Many have come who ought not to have come as they were; not a few have been deterred from coming who were quite suitable. Many have not pondered sufficiently the duty of observing the Lord’s Supper; many have been alarmed by certain expressions contained in this passage.
I. GLANCE AT THE SCENE. It lies in gay, voluptuous, immoral Corinth. A city magnificent externally; abased and abandoned internally. A meeting of Christians in some private house, light amid darkness, truth surrounded by error, holiness in the centre of corruption. The gathering is for the love feast and the Supper of the Lord. A love feast, alas! in which love is largely absent; a Supper of the Lord in which the Lord is strangely dishonoured. The light is dimmed, the truth is alloyed with error, the holiness is defiled by guilt. There are divisions (1Co 1:11, 1Co 1:12); there are pride, selfishness, irreverence (1Co 11:21, 1Co 11:22); there is even drunkenness (1Co 11:21); yea, even further, the hideous head of immorality is raised in the midst of this little Christian society (1Co 5:1). This Epistle arrives from the founder of the Churcha letter smiting Corinthian transgression and transgressors hip and thigh. Picture the scene!
II. GLANCE AT CERTAIN WORDS AND THEIR MEANINGS.
1. Damnation. This word has so terrified some that they have never been able to summon sufficient courage to obey the dying command of their Lord. They have supposed that an unworthy participation in the sacred feast would seal their doom and consign them to perdition without remedy. But the word does not justify such a view. Instead of “damnation,” we should read, as in the Revised Version, “judgment.” And 1Co 11:32 explains what “judgment” means: “When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” Judgment here means “chastisement,” and note particularly that this chastisement is sent to prevent us from being condemned with unbelievers. What follows upon unworthy participation at the Lord’s table, if we are believers, is not something to destroy us, but something to prevent us from being destroyed. If we will not benefit by the chastisement, if under it we harden our hearts like Israel of old, then we shall be cast away. The sin of unworthy participation is great, and the correction will be severe, but neither is what some sensitive natures have dreaded,
2. Unworthily. Note that the apostle speaks of the unworthiness of the act, not the unworthiness of the person. To say, “I am unworthy,” is doubtless to speak the truth, but it is irrelevant. Unworthy persons may participate worthily. Nay, further, only those who feel that they are unworthy are in a right state to sit at the table. The self righteous are never “fit.” The supper is for penitent sinners; for such as Paul, “the chief of sinners.” But the act may be unworthy, and that from many causes. Anything that hinders us from “discerning the Lord’s body” (1Co 11:29) will cause us to eat and drink unworthily. We have to recognize the bread and wine as emblems of that body, as set apart to show this forth, and therefore to be dealt with solemnly, thoughtfully, reverently. We must enter into the meaning of the feast, and through the outward reach the inward and spiritual. At the supper we do not halt at the emblems; we have fellowship with Christ, we remember him, we renew our vows, we profess to be his followers, we show forth his death “till he come.” Now, many things may hinder us from doing this, and thus cause us to cat and drink unworthily; such as:
(1) Thoughtlessness, leading to irreverence.
(2) Ignorance of the meaning of the ordinance. This may be very culpable ignorance.
(3) Unconverted condition. Quite unfit for supper because have not received what it sets forth.
(4) Worldly spirit. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” We may be trying, and thus be charging Christ with falsehood, even as we approach his table.
(5) Unbrotherly feeling. That which separates us from believers is very likely to separate us from Christ.
(6) Immorality. If we hug sin, we cannot embrace the Saviour.
Such unworthy participation involves:
(1) Guilt. We become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, seeing that our sin is concentrated upon that observance which specially sets these forth.
(2) Punishment. “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (1Co 11:30). Present chastisement, and, if this prove inefficacious, future and final punishment.
III. A REMEDY. This is not to see that “we are good,” according to a very current expression and impression. In one sense we can never be “fit.” It is to examine or prove ourselves by
(1) appeal to conscience,
(2) God’s Word,
(3) God’s Spirit.
And what we have to ascertain is whether we
(1) repent Of sin,
(2) believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and.
(3) are seeking to live in the fear and love of God.
If we are right upon these points, we need have no dread in approaching the Lord’s table, but rather draw near in joy and confidence and in anticipation of large spiritual blessing.
IV. A WARNING. Remark that none are here told to absent themselves from the Lord’s table. Not even the Corinthians most blamed, an apparent exception being the immoral person (1Co 5:1), and he was excluded only until he had shown repentance for his sin (2Co 2:7, 2Co 2:8). The reason is that to abstain from the Lord’s Supper is to sin. We ought to be “fit,” in the true sense of the expression. There is only one place which is right for us, and that is at the table. We may be wrong in coming; we must be wrong in staying away. To refrain is to condemn ourselves at once. “This do in remembrance of me” is one of the most sacred of commands. If we are bound to break it because of our carnal and lost state, we do but multiply transgression. We are not bound, for we may escape from the condition which unfits us, and then draw near with boldness and with hope. There is a false humility restraining many from coming to the Lord’s Supper; it is a very false humility and a very deceptive humilityit is the adding of another sin. Away from Christ we are altogether wrong, and in escaping from one sin (coming to the table whilst unconverted) we only fall into another (disobeying the dying command of Christ). There is every obligation resting upon us to repent, believe, and live to God; then we are fitted to discharge the other obligation, “This do in remembrance of me.” Failure in the one involves failure in the other, and our condemnation is increased. There is no right place for the unbeliever.H.
1Co 11:31, 1Co 11:32
The chastisement of believers.
The apostle has been speaking of disorders at the Lord’s table and of the Divine judgments which in Corinth had followed upon the profanation of the sacred feast. He now pursues the latter theme and discourses upon the afflictions which sometimes fall upon the people of God.
I. ITS INFLICTOR. We may well ask, “Where do our troubles come from?” The chastisement of his people comes from God. “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (Heb 12:6). God is behind the sorrow. Reflect that:
1. He sees sufficient cause for the chastisement. This shows that there is sufficient cause, he never sends a trouble without a cause, and never without a sufficient cause. We may not see the cause, but he does.
2. He might destroy instead of chastising. There is mercy in the visitation: had there been wrath only, there had been destruction, not chastisement.
3. He may destroy. If chastisement does not bear fruit unto repentance, we shall be cut off as was Israel of old. Here is a solemn warning against resisting and resenting Divine chastisement. If we stiffen our neck and harden our heart, we shall be broken with a “rod of iron.” We are in the hands of the Omnipotent; let us beware of folly and impiety.
4. Chastisement is a message from God. We should listen, We should learn what the Lord our God has to say to us. We shall find in the chastisement a command; it is for us to obey that command. We shall discover in it a promise; it is for us to embrace it.
II. ITS CAUSE. Always sin in some form or other. Sin is the only possible cause. God does not afflict us “willingly” or for his “pleasure,” but for our profit. We fall into sin and he whips us out. So when a believer transgresses he cuts a rod for his own back. Is it God who chastises us? More truly, we chastise ourselves. Our sin puts the rod into God’s hand. We cry out when we have hurt ourselves if we cry out when we are under the chastisement of God.
III. ITS BENEVOLENCE. It is sent in love. It is a good gift, not an evil one. God has not changed in sending it; he is still love. Here the special object of Divine chastisement is beautifully conveyed: “That we should not be condemned with the world.” Many think that their afflictions will destroy them; the afflictions are sent that they may not be destroyed. We feel that we shall sink under our troubles, but they are sent that we may not sink. We cry out “Poison!” but it is “medicine,” sent to keep us from being poisoned. God troubles his people now, that he may not trouble them hereafter. He smites them gently now, that he may not smite them then with the arm of destruction. They stand near the precipice and the rod falls upon them to drive them back. In heaven, perhaps, we shall bless God more for our earthly chastisements than for our earthly joys. Chastisement is sour to take, but sweet when taken. It is a nut hard and rough of shell, but goodly in kernel. It is the love of God transfigured into darkness by the black shadow of our sin.
IV. HOW WE MAY AVOID THE NECESSITY OF IT. “If we would judge [or, ‘discern’] ourselves, we should not be judged.” If we dealt with ourselves, there would be no need for God to deal with us. If we would avoid the chastisement, we must avoid the sin. If the cause be destroyed, we need not fear the effect. If the Corinthians had examined themselves, they would have avoided the irregularities of which they became guilty. They were careless, unwatchful, and so they fell, and when they fell they opened the door of chastisement. We may keep that door shut if we “walk with God,” as Enoch did. The only way to escape the rod is to escape the necessity of it, and that is to escape the sin.H.
HOMILIES BY J. WAITE
1Co 11:3
The headship of Christ.
“The head of every man is Christ.” It may be of the man as distinct from the woman that the apostle here speaks, but the truth asserted is one in which all human beings, without regard to sexual or any other distinctions, are alike interested. The relation in which we each and all stand to Christ, or rather in which Christ stands to us, is one that surmounts and absorbs into itself every other relationship. As the vault of heaven surrounds the world, and the atmosphere in which it floats envelops everything that lives and moves and has its being in it; so does the authority of Christ embrace all that belongs to the existence of every one of us, and from it we can never escape. The supremacy here indicated has certain distinct phases.
I. EVERY MAN SEES HIS OWN HUMAN NATURE PERFECTED IN CHRIST. Manhood is perfectly represented in him. He is the Crown and Flower of our humanity; its realized ideal, the Manthe complete, consummate, faultless man”Christ Jesus.” Not a development from the old stock, but anew beginning, the Head of the “new creation.” The ideal of humanity, defaced and destroyed by the Fall, was restored again in the Incarnation. “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1Co 15:47). Adam was formed in the image of Goda sinless, symmetrical, perfect man. But he lost the glory of his first estate, and became the father of a degenerate humanity that could never of itself rise again to the original level, however long the stream of its succeeding generations might roll on. Christ, the God Man, in the fulness of time, appearstrue, perfect manhood linked in mysterious union with Deity, the “Firstborn among many brethren;” “Partaker with the children of flesh and blood,” that he may “lead many sons to glory.” We must look to him, then, if we would know what the possibilities of our nature are, what we ourselves may and ought to be. It is curious to note how different, as regards physical form and feature, are the artistic conceptions one meets with of the person of Jesus; what various degrees of serene majesty and tender sorrow they express. Some of them, perhaps, exaggerate the element of tenderness at the expense of that of power. They none of them, it may be, answer to our own ideal. And we conclude that it is vain to think of representing upon canvas the mingled splendoursthe heavenly lights and earthly shadowsof that wondrous face in which
“The God shone gracious through the Man.”
But we are scarcely in danger of error in any honest and intelligent moral conception of Christ. The glorious Original appears too plainly and luminously before us. “Behold the Man!”the consummate type of all human excellence. Do we really admire and adore him? Do we admire everything that we see in him; every separate lineament and expression of his countenance? Would we have all men, specially those with whom we have most to do, to be like him? Is it our desire to be ourselves fashioned at every point exactly after such a Model? This is involved in a true recognition of the headship of Christ over ourselves and every man.
II. THE SPRING OF THE HIGHER LIFE FOR EVERY MAN IS CHRIST. However we may deal with the subtle questions suggested here respecting the original constitution and prerogatives of man’s nature, one thing is plainthat nature now has no self recovering power of life in it. It has in it rather the seeds of decay and death. “In Adam all die.” The second Adam, the Lord from heaven, is a “quickening Spirit.” In him the power of death is overmastered. Through him God pours into our being the stream of a new and nobler life, a life in which every part of it, both physical and spiritual, shall have its share (Joh 5:21; Joh 6:47-50; Joh 11:25, Joh 11:26; 1Jn 5:11, 1Jn 5:12). The Fountainhead of a blessed, glorious immortality forevery man is he. Looking abroad over a languishing, dying world, he says, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” And there is not a human being on the face of the whole earth who is not personally interested in this Divine revelation of the Life eternal.
III. THE SUPREME LAW FOR, EVERY MAN IS CHRIST. We are all necessarily under law. It is not a question as between law and no law that has to be decided. The question isWhat shall be the law that we voluntarily recognize? What shall be the nature of the governing force to which we yield ourselves? Shall it be true, righteous, beneficent, Divine? or shall it be false, usurping, fatal, Satanic? There is no middle course. God would have us make our own free, unfettered choice. Our whole daily life is actually a choice of servitude, and it is emphatically our own. The true servitude is the service of Christ. All holy law is summed up in his authority. He is the proper, rightful Lord of every human soul. He demands the unreserved allegiance of every man. His claims are sovereign, absolute, universal. They admit of no qualification, and from them there is no escape. As well think by the caprice of your own will to render your body superior to the laws of matter, to defeat the force of gravitation, to escape from your own shadow, as think to shake off the obligation of obedience to Christ when once you have heard his voice, and he has laid his royal hand upon you.
IV. THE REST AND HOME OF EVERY MAN‘S SOUL IS IN CHRIST.
“Oh, where shall rest be found,
Rest for the weary soul?”
We scheme and toil to surround ourselves with earthly satisfactions, but the secret of a happy home on earth is that the spirit shall have found its true place of safety and repose. And Christ only can lead us to this. O blessed Lord Jesus, thou Friend and Brother and Saviour of every man, bring us into living fellowship with thyself!
“Here would we end our quest;
Alone are found in thee
The life of perfect love, the rest
Of immortality.”
W.
1Co 11:23-26
“The Lord’s Supper.”
St. Paul had not been an eyewitness of the sacred incident that he here relates. Nor had he gained his knowledge of it by the report of others. He had “received it of the Lord.” At what time and in what way this took place we know not, We may, perhaps, best attribute it to that remarkable transition period immediately after his conversion, the “three years” that he spent in Arabia and Damascus before he went up to Jerusalem and began his apostolic ministry (Gal 1:17, Gal 1:18). We can well believe that it was during that time of lonely, silent contemplation that the grand verities of the gospel message were divinely unveiled to him; and this may have been among the things that he then “received of the Lord.” The simplicity of the way in which he describes the institution of this sacred rite is in perfect harmony with the simplicity of the gospel record. One can only wonder how it can have been possible for such an incident to be turned, as it has been, into a weapon of sacerdotal pretence and spiritual oppression. The too prevalent neglect of the observance has, no doubt, to a great extent been the natural and inevitable result of this abuse. The false or exaggerated use of anything always provokes to the opposite extreme. We may urge its claims on the Christian conscience and heart by looking at it in three different aspectsas a memorial, as a symbol, and as a means of spiritual edification.
I. A MEMORIAL. “This do in remembrance of me.” “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” Christ’s own words set it forth as an act of personal remembrance, Paul’s as a time long witness to the great sacrifice. Taking the two together, it appears as a memorial of “Christ and him crucified”of himself in all the truth and meaning of his earthly manifestation, of his death as the issue in which the fulness of that meaning was gathered up and consummated. We may regard this memorial in its relation both to those who observe it and to those who observe it not; as a method of keeping the fact of Christ’s self surrender vividly before the minds of those who believe in him and love him, and as a testimony that appeals with silent eloquence to a thoughtless, careless world. In this respect it resembles other Scripture memorials (Gen 22:14; Gen 28:18, Gen 28:19; Exo 12:24-27; Jos 4:20-24; 1Sa 7:12). And when we think how easily things the most important fade away from our memories while trifles linger there, and sacred impressions are obliterated by meaner influences, we may well recognize with devout thankfulness the wisdom and love which ordained such a mode of perpetuating the remembrance of the most momentous of all events in human history, while, in spite of all its perversions, the simple fact of the continuance of such a sacred usage of the Church is a proof that it rests on a Divine foundation.
II. A SYMBOL. It represents visibly that which in the nature of things is invisible. Not merely is bread a fitting emblem of the Saviour’s body and wine of his blood, and the breaking of the one and the pouring out of the other of the manner of his death; but the service itself symbolizes the personal union of the soul with him, the method alike of its origin and its support. It bears witness, as in a figure, to the deeper reality of the life of faith. It sets forth, in the form of a significant deed, what our Lord set forth in the form of metaphoric words when he said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” etc. (Joh 6:53-58). And in both cases “it is the Spirit which quickeneth.” Mysticism has thrown its false halo, its bewitching glamour, around these Divine words; and the sacred ordinance that would otherwise have made its simple appeal to the insight of the Christian understanding and the tenderness of the Christian heart has become mere food for superstition. But there is no Scripture warrant whatever for this. From the gross materialism of the Romish “Mass” to the subtler refinement of thought that regards the Lord’s spiritual presence as being in some mystic sense inherent in the bread and wine, speaking of the sacrament being “administered,” as though it had some occult virtue in it, a kind of spiritual medicament conferred by priestly hands, and “taken” by the faithful for their souls’ healing,all these shades of opinion alike substitute a physical mystery for a spiritual truth, and engender a superstitious faith that fixes its attention on the material emblems and something that is supposed to be true of them; rather than the intelligent faith that discerns the unseen Saviour through them, very much as we look through our window upon the golden glory of the setting sun without thinking of the transparent medium through which we behold it.
III. A MEANS OF SPIRITUAL EDIFICATION. Here lies the Divine reason of the memorial and the symbol. It is more than a “transparent medium” through which the soul may gaze upon the crucified Christ; it is a channel of spiritual influence by means of which the soul’s fellowship with him may be deepened and strengthened. It accomplishes this end, not by any magic power that it may wield over us, but by virtue simply of the influence it is naturally fitted to exert on mind and conscience and heart, and by the grace of that good Spirit whose office it is to testify of Christ. We may be fully alive to the dangers that lurk in the use of all symbolic religious rites, the danger especially of attributing to the sign an efficacy that lies only in that which is signified. And we may see in this the reason why the rites of Christianity are so few. But what Christian heart can be insensible to the high spiritual value of an observance such as this? Moreover, the obligation is plain. “Do this,” says our dying Lord, “in remembrance of me.” May not such an appeal be expected to draw forth a ready response from any soul that has ever “tasted that he is gracious”? Its being the behest of love rather than the stern requirement of law, makes it doubly imperative, while the simplicity of the deed it enjoins makes it doubly efficacious as a bond of affection and a vehicle of moral power. We all know what a charm there is in even the most trivial memento of those whom we have loved and lost, especially if it be some object with which the personal memory is most closely associated by familiar daily use, some little thing that tender hands we can no longer grasp and a loving voice that is now forever still have bequeathed to us. With what a glow of grateful affection will the sight of it sometimes suffuse our hearts! How near does it bring the departed to us again! How closely does it draw us into sympathy and fellowship with their personal life! And shall not this be expected to be pre-eminently true of these simple memorials of our loving, suffering, dying Lord? The realization of this, however, must always depend on something in ourselves. The influence we receive from the outward observance will depend on what we are prepared to receive, i.e. on what we bring to it in the conditions of our own inward thought and feeling. It will never of itself create right feeling. Come to it with a worldly spirit, with a divided heartcold, careless, carnal, frivolous, prayerless, or in any way out of harmony with the Divine realities it representsand you can expect to find no uplifting and inspiring power in it. You are not likely to “discern the Lord’s body.” Christ is never further from us than when we desecrate sacred scenes and services by our discordant mental and moral conditions. But come with your soul yearning after him, and he will unveil to you his glory and fill you with the joy of his love. “Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.”W.
HOMILIES BY D. FRASER
1Co 11:2
Christian ordinances.
We do well to boast of our freedom in Christ. It is a sign of the elevation of our religion above others that it does not need to drill its votaries by a constant discipline of prescribed rites, ceremonial shows, and verbal repetitious. It loves simplicity and spontaneousness, and the life which it fosters needs not to be guarded and hedged by minute regulations, but is developed in a chartered holy liberty. At the same time, Christianity has concrete forms, and the Church received at the beginning ordinances, or directions, to keep. The Apostle Paul had delivered these to the Church at Corinth.
I. NEGATIVELY.
1. They were different from the ordinances of the old covenant. The rites and statutes connected with animal sacrifice, distinctions of meats, regulations about dress and divers washings, were suited to the time in which they were instituted, and served to impress on the Hebrew mind great thoughts of God, of sin, and of righteousness, and to impregnate life in the house and labour in the field with religious suggestions. But with Jesus Christ a new era came. The restrictions and rites of the ceremonial law, ceasing to be necessary, lost their obligation. Moral inculcations, whether through Moses or through subsequent prophets, of course remained, and were enlarged and emphasized by the Master and his apostles. But the Church, after some struggle and sharp controversy, discerned and asserted her freedom from the sacerdotal and ceremonial ordinances by which the house of Israel had been bound.
2. They were not the traditions of Jewish rabbinism. Our Lord spoke strongly against the bondage into which the Jews of his time had been brought by “traditions of men,” which had no Divine sanction, but had acquired, under the rabbinic and Pharisaic regime, a fictitious authority. Such traditionalism tended to weaken the honour due to the authentic Law, and its continuance was entirely opposed to the doctrine of Christ,
3. They must not be confounded with the traditions of later Christian origin. A tradition which cannot be traced to Christ or his apostles, and which is without support in the New Testament, cannot claim any countenance from this text. Alas! how Christians have become the servants of men and of prescribed usage! As the Jews have overlaid and burdened their religion with a huge mass of Talmudic and Kabbalistie traditions, so have the Greek and Latin Churches all but ruined their Christianity by admitting ecclesiastical tradition to a place alongside of Holy Writ in the rule of faith.
II. POSITIVELY. The traditions which the Corinthians were exhorted to keep were the instructions which the apostle, under the guidance of the Spirit of Christ, had himself delivered to the saints; and they had authority, not by coming down from remote antiquity and passing through many hands, but by coming directly from one whom the Lord had fitted and appointed to found Churches, and to set their affairs in order according to his mind and will. The directions specially referred to here had regard to the fellowship of believers and the worship rendered in the assembly of God. He had taught that the assembly was the true temple, wherein the Holy Spirit dwelt, and this temple was to be full of praise. The believers were to come together, not so much to pray for salvation, as to worship God their Saviour, and give thanks for the remission of sins and the hope of glory, Then the teaching about the Lord’s Supper came in, for it is the centre and crowning act of Christian worship; and this had been ordained at Corinth by St. Paul. “I received of the Lord that which also I delivered [ordained] to you.” So the apostle, while commanding the adherence of the Corinthians to his directions, took the opportunity to give more explicit instruction, and correct some abuses which had already crept into the Church.
1. The separation of the sexes, which sacerdotalism desires, was to be ignored in this service. Alike during the time of praying and prophesying, and during the Eucharistic Supper, men and women were to mingle together, because in Jesus Christ “there is neither male nor female.” And yet a distinction between the sexes, in the interest of purity and modesty, was to be duly marked.
2. The precious feast of unity and love ought not to be marred by party spirit or by selfishness and excess. Irreverence and greediness might appear at feasts in the precincts of the heathen temples; but in the holy temple of God his redeemed should have discernment of the Lord s body, and a grave fraternal remembrance of him. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”F.
1Co 11:18, 1Co 11:19
Words of evil omen.
In a good English dictionary, the term “schismatic” is thus explained: “One who separates from a Church from difference of opinion.” The Bible makes no reference to an individual schismatic; nor does it apply the word “schism” to separation from the Church. “Heresy” is defined in the dictionary as “the taking and holding of an opinion contrary to the usual belief, especially in theology.” Such, no doubt, is according to ecclesiastical usage; but the Scripture means by a “heresy” a sect or faction, not apart from but within the Church: “Heresies [factions] among you.”
I. A SCHISM IS A RENT IN THE MIDST OF THE CHURCH, marring the enjoyment and expression of its essential unity. If a piece of undressed cloth were put to an old garment, a schism would occur. Not that the garment would fall into two parts, but that it would show an unseemly rent. A division of opinion among the people who heard our Saviour is called a schism; and the same word is used to denote the discord in the crowd when St. Paul appeared before the council at Jerusalem. The only Church of all those to which St. Paul wrote, which had schisms within it of such seriousness as to give him anxiety and call for animadversion, was the Church at Corinth; but by these he did not mean the action of parties breaking off from the primitive Church in that city, and forming rival Churches or separate denominations. They were parties in the Church dissenting or differing from one another. This will appear the more clearly if we mark the remedies which the apostle prescribed, viz.:
1. To speak the same thing, and be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. To speak the same thing was to exalt the one great Name of the Lord Jesus, and not to take party names, saying, “I am of Paul; I am of Apollos.” And to be perfectly joined in the same mindthe mind of Christ, and the same judgmentthe judgment of his Spirit, while it never precluded activity of investigation and discussion, certainly implied that the normal condition of the Church should be one of concord, and not one of countless variations and opposing views.
2. To keep the Lord’s Supper as the apostle instructed them. The Corinthians were charged not to partake of the sacred supper as of a common meal, lest they should “come together to judgment.” They were to keep the feast with reverence, and with discernment of the Lord’s body. They were also to show brotherly kindness, not as partisans, but as brethren, coining together and waiting for one another at the festival of love.
3. To bear in mind the doctrine of the mystical body, and, as members therein, to have the same care one for another. To have schisms or alienations would be to separate limbs that had need of each other, and so to vex and impede the whole body of Christ. At the present day, wherever parties are formed in a particular Church with hostile feelings and a desire to weaken one another, there is schism, in the New Testament sense of the word. And wherever, within the Church general, or communion of saints, there is an elevation of party names, and a setting up of party or denominational communions, making the Lord’s Supper “their own supper,” there is schism.
II. A HERESY IS AN AGGRAVATED FORM OF A SCHISM, AND DENOTES A SEPARATIST PARTY OR A SECT. We read of “the heresy of the Sadducees” (Act 5:17), and “the heresy of the Pharisees” (Act 15:5). The Christians were charged with forming a new heresy or sect”the heresy of the Nazarenes.” It was in this sense, and not at all in the sense of heterodoxy, that St. Paul admitted that he worshipped the God of his fathers, “after the manner which they called heresy.” The Jews at Rome, agreeing to bear the apostle on the faith or’ the Nazarenes, remarked, “As concerning this heresy, we know that it is everywhere spoken against.” Thus the term undoubtedly denoted a faction, not a mode of thought or form of doctrine, true or false; but in the Church it to from the beginning an unfavourable meaning. A heresy was a faction which carried out a schism to actual separation, and was animated in doing so by a proud, unruly spirit. Accordingly, heresies are classed with variances, strifes, and seditions, among “the works of the flesh” (Gal 5:20). “A man that is a heretic,” therefore, means, not an errorist, but a separatist. We do, indeed, read in 2Pe 2:1 of “heresies of doctrine;” but the reference is to the conduct of introducers of strange doctrine as forming a separate party. “Many shall follow their pernicious ways.” We have seen that direction was given for the prevention of schism. It was also given for the correction and removal of heretics. Titus was instructed to admonish a heretic once and again. If admonition failed, Titus was to reject or shun him as a mischief maker among brethren. We live in a time of great confusion. Church unity is misunderstood; Church liberty is abused; and Church discipline is relaxedis, in some quarters, almost obsolete. Let every one look to his own spirit and conduct. As a Christian, you are a Churchman. Never join a sect or faction. Never lift the mere banner of a party. Belong to the Church of God, which was born of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. For actual instruction and united worship, you must be in some one particular part of that Church; abide in that which is in your judgment the best constituted and administered; but never take your chamber for the whole house, or any particular Church for the Church universal. Bear a brotherly heart and countenance towards all who love the Lord, that, so far as your influence extends, there may be no schism in the body, Deplore the existence of splits and divisions as an evil; yet remember that it evolves some good”that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.” Oh to be approved of him who knows what spirit we are of, and to be manifested as no heretics, but faithful members of Christ and loving children of God!F.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
1Co 11:1
The limitation set on the following of good men.
“Of me, even as I also am of Christ.” The apostle calls to the same personal following, without the qualification, in 1Co 4:16. This first verse of 1Co 11:1-34. should be the closing verse of 1Co 10:1-33., as it really completes the exhortation which is there given. “The apostle refers to his own example, but only to, lead his readers up to Christ as the great example of One who ‘pleased not himself’ (Rom 15:8), His own example is valuable inasmuch as it is the example of one who is striving to conform to the image of his Lord.” Recall David’s very striking expression in Psa 16:2, Psa 16:8, “My goodness extendeth not to thee [O God]; only to the saints that are in the earth,” We consider
I. THE IMPULSE OF SAINTLY EXAMPLES; or, expressed in simple terms, of recognized goodness in our fellow men. Distinguish between the life missions of talented men and of good men. The “talented” may seem to be out of our range, the “good” never are. The weakest, poorest, humblest among us may be “good.” God has taken care to provide the saintly ones in every age. He sets somme such in every sphere of life. We all know of men and women better than ourselves who act on and inspire us. They exert these influences; they persuade us that
(1) goodness is beautiful;
(2) that goodness is attainable.
Then it is the bounden duty of all men and women who fear God and love the Lord Jesus Christ to culture personal character, become saintly, and gain the power to witness for Christ by a holy example.
II. THE IMPERFECTION OF ALL SAINTLY EXAMPLES. None of them are perfect and complete. It is human to err. All the saintly ones fall short of the full standard of humanity as shown to us in Christ. This point is suggestive of abundant illustration taken:
1. From Scripture. There is only one man mentioned in Scripture who even seems to have been perfect. It is Enoch; and we cannot be sure concerning him, seeing that the records of his life are gathered up into only one or two brief sentences. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, David, etc., are all frail, fallible men, whose very sides of goodness and strength are at times exaggerated so as to become evil.
2. From experience and observation. We know that those who seem to us most heroic and saintly are deeply sensible of their own failings and shortcomings, and we cannot have to do with them long before finding occasion for the exercise of our charity in relation to their conduct. Even the Apostle Paul could not permit us to make himself our standard. He knew too well what hastiness of temper sometimes overcame him, and how greatly he had to struggle with the body of sin. We can be followers of no man, if he stands alone. We can only follow a fellow man as he may be in some point a reflection of and suggestion of Christ, the manifested God. Consequently only Christ can be our absolute Exempler. We can be followers of him; we may put the whole force of our natures into following him; we may let no fellow man stand before him. Show that the enemies of Christ could have easily gained their end if they could have found a stain upon his moral character, a word spoken or a thing done which the conscience of mankind could distinctly recognize as unworthy of ideal manhood. None such have ever been found during the nearly nineteen centuries of Christianity. The things usually made into moral charges are abundantly capable of explanations that redound to Christ’s honour, or belong to the mystery of his Divine birth and mission. But, while we admit that no man can be to us a full exempler, we may recognize that good men do catch measures of the goodness of the Christ whom they serve, and are examples for us so far as they are Christ like. It is possible for us to go a little further even than this, and admit a certain special and peculiar power upon us exerted by purely human examples, which, by reason of their very frailty, tone and temper and shadow for us, and in adaptation to our weakness, the over splendour of the Christly and Divine. It is most practically helpful to us that we may be followers of such a brother man as St. Paul, so far as he follows Christ and reflects the full Christliness with a human tempering suited to our feeble sight. Then it follows that what St. Paul thus is to us we may be to others.R.T.
1Co 11:2
The Christly traditions.
“Keep the ordinances,” or, as given in the margin, “the traditions.” St. Paul had given in his ministry “ordinances” of three kinds.
1. Regulations for the government of the Church.
2. Statements concerning doctrine.
3. Statements concerning historical facts.
Illustrate the use and misuse of the term “traditions.” Show that the traditions of Christ, in the sense of the records preserved, in memory or in writing, of his life, ministry, miracles, death, and resurrection, are the basis on which the Church is built. Christianity is not a revealed religious system, as Mosaism was. It is the revelation, in an individual man, of that divinely human life which was God’s thought when God made man in his image, but which man spoiled by the assertion of his rights of self will, and consequent separation of the Divine from the human. All Christian doctrine rests on the ideal humanity which Christ exhibited. All Christian duty is the effort to reach and express that ideal. So Christianity is strictly an historical religion; and yet the historical is only the body which manifests to us, and sets in relation with us, and permanently preserves for us, the spiritual and the mystical. Then we ought to be anxious about the adequate remembrance of and knowledge of the traditions of Christ. Show how these are attacked and defended.
1. They are the walls that keep the city.
2. They are the body which manifests the life.
3. They are the material through which alone the spiritual can be apprehended.
Notice and duly impress two points.
(1) The fourfold care with which the Christly traditions have been preserved for us.
(2) The elaborate and precise way in which the apostolic teachings support the traditions.R.T.
1Co 11:2-16
Laws of order in Christian assemblies.
The subject dealt with in this passage is the appropriate conduct and dress of the women in Christian assemblies. That, however, was but a matter of present and passing interest, one standing related to the customs and sentiments of a particular age. Our concern is not with the details of apostolic advice, but with the principles upon which St. Paul deals with a particular case. “Every circumstance which could in the least degree cause the principles of Christianity to be perverted or misunderstood by the heathen world was of vital importance in those early days of the Church, and hence we find the apostle, who most fearlessly taught the principles of Christian liberty, condemning most earnestly every application of those principles which might be detrimental to the best interests of the Christian faith. To feel bound to assert your liberty in every detail of social and political life is to cease to be freethe very liberty becomes a bondage” (Shore). “It appears that the Christian women at Corinth claimed for themselves equality with the male sex, to which the doctrine of Christian freedom and the removal of the distinction of sex in Christ (Gal 3:28) gave occasion. Christianity had indisputably done much for the emancipation of women, who in the East and among the Ionic Greeks (it was otherwise among the Dorians and the Romans) were in a position of unworthy dependence. But this was done in a quiet, not an over hasty manner. In Corinth, on the contrary, they had apparently taken up the matter in a fashion somewhat too animated. The women overstepped due bounds by coming forward to pray and prophesy in the assemblies with uncovered head” (De Wette). St. Paul gives advice which bears upon the maintenance of due order in the Christian assemblies. Taking this as the subject illustrated, we observe the following points:
I. ORDER MUST BE BASED ON FIRST PRINCIPLES. Here on the designed relationship of man and woman. The new law of the equality of the sexes must be dealt with in a manner consistent with the earlier principle of the natural dependence of the woman on man. “Observe how the apostle falls back on nature. In nothing is the difference greater between fanaticism and Christianity than in their treatment of natural instincts and affections. Fanaticism defies nature. Christianity refines it and respects it. Christianity does not denaturalize, but only sanctifies and refines according to the laws of nature” (F. W. Robertson).
II. ORDER MUST BE ARRANGED BY CHRISTIAN PRUDENCE, which acts by persuasion rather than by force, avoids any over magnifying of little differences, and makes due allowance for individual peculiarities. Prudence can recognize that the preservation of peace and charity is of greater importance than the securing of order, and order may wait on charity.
III. ORDER MUST BE ADAPTED TO EXISTING CUSTOMS. No stiff forms can be allowed in Christian assemblies. Social and national customs and sentiments have to be duly considered. Illustrate from the necessary differences of administering the ordinance of baptism in different countries, or from the diversities of Church order in heathen lands that receive the gospel. There can be unity of principle with variety of detail.
IV. ORDER MUST BE ACCEPTED BY EVERY MEMBER LOYALLY, This is the condition of working together in every kind of human association. A man’s individuality may properly find expression in the discussion of what shall be done; but he must sink his individuality in order to help in carrying out the order that is decided on.
V. ORDER BEARS DIRECTLY UPON SPIRITUAL PROFIT. It injures to have the Church’s attention diverted to forward women. Order relieves the minds of the worshippers, so that full attention may be directed to spiritual things. In quietness, in rest of mind and heart, the soul finds the time to enjoy and to grow. Distracted by the material, due attention cannot be given to the spiritual. Illustrate from the anxiety with which harmony, beauty, and order were sought and preserved in the older Jewish ritual. Amid all those formalities worshipping souls could be still, and in the stillness find God.R.T.
1Co 11:17-19
Sectarian feeling within the Church.
“There be divisions among you.” “There must be also heresies [sects] among you.” Distinguish between the divisions which lead to the formation of separate sects, and the sectarian feeling which may disturb the harmony and the work of a particular Church. The apostle refers not to sects dividing the Church into parts, but to parties and party feeling within an individual Church. Such party feeling tells most injuriously on spiritual profit and progress. “St. Paul must be understood as saying that, not only will there be dissension and divisions among Christians, but that some of them will go their own way in spite of the instructions both in doctrine and practice delivered to them by Christ’s apostles.” We may illustrate the sources from which sectarian feeling within the Church is likely to arise.
I. SECTARIANISM FROM SOCIAL CLASSIFICATION. Christianity assumes the absolute equality of all men before God. But so far as Christianity is an organization, it is bound to recognize and make due account of class distinctions. These become a constant source of difficulty, the ground and occasion of much offence.
II. SECTARIANISM FROM FAMILY DISPUTES. Within the same class there arise jealousies, misunderstandings, and heart burnings. The Church is too often made the sphere for the expression of such ill feeling.
III. SECTARIANISM FROM PERSONAL DISPOSITION. Such as that of Diotrephes, “who loved to have the pre-eminence.” Suspicious, masterful, or conceited men are the most fruitful sources of Church dispute and division. The evil man in Church life is the man who “looks only on his own things, not on the things of others.”
IV. SECTARIANISM FROM INTELLECTUAL DIFFERENCES. Such should never occur, because the true unity of a Church is its common life in Christ, and not its common opinion about Christ. The life must be always the same, and so it can be a basis of union. Opinions must differ according to variety of capacity and education. Impress that, if the causes of sectarianism cannot be wholly removed, their influence may be overruled by the culture of high Christian life and sentiment.R.T.
1Co 11:23
St. Paul’s claim to direct revelation
“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” “The whole structure of the passage seems to imply that what follows had been received by St. Paul directly from Christ, and that he is not appealing to a well known tradition.” “The method of communication (whether in a trance, or state of ecstasy, or any other supernatural manner) does not appear to cause either doubt or difficulty to those to whom the apostle conveyed the information thus miraculously bestowed on him.” Illustrate St. Paul’s distinct claim to apostleship on the ground of a direct call and revelation from the Lord Jesus. If St. Paul had a distinct revelation on the matter of the Lord’s Supper, we must regard it as a divinely instituted ordinance or sacrament. The verses following our text become for us an authentic explanation, given by the risen Christ, concerning his sacrament. We fix attention on the proofs that St. Paul had received a direct Divine revelation. Three points may be dealt with in illustration.
I. THE BEGINNING OF HIS CHRISTIAN LIFE WAS A REVELATION. See the remarkable vision and communication on his approaching Damascus.
II. THERE WERE TIMES DURING HIS LIFE OF DIRECT REVELATION. As at Troas; on the journey to Jerusalem; when in prison; during the storm and shipwreck; and as narrated in 2Co 12:1-21.
III. HE RECOGNIZED HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS OF CHRIST‘S LIFE AS DIRECTLY COMMUNICATED. He had no personal acquaintance with Christ; he was not dependent on the narratives of apostles and disciples, save in part. Christ told him his story by vision and revelation. And St. Paul goes even further, and declares that the gospel which he preached, the views of truth and duty which were characteristic of him, he received from no man; all came by direct revelation of the Lord. A special interest, therefore, attaches to the Pauline teachings.R.T.
1Co 11:20
The Lord’s Supper a showing forth.
Considering how much has been made of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by the Christian Church it is remarkable that the passage connected with this text should be the only apostolic teaching we have respecting its observance. We have in the Gospels the records of the incident from which it takes its origin, but though we should have expected St. Peter or St. John to give us complete counsels for its observance, neither of them refers to it. St. Paul alone deals with it, and it is a singular thing that he makes no allusion to it when writing to Timothy and Titus, and seeking to fit them, and others through them, for their pastoral work. It even seems that, but for the accident of an abuse creeping into the Corinthian Church, we should have been left entirely without apostolic precedent or instruction concerning it. Our text, and the verses connected with it, contain hints of the way in which the Lord’s Supper was then observed; indications of the kind of abuses likely to creep in; and teachings concerning those great principles which were to regulate its management. We can clearly see that it was then a meal, not a service; a feast, not a fast; a communion, not an administration; a means of remembrance, and not a mystical presence. Our Lord kept the ordinary Passover meal, and into one of the customary incidents of it he put a new and spiritual significance. Now, see what actually occurred in the early Church. Those having a common faith naturally sought fellowship together. The Eastern idea of fellowship is partaking of the same food together. In this way grew up the agapae, or love feasts, and these seem to have been observed in all the Churches that were founded. These agapae could easily be connected in thought with our Lord’s last meal with his disciples, and on the closing part of them a special significance was probably made to rest. When Christianity touched Western life, the old Eastern agapae naturally dropped away. Feeding together is not so familiar a sign of fellowship in the West as in the East. So in the West a part of the meal was retained and became a sacrament, a service, and a mystery. St. Paul helps us to understand the special significance put into a part of the meal. It was a showing forth; but we ask
I. A SHOWING FORTH OF WHAT?
1. Of a fact of history: the “Lord’s death.” Remember that St. Paul usually goes on to the Resurrection, as revealing the significance of the death. The Lord’s death is shown forth in
(1) the substance of the sacramentbread, which is crushed in the mill before it can become food; wine, which is trodden in the wine press before it can become drink;
(2) the form of the food in the sacramentit is broken, and poured out. Impress the importance of keeping up the remembrance of this fact,
(a) as affirming the actual historical character of the Gospel records;
(b) as keeping for the death of Christ its central place in Christian doctrine;
(c) as renewing, on men’s souls, the special moral influence of Christ, the life persuasion, the “constraining” of his cross.
2. Of a fact of faith: “Till he come.” That is “shown forth” in keeping up the observance, and in the manifest fact that he is now sensibly absent. We declare that the only president of the feast is Christ, as spiritually present. The importance of showing forth this fact is seen in its
(1) testifying to the resurrection and present life of Christ;
(2) in its affirming the foundation of the Church to be faith, not doctrine, or knowledge, or experience; and
(3) in its renewing the Church’s great hope, and witnessing to the reality and value of things unseen, future, and eternal.
II. A SHOWING FORTH TO WHOM?
1. To God; as assuring him that we value his great Gift.
2. To ourselves; as quickening our own feeling, remembrance, and spiritual life;
3. To our fellow Christians; as bidding them rejoice with us in the common salvation which we all share.
4. To the world; as testifying that the despised “spiritual” is nevertheless the “true” and the “eternal.” In conclusion, show the value of symbolic helps in religious life, and the claim that rests on us to show forth Christ’s death, if we have faith in him and the hope of his coming again.R.T.
1Co 11:27
Sacramental unworthiness.
The special thought here is the evil of looking at the Lord’s Supper as if it were a mere eating and drinking time. It is a symbolic time; it is a spiritually feasting time. It is a time when the wants and demands of the body are to be put wholly aside. It is a. soul time. He eats unworthily who stays with any bodily partaking of mere emblems, and fails to fill his soul with living breadwith him who is the “Bread of life.” The following points are so simple and suggestive that they only need statement:We eat, at the sacrament, unworthily;
1. When we eat without suitable remembrance. “The Son of man knew our nature far too well (to trust us without such. helps). He knew that the remembrance of his sacrifice would fade without perpetual repetition, and without an appeal to the senses; therefore by touch, by taste, by sight, we are reminded in the sacrament that Christianity is not a thing of mere feeling, but a real historical actuality. It sets forth Jesus Christ evidently crucified among us” (Robertson).
2. When we eat without spiritual insight, and so fail to recognize the holy mystery of the symbols.
3. When we eat without devout feeling duly nourished by preparatory seasons of quietness, meditation, communion, and prayer.
4. When we eat without thankful love cherished for him who gave his very life for us.
5. When we eat without holy resolves, to which gratitude ought to urge us. Impress the penalty of the unworthy eating.
(1) It is as if a man were really scorning Christ and putting him to shame.
(2) It is a piece of deception, for participation presupposes spiritual relations. The man who eats “unworthily” is guilty, that is, he is amenable to punishment; and spiritual punishments, though they may creep up very slowly and come on very silently, are fearful punishments: they are the hardened heart that cannot feel, the deluded mind that can perish in self deceptions.R.T.
1Co 11:28
Moral fitness for communion.
Explain the Scottish custom of “fencing the tables” at sacramental seasons, that is, of guarding the tables from the approach of unworthy persons. There has grown up round the expression, “Let a man examine himself,” a kind of self searching, as a Christian duty, which could hardly have been in the thought of the apostle. It has come to be considered the right thing that, at stated seasons, the Christian should subject his whole inner life, his thoughts, his views of truth, his frames of mind, and his varied feelings, to examination; testing them by the most familiar and admired models of Christian experience. Many of us know what it is to attempt this painful and difficult work, and perhaps we know also the heavy porosities which follow the attempt; the oppressed moods into which our souls get, the killing outright of all Christian joy, the morbid pleasure found in dwelling on the evil phases of our experience, and, above all, the subtle self trust which it engenders, until we awake to find that we have been led away from simple, childlike reliance on Christ to an attempted confidence in our own frames and feelings and experiences. St. Paul distinctly enjoins the duty of examining one’s self, but if we take his counsel in connection with the circumstances and doings of those to whom his counsel was given, we shall see what was the sphere of self examination to which he referred. The evils which the apostle deals with are plainly the relics of the old heathen life gaining strength again, such strength as to imperil this most solemn Christian ordinance. There were class rivalries, one pressing before another; the rich were making ostentatious display; the poor were grasping at the best food; self indulgence, gluttony, were so manifest that few could realize the special religious significance of the closing part of the feast, the common sharing of the bread and wine of memorial. St. Paul, having this in mind, urges that a man must examine into his morals, his habits, his conduct, his relationships, and his duties, and gain a moral fitness for partaking of the bread and of the wine of memorial. We consider
I. THE MORAL LIFE THAT IS IN HARMONY WITH HOLY COMMUNION. One important element of the Christian spirit is sensitiveness to the tone, the character, the genius, of Christianity. We ought not to have to ask,” What is consistent?” We should feel what is becoming, what is worthy of our vocation. The cultured, spiritually minded Christian, who is “transformed by the renewing of his mind,” finds himself resisting all wrong, disliking all that is unlovely, shrinking from everything that is untrue, and gathering round him all that is kind and lovely and of good report. His life he seeks to set sounding through all its notes in full harmony with the keynote of the gospel. But we should see that our moral life is to be tested by Christianity when that religion is at its highest point of expression, and that we find in the Eucharistic feast. We must test ourselves by the ideal which we imagine as realized at the Lord’s table. Then we say:
1. That there must be a very clearly cut and marked separation from the larger social evils of our time.
2. There must be a firm stand in relation to the questionable things of our time, the things that seem to lie on the borderland between good and evil.
3. There is further required a wise ordering of family relationships, and an efficient restraining of personal habits. Our communion times, when the holy quiet is around us, when the fever and the bustle of life are stilled, and our glorious, pure, white Lord comes so near to us, bring out to view the stains of secret fault.
II. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SECURING THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE MORAL LIFE AND CHRISTIANITY IS THROWN UPON THE CHRISTIAN HIMSELF. The question of supreme importance to us is this, “Will we let the Christ spirit that is in us nobly shape our whole life and relationship? Will we so fill everything with the new life that men shall find the Christ image glowing everywhere from us? Will we be thoroughly in earnest to live the holy life?” The old idea was, win the soul for Christ, and let the body gothe helpless body of sin and death. The truer idea is that we are to win our bodies for Christ, our whole life spheres for Christ. And the burden lies on us. God will win no man’s body or life sphere for him. He will win them with him. God will help every man who sets himself manfully to the work. The sanctification of a believer is no accident and no miracle. The law concerning it is most plain: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who worketh in you to will and do of his good pleasure.” The responsibility lies on us of “putting off the old man with his deeds,” and the responsibility lies on us of “putting on the new man.” The goodness and graces of the Christian life are to be won; they are not mere gifts. Gentleness of speech and manner, lowly mindedness, meekness of self denial, tender consideration for others, glistening purity of thought and heart, strong faith, glowing love, and ardent hope; the inexpressible loveliness of those who have caught the spirit of Christ; the charming bloomricher far than lies on ripened fruitthat lies on the word and work of the sanctified;all these are to be won. We must want them, set ourselves in the way of them, wrestle and pray for them, put ourselves into closest relations with Christ so that they may be wrought in us by his Spirit. And communion times bring all these claims so prominently before us. Brotherhood, holiness, forgiveness, charity, mean then so much; and our attainments seem so few, so small, in the light of the ideal Christian life. Let a man examine himself; find his evil and put it away; find what is lacking, and seek to gain it, and so attain the moral fitness for sharing in the Holy Communion.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Co 11:1. Be ye followers of me, &c. This verse seems to belong to the preceding chapter, where the Apostle had proposed himself as an example, and therefore it should not be separated from it. From what St. Paul says in this and the preceding verse, taken together, we may collect that he makes some reflection on the false Apostle; at least it is no small proof of St. Paul’s integrity and humility, that he proposes himself to be followed no further, than as he sought the good of others, and not his own, and as he had Christ for his pattern. See ch. 1Co 4:16 and Romans 15.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 11:1 belongs still to the preceding section.
Become imitators of me. Become so, Paul writes, for there was as yet a sad lack of practical evidence of this imitation; see also 1Co 10:32 (comp Khner, a [1747] Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4).
] as I also have become an imitator , namely, of Christ . Comp on Mat 15:3 . Christ as the highest pattern of the spirit described in 1Co 10:33 . Comp Phi 2:4 ff.; Rom 15:3 ; Eph 5:2 ; Mat 20:28 .
[1747] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
E. Concluding admonition to live in such matters so as to profit one another, and to glorify God
s 1Co 10:231Co 11:1
23All things are lawful for me [om. for me],9 but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me [om. for me],1 but all things edify not. 24Let no man seek [that which is] his own, but every man10 [that which is] anothers wealth [om. wealth]. 25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [meat-market], that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake: 26For the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof. 27If11 any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience sake. 28But if any, man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols [om. unto idols],12 eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness 29thereof [om. for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof]:13 Conscience, I, say, not thine own, but of the other:14 for why is my liberty judged of another mans 30conscience? For [om. for] if I by grace be a partaker [if I partake with, thankfulness ], why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do [or do any thing, ], do all to the glory of God. 32Give none offence, neither to the Jews,15 nor tothe Gentiles [Greeks, ], nor to the church of God: 33Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of [the] many,16 that they may be saved.
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers [imitators, ] of me, even as I also am of Christ.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Co 10:23-24. He here anticipates an objection that might be raised against his previous injunctions on the score of Christian liberty, by pointing out the ethical limitations which restrict that liberty.All things are in my power.[This is the old statement made in vi. 12, setting forth the broad privileges of the Christian freeman, and to which the Apostle in a measure assents.]But all things are not expedient.This is the first limitation of expediency. But expedient for whom? The word might, in view of the previous warning, seem to imply expedient for the subject himself. It were better, however, to take the word in its broadest application, advantageous not only to the subject, but also to all others concerned.But all things edify not.The second limitation; since it is the duty of every Christian to make edification a special object. In the verb edify the reference to others is more fully brought out, and here it denotes the furtherance of the welfare of the Church.In the next verse this limitation is more definitely expressed in the form of a maxim inculcating the exercise of an unselfish love. It is a general truth which he by no means intends to limit simply to the case in hand.Let no man seek his own (wealth), but (every man) that of another.Here the negation is to be taken absolutely, and not relatively, as though it meant, seek not merely his own wealth, but also that of another. The seeking of ones own denotes the selfish attempt to make ones own enjoyment, ones own liberty, ones own rights the sole paramount consideration, regardless of the good of others; and this falls under an absolute prohibition as being a violation of the great law of love. The idea here is, that even what is indifferent in itself becomes sinful when done to the prejudice of a neighbor. Neander. From we obtain for the nominative in the positive clause an a ease of Zeugma. Like expressions occur in 1Co 13:5; Php 2:4; Rom 15:2 f.
1Co 10:25-26. First he asserts that the eating of flesh exposed for sale in the market, and thus disconnected from idolatrous worshipeven though it may have been cut from sacrificial victims, was altogether innocent, since this meat as well as the whole earth and all things in it belonged unto God.Whatsoever is sold in the meat-market., a word taken from the Latin and=. [The sale of the portion of the sacrificial meat, which fell to the priests, formed a part of their revenue, and was not to be distinguished from ordinary meat, except perhaps by its excellence, as the animals offered at the altar were usually of a superior kind.] that eat, without special inquiry., carefully searching nothing, i. e., as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not.on account of conscience. . [What is this to be joined with? Some say the previous participle, as setting forth the particular point as to which the inquiry is made, and meaning on the score of conscience; others connect it with the whole participial clause, as assigning the ground for not inquiring, being equivalent either to: in order that your conscience may not be disturbed, or: because your conscience being well informed as to the real nature of idols needs no inquiry]; it had best however be joined with the whole previous sentence, and the meaning would then be: eat without inquiry in order that the conscience be not burdened or troubled. [Such is the view of Meyer and Alford. Hodge gives another interpretation which he considers the simplest and most natural: buy what you want and eat, making no matter of conscience in the thing. You need have no conscientious scruples, and, therefore, ask no question as to whether the meat had been offered to idols or not.By reason of what is said in 1Co 10:28, one may be led to suppose that it was the conscience of an observer that was meant, which by that act might become disquieted or sullied, inasmuch as he too might be influenced through the example of one deemed stronger in the faith to eat likewise in spite of his scruples. [So De Wette, Bengel, Rckert]. And in justification of this, reference is made to 1Co 10:29, where the conscience of another person is particularly specified. But the cases are not parallel; and in 1Co 10:29, the reference to others is distinctly denoted through the preliminary clause in 1Co 10:28, and there being no such reference here, it were far more natural to suppose the conscience of the inquirer to be intended.The exhortation in our passage applies to all parties, especially to the weak, who would anxiously ask about their duty in the premises. Yet it was also suited for the strong whose freedom of opinion might suffer damage through the inquiry, since their conscience had been quickened by the Apostles instruction in reference to this whole matter.The act of eating he justifies, by a citation from Psa 24:1, [which was the common form of Jewish thanksgiving before the meal, and hence probably was the early Eucharistic blessing, and thus alluded to in this place. Stanley].for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof.The word denotes that with which a thing is filled, being passive, as everywhere in the New Testament. That which belongs to God can never pollute, and His children need have no scruple about using and enjoying it freely. [And this meat which had been offered to idols, was in fact no less His than any other meat. An idol being nothing could not vitiate it for its original use], (Comp. on 1Co 8:6; 1Ti 4:4; also Osiander in hoc loco, and the citations from Calvin and Melancthon by him).
1Co 10:27-30 : The same maxim is here applied to their conduct at a banquet given at a private house by a heathen to which they might be invited.If any of the unbelievers invite you.The invitation here is not to a sacrificial feast, for in such a case the person would not need to be told whether the meat set before him had been offered to idols, [nor yet would it be allowable for a Christian to be present here].and ye desire to go.A slight hint that remaining away would be a little better; since heathenish customs were everywhere in vogue, and the temptation to deny their Master on the part of those not firmly established was very strong. He here has in view the more liberal-minded whose liberty he did not wish to retrench, and inasmuch as the case often involved the relations of family and friendship, by means of which the truth might be brought home to those who were still unbelievers.whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no question on account of conscience.See comments on 1Co 10:25.The case, however, is altered when the attention of the guest has been turned to the sacrificial character of the meat presented.But if any man say unto you,not the host, as is clear from the repetition of the , and from what is added further, which cannot in any case be referred to an unbeliever. For the same reason, we cannot explain it, of a heathen fellow-guest who might indicate the fact to the Christian, either from love of mischief, or from a wish to test him, or even out of good-will. Only a Christian can here be meant, and that too some weak brother who has discovered the fact pointed out, and now warns his fellow-believer of it. Not a Jewish Christian, since such a one would not ordinarily accept the invitation of a heathen; but some converted Gentile, infected with Jewish prejudices, who regarded idols as demoniac powers, and in partaking of the sacrificial flesh, felt himself brought into contact with them. Neander. Even a weak brother might be supposed to partake of such a meal, being influenced by his particular relations, and yet with a determination to refrain from every thing polluting.This is offered in sacrifice.. and not , see critical notes. The former is a neutral word, and is used advisedly to represent what would be said at a heathens table; but the latter is a contemptuous expression, which we could hardly suppose would be employed there.eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake.The latter expression is explanatory of the former, and the connecting , and, specifies only the particular point to which the more general statement that precedes applies. If the informant were a heathen, then this expression, for conscience sake, would be unsuitable, or we should have to regard it as a second reason derived from the weaker brother, whose conscience we must suppose to be meant. Or we must take it to mean that the person must refrain from eating in order not to allow the heathen informer to suppose that the participant still had to do with idols, and in order not to violate the conscience of weak Christiansobviously, a forced interpretation. [Evidently then it is some weaker brother that is here meant, for whose sake it was duty to abstain. The union of the most enlightened liberality with the humblest concession to the weakness of others here exhibited, may well excite the highest admiration. The most enlightened man of his whole generation was the most yielding and conciliatory in all matters of indifference. Hodge]. He next explains himself more fully, putting it beyond a doubt whose conscience is referred to.Conscience I say, not thine own, , i.e., of any one who may come into such circumstances (not= ).for why is my liberty judged of anothers conscience?This is not to be taken as expressing the defiant remonstrance of the liberal-minded to his weaker brother, who objected to be governed by his prejudices. Such an interpretation would be unsuitable both by reason of the for, which in this case would be inapposite, and also because the following exposition gives no reply to it. Several other interpretations here offer themselves. Rckert and others think they find here a further reason for the command not to eat (1Co 10:28), taking the words to moan that the liberal-minded should not by eating give occasion for others to judge and blaspheme. But in this case they arbitrarily insert the thought, to give occasion, and entirely pass over what precedes.17To this there is joined another interpretation, which would find in this verse a vindication of the freedom of conscience, which the Apostle maintained in the name of the liberal-minded, q. d., About ones own conscience I am not now speaking; for it is altogether improper for my liberty to be judged by anothers conscience. If I am blamed for that which I for my part thankfully enjoy, so that by my thanksgiving such enjoyment is sanctified, this unfounded condemnation neither violates nor endangers my own conscience; so that in not eating, my concern is chiefly for the conscience of anothersome weak brother which ought to be spared, and not mine own. [This is Meyers explanation, who finds here the reason asserted why Paul did not mean the persons own conscience, for the sake of sparing which he enjoined abstinence from eating in the case mentioned in 1Co 10:28, but the conscience of
another. The mans own conscience, he says, did not need such consideration, for it is not affected by anothers judging and blaspheming, since both are ground-less. The reason therefore for abstaining, could only be found in the conscience of another, and not in the danger done to ones own conscience; and this also is Bengels view].The. = , in order that what may happen?why? a form for introducing a question about something which has no object or ground, as here, and the verb judge () here denotes a disapproving, condemning judgment, as is seen in the parallel verb, , in the next clause.If I with grace do partake.Here corresponds to in what follows, and is not to be understood of the goodness of God, which allows of such participation, or gives me the light which liberalizes my spirit, and hence is not to be translated through grace [or by grace, as the E. V. has it], but it means, with thanks, referring to the Eucharistic blessing which accompanied the social meal, as may be seen in the expression still common in many placesto say grace. As the object of the verb partake, we are to supply meat and drink.why am I evil spoken of respecting that for which I give thanks?, lit., to blaspheme, a sharp word, denoting the bitter condemnation pronounced on the liberal-minded, as on one false to his principles. In the use of it there lies a sharp rebuke of the lack of love exhibited by the person judging (comp. Rom 15:3; Rom 14:16).
1Co 10:311Co 11:1. His exhortation here turns to the Church in general, describing the end and aim which should control the entire conduct of every Christian. And this he connects directly with the last word in the previous verse, , which denotes an ascription of honor to God.Therefore,q. d., in like manner, as ye thank God for your nourishment, so in all your eating and drinking, etc. Or if this mode of connection does not satisfy, we may take the therefore to indicate the logical inference of a general truth from the special one,whether ye eat, whether ye drink, whether any thing ye do.The first may be taken either as generic, including under itself also the eating and drinking, or, it may be taken as expressing action, in contrast to enjoyment. In the first case, the emphasis would lie upon , as equivalent to , whatsoever; in the second, it would lie upon the verb,but this is hardly to be preferred, [though Alford does prefer it]. In like manner, Col 3:17. From what has been said, Paul here deduces a general didactic inference; he exhorts them so to adjust and use every thing, however indifferent, that Gods name may be hallowed. Neander.Do all to the glory of God.[This may mean either, Do all things with a view to the glory of God; Let that be the object constantly aimed at; or, Do all things in such a way that God may be glorified. There is little difference between these modes of explanation. God cannot be glorified by our conduct, unless it be our object to act for His glory. The latter interpretation is favored by a comparison with 1Pe 4:11, That God in all things may be glorified. See Col 3:17, all the special directions given in the preceding discussion are here summed up. Let self be forgotten. Let your eye be fixed on God. Let the promotion ofHis glory be your object in all ye do. Strive in every thing to act in such a way that men may praise that God whom you profess to serve. Hodge]. This thought is further expanded negatively.Give none offence, neither to Jews, nor to Greeks, nor to the church of God.He here specially addresses the liberal-minded, as in 1Co 10:31, who by the reckless use of their liberty were putting a stumbling-block as well in the way of the Jews to whom every approach to heathenism was an abomination, as in the way of the heathen who beheld in their lax conduct a want of fidelity to a religion which professed to separate itself so strictly from heathenism, and would become disgusted at the divisions thus created among Christians; and also in the way of the Church of God, both at Corinth and elsewhere, which would feel injured by conduct so ambiguous and so prejudicial to its unity. And while thus the recognition of the true God in Christ would be obstructed both among Jews and Gentiles, and the Church would be hindered in its happy success, the result would be, in its final bearings, dishonorable to the glory of God. The regard here paid to Jews and heathen, should not so surprise us, as to force us to the supposition that Jewish and heathen converts were meant; for in 1Co 9:20 also, we find the Apostle laying just as great a stress on the duty of taking pains to win both.This exhortation he finally strengthens by a reference to his own example.Even as I please all, in all things.Comp. 1Co 9:19 ff., the accusative of more exact definition. The verb please, as in Rom 15:2, means to seek to please, try to prove acceptable to, and is to be taken in a good sense, as the subsequent explanations show. It is otherwise in Gal 1:10.Not seeking,[ , the use of the subjunctive negative here, shows the implication of a particular affection, which he ascribes to himself, and brings into the supposition, q. d., as one who, as far as I can, am seeking, see Winer, p. III. , 55, 5, 13],mine own profit, but that of the many.Here he puts in contrast over against his own single self, the vast multitude (as in Rom 5:15) whose interests were the object of his pure and affectionate endeavor. Their profit which he sought, was the highest conceivable,that they might be saved.Comp. 1Co 9:22; 1Co 1:18.Assured of this his purpose, he urges them to imitate his example (comp. 1Co 4:16) even as he himself imitated the example of Christ, in the exercise of a love which renounced all selfish interests.Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.Only in so far should they imitate him, as he set forth the image of Christ. Of course the whole picture of Christs life stood before the eyes of the Apostle. But then Paul must have had a historical portrait of the acts and sufferings of Christ, just as it is exhibited in the traces sketched by the Evangelists, and in this we have an argument against the mythical view of the life of Christ. Neander.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The Christians inheritance in this earth, and the duties consequent upon it. The earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. In this one sentence there is opened to the Christian an inexhaustible wealth of joy and satisfaction, as well as a wide sphere of sacred obligations. If the earth, with all that fills and adorns it, belongs to the Lord, because it is His work, then in every earthly good which nourishes and quickens him, which strengthens and delights him, ought the Christian to taste the favor and the goodness of his God (Psa 136:1; Psa 34:8), to perceive His power and glory, and to receive it all as the gift of His love. In all his observations and researches, he ought to mark the footsteps of the Divine wisdom and greatness; of the Divine faithfulness and care for His creatures, and above all, for His human creatures made in His own image. Wherever he turns, the thoughts of God which are expressed in the manifold productions of earth, will reveal themselves to his thought. The earth itself, with all its rich and varied life, will become to him a manifestation of the Divine glory and grace; and the more he searches, the more clearly will this open before him. Thus he acquires a large open heart, and becomes ever more capable of enjoyment. Every thing narrow and contracted about him will drop away by degrees. What once seemed strange and mysterious will become known and familiar; he will be able to rejoice in it, freed from all anxious thoughts.Such results are, however, conditioned on the fact that he walks as in the presence of God, that the earth appears to him as a sanctuary, where he ventures to tread, only after he has taken off his shoes, i. e., only after he has divested himself of the commonness of his earthly sense, of vain and proud thoughts, of selfish and interested projects and endeavors, and after he has become collected in spirit; so that out from the midst of all the manifold phenomena around him, the one Divine ground and aim had in them, the Divine idea in forming, and so richly unfolding itself therein, shall shine out upon his spirit. His God, who furnishes him all this fulness for his use and enjoyment, for his study and comprehension, has by this means put him under obligations also, i. e., inwardly bound him to Himself, so that he shall be dependent on Him, as on the One who is the ground and goal of all things; so that all participation and all joy of discovery shall issue in thanksgiving and praise to His great and good name, and so that he, as the priest of God, shall conduct His creatures to Him in an intelligent, susceptible, and worshipful spirit, moulding and fashioning them out of his own spirit, in such a way as to awaken in them Divine thoughts and endeavors, and to cause the natural to wear the impress more and more of the spiritual. In this is included a tender, delicate, gracious treatment of all creatures, and also a temperance and modesty in their use, to the exclusion alike of all conduct that is crude, severe, arbitrary, reckless and excessive; and of all mismanagement as well through unmercifulness, as through foolish fondling and petting.Cf. Scriver;Gottholds: Four hundred occasional prayers; Paul Gerhards: Go forth, my heart, and seek my joy, etc.; and much in J. Bhme, Oetinger, Herder, Schubert, etc.
2. The success, perfection and development of the church of Christ is conditioned on the prevailing power of righteousness, which, on the one hand, takes account of the weakness of unconfirmed and scrupulous natures in considerate, tolerant self-denying love, honors the severity of earnest Christians even though oftentimes abrupt and inordinate, and presents an offering of self-denial to one another with perfect willingness; yet, on the other, injures in no respect the right of evangelical liberty, but avows it and maintains it, and, with all readiness to deny itself of this and that in order to give no occasion of offence, also insists upon the fact that the conscience of a person living in faith is not dependent upon the scruples, and narrow thoughts and judgments of another, but, on the contrary, stands free and far above them, inviolable, in untroubled calmness and clearness. It is thus that, a true advance can be made towards the sound expansion and softening of a narrow and stringent mode of thought, as well as towards the healthy restriction of that which is broad and free; and thus the glory of God be promoted and strengthened in His Church.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Starke:1Co 10:33 (Spener). A God-loving Christian willingly refrains from needlessly doing anything which may awaken doubts as to its propriety. It is not enough to have truth in view, and according to this our rights, and according to our rights our liberty; but the rules of Christian prudence and moderation, directed to general edification, require compliance with love, that true mistress, which, though it often yields its rights, never loses its good conscience.1Co 10:24. Since self-love has become so far corrupt as to lift us not only above our neighbor, but also above God, self-denial has come to be the first rule of Christianity, in order that our love may be properly balanced; since there is no danger of our ever absolutely forgetting self. Indeed, the equity of love demands that we, in many circumstances, prefer our neighbor to self, i. e., the profit of his soul to our own bodily convenience.(Hed.) Let every one seek what is anothersso, in fact, selfishness and avarice say, i. e., take, rob, get by fraud what is anothers. But mark what is added: Let no one seek his own.1Co 10:25. The Christian is free to eat everything, provided no offence is given to his neighbor. Useless inquiries and curious subtleties awaken many scruples. Against all such, simple-mindedness is a sure antidote.1Co 10:26 (Luther). Christ is Lord, and free, and so are Christians, in all things.Oh, man, thou art not lord-proprietor, but only steward in Gods domain! What a rich Father we have if we are Gods children.1Co 10:29 (Luther). My conscience shall remain unbound, though I outwardly comply with my neighbor for his good. We may eat what we will, provided we have it righteously, take it as a gift from God, and receive it with thanksgiving.1Co 10:31. All acts, however small, are sanctified and ennobled by a single reference to the glory of God; and this is promoted, when we do that which accords with a well ordered love toward ourselves and our neighbor, and abstain from whatever deseorates Gods name.1Co 10:32. Believers ought to walk unreprovably, not only among brethren, but also among unbelievers and hypocrites, in order that such may find no occasion for blaspheming Christian doctrine.All have one common Father; we ought, therefore, to be serviceable to one as well as to another.1Co 10:33. Ministers should be an example to their hearers, in order that they may not retract with the left what they give with the right.1Co 9:1. Christ is the perfect pattern of a holy life, who, for our sakes, renounced all comfort and personal convenience. To follow in His steps is the preminent token of a true minister. Such imitation is possible through the privilege we have of drawing from His fulness (Joh 1:10).
Berlenb. Bible:1Co 10:23. A soul truly emancipated may, by reason of its innocence and simplicity, do much which is not only not displeasing, but even acceptable to God; nevertheless, it. may not be always advisable to do it Love must be the standard in all things.1Co 10:24. Let none say, why must I consult for another? Why must he be so weak? Wherefore, then, didst thou wish to become a member of the Church if thou art unwilling to inquire after its members?In this way thou severest thyself from the Head.1Co 10:25. We must deal very tenderly with the conscience on account of our corrupt state. Many are scrupulous where they might be unhesitating, and reckless where they ought to be careful.1Co 10:26. What the earth produces is good; the great point is, how is it used?1Co 10:27. The liberty which Christ has earned for us should be guarded as a priceless jewel, that Christ may have His own.1Co 10:28 ff. A person may possess something and yet refrain from its use, preserving his liberty intact.1Co 10:31. A Christian must order his entire life, so as to render it a perpetual God-service. Even our calling is a service of God; therefore refrain not from it. If with singleness of purpose thou dost consecrate all thy labor to God, then does it become a divine service. This rule put in exercise, sanctifies everything, even our natural work; and converts every meal into a sort of sacrament, so that it, in its own way, as if an acted prayer, shall receive its reward. By this means our most general works are hallowed, and without this our costliest works are punishable. Such searching method in the service of the Spirit many call legal. But it is the right method of faith, whereby the Son makes us free from the law of sin and death. The believer does, according to the spirit, nothing but good so far as he is a believer; he pleases God in all things by virtue of the divine life in him, which he has by faith. His doing, thinking, speaking, all transpires in God and before God.1Co 10:32. If a person desire to honor God, and yet set his neighbor aside, his eye would be playing the rogue. Be void of offence!
1Co 11:1. Christs example is both a gift and an influence. If we put on His example, His Spirit, His compassion, He makes out everything which can happen in our outer and inner life. He is the original, according to which all must be fashioned. The Apostles, indeed, referred to themselves; but they had a good conscience.
Rieger:1Co 11:1. Christ is certainly the most perfect example; yet, since it is difficult for us, in all our varied circumstances, always to track His footsteps, the types of Christ seen in the Old Testament, and the patterns after Him found in the New Testament, serve to present to us His mind in a form adapted to our every day conditions.
Bengel:
1Co 10:30. Giving thanks at meals sanctifies all food, denies the authority of idols, and acknowledges that of God.
Heubner:
1Co 10:24. The Christian pays a tender regard to the conscience of others, without proudly asserting his own rights, and without loftiness of spirit.
1Co 10:29. In doubtful cases, do not insist upon anothers deciding according to your own conscience.
1Co 10:30. Since a thankful spirit sanctifies every enjoyment, all that thou canst, with a clear conscience, give thanks for and ask a blessing on, is allowable.
1Co 10:31. Also in the society of the unholy ought a Christian to keep in view his highest aim, i. e., to glorify God by his life; hence he should join in nothing that dishonors God.
1Co 10:32. By carefully avoiding offences, a Christian should preserve his own honor and that of his Church. The immoralities of professing converts may prove a cause of stumbling even to unbelievers.
1Co 10:33. The Christians pleasing is a holy pleasing. It aims not at his own enjoyment, but at the spiritual good of others; it proposes to win them, and the agreeable exterior is designed to open a way to the interiorthe sanctuary within.1Co 11:1. Christ has taken care to provide for us a multitude of examples, in order to show us that we likewise may follow Him.
W. F. Besser:
1Co 10:24. Liberty is given thee in all sorts of things, not to use them for thine own sake at pleasure, but rather to serve thy neighbor therewith, and to seek his prosperity.
1Co 10:25. There is a hunting after conscientious scruples, in which many persons carry out their whole Christianity, ending, alas! oftentimes, in straining out gnats and swallowing camels.
[A. Fuller:
1Co 10:33. Paul pleased men in all things, and yet he says, if I pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ, Gal 1:10. From the context in the former case, it appears plain that the things in which the Apostle pleased all men require to be restricted to such things as tend to their profit, that they may be saved. Whereas the things in which, according to the latter passage, he could not please men, and yet be the servant of Christ, were of a contrary tendency. Such were the objects pursued by the false teachers whom he opposed, and who desired to make a fair show in the flesh, lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ, 1Co 6:12. The former is that sweet inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will and self-importance, that charity which seeketh not her own, and is not easily provoked; it is that spirit, in short, which the same writer elsewhere recommends for the example of Christ Himself: We, then, who are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not Himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.But the latter spirit referred to is that sordid compliance with the corruptions of human nature, of which flatterers and deceivers have always availed themselves, not for the glory of God or the good of men, but for the promotion of their own selfish designs].
[M. Henry:
1Co 10:23. They who allow themselves in everything not plainly sinful in itself, will often run into what is evil by accident, and do much mischief to others. Circumstances may make that a sin, which in itself is none.
1Co 10:27. Christianity does by no means bind us up from the common offices of humanity, or allow us an uncourteous behaviour to any of our own kind, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices.
1Co 10:33. A preacher may press his advice home with boldness and authority, when he can enforce it with his own example. He is most likely to promote a public spirit in others, who can give evidence of it in himself. And it is highly commendable in a minister to neglect his own advantages, that he may promote the salvation of his hearers. This shows that he has a spirit suitable to his function. It is a station for public usefulness, and can never be faithfully discharged by a man of a narrow spirit and selfish principles].
[F. W. Robertson:
1Co 10:29. The duty of attending to appearances.Now we may think this time-serving; but the motive made all the difference: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other. Study appearances, therefore, so far as they are likely to be injurious to others. Here, then, is the principle and the rule; we cannot live in this world indifferent to appearances. Year by year we are more and more taught this truth. It is irksome, no doubt, to be under restraint, to have to ask not only, Does God permit this? but, Will it not be misconstrued by others? and to a free, open, fiery spirit, such as the Apostle of the Gentiles, doubly irksome, and almost intolerable. Nevertheless, it was to him a most solemn consideration: Why should I make my goodness and my right the occasion of blasphemy? Truly, then, and boldly, and not carelessly, he determined to give no offence to Jews or Gentiles, or to the Church of God, but to please all men. And the measure or restraint of this resolution was, that in carrying it into practice he would seek not his own profit, but the profit of many, that they might be saved].
Footnotes:
[2]1Co 10:16.The verb , is sometimes placed after , and sometimes after . The latter position has the best authority in its favor. [Tischendorf, in both questions of this verse, puts immediately after . In the first question he follows A. B. Sahid. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. Beda. Lachmann, Bloomfield, Alford, Stanley and Words., place it at the close of the sentences, not only on account of external evidence (C. D. F. K. L., Sinait., Ital., Goth., Chrys., Theodt., Ambst.), but because the other order seems to be a correction to avoid the harshness of this verb at the end of the sentence, and in such close proximity to the other . In the second question, the Sahid. omits altogether, and B. agrees with those authorities which placed it after in the first, in putting it at the end of this sentence; and only A. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. and Bede make it precede C. P. W.].
[3][1Co 10:17.Before , D. E. F. G., the Ital. and several copies of the Vulg. (not amiat.), Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede insert . D. and E., however, omit .C. P. W.].
[4]1Co 10:19.In the Rec. the words and occur in their inverse order, but the authority for such an order is feeble. The second word was probably thrown out by the copyist through mistake, and then was reinserted where it seemed most fitting (the cause before the effect). [The Rec. is sustained by K. L. and most of the cursives, the Syr. and Gothic versions, and Chrys. and Theodt., and is adopted by Bloomfield, Osiander and Reiche. Some MSS., including A.C. (1st hand) Sinait. and Epiph. entirely omit the question relating to . In favor of putting in the former, and in the latter question, we have B. C. (2d hand) D. Sinait. (1st hand), Vulg., Copt., th., Aug., Ambrst., Pelag., Bede. and this order is preferred by Tisch., Alford, Stanley and Wordsworth.C. P. W.].
[5]1Co 10:20.Rec. has , , but it is opposed by decisive authorities. The interpolation of made necessary the alteration of into . Lachmann puts the second after , in accordance with A. B. C., et al. [In favor of , we have A.C. K. L. (placing the words after ), Sinait., el at., Vulg., Goth., Copt., Sahid., Syr. Chrys., Theodt., Orig., Aug., Bede. In favor of (twice) we have A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Sinait. The text as given by Tisch. is: . Alford and Stanley have the same text, only they place the second .C. P. W.].
[6][It is observable that two of the Evangelists, Matthew (Mat 26:26) and Mark (Mar 14:22), use the word , having blessed, in their description of Christs action at the institution of the Lords Supper, before the consecration of the bread; and Luke (Luk 22:19) and Paul (1Co 11:24) use the word , having given thanks; but in the benediction of the cup Matthew (Mat 26:27) and Mark (Mar 14:23) use the word , whereas Paul uses the word here. This variety of expression gives us a fuller and clearer view of the nature of the act here spoken of. It was eucharistic and also eulogistic; it was one of thanksgiving and one of benediction, and in the application of each of the terms to each of the elements, we learn more fully and clearly what the true character of the Holy Communion is, and what are our duties in its administration and reception.2Wordsworth (ad sensum)].
[7][We here give Stanleys ingenious and valuable note entire. From this passage his meaning has often been taken to be that, although the particular divinities, as conceived under the names of Jupiter, Venus, etc., were mere fictions, yet there were real evil spirits, who under those names, or in the general system of pagan polytheism, beguiled them away from the true God. (So Psa 96:5, ). Such certainly was the general belief of the early Christians. But the strong declaration in 1Co 8:4, reiterated here in 1Co 10:19, of the utter non-existence of the heathen divinities, renders it safer to understand him as saying that in the mind of the heathen sacrificers, whatever Christians might think, the sacrifices were really made to those whom the Old Testament called . It is in fact a play on the word . The heathen Greeks (as in Act 17:18, the only passage where it is so used in Biblical Greek) employed it as a general word for Divinity, and more especially for those heroes and inferior divinities, to whom alone (according to the belief of this later age), and not to the supreme rulers of the universe, sacrifices as such were due. The writers of the New Testament and the LXX., on the other hand, always use it of evil demons, although never, perhaps, strictly speaking, for the author of evil, who is called emphatically Satan, or the Devil. It is by a union of these two meanings that the sense of the passage is produced. The words of Deu 32:17, truly describe their state, for even according to their own confession, although in a different sense, they sacrifice to demons. A similar play on the same word, although for a different object, occurs in the Apology of Socrates, where he defends himself against the charge of atheism, on the ground that he believed in a demon (); and that demons () being sons of gods ( ), he must therefore be acknowledged to believe in the gods themselves].
[8][We let our authors statement of sacramentarian theories, and his expressed preference, pass without debate. The main point of doctrine he has well brought out in the first paragraph; and some will think that the Calvinistic theory of the Real Presence will answer all its demands. In the words of the Westminster Catechism, the sacrament of the Supper may be said to represent, seal, and apply Christ and the benefits of the new covenant to all believers. And this is done through the Spirit who takes of the things that are Christs, and shows them unto us in His ordinances according to their intent. Those interested in the question here mooted, we would refer to the current works on Dogmatic Theology, also to Hooker. Ecc. Pol., B. V., 100:67; Edward Irving, Homilies on the Lords Supper. Coll. Writings, Vol. II., p. 439 ff. J. M. Mason, Letters on Frequent Communion. Works, Vol. I. p. 372 ff.D. W. P.].
[9]1Co 10:23.The Rec. has after in each clause, bat it is opposed by the best authorities, and was probably taken from 1Co 6:12. [As the Apostle was here unquestionably repeating the same expression as was used in 1Co 6:12, the internal evidence would seem to be in favor of (Bloomfield, Rinck). But the documentary evidence in its favor (H. E. L. Sin. (3d hand), the Syr. both, one copy of the Vulg., Chrys., Theodt., Orig, August, and some inferior MSS., which omit ., . .) is too feeble, and that in opposition to it [A. B. C. (1st hand) D. Sin. (with Clem., Athan., Damasc., Iren., Tert. and many others), too strong to warrant its insertion.C.P. W.].
[10]1Co 10:24.The Rec. also inserts after , but it was perhaps borrowed from a similar passage in Php 2:4. [It is not found in A. B. C. D. F. G. H., Sin., six cursives, the Ital, Vulg., Copt., Sahid. and Arm. versions, and some Greek and Latin Fathers. Even Bloomfield, who at first defended it, now brackets it.C. P. W.].
[11]1Co 10:27.The is wanting after in some good manuscripts [A. B. D. (1st hand) F. G. Sin, and some cursives, the Ital., Copt, and Vulg. versions, and Antioch., Chrys., Theodt., Aug., Ambrst.], and was probably, inserted because it was supposed to be needed as a connecting particle. [It is retained by Tisch. with C. D. (3d hand) E. H. K. L., some Sahid., Syr., Goth. versions, Theodt., Theophyl. and cum, but it is cancelled by Lach., Alf., Mey., Stanl. and Wordsworth. D. E. F. G:, the Ital., Vulg. and Copt, versions, and Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede (not the Aug.) insert after .C. P. W.].
[12]1Co 10:28.The Rec. has , but it is probably a gloss which has been substituted in the text for the more uncommon . Neither word was common, but . was of the classical, and . of the Hellenistic Greek (Bloomfield). The former had a neutral, and the latter a contemptuous signification (Stanley), and hence some have thought that no one would be likely to use the latter at the table of an unbeliever, unless, as Bloomfield suggests, by a weak fellow-Christian in an under tone, or aside. The former word is not too respectful for the Apostle to use, and it would imply nothing false. It is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford and Stanley, on the authority of A. B. H. Sin., two cursives adduced by Bloomf.; the Sahid. version and some indirect testimonies produced by Tischendorf. Julian quotes Paul as using this word in this connection, and his opponent Cyril admits the same (Tisch). The Latin versions of D. and F. use the word immolaticium, to which some Vulg. MSS. add idols, one (amiat.) has immolatium (2d cor. has immolativum) idolis, and the Vulg. (ed.) has immolatum idolis. The Rec. is favored by C. D. E. F. G. K. L., Chrys. and Theodt., and it is defended by Scholz, Reiche, Bloomfield and Wordsworth.C. P.W.].
[13]1Co 10:28.The Rec. after . has , but these words are not found in the best MSS., and are a repetition of 1Co 10:26. [They are left out in A. B.C. D. E. F. G. H. (1st hand), Sin., the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Syr., Sahid. and Arm. versions, and Damasc, August., Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede, and are retained in H. (2d hand) K. L., the Goth., Slav., some Syr. and Arm. versions, and Chrys., Theodt., Phot., cum. and Theophyl.C. P. W.].
[14]1Co 10:30.The Rec. after inserts , but it is feebly sustained.
[15]1Co 10:32.The Rec. has ., but . , is better sustained by the MSS. [The latter has for it A. B. C. Sin., 17, 37, 73, Orig., Didym., Cyr., while D. E. K. L. Sin. (3d hand), some cursives, and Chrys., Theodt. and Damasc. are in favor of the Recep.C. P. W.].
[16]1Co 10:33.The Rec. has , but has better authority. [The former is more usual, and is sustained by D. E. F. G. K. L. Sin. (3d hand), while the latter is sustained by A. B. C. Sin. Comp. on the same variation of reading in 1Co 7:35.C. P. W.].
[17][Kling here hardly does justice to the interpretation he so summarily sets aside, and which is advocated by Chrys. and the Greek commentators, Heyd., Billr.. Olsh., Neand., Hodge, Stanley, and many others. This takes for , in the sense of condemn, and finds here a valid reason for enjoining the liberal-minded brother not to eat against the convictions and prejudices of the weaker one, who has pointed out to him the objectionable meat. The reason is that there is no propriety in doing that which seems censurable to another, and gives occasion for observers to blaspheme, even though it may be right in our own esteem, and accompanied with thanksgiving to God. This. as Hodge well says, brings the passage into harmony with the whole context, and connects it with the main idea of the previous verse, and not with an intermediate and subordinate clause].
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
DISCOURSE: 1977
TRUE WISDOM AND CHARITY
1Co 10:32-33; 1Co 11:1. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
CHRISTIAN morals, in their sublimer parts, are far from being fully understood, or duly appreciated, even by those who are most zealous in the profession of Christian principles. The duties of Christian forbearance, and Christian forgiveness, and Christian liberality, are but very imperfectly discerned, and, consequently, but very imperfectly practised, in the religious world. Nor are the limits of true Christian charity by any means clearly ascertained. On this subject, in particular, I must say, that I think there is scarcely a Christian upon earth that would have made the distinctions contained in this chapter; and not many that would approve of them, now they are made, if they were not forced to yield to apostolic authority. It is an easy thing to lay down broad principles; as, that We must not do evil that good may come: and it is easy to decry expediency, as the refuge of time-serving and dishonest men. But it is not easy to see the different modifications of a good principle, as affected by different circumstances; or the different situations under which expediency alone can guide us. And even the discussion of such a subject as this, however carefully conducted, would be condemned at once by many, as no better than Jesuistical sophistry and refinement. But we must not, therefore, be deterred from treading in the Apostles steps, and marking what we believe to be the true boundaries of Christian liberty and Christian duty.
I shall take occasion, from the passage before us, to shew,
I.
Our duty in reference to things which are indifferent
There are many things on which different parties lay a great stress; which yet, in the sight of God, are altogether indifferent
[In the apostolic age, the observance of the Jewish ritual was regarded by some as of primary and indispensable importance. The keeping of certain days, and the abstaining from certain meats, and the practice of circumcision, were by many insisted on as of continued obligation; notwithstanding they were never intended but as types and shadows, which were to vanish when the substance should appear. There were not in those rites any essential qualities, either of good or evil. They derived all their force from their having been divinely appointed; and, of course, they lost all their force when that appointment was withdrawn. If any chose to observe them, they were at liberty to do so, without any offence to God: and if any were disinclined to observe them, they were equally at liberty to follow the dictates of their own judgment. If any man thought them still obligatory, he of course was bound by them: but all who saw that they were no longer required, were free to neglect and discard them.
The same might be said of many things at this day, respecting which different parties form different opinions, according to the degree of their information, or to the particular prejudices which they have imbibed. I refer to certain rites and ceremonies in religion, on which some place an undue stress; whilst others, with equal vehemence, decry them. I must say the same, also, in reference to some habits of the world, respecting which men may speak in too unqualified terms; whether they justify them, or whether they condemn.]
But our great duty, in reference to all such things, is, to guard against giving needless offence to any party
[In reference to Jewish or Gentile observances, the Apostle says, Give no offence either to the Jews, or to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God. The things about which the parties differed were really non-essential: and there was danger of giving offence to either side by a contemptuous disregard of their prejudices. It was not right to wound the feelings of a Jew, by doing in his presence what was contrary to the law, which he regarded as still in force: nor was it right, by a free and indiscriminate use of meats offered to idols, to hurt the feelings of a Gentile brother; who, having been accustomed to feast on these meats as a religious act, would be ready to think that the person eating them did not indeed abhor idolatry in the way that he professed. At the same time, offence might easily be given to the Church of God, by producing disunion and division amongst her members, whom we should rather have laboured to edify in faith and love.
The same may be said in reference to all matters of indifference, in every age and in every place. There should be a tender regard to the feelings and infirmities of others; and a determination never to please ourselves at the expense of others. Self-denial, rather, should be the disposition of our minds, and the habit of our lives: and rather than wound the consciences of others, and lead them by our example to do what their own consciences condemned, we should abstain from the most innocent indulgence, as long as the world shall stand [Note: 1Co 8:13.]. The rule given in relation to all such matters is, We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves [Note: Rom 15:1.].]
In my text, the Apostle marks,
II.
The object which we should keep in view, for the regulation of our conduct
The salvation of our fellow-men should be an object of the deepest interest to our minds
[Doubtless the salvation of a mans own soul should be his first concern. But no man should be indifferent to the eternal welfare of others; much less should he think himself at liberty to do any thing which may put a stumbling-block in their way. We are all, in fact, one body in Christ; and are bound, every one of us, to consult the welfare of the whole. No member is authorized to act independently, and for itself alone. None but a wicked Cain would ask, Am I my brothers keeper? For we are his keeper, as he also is ours: and we are neither at liberty to injure each other, nor to neglect any opportunity of advancing each others welfare. The duty of mutual love and mutual aid is unalterable and universal.]
With a reference to that, therefore, should we act to the utmost extent of our power
[We may either benefit our fellow-creatures, or injure them, according as we demean ourselves in reference to things which are in themselves indifferent. We may disgust some, by our unhallowed boldness; or grieve others, by passing an uncharitable judgment upon them; or ensnare others, by inducing them to follow our example, contrary to the convictions of their own conscience. We may, by our uncharitable disregard of the feelings and sentiments of others, produce the most fatal effects that can be imagined; not only offending many, but actually destroying our weak brethren, for whom Christ died [Note: 1Co 8:9-11.]. What a fearful thought! Can any man, who calls himself a Christian, feel himself at liberty to act without any reference to such a result as that? Can any pleasure, or any profit arising to himself, compensate for such a calamity as that? Methinks, on any question arising in our minds, we should instantly ask ourselves, not, What will please or profit myself? but, What will please or profit others? What will have a tendency to promote the salvation of others? If any self-denial or forbearance on my part can advance, in the remotest degree, the salvation of a weak brother, I will die rather than gratify myself at his expense.]
That this is no extravagant requirement, will appear if we consult,
III.
The examples which Christ and his Apostles have set us in reference to this very thing
St. Paul calls us to be followers of him, even as he was of Christ.
Consider how our blessed Saviour acted under circumstances of this kind
[He was called upon to pay a tribute levied for the support and service of the temple. From this, as being the Son of God, he might have pleaded an exemption: because it is an acknowledged fact, that kings receive tribute from strangers only, and not from their own children. But he knew that the Jews would not be able to see the truth and justice of his plea, and that his acting upon it would give serious offence: he therefore waved his right; and chose rather to work a miracle for the satisfying of their demands, than give offence to them by an assertion of his rights. Nor did he only wave his right in this particular, but gave occasion to all present to deny that he possessed any such right, or stood in any such relation to Jehovah as would have authorized him to assert it. Yet he considered not himself, but others only; and chose to submit to any thing, however humiliating, rather than, by maintaining his right, to put a stumbling-block in their way [Note: Mat 17:24-27.]. Thus, by his example, he taught all his followers, not to please themselves, but to please every man his neighbour for good to edification [Note: Rom 15:2-3.].]
Observe, also, how St. Paul acted
[It was not on any particular occasion that he conformed to this rule, but constantly, and in circumstances of continual occurrence. Hear his own account of his daily practice: Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law: to the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some [Note: 1Co 9:19-22.]. Here you see, not only what his constant habit of life was, but the principle by which he was actuated throughout the whole; preferring the winning of men to Christ, and the saving of their souls, to any personal consideration whatever. In all this he was an example to us; and therefore says, in reference to this very thing, Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.]
In accordance with this was the conduct also of all the Apostles
[The last time that St. Paul came to Jerusalem, the whole college of Apostles, fearing that the Jews had a wrong impression of his principles, and that, because he had represented a conformity to Jewish ceremonies as unnecessary, they would imagine he had decried them as sinful, besought him to unite himself to some persons who were about to perform their vows as Nazarites, and purify himself, according to the Mosaic law, with them. And this he did, in conformity with their advice [Note: Act 21:20-26.]: thus not only illustrating the principle by which he was habitually actuated, but setting, as it were, the seal of all the Apostles to this line of conduct, as sanctioned and approved by them.
After all this evidence, nothing further need be added to confirm the statement we have made respecting the Christians duty, or to enforce the advice which, in conformity with our text, we have presumed to give.]
On the ground therefore which has been established, I beg you to bear in mind,
1.
What is the principle by which you are to be actuated, in all your intercourse with mankind
[Love to their souls must animate you at all times: and by that must you be determined, in every thing where the path of duty is not clearly determined for you. By that must you be regulated, whether in acceding to their wishes, or in resisting their solicitations. There are certainly occasions whereon a compliance with them will produce a good effect; and there are occasions whereon it will be your duty rather to withstand the importunity even of your dearest friends. But you must be careful to distinguish aright the principle from which you act. You must not give way to fear: nor must you comply from a feeling of personal friendship or regard: and, least of all, must you conform to the world, to please yourselves. You must consider, under all circumstances, how you may best advance the welfare of mens souls; and then act as in the sight of God, so as most to promote that great object. That is what Christ did, when he left the bosom of his Father, and died upon the cross: and in so doing you will fulfil those injunctions which he has given you; Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others [Note: Php 2:4.]: and that also, in a few verses before the text, Let no man seek his own, but every man anothers wealth [Note: 1Co 10:24.].]
2.
How you may best approve yourselves to the heart-searching God
[The mode of conduct which we have recommended will, to superficial observers, lay you open to the charge of inconsistency: for, if you will observe rites, or not observe them, according as others may stand affected towards them, you must of necessity appear to many to be destitute of any fixed principle. But God sees the fixed principle which men cannot see; and he will approve that which perhaps your fellow-creatures will condemn. But, for your conduct in circumstances of more than ordinary difficulty, I would suggest three rules; which, though, when separately taken, they may be insufficient for your direction, will, when taken together, effectually preserve you from any material error. Ask yourselves three questions: What would an ungodly man do in my circumstances? That I will not do. Next, What would be agreeable to my own corrupt heart? That I will not do. Lastly, What would my Lord or the Apostle Paul do, in my circumstances? That I will do. Now I say again, that though no one of these, separately, will suffice, all of them together will prove an easy and a safe directory. It will be impossible for you greatly to err, if these questions be sincerely asked, and faithfully answered by you. If, in prosecuting this line of conduct, you be misunderstood and blamed, then say, with the Apostle, It is a small matter to me to be judged of you, or of mans judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self; but he that judgeth me is the Lord [Note: 1Co 4:3-4.]. Thus will you ensure the approbation of your God, and enjoy the testimony of your own conscience that you have pleased him.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
CONTENTS
The Apostle is giving Instructions in the opening of this Chapter. He enters somewhat more largely in treating of the Lord’s Supper and very sweetly discourseth upon it.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (2) Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (3) But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
We never can sufficiently admire the grace given to the Apostle, as a minister of the Lord Jesus, for that it enabled him to win the affections of the people in attending to his exhortation and reproofs, He that winneth souls is wise. And much of that wisdom which is from above, a minister should pray for, that he may endear himself to his people before that he can hope that they will attend to what he hath to say. How very affectionately the Apostle opens this Chapter on this ground, desiring the Corinthian Church to follow him, but as he followed Christ.
It should seem from what Paul hath here dwelt upon, in relation to the covering of the head of the men, or women, in seasons of worship; that the custom of the Church in those days, was somewhat particular. A decency of apparel, is all that is necessary to be observed. The Apostle Peter, hath given in one short verse or two, a sufficient direction for all holy women, to observe, in their dress, who profess godliness. Whose adorning (saith he) let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price, 1Pe 3:3-4 .
But, methinks, I would take occasion, from the infirmities of the Church at Corinth, and from the infirmities of the Church of God in all ages, to gather improvement, in hearing what Jesus saith to his Church on the subject in contemplating the beauties of his Church, made comely by the comeliness he had put upon her. Behold! (saith Christ,) thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair! thou has doves eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats that appear from Mount Gilead, Son 4:1 . Now as the hair grows on the head, and depends upon it: so the Church is grafted on Christ, and derives everything of life and nourishment from him. And, as the hair is ornamental, so Christ’s Church is the glory of the world; the preservation of which wholly ariseth from the concern Christ hath for his Church, in the world. And, as the hair is not only ornamental, but useful, and forms a covering to preserve from baldness: so Christ’s Church is covered with the robe of her Lord’s righteousness, and the garment of his salvation. Well may the Lord’s people be compared to a flock of goats on Mount Gilead; for the Church, like that goodly mountain, is on high, and stands fruitful, as well as exalted, in the Lord’s righteousness. Numerous they are, like the hairs of the head; but very lovely and graceful. Jesus so highly esteems them, that he saith, they shall be his when he cometh to number his jewels, and to spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him, Mal 3:17 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Duty of Praising People
1Co 11:2
What is praise? There is all the difference in the world between praise and flattery. Praise is commendation of character, the expressed approval of conduct. Flattery is false or insincere praise. Flattery is essentially a lie; it is poisoned honey. The Bible utters most terrible denunciations against flattery. Yet the Book, which waxes fierce against flattery, enjoins praise; and in this text of mine Paul’s voice rings out like a clarion in the gladdened ears of the Corinthian Church. ‘Now I praise you.’
I. Praise is a Duty. How Scripture illustrates this! God is ever praising man in this inspired history of humanity now by direct message, now through human lips. Christ loved to praise. How He commended all who were in any degree commendable! (1) Conscience sanctions the duty of praising people. Conscience does not side with Epictetus when he says, ‘We should not praise any one’. It confirms Paul when he cries, ‘I praise you’. (2) Praise encourages effort towards higher good. ‘Praise,’ says George Meredith, ‘is our fructifying sun.’ (3) Praise is a duty because it raises our appreciation of humanity. No pessimist can win man. (4) Praise of others discourages self-hood.
II. Praise is a Difficult Duty. (1) The self-centred find it all but impossible. (2) The jealous cannot praise. (3) The unsympathetic feel it peculiarly difficult to praise. Many of us neglect the culture of our sympathies. We know men when we feel with them. As Smetham remarks in one of his letters, ‘Pure love to every soul of man is the true standpoint from which to judge men’. He who allows himself to become unsympathetic freezes the fountain of praise. (4) The narrow-minded seldom praise.
III. Praise is a Much-Neglected Duty. (1) Is it not neglected in the Church? If pastors and people praised with mutual love, if grumbling vanished and praises resounded, how happy and prosperous would the Churches be! (2) In the home this duty is glaringly neglected. (3) Praise is a duty much neglected in society.
IV. Praise is a Duty which requires Discrimination. (1) It must not be excessive. (2) It must not exclude faithfulness. (3) Nor must we praise so as to arouse envy. (4) Beware of praising for the sake of popularity. Watch thy motive, O soul of mine!
V. Praise is a Duty which tests Character. (1) You test yourself when you praise people. (2) You test the receiver of your praise when you eulogise him. J. M. Barrie, in one of his lovely books, says: ‘The praise that comes of love does not make us vain, but humble rather’.
Be it ours to say, ‘I praise you’ often as we may! But let us be solicitous to give God the glory for all the praises we receive.
Dinsdale T. Young, Unfamiliar Texts, p. 1.
References. XI. 2. Penny Pulpit, No. 1492, p. 73. XI. 3. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 285; ibid. (6th Series), vol. ix. p. 152. XI. 7. Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 139, 140; ibid. (5th Series), vol. iv. pp. 119, 164, 168. XI. 10. Ibid. vol. x. p. 139.
The Rights of Woman
1Co 11:11
There were three great doctrines enunciated by Christ in the course of His earthly ministry which were in a marked degree ‘revelations’ to the human race. He taught the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the Dignity of Womanhood.
I. Consider the position of woman before the advent of Christ. It is acknowledged that in the barbaric nations woman was the abject slave of man. But even amongst the cultured and highly civilised nations of the earth, woman’s position was very little higher than that of a slave.
II. Consider also woman as she exists in our own day in non-Christian lands. In Moslem countries women are at the mercy of the caprice and passion of men. The Zenanas of India and China are probably worse than the harem of the Turk; and as for the poorer women, the low-caste women, they are the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the men. When we turn to darkest Africa there we find the ‘lord of creation’ sitting at his ease while his wives minister to his comfort, and provide for his household. III. With the advent of Christ and His Gospel, and with the spread of Christianity, a new respect was horn for woman. (1) There are her marriage rights. (2) There are the domestic rights of woman. (3) There are the spiritual rights of woman.
T. J. Madden, Tombs or Temples, p. 16.
References. XI. 11. J. G. Rogers, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliii. p. 75. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 296. XI. 12. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 335. XI. 16. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. xi. p. 461. XI. 18. J. M. Neale, Sermons Preached in Sackville College Chapel, vol. ii. p. 79. XI. 18, 19. Expositor (4th Series), vol. iii. p. 14; ibid. vol. ix. p. 9. XI. 18-34. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. i. p. 214. XI. 20. Ibid. vol. iii. p. 275.
1Co 11:20
Compare Charles Lamb’s lines, The Sabbath Bells:
The cheerful Sabbath bells, wherever heard,
Strike pleasant on the sense, most like the voice
Of one, who from the far-off hills proclaims
Tidings of good to Zion: chiefly when
Their piercing tones fall sudden on the ear
Of the contemplant, solitary man,
Whom thoughts abstruse or high have chanced to lure
Forth from the walks of men, revolving oft,
And oft again, hard matter, which eludes
And baffles his pursuit, thought-sick and tired
Of controversy, where no end appears,
No clue to his research, the lonely man
Half wishes for society again.
Him, thus engaged, the Sabbath bells salute
Sudden! his heart awakes; his ears drink in
The cheering music; his relenting soul
Yearns after all the joys of social life,
And softens with the love of human kind.
There was a little Roman Catholic church at the foot of the hill where his own was placed, which he always had to pass on Sundays. He could never look on the thronging multitudes that crowded its pews and aisles or knelt bare-headed on its steps, without a longing to get in among them and go down on his knees and enjoy that luxury of devotional contact which makes a worshipping throng as different from the same members praying apart as a bed of coals is from a trail of scattered cinders.
O. W. Holmes, Elsie Venner (ch. v.).
The Social Value of the Lord’s Supper
1Co 11:20-22
I. The Lord’s Supper is a new grouping of men a new principle of classification, without any violent or revolutionary interference with the existing order of things. In the world, differences of rank, age, sex, grouped men and women in the usual way on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. At the supper tables of Pilate and Herod guests were arranged according to the relation they held to the Court, the Temple, the Sanhedrin, and the Exchange. But at one table a new order reigned. Jesus Himself was the centre. The greatest was he who rendered the best service in Christ’s kingdom. And all division gave way to love. Now the trouble at Corinth was that they followed the old order of Pilate and Herod, not the new order of Jesus. Weekday differences were reproduced at the Supper. Well, the weekday differences are much the same now as they were in remote ages; and there is not the slightest probability that they will ever be otherwise. But in the Supper we have the means to neutralise differences, to break down the Chinese wall of prejudice, and blend all classes into a loving harmony.
II. But again, a certain measure of friction is inseparable from social life. When Paul heard of troubles in Corinth he did not whine, but accepted them as things not to be avoided, but to be overcome and sanctified. Our feelings are often hurt; bitterness creeps into our souls. Well, in our Lord’s Supper we have a means wherewith to repair the ravages life makes in our affections, to heal the hearts’ hurt, and make good all the damage done to our friendship by the gales and waves of life.
III. In the Supper, Christ sweetens earthly love with the promise of eternal life, and this should help to make all the relations of home and neighbourhood purer and sweeter. The thought of death is the bitter drop in our cup of love. Horace was moved to unwonted pathos as he thought of the end, and Huxley owned that as the years swept forward to the great cataract, the horror of extinction so possessed him that life, even in a hell, seemed preferable. Well, in the light of the upper room there is no death only transition. Bring your friendship, your married life, bring all loves to feed at Christ’s Table. For here the eternal side of things is shown.
IV. And at the same time that it feeds love it nourishes hope. As Christians we all engage, directly or indirectly, in some endeavour to better the world. But often the outlook is so hopeless. Then we relax in our efforts, or we curtail our gifts and starve the work. Well, Jesus foresaw it all. Here is a little festival of hope ordained by Christ. A Supper, not for the body, but solely for the heart. Here is the Bread of heavenly Hope. This is the wine of Assurance.
J. M. Gibbon, Eden and Gethsemane, p. 199.
References. XI. 20-34. D. Martin, Penny Pulpit, No. 1603, p. 223. XI. 21. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 97.
The Contrasts of the Night of Betrayal
1Co 11:23
This contrast may be distributed in three particulars. There is, in the first place, the contrast of grace with sin; in the second place, of faithfulness with treachery; and in the third place, of love with hate.
I. First: the contrast of grace with sin. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas was not a single act. It came to its climax in the kiss given in the garden. But it was a series of thoughts, resolves, decisions. AH of them were known to Jesus. He had watched the tragedy in the heart of Judas as a chemist might watch a process, or a physician might watch the progress of a disease. On that last night He marked the final stage in the course of evil. He saw the fever rise to a burning flame. He heard the betrayal in the words on the lips of Judas. He saw it in the shifty glances of his eyes. He read it in the sullen anger of his heart. All that is hideous and repulsive and pitiless in sin sat down with Him at the feast. We know that it is not the most abandoned profligate who so fully incarnates sin as the man whose face and words are fair, and his cloaked malice inspired by hell. Jesus might have turned aside in loathing, and broken forth in exposing and withering rebuke. Yet with the hand of the betrayer dipping in the same dish with Him He sets up this Sacrament for sinful men. That is the contrast of grace with sin.
‘On the same night in which He was betrayed, He took bread.’
II. Second: the contrast of faithfulness with treachery. Our Lord’s last night was one of mingled joy and sorrow. It had hours of peace and exaltation, but towards its close the shadows deepened. The shadows of His shrinking from death, of His bewilderment at God’s will and way, of His prevision of the cross, of His desertion by His own, and of the burden and shame of His last hour, quenched every joy but the joy set before Him. But the darkest shadow fell on Him from the treachery of Judas. ‘Now is my soul troubled,’ He cried, and we know where His eyes rested. They had caught sight of the face of Judas. There is no wrong baser than treachery. There is no pain so personal. It is the most execrated of crimes and the most difficult to forgive. In the annals of Scottish history there are two events which stand out as the blackest and foulest to people’s minds. They are both deeds of treachery. For generations men have spoken of ‘the fause Menteith who betrayed Wallace’ with a strangely perpetuated resentment. No later indictment rouses the national feeling like the story of the massacre of Glencoe. Simple Scottish faces grow as dark as the gloomy glen itself when they tell the story to their children. It is due to the same moral reaction against treachery that in every army the traitor is punished with a swift and unrelenting stroke. The deserter from the ranks is treated as a felon. The coward’s uniform is stripped from him and he is drummed out of the ranks. The traitor is set with his face to the wall, and the levelled muskets rain death upon him, and his body is cast into an unmarked grave. The man whom you find it difficult to forgive, whose name recalls a deed of falsehood, is the man whose words were fair, whose actions were secretly base. The Gospels reflect this instinctive resentment at the traitor’s deed. The Evangelists never mention the name of Judas with compassion. The kindest word is that sombre sentence in Peter’s prayer, ‘that he might go to his own place’. To the Gospel writers he is always ‘Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed Him’.
But the contrast Paul saw was not simply between a persistent treachery and the absence of resentment, but between that treachery and a persistent faithfulness. The night in which He was betrayed was not only the night of His patience but of His noblest loyalty. Without a murmur, without a bitter word, in faithfulness He goes forward to His cross, to be betrayed. ‘On the night on which He was betrayed, Jesus took bread.’
III. Third: the contrast of love with hate. It is, I think, safe to say that this is the deepest contrast in Paul’s mind. To Paul the most marvellous thing about Jesus was not His wisdom, nor His holiness, nor His meek endurance. It was His love; that love which to Paul passed knowledge, and constrained him with its resistless force; that love which had not been quenched by his own years of sin. Paul never speaks of Christ’s love without seeing the heavens open. He becomes a poet with a poet’s vision, and his rugged prose passes into a poet’s music. On this night he sees love contrasted with hate. He sees love baffled by hate.
When we read that it was on the night in which He was betrayed that His grace triumphed over sin, His faithfulness over treachery, and His love, though baffled by one whose hate He could not expel, never failed, we can take new heart and find fresh comfort. With whatever disloyalty of heart, in whatever mood of alienation, with whatever lurking purpose of evil, we have come here to this table, we can now, in this moment, yield ourselves to Him whose love not even betrayal could quench.
W. M. Clow, The Cross in Christian Experience, p. 77.
References. XI. 23. F. St. John Corbett, The Preacher’s Year, p. 155. Expositor (4th Series), vol. v. p. 434; ibid. (5th Series), vol. i. p. 337; ibid. (6th Series), vol. iv. p. 25. XI. 23-25. Ibid. vol. x. p. 243.
The Sacramental Remembrance and Testimony
1Co 11:23-26
I. If we are to reach the inner meaning of this many-sided mystery, we must consider the place and part of the Lord Himself in the upper room. Two symbolic acts and their interpreting words are brought before us. He appears in the midst of the Twelve as a priest, dedicating His own life in its outward form and its inner virtue to the will of the Father and the salvation of the world. At the beginning of His public ministry He had been described, by His own kinsman the Baptist, as the Lamb of God who beareth away the sin of the world; and the Paschal significance of that utterance had perhaps never quite faded away from the minds of those who heard it. Has the Lord Jesus the same part and place in the sacramental celebrations of the future as He assumed in the upper room? Does the first ministrant disappear from the rite, and is His personality merged with the emblems? Of course, the emblems exchange their prophetic for a retrospective meaning, and the benign form, which stood before the disciples, passes out of view. But He is present in the power of His spiritual priesthood, and there is no room for a visible successor to His office.
II. Our Lord defines the motive which must rule disciples in their future celebration of this Covenant Feast. ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’ This directing word fixes the standpoint of the participant, and puts the Sacrament into a realm of spiritual affection. Whatever else it may be, its practical value consists in the stimulus it affords to reflection, gratitude, and the homage of the soul. The test of a valid Sacrament is inward and practical. Does it summon up within us thoughts of the spotless offering, and bow our hearts to the love and law of the cross, so fulfilling the Master’s hope? Then, no matter what the form observed or the organisation of the church within which it is celebrated, it is just as valid as the sacramental act at which the Pope of Rome, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, officiates; more so, if it melts the heart into a more plastic tenderness, and strengthens the faith into a loftier victory.
III. The Apostle reminds us that this sacred observance is a solemn corporate proclamation of the Lord’s death, to be continued until the end of the world. ‘As oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till He come.’ The object-lesson presented in the Holy Supper is the quintessence of all Gospel preaching. Wherever celebrated, the voice is heard proclaiming to the four winds that Christ gave Himself for our sins, according to the Scriptures. Whilst the disciples keep their Master’s word, the world is compelled to reckon in some way or other with the cardinal doctrine of atonement.
Reference. XI. 23-26. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlv. No. 2638.
The Lord’s Supper and Personal Faith
1Co 11:24
The Lord’s Supper is a great symbol. The bread broken symbolises that Jesus Christ, dying for our sins, has become the bread of life. The eating of the bread symbolises the faith of the communicant. Faith thus unites us and Christ inseparably; it gives us an inalienable possession of Christ. Faith then being on our side the great act of the Lord’s Supper, let us note more particularly its action therein.
I. We in the Lord’s Supper confess our faith. ‘We make a confession,’ many say, ‘when we partake of the Lord’s Supper.’ They seem to mean that we profess a certain sanctity, or a certain superiority. No; the Lord’s Supper is not such a profession, it is rather the confession of our faith. He who partakes, confesses he is unable of himself to attain salvation. ‘But,’ say others, ‘to partake of the Lord’s Supper is to profess a great creed.’ It is certainly to profess a certain faith. But it is a confession that is experimental, not dogmatic; practical, not theoretic.
II. But the confessing involves the exercising of our faith. In the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ is most certainly present. His presence does not wait upon the consecrating word of priest. Christ is present as truly before as after the consecrating word of priest or minister. The communicant, discerning the Lord’s presence and offer, does there and then receive his Saviour, His truth and grace, His love and spirit.
III. This being so, our third position follows, that in the Lord’s Supper we receive nourishment to our faith. The silent impressive appeal of the symbols, the communion of saints, the presence of the Lord, quicken our faith to appropriate and assimilate Jesus Christ, so that our spiritual man is nourished, as our body is, by partaking of its appropriate food. This nourishment, it must be noted, depends upon the activity of the faith of the communicant.
IV. In the Lord’s Supper our faith pledges us anew to Christ. If we confess, and exercise our faith in Christ, and receive spiritual nourishment in the Sacrament, our hearts involuntarily consecrate us anew to our blessed Lord. An act of consecration, therefore, should follow the partaking, and be a part of the communion.
A. Goodrich, Eden and Gethsemane, p. 105.
References. XI. 24. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 625. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. i. No. 2. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. pp. 77, 78. XI. 24, 25. R. Winterbotham, Sermons on the Holy Communion, p. 26. XI. 24, 25. Expositor (5th Series), vol. viii. p. 90. XI. 25. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. v. p. 8; ibid. vol. vi. p. 138. XI. 26. R. W. Church, Village Sermons (3rd Series), p. 101. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. iv. p. 111. J. B. Brown, Aids to the Development of the Divine Life. J. Keble, Sermons for Advent to Christmas Eve, p. 469. J. Cumming, Penny Pulpit, No. 1511, p. 225. T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv. p. 228. D. C. A. Agnew, The Soul’s Business and Prospects, p. 62. Bishop Wilberforce, Sermons, p. 209. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxix. No. 2307; vol. xliv. No. 2595; vol. 1. No. 2872; and vol. li. No. 2942. G. H. Morrison, Scottish Review, vol, i. p. 422. Expositor (5th Series), vol. viii. p. 60. XI. 27. Ibid. (7th Series), vol. v. p. 297.
Fitness for the Lord’s Supper
1Co 11:28
I. What constitutes fitness for communion? How shall a man prepare for the Lord’s Table? Our text says: ‘Let a man prove himself. Exactly, but how? For this information we must consult the example and commandment of Jesus Christ Himself. The Supper was instituted by Him for purposes determined by Himself. Jesus, and Jesus only, is our teacher and standard in this matter.
II. And what does Jesus Himself say? ‘This is My body which is for you.’ The nerve of the whole lies in that emphatic ‘My body,’ says Weiss. My body, not My flesh, but My body, flesh, and blood, for you. Whatever that means, the Bread in the Sacrament means. First and foremost, this table symbolises atonement, forgiving love.
III. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, this do, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of Me, for as often as ye eat this Bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim (ye evangelise) the Lord’s death till He come. The bread stands for atonement, forgiveness, grace; the cup for the new covenant, the new union of God with man, and man with his fellow, arising out of atonement
J. M. Gibbon, Eden and Gethsemane, p. 23.
References. XI. 28. T. F. Crosse, Sermons, p. 133. J. J. Blunt, Plain Sermons (3rd Series), p. 172. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlv. No. 2647; vol. xlvi. No. 2699, and vol. 1. No. 2865. XI. 28-30. H. Bell, Sermons on Holy Communion, p. 11.
1Co 11:29
‘I have known several men, who, though their manner of thinking and living was perfectly rational, could not free themselves from thinking about the sin against the Holy Ghost, and from the fear that they had committed it. A similar trouble threatened me,’ says Goethe, in describing his early life, ‘on the subject of the communion, for the text that one who unworthily partakes of the Sacrament eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, had, very early, already made a monstrous impression upon me. Every fearful thing that I had read in the histories of the Middle Ages, of the judgments of God, of those most strange ordeals, by red-hot iron, flaming fire, swelling water, and even what the Bible tells us of the draught which agrees well with the innocent, but puffs up and bursts the guilty all this pictured itself to my imagination…. This gloomy scruple troubled me so much… that, as soon as I reached Leipzig, I tried to free myself altogether from my connection with the Church.’
Discerning the Lord’s Body
1Co 11:29
I. He eats unworthily who does not discern the Lord’s body.
II. He who does not discern the Lord’s body is judged.
III. We are judged in order that we may not be condemned.
A. Maclaren.
The Real Presence
1Co 11:29
Many have started frightened by the strong words of St. Paul, ‘He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation’. In very fear there are some who do not come at all to the table of the Lord. Better that our place be empty than that we eat and drink unworthily. Let this fear only drive us to seek for grace lightly to celebrate this holy ordinance. ‘Not discerning the Lord’s body.’ One thing it cannot mean. It cannot mean that any priest can by any service or authority transform the bread and wine into the Body of Christ. He who takes it makes it the Sacrament; not he who gives it.
I. Let us consider devoutly what makes this Sacrament a fitting memorial of the Lord. Many have sought in other ways to recall that life and death such ways as naturally suggest themselves. By many kinds of penance, by fasting, by humiliation, by gloom and grief men have sought to recall the Man of Sorrows. And they are right if the Church of today has but a cross and a grave. But He is here. Not a dead Christ or a departed Saviour is it that thus we celebrate, but One who saith, ‘Lo, I am with you alway’.
II. See here a gracious provision for all time. This Sacrament means that for Him and for us the cruel limits of time and place are broken.
III. We discern herein the gracious brotherliness of our Lord. As He came of old so would He come to us, at home with us, sitting down at our tables. He would not be to us a stranger afar off, a mystery of awe too sacred for any place but the altar, too glorious for any moment but of worship. He would be one with us in the common round of life, teaching us that when we eat and drink we can do it to the highest glory of God.
IV. These very elements do help us to discern the Lord as the Saviour. The commonest and lowest of our wants is made to help our faith. By earth’s poor bread He feeds our faith. He hath given Himself for me that He may give Himself to me.
M. G. Pearce, The Preacher’s Magazine, vol. VI. p. 70.
References. XI. 29. J. Bolton, Selected Sermons (2nd Series), p. 84. J. Watson, The Inspiration of Our Faith, p. 274. XI. 30. J. M. Whiton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvi. p. 164. XI. 30-32. Expositor (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 437. XI 31. H. P. Liddon, Sermons on Some Words of St. Paul, p. 65. XI. 31, 32. J. Keble, Sermons for Advent to Christmas Eve, p. 458.
1Co 11:32
There is nothing the body suffers that the soul may not profit by.
Meredith.
All sorrow is an enemy, but it carries within it a friend’s message, too.
Carlyle.
References. XI. 32. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xlvii. No. 2746. XI. 42. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 168. XII. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ix. p. 82. XII. 1. H. P. Liddon, Sermons on Some Words of St. Paul, p. 81. XII. 3. R. F. Horton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. p. 244. J. Baines, Twenty Sermons, p. 221. H. P. Liddon, Sermons on Some Words of St. Paul, p. 95. Phillips Brooks, The Mystery of Iniquity, p. 90. F. J. A. Hort, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 158. Expositor (6th Series), vol. v. pp. 45, 292.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
The Teachings of Nature
1Co 11:14
The Apostle is speaking about a particular subject; it is of no interest to us: but the principle which he lays down is of perpetual value and application. I wish to lure you into two or three simple admissions. The church in which we assemble built itself. I want you to admit that simple statement to be true. No human hand touched it; whether it came down, or whether it rose up from the earth, it is impossible to say; but precisely as it now stands it was found by those who occupy it. No man built it, no man touched it, no man charged for it; the whole edifice came to earth just as we see it. Do you receive the statement with a smile? Why should you do so? There may be more in the admission or supposition than you expect. Be careful how you admit anything at any time. Things are so connected one with another that, in talking the commonest speech, you may be committing yourselves to the most subtle and complicated scheme of metaphysics. Let me then make a less demand upon your imagination, and get you to admit that, if the church did not build itself, the pulpit did. That is a much smaller area, and therefore will tax, in proportionate degree, much less of your credulity and imagination. The pulpit came up out of the earth or descended from the roof, we cannot tell which; but here it is: no man touched it, no tool fashioned it, no fingers polished it; but just as you see it, it came to be. Do you still smile? Do you think I would lead you into fooldom, and tease and torture you with your own folly? Then let me circumscribe still more, and say that if the church did not build itself, or the pulpit did not build itself, the glass in one of the windows made itself. Let us circumscribe still further and say one of the panes; let us still further circumscribe and say, the Very smallest pane of glass in this building made itself. Now how do we stand? Just as badly as ever; I cannot get any one to assent to these propositions. If you think it worth while to condemn them you simply dismiss them with a sneer, or turn aside from them with most suggestive indifference.
You have a theory, which has sometimes led you into trouble. Your theory is to believe nothing that transcends the circle of positive human experience. Within the four corners of that theory you are prepared to believe largely, but beyond the four corners of that theory you will not go one inch. So you exclude miracles, supernaturalism, inspiration, the unseen universe, God. You take rank with those philosophers who are experiental; they subject every theory, suggestion, proposition to the test of actual human experience, saying, Has man ever known anything like this? Does this thing come within our experience and observation? Can we subject it to the test of our hands? Will it confine itself within the bounds of our reason? If not, we dismiss it; therefore we take up all books of divinity, according to Hume’s suggestion, and we simply commit them to the flames. Our theory, say you, is the theory of experience. So you will not believe that the church built itself, that the pulpit built itself, or that the smallest pane of glass in the windows of the church made itself; you have never known any such self-making in any department of life; the very suggestion of self-making in these directions excites the resentment of your reason. So be it. Let us go away from the church altogether.
Above us, around us, beneath us, there is a great structure called the universe: I propose that we say it made itself. What do you say in reply to that suggestion? Let us circumscribe and say, If the whole universe of the telescope did not make itself, our own little world is self-made. Again you pause, again I cannot get you to assent to my suggestion; then let us try within more circumscribed limits to get some assent to this theory of self-creation, let us pluck a blade of grass from the meadow and say, This one blade is its own creator. You will not even admit so small a proposition as that; you are as consistent in your denials with regard to the universe, the earth, and the grass as you were with regard to the church, the pulpit, and the window pane. What do you know about nature? That is a very common word in the books of the day. Suppose a man should come to the city and write a book about it, and suppose that he should state in the preface of the book that he has only stood at one street-corner of the city, and has seen nothing of the city beyond what he could see from that position; and he has written an elaborate treatise about the metropolis. He has never seen its libraries, its galleries of art; he has never walked through its museums, or inspected its historical and monumental buildings; he has simply stood at one street-corner, and taken in as much as he could by glancing round from right to left, and he has written a large book upon the metropolis of England. What would you think of him? Would you buy the book? You would not even borrow it. Yet this is very much more than anybody has done in relation to God’s great city of the universe. We have not even stood at one little street-corner in it; yet we tell what the universe is, and what nature is, and what nature can do, and has done, and will do. It is very impertinent! Were a man to publish what he had seen from his own street-corner he would be acting legitimately and reasonably: were men to say all they now know about the little piece of nature that has come under their survey, they, too, would be acting in a rational manner. Beyond that, however, they must not go. We know nothing about nature beyond a very limited line; and what there is in the further nature, the deeper, loftier, grander nature, that shall modify and rectify and explain the little portion of nature we do know, no man can tell.
You acknowledge that the church must have been built by some one; you acknowledge that the universe must have had a maker or a making; and you say you do not know who made it. Very well: what does that matter? That is of no consequence. You do not know who made the glass that is in your windows at home. Who was he? You cannot tell. What is his name? You never heard it. Where was he born? Impossible to say. And yet you believe it was made; you cannot get out of that admission. But your agnosticism amounts to nothing. If you really and truly wanted to find out the man you would at least make some inquiry about him; you could at least fee a detective; if you wanted to find out who made the universe, you could at all events reverently inquire. The main point is that we admit that this universe must have been made. Deny that it was made as a whole: what does that amount to? Nothing. If you taunt Paley and his followers with the suggestion that they only remove the inquiry one step backward, so do we taunt all other men who are supposed to deny the Divine creatorship of the universe. Say the universe came out of a speck, a germ, a tuft of fire-mist who made it? It takes as much wisdom to account for one little tuft of fire-mist as to account for the universe. It may take even more, for how wondrous must have been that little cloud of fiery particles out of which came all constellations, all systems, all things great, beautiful, musical, majestic, tender! Who hid in so small a receptacle wonders so infinite, so dazzling? No matter therefore what your theory of making is, and no matter whether you say the universe was made by a Secret, an Energy, a Force, you still come to the grand religious point. Whether that point can be amplified, put into words, set in a broader aspect before your mind, is a question which for the moment may be reserved: enough has been admitted to give us a teaching nature when it is admitted that according to human experience nothing known to men ever made itself; therefore the universe, if it is to be accepted as a fact, must be accepted according to the limits of this doctrine of experience. This might be enough to begin with.
Now let us see how much of a Bible we can make for ourselves. We have human experience bearing evidence in a certain direction, we have a universe as the basis of induction and inference; we will not listen to prating theologians, to pedantic divines who have learned lessons from books and are reciting them from treacherous memories! we will have nothing to do with the brood theological: we will write a book upon what we do see of the universe that is round about us. Now, begin! Shall I dictate what you write, and will you stop me the moment you cannot assent to what I dictate? Let that be the understanding between us for a moment. Thus then would I dictate the new Bible: Whoever made this universe must have infinite strength or say, in equal words, infinite power. It is a big thing to have made. It is so broad, deep, so cubic; it measures in every direction, length, breadth, depth, height, diametrically, diagonally: how full of measure! That is verse 1. Verse 2 read thus: Whoever made this universe must have continuing strength enough to keep it going. This is not the work of some giant, who in a moment of spasmodic strength threw off the miracle of creation; there is abiding, sustaining, providential strength in the maker of this universe, be he man or angel, God or devil, personality or influence and energy. Science tells us that there are orbits, circles of movement, so great that the orbit made by our solar system would lie upon their infinite distances like a straight line. No wheel goes wrong, no planet makes a noise as it drives its chariot through the fields of immensity. The stars have all been there, not according to the theologians, but according to the men of science thousands of years. That would be a mean time. Tens of thousands of years? You scarcely relieve the meanness even by that heightening suggestion. Millions of years, billions countless. Put down therefore as the second verse in the Bible suggested by nature, that whoever or whatever made this universe must have continuing strength to sustain it.
Put another verse down: Whoever or whatever made the universe constantly utilises danger as an element in education, This is a great school, and it is full of peril, and this peril is utilised as an agent or instrument in the education of the whole human family. We learn by what we suffer; we are made cautious by what we fear. A yard off there may be a bottomless pit; near at hand there may be devouring fire. We are led. therefore, constantly to look out, to study, to consider, to test by careful experiment. If we put our hand into the fire, we are burned; there is poison in the very air; the next little plant I pluck for my hunger may kill me because it is a poison-flower. The lightning may be sleeping, but it is never absent; it may strike the proudest tower and level the proudest town: I must take care how I build, I must bribe that dangerous fluid if I can; I must offer it the hospitality of iron that it may be conducted away from the tower into the ditch. Nature herself has taught us thus much. We cannot riot and be wanton in nature. Nature hath her constables, nature hath her code of laws and her register of punishments, her magistrates and judges, and her gaols and hulks and penal settlements. “Doth not even nature itself teach you” that life is subject to continual danger, and that danger is to be regarded as an element in the culture of our judgment and in the distribution and control of our faculties?
Put down another verse. We are getting now, I see, a rather useful Bible without the aid of the theologians at all. Whoever made or whatever made this universe has established within it the principle of obedience. If we do not obey we die; if we disobey we die. We make no laws except little ones, subsidiary laws, mere transcripts of the great ordinances of nature. We must obey. Doth not even nature herself teach you so? And we must obey the sun. The sun settles all your customs and habits. You may not have thought of that, but everything even in your civilisation goes right back to the sun. When George Stephenson said that the engine that was flying across the landscape was being driven by light he was right. That same light drives all the engines of civilisation. The sun tells you what coat to put on. Do not distress yourself as to how you will dress your poor body; the sun will settle that. Here let us suppose is a burning summer day and a man is going to put on his very thickest top coat. His children laugh. I am not now speaking of instances of infirmity or of any special and unique instances of feebleness, I am speaking of the broad customs of society. The sun settles your wardrobe. And you must obey the sun in the food you take. What is good in one climate is intolerable in another; consult the sun. The sun determines what kind of houses you will build; the sun is the architect. In some climates he permits you to build wooden shanties, and they are quite enough; in other countries he forbids any such poor building, and says, You must build in this country of granite. And you cannot help it. Freemen! bondmen. The sun settles all business. The merchant has to look up to the sun to see what he must buy next, how his next speculation is to run; there is one speculation for summer and another speculation for winter, and all the shop-windows simply say where the sun is. Sometimes the sun seems to play them rather vexatious tricks. Still, he is the sun and he settles the profits of Regent-street. Regent-street can never get over one thorough wet day. A wondrous nature. Can we not do double business the next day? No. If there has been one day lost by rain it can never be recovered.
Doth not even nature itself teach thee? Is there not something more in all this? Have we not here a field of vivid and practical suggestion? We might continue the inquiry along all directions. Suppose therefore now we terminate our dictation of the new Bible, because the Bible, as we know it, has been put into our hands. Now we are prepared in some degree to read it. What does it say? It says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”; and we say, Blessed be his name! It does look as if this might be true; it seems as if it were worthy of God, so great, so bright, so wondrous, so adapted in part to part, so silent, yet so musical; it may be true, “And God said, Let there be light”: it looks as if he might have said so, the light is so beautiful, so glorious, so silent. It fills all things, yet takes up no room; it does not displace the tiniest child from the tiniest chair. It may be God’s light; it shines as brightly upon the poor man’s cottage as upon the monarch’s palace; it kisses as tenderly the poor man’s one little window-flower as it does the radiant, glowing parterre in the king’s garden: it may be that God did make this light. “God said, Let us make man”: he may have done so; man is so strange, so complex, so wondrous altogether: now an angel, now almost a demon; now writing his Iliad and his Paradise Lost, and now degrading himself into the lowest, basest life, and then suddenly springing up into song and prayer, and stretching out eloquent hands to condescending heaven. God may have made us! The Christian believer has no difficulty in stepping from nature to nature’s God. The Christian believer has no difficulty in going up from providence to redemption. The Christian believer does not discard reason, he takes up his reason under the wings of his faith. The Christian believer finds no difficulty in saying to Christ, “My Lord, and my God”: and in saying this he does not give up his reason, he sanctifies it, he turns it to its divinest uses. The Christian believer has no doubt or difficulty about the miracles of Christ; the miracles were in the hem of his garment, in every tone of his voice, in the glance of his gentle or rebuking eyes. He himself was the supreme miracle, and all lesser miracles fall out of him as gentle showers from the infinite clouds. Let us abide in this faith; let us rest and content ourselves as in a divine sanctuary. Let nature herself be our first teacher, and if we submit ourselves to her eloquent lessons, so patiently given, there shall come in upon us another voice, and yet not another, the voice that made nature will interpret nature, and the voice that made nature will not keep heaven from us.
The Night of Betrayal
1Co 11:23
These words were used by the Apostle Paul. There is a word put in “The same night in which he was betrayed”: omit the word “same” “The night in which he was betrayed.” Events make time memorable. Our sufferings are our birthdays, or our burial-days, or our resurrection-days, according to the view we are enabled to take of them whilst we tarry beside the all-engulfing and all-sanctifying woe of Christ. There is a subtle music in the very words. We could not have read “The morning in which he was betrayed: the glorious summer noontide in which he was betrayed.” It is better thus: the night, the darkness, the gloom, the midnight involved in midnight, in which he was betrayed. But this is only one view, and it is only our view. We are shocked with a great surprise. Even the verbal fitness of things adds to our soul’s disquiet. What view did Jesus Christ himself take of the night in which he was betrayed? What did he do? That is the very point. How did he use that darkness? Did he accept it as a signal of despair, and say, I have failed, and must return whence I came? Properly read, these words are the beginning of the sublimest revelation of Christ’s character. “The same night in which he was betrayed” he was overwhelmed? No. He yielded himself to the malign spell of despair? No: He “took bread.” He was always taking bread that he might give it. He would be great in darkness; the tragedy shall but reveal his majesty. What did Jesus Christ do the same night in which he was betrayed? He founded a sacrament; the simplest of feasts, a memorial banquet; and he said, As often as ye gather around this table ye gather around your Lord; and as oft as ye do this simple deed you do it in remembrance of me.” Is that all? No, “in remembrance” takes us back away over the stony road of our yesterdays when we did all the sin, and committed all the folly; and this sacrament is intended to do more it is to show forth the Lord’s death till he come. There is the future, the road we have never travelled, the unstained, unsullied path, the road of sunbeams and flowers, without a footprint but his own. This he did on the same night in which he was betrayed. He thought of his Church, he arranged the feast, suiting his own simplicity, he set up a memorial beautiful as love, and simple as the thought of a child; he condescended to poverty, so that any man who has one crumb of bread can eat the Lord’s body. This was no feast for kings of wealth, for sons of splendour and children of luxury; it was the world’s simple but ample board. Wherever there is bread and there is bread wherever there is life the Lord’s death can be set forth till he come. Then he was not overwhelmed? Contrariwise, he was prophetic, poetic, victorious; the only quiet, noble, royal heart in the midst of the gathering gloom.
Not only did he take bread, he “gave thanks.” He looked up where he was always looking. It is the upward look that saves you; the upward look is the cure for dizziness, the upward look shows the vastness of things; what you want is never down, it is always up and beyond, the stars being a mere trellis-work through which you catch gleamings of the splendour which is fitted for your soul’s vision alone. Never was Jesus so great as on the night in which he was betrayed. He took the simple wine of the supper table, and made it blood, and called it the new covenant. Whoever can take a draught of water from the spring can drink Christ’s blood. The man cannot turn the water into wine, but Christ can. Whatever you have, if you take it in the right spirit, it is the right thing; and whatever luxury you may have, if you take it in the wrong spirit, it is poison. If you cannot afford one mouthful of milk, take one mouthful of water, and in that water you will find the Lord’s blood. Do not be led away by prosaic minds, those fools that spoil the garden, and say, How can this be so? Say, Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? art thou a rational being, and art thou degrading all God’s poetry into this mean prose? The thing is what it is made by the thought, the motive, the spirit, the love. There are those who find great things in things that are small. Even the child finds the baby in her doll. There are those who see great sights in flowers that are burning but not consumed; there are minds that halt in all their urgency and forget all their need in the presence of a dawning day. “Things would be greater if we greater deemed them.” If we said, “There is nothing common or unclean in God’s house, all the universe is his, and there is nothing in it that is not pure,” we should find more purity than we should ever find through the medium of our criticism and pedantry. To the pure all things are pure; to the good, true, honest heart all bread is sacramental, all water is symbolic of the blood of Christ, and every day is an opening into the eternity out of which all days come, as rain-drops fall from the rain-clouds. Thus the Lord set in that darkness a glowing star, whose solemn splendour shall rule the thought of men till stars are needed no longer, until the face of the Lord shall become the one light and the one glory of creation.
Is this all that he did on the night in which he was betrayed? No. What more did the Lord do on that memorable night? He sang a hymn. That proved him to be Lord. No other soul could have sung that night; that darkness would not have brought music into any other heart; that black curtain would have shutout God from any eyes but Christ’s. The Lord and the little Church sang together. To have heard that hymn! minor, low, pensive, tremulous, grand because of self-suppression, saying more to the ear of the imagination than could be said to the ear of flesh. “They had sung an hymn.” That old English suits the occasion better than your new-made grammar would ever do. It makes the occasion venerable and tender with a subtle melancholy. Old age lingers around the scene; this grey moss makes the table old as eternity. We sing our hymns at midday, our psalms are all retrospective; the trouble we came out of, the rivers we were taken across, the seas that were divided as we approached them, these are the subjects of our modern psalmody; but to be singing while the gathering darkness is descending is really to praise God. The doxology should be an intermediate as well as a final act of worship; when the stroke falls the tongue should sing, “I will sing as long as I live: my song shall be of mercy and judgment: unto thee, O Lord, will I sing.” We are greater in gratitude and we are never very great in that than we are in trust. Give us to feel that not a feather has been taken away out of our nest, and we are willing to sing a doxology: give us to feel that the nest is being torn up and scattered on the winds, and where is our hallelujah? What shall be said concerning us when we think of the night in which we were ruined?
On that solemn occasion, after the Lord had discoursed about his betrayal, the disciples said one to another and to the Lord, “Is it I?” Yes, it is every one of us. Who betrayed the Lord? Everybody. There must always be one hand objective and concrete that does the deed, but it is only done representatively: it is a question of agency. It was not the hand of Iscariot that did it, else Christ had fallen a prey to a plot: it was Man that did it; therefore Christ submitted to the sacrifice. Jesus was not worsted by a gang of murderers: all the men that ever lived, and that ever are to live, gathered together in that one infernal representation, and betrayed the Lord when Iscariot kissed him. Iscariot is nobody; Iscariot is but a speck of dust that could have been cast off; but the Lord would not cast off’ Man, for then had he cast off his own image, and disavowed his own signature, and laid himself prostrate before the conquering work of his own hands. Let us not adopt the shuffling piety that says, “Is it I?” either the question of an imperfect consciousness, or the question of a doubly-involved and unpardonable cowardice. There are those who would keep aloof from Iscariot. Why? We may not stand one inch away from that black character. He did what we wanted to do, and what we ourselves did. Thus again God’s great gleaming axe is flying down to the root of the tree of our respectability, and we stand in one condemnation before God. Let us repeat the commonplace that, as amongst ourselves and between ourselves, there are good men and bad men, faithful men and unfaithful men: but as before God what is there? Only one human nature. There are those who have found that human nature to be very excellent, and they have done everything to establish that doctrine except proving it. They have praised it and repeated it and lauded it and magnified it and revelled in it: we have simply, quietly, and hopelessly waited for the proof.
But, supposing that we are anxious to press the matter personally and say, “Lord, is it I?” even there we can be gratified. Do you remember the time when you had an opportunity of speaking for Christ, and lost it? it was then that you betrayed the Lord. He was looking on, he was expecting a heroic defence, and you were criminally silent. Pray do not abuse Iscariot. Do you remember the time when two courses were set before you, the one dishonourable but leading to immediate wealth, the other honourable but meaning strenuous endeavour and doubtful success in a worldly sense, and you paused, and then took the course that led to pelf and pleasure, to gluttony and suicide? It was then, though you did not speak one word, that you betrayed the Lord. Do you remember making a selfish use of your Christianity, pawning your certificate of Church membership that you might receive some little dole of influence or praise, some small recognition of honour? It was then that you betrayed the Lord. Do you remember wriggling over the words “He that taketh not up his cross” do you remember trying to make them mean something else? do you remember your resort to the subtle grammarians who might help you out of the Cross by paving some way across to self-indulgence? Do you remember when criticism collided with criticism, and you accepted the one that involved the least pain and the least surrender and the least sacrifice? Think! it was then that you betrayed the Lord. Do you remember that night when you had two gifts in your hands, the one tolerably large and the other very small, and you said, Which shall I give? and the devil said, Begin by giving the little one: and you said falteringly, No, no, and he said, Certainly: and you put the larger donation back into your purse? It was then you lost the fight; after that the devil took you by the throat and shook you, and led you about whither he would; and the devil is never very dainty as to how he lays his terrific fingers upon the throat of man. Ever since then he could have sold you in any market; ever since then he laid his black hand upon your head and chuckled over you and said, This is the one that I fooled when he was parleying before the Cross.
We have not one of us betrayed the Lord in all points. There is the danger. We run off at points. There is hardly a man who has not some speck of respectability, some little redeeming point, some one excellence, which he can speak of and magnify and put up to public view. Would God sin were one huge black vice! we might escape it; if it were one overshadowing beast, fiercer than all tigers, we might run away: but sin is thick as the air is full of motes, as the sunbeam is crowded with specks of dust; we breathe them; we shut our mouths, and yet inhale them; we call it fresh air and are yet poisoned by them. Sin hath a thousand forms, yea ten thousand times ten thousand forms, and a man is not to be found, probably, who has submitted to sin in every form and in every aspect. Great Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there are some chaste men who stand aside to let the poor drunkard go past: whereas he is a purer man than is the chastity that stands aloof from him. And there are some Pharisees in thy Church, O living Christ, who would not for the world utter a profane word, who are telling lies all day long. You may betray your friend, and yet not speak of him in wholesale disrespectfulness. A man may admire you, praise your genius, stand in awe of your fine intellectual capacity, and yet all the while may be robbing you. Where is the point of betrayal? Not in the admiration but in the robbery. A man may help you, and at the same time may slander you when you are not present; a man may know you in sunshine but he may never call upon you in adversity he betrays you. We betray a friend when we reveal his secrets, when we abuse his confidence, when we lead him into complications. It is easy to betray. A faithful man who can find? an honest white soul that says the same thing on both sides of the door, a downright frank spirit that cannot lie, cannot even look a lie? If judgment begin at the house of God, where shall the ungodly and the sinner be? The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, and there is not a thought hidden in the plasm of the soul that it does not find out and examine and pronounce upon.
The Lord is being betrayed every morning, every noonday, every twilight, every midnight. We live to betray him. It is a gainful process of betraying him. We may betray him by professing him; the certificate would not have carried us through but for the sprinkled water of Christian baptism; but for the punctuation of Christian profession, but for the clerical signature. The other side is one of hope. We come to the eternal principle that if we can say from our hearts, Lord, all the preacher has said is true, and a thousand other things he might have said without exaggerating the truth: but, Lord Jesus, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that though my heart is often the house of devils, still I love thee; Jesus, Son of God, thou knowest that though there is no man out of hell that is so familiar with the pit as I am, yet thou knowest that I love thee. This is the tragedy of human consciousness and human experience. These are realities we can only approach after a lifetime of education, a lifetime of struggle, a lifetime of loss the kind of loss that prepares the soul for gain. Remember, the same night in which he was betrayed the Lord founded a sacrament, and sang a hymn, and set two new stars in the coronet of night. The Lord conquered in the very act of falling. When he died he became victor. He said to a wondering universe “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die.” He then planted one ear of wheat. Today he fills the wheatfields of the universe with golden grain. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.
Prayer
Lord, abide with us, for it is toward evening and the day is far spent. Come into our hearts, and break bread to our soul’s hunger, and we shall know of a surety that it is the Lord. We are hungered, and we are smitten with thirst in the world; we cannot find satisfaction to our best desire; we have hewn out to ourselves cisterns broken cisterns that can hold no water: God pity us, God be merciful unto us sinners. We come to thy house that we may see heaven; we draw near to God that we may receive pardon. We long for forgiveness; it means release and liberty and hope and progress. If we confess our sins, thou art faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We confess all our sins; we confess them at the Cross; and we behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. The Lord pity us, the Lord cleanse us, through the precious blood of Christ. We come for light, we come for help; we are often in great darkness, our life is a constant need: Lord, guide us with thine eye, and feed us with thine hand. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Ver. 1. Be ye followers of me ] This verse properly belongs to the former chapter. The distinguishing of the books of Scripture into chapters is not very ancient. But that of verses was devised and done by Robert Stephens, Pio quidem at tumultuario studio, as Scultetus saith well, with a good intent, but with no great skill, as appears here and in various other places. The apostles, 1Co 10:33 , had showed his own practice: here he calls upon them to do accordingly. As the ox follows the herd, so will I follow good men. Etiamsi errant, saith Cicero, although they do amiss. Sicut bos armenta, sic ego bones vires. (Cic. ad Attic.) This was more than St Paul desires. Be ye followers of me, saith he; but only so far as I am of Christ, not an inch further. Christians are not bound, as Latimer saith, to be the saints’ apes; labouring to be like them in everything. It is Christ’s peculiar honour to be imitated in all morals absolutely.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Co 11:1 . ] , scil. . Compare on the sense, Phi 2:4-5 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 . ] ON THE PARTAKING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND ASSISTING AT FEASTS HELD IN HONOUR OF IDOLS.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
23 11:1. ] Now that he has fully handled the whole question of partaking in idol feasts, and prepared the way for specific directions as about a matter no longer to be supposed indifferent, he proceeds to give those directions , accompanying them with their reasons, as regards mutual offence or edification.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
31 11:1. ] General conclusion of this part of the Epistle, enforced by the example of himself .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1 . 34. LIBERTY AND ITS LIMITS. The maxim “All things are lawful” was pleaded in defence of the use of the idolothyta, as of other Cor [1541] laxities; so the Ap. has to discuss it a second time ( cf. 1Co 6:12 ). In ch. 6. he bade his readers guard the application of this principle for their own sake, now for the sake of others; there in the interests of purity, here of charity (1Co 10:23 f.). When buying meat in the market, or when dining at an unbeliever’s table, the Christian need not enquire whether the flesh offered him is sacrificial or not; but if the fact is pointedly brought to his notice, he should abstain, to avoid giving scandal (1Co 10:25-30 ). Above all such regulations stands the supreme and comprehensive rule of doing everything to God’s glory (1Co 10:31 ). Let the Cor [1542] follow Paul as he himself follows Christ, in living for the highest good of others (1Co 10:32 to 1Co 11:1 )
[1541] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1542] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 10:33 ; 1Co 11:1 . Paul’s personal example played a large part in his argument (1Co 10:9 ); it is fitting he should refer to it in summing up. The negative , in 2nd person, now becomes the positive in the 1st: “As I also in all things please all.” is to comply with, accommodate oneself to , not give enjoyment to ( cf. Rom 15:1 ; Rom 15:3 ) no need to speak of a “conative present,” resembling , Paul’s universal compliance is qualified by its purpose , , in the light of which the verbal contradiction with Gal 1:10 , 1Th 2:4 , is removed; there is nothing in his power that P. will not do for any man, to help his salvation ( cf. 1Co 9:22 b ). Between the and its purpose lies the clause, in which the Ap. professes for himself the rule commended to the Cor [1589] in 1Co 10:27 . The “self-advantage” which P. sets aside, touches his highest welfare ( cf. Rom 9:3 ); P. sacrificed what seemed to be his spiritual as well as material gain spending, e.g ., weary hours in tent-making that might have been given to pious study to secure spiritual gain for others; thus “losing himself,” he “found himself unto life eternal.” “The many,” in contrast with the single self; cf. 1Co 10:17 , Rom 5:15 ff. Through his own pattern P. points the readers to that of his Master and theirs: “Show yourselves ( , see 32, 1Co 7:23 ) imitators of me, as I also (am) of Christ”. P. does not point his readers backward to the historical model (“of Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” as in Eph 4:21 ), but upward to the actual “Christ,” whose existence is evermore devoted to God (Rom 6:10 f.) and to men His brethren (Rom 8:34 f., 1Co 1:30 ), “in” whom the Cor [1590] believers “are” (1Co 1:2 ; 1Co 1:30 ). Paul’s imitatio Christi turns on the great acts of Christ’s redeeming work (Eph 5:2 , Phi 2:5-11 ), rather than on the incidents of His earthly course.
[1589] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1590] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1 Corinthians Chapter 11
It is not without instruction for us that the apostle can praise in the midst of so much too justly merited reproof. He loved to approve all he could. In this too he surely was, as he had said, an imitator of Christ. So love wrought in Him who had not a particle of self. It left Him free to approve without reserve whatever was of God in those dear to Him, and none the less because they were themselves weak and faulty. But the apostle for the same reason was delivered from the fear of others imputing to him vanity or pride when he called the Corinthians to imitate him, as he too imitated Christ. Certainly in seeking the salvation of souls there was no self-pleasing on His part, but such suffering as could be borne only by One who was God judged, for the sins of those He was saving, according to the unsparing indignation and holy vengeance of God against that which is above all hateful to Him. This was His work and His suffering alone; but the apostle appreciated it profoundly; and such an appreciation forms the heart accordingly. The untiring and enduring devotedness of his life was the fruit. He desired that this should characterize the Corinthians, instead of the superficial abuse of knowledge, which in making light of idolatry lost sight of Christ and endangered souls precious to Him through the wiles of the enemy. Such had never been the apostle’s way who loved others and cared for their true profit that they might be saved. He could ask the Corinthians to follow him in this, as he too followed Christ. Yet he could praise them also.
“Now I praise you* that in all things ye remember me, and hold fast the traditions according as I delivered [them] to you.” (Ver. 2.) Tradition in scripture is used, not only for the added maxims of men, as in Mat 15 , but for what the apostles enjoined on the saints, first orally, then in inspired writings, as also in both ways, while the canon was in course and not yet complete. Compare also Rom 6:17 ; 2Th 2:15 .
* A B C P, some good cursives, and ancient versions, do not read , “brethren.”
“But I wish you to know that the head of every man is the Christ, and woman’s head the man, and the Christ’s head God. Every man praying or prophesying with head covered [literally, having something] on [his] head] shameth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shameth her own head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn; but if [it is] shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man. On this account ought the woman to have authority on the head on account of the angels. However, neither [is] woman without man, nor man without woman, in [the] Lord; for as the woman [is] of the man, so also [is] the man by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him; but if woman have long hair, it is a glory to her? Because the hair hath been given her instead of a veil. But if any one seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor yet the assemblies of God.” (Vers. 3-16.)
. X. A Bcorr. Dcorr. E K L P, most cursives, etc.; but some good witnesses omit.
A B D E, etc, the rest omitting the article.
B Dcorr E K, etc.; very excellent authorities, .
This is a most characteristic specimen of the apostle’s dealing with a point of order. He deduces the solution from first principles involved in divine dealings from the beginning. It is an admirable way of settling questions, not by mere abstract authority, even where the highest lay, but by conveying to others the ways of God in creation and providence, which drew out the admiration as well as submission of his heart. It is no question of new creation. There difference disappears. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. But here on earth there is a relative order established of God; and as the man is woman’s head, so the Christ is the head of every man, and God is the Christ’s head. It were still more perilously false to use these words to disparage Christ than to turn aside their force to deny the subjection of woman to man. The Christ is viewed as such, not in His own intrinsic personal glory, or in the communion of the divine nature, but in the place He entered and took as the Anointed. God therefore is the head of the highest; and as woman is bound to own the place given her by God, so is man to fill suitably his own assigned relationship. The principle is applied to correct some christian women at Corinth who outstepped the limits of propriety. The apostle puts the entire case, and even a man’s mistake as to it, though it would appear that it was as yet a question of the other sex. For a man to have his head covered would falsify his witness to Christ; so for a woman not to be. It is not argued on grounds of habit, modesty, or the like, but of the facts as revealed by God. It would be the sign of authority taken by the woman, of authority abandoned by the man. A woman without a veil is like a man, without being really so. It is to renounce, as far as the act goes, the subjection she owes to man; it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. Let her also be shorn, says the indignant servant of the Lord; but if either be shameful for a woman, he adds, let her be covered. (Vers. 2-6.)
There is a still further opening of the ground as to man and woman in the verses which follow. “For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man. On this account ought the woman to have authority on the head on account of the angels. However, neither [is] woman without man, nor man without woman, in [the] Lord; for as the woman [is] of the man, so also [is] the man by the woman; but all things of God.” (Vers. 7-12.)
Thus the apostle points out man’s standing directly as God’s image and glory: woman is man’s glory, having no such place of public representation for God. Whatever she has relatively is essentially mediate and derivative. Creation is the proof, not of course the ordinary course of things since. It is impossible, therefore, to form a right estimate without looking to the beginning. If verse 7 then refers to the origination of man and woman respectively, verse 8 sets forth the making of the woman for, and subsequently to, the man, as grounds of woman’s subordination to man. It is easy to see that, where creation is denied, or even ignored, men naturally reason and labour for their equality. But there is another consideration, which only faith could admit – the testimony to divine order which should be given by man and woman to those spiritual beings whom scripture declares to have the most intimate connection with the heirs of salvation. (Compare 1Co 4:9 ; Eph 3 ) “For this reason ought the woman to have power on the head on account of the angels” – a sentiment entirely mistaken by the mass of commentators, who have gone off, some into degrading thoughts about bad angels, others into lowering the word to the sense of the righteous themselves, the christian prophets, the presidents of the assemblies, the nuntii desponsationum or persons deputed to effect betrothals, or mere spies sent there by the unfaithful.
So also the expression, “authority on the head,” has given rise to endless discussion. To have authority on the head unquestionably means to wear the sign of it in a covering or veil. On the other hand, in verses 11, 12, the apostle is careful to insist on the mutuality of man and woman, denying their independence of one another, affirming God the source of them respectively, and of all things.
Further, he appeals to the sense of propriety grounded on the constitution of both man and woman. “In your own selves judge: is it becoming that a woman uncovered should pray to God? Doth not even nature itself teach you,” etc. If it be as natural for man to have short hair as for woman to have long, is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this in practice? God’s creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things, and this could not be pretended here.
Finally, the habitual usage of the churches, as regulated by apostolic wisdom, is no light thing to disturb, and this the apostle puts with great moral force. “But if any one seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor yet the churches of God.” It is a contemptible sort of independence which sets itself up, not only against the spiritual feeling of all the public witness in God’s assemblies, but above those endowed with heavenly wisdom to direct all. It is neither conscience nor spirituality, but a fleshly love of differing from others, and at bottom sheer vanity. The “custom” negatived was the Corinthian innovation, which confounded God’s order in nature, not disputatiousness, as many ancients and moderns strangely conclude.
The apostle had settled the point of comely order as respects women. He now turns to a still graver matter, the Lord’s mind about His supper. From this the Corinthians had sadly departed there and then, slipping into the grossest evils, as we shall see.
Yet is it important to take note before we go into detail that, according to the modern mode of administering the sacrament, such a disorder was impossible. The reason is beyond measure a grave one. Christendom has radically altered the supper – a more serious state of things than even the distressing and immoral levity which then disgraced the Corinthian assembly. The latter could be judged and rectified; the former demands a return to first principles which have been wholly given up, not merely as to the institution itself but as to the nature of both ministry and church, and their mutual relations.
What gave occasion to the grievous impropriety of the assembly in its then low and careless estate was apparently the mixing up the love-feast with the Lord’s supper. The love-feast (or Agape) was a meal of which the early Christians partook in common, the aim being to cultivate social intercourse among those who are strangers and pilgrims called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord. The Corinthians however had lost the sense of christian strangership, and as they had let in from the world the rivalry of the schools in zeal for favourite teachers, so they degraded even the Agape by holding to class distinctions, the rich feasting on their own contributions to the meal, while those who had nothing to give were made keenly to feel their poverty. Thus the principle of christian society was destroyed at the very meal which ought to have displayed it in practice; and as they thus selfishly forgot wherefore they thus came together, God gave them up to the deeper sin of degrading the Lord’s supper, which was partaken of at the same time, by the effects of their licence in eating and drinking.
This doubtless was a scandalous irreverence; but the sacrament as now observed is the deliberate and systematic abandonment even of the form of the supper, the change of it into a superstitious ordinance from the thanksgiving of God’s family in view of the deepest solemnity in time, nay for eternity, the death of our Lord on which it is based with the remembrance of Himself in infinite love, humiliation, and suffering for our sins. Nothing but the appreciation of its spiritual aim preserved it from becoming a scene of shame; if not kept in the Spirit, it quickly passed into fleshly lightness; and this is the will of God in order that it may necessitate the looking to the Lord who promises His presence to those gathered to His name. It is with the supper as with all other parts of christian worship and service. They are nothing if not sustained by the Spirit according to the word of God. Change their principle in order to secure appearances, and all is ruined. This is precisely what tradition has done in the Lord’s supper as elsewhere. From the sacramental eucharist of post-apostolic times the Corinthian excesses were excluded, but so was the Holy Spirit from guiding the saints according to the word. Clericalism was introduced to preside, formalism and distance imposed on the rest, and the rite made more or less a saving ordinance, instead of the communion of Christ’s body and blood enjoyed by His members in His presence.
But let us weigh the apostle’s words. “Now in enjoining this I praise* [you] not, because ye come together not for the better but for the worse. For first, when ye come together in an assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and in some measure I believe [it]; for there must be even sects among you that the approved may become manifest among you.” (Vers. 18, 19.) We have here important help toward deciding the difference between these terms as well as the precise nature of each. Schism is a division within the assembly, while they all still abide in the same association as before, even if severed in thought or feeling through fleshly partiality or aversion, Heresy, in its ordinary scriptural application as here (not its ecclesiastical usage), means a party among the saints, separating from the rest in consequence of a still stronger following of their own will. A schism within if unjudged tends to a sect or party without, when on the one hand the approved become manifest, who reject these narrow and selfish ways, and on the other the party-man is self-condemned, as preferring his own particular views to the fellowship of all saints in the truth. (Compare Tit 3:10 , Tit 3:11 .)
* The readings here are singularly conflicting. Lachmann and Tregelles read , “This I enjoin, not praising [you]” on the authority of A Cp.m. F G, some cursives, the Vulgate, Pesch. Syr., and other ancient versions. Tischendorf had adopted this, but in his eighth edition he returns to the common text, supported by and the mass of uncials and cursives, etc. The Vatican strangely gives , which can hardly be said to have any just sense and is probably a mere slip, one or other only being a participle, not both.
They met in one place. “When ye come together therefore into the same [place], it is not to eat [the] Lord’s supper. For each in eating taketh his own supper before [others], and one is hungry, and another drinketh excessively. Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking? or despise ye the church of God, and put shame on those that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I do not praise.” (Vers. 20-22.) They had not as yet broken up into sects: this evil was reserved for a later and worse day. If however they did come together into one place, the apostle will not allow that it was to eat the Lord’s supper, but each their own: so utterly were they losing the truth of things while the form lingered on. Not only was Christ gone, but even the social element. They were a spectacle of greed; and, what made it more flagrant, those who had means were the worse, despising the church of God and putting to shame the poor. With all his desire to praise the Corinthians, in this the apostle could not.*
* No wonder that Dr. C. Hodge remarks, “If within twenty years of its institution, the Corinthians turned the Lord’s Supper into a disorderly feast, although the apostles were then alive, we need not wonder at the speedy corruption of the church after their death.” The case is yet stronger; for the corruption began almost immediately after the apostle had planted the church at Corinth. It is only as walking in the Spirit that anything goes aright in the church. And so would God have it who has for us judged and ended forms in the cross of Christ.
This leads to the revelation on the subject vouchsafed by the Lord. “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was being delivered up, took bread, and, having given thanks, brake [it] and said, This is my body which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me; in like manner also the cup after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord till he come.” (Vers. 23-26.)
The Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinaitic, and Palimpsest of Paris, with other authorities, have not “broken” as in most followed by Tex. Rec. Still more largely do the witnesses reject , , “take, eat.”
It is interesting to notice that to Paul was given a revelation of the supper, not of baptism. He was baptized like another himself, not by an apostle even, lest this might be perverted to make him dependent on the twelve, but by a simple disciple, Ananias. Baptism attaches to the individual confessor and would have its place as the sign of the great christian basis, the death and resurrection of Christ, if there had been no such thing as the baptizing believers by the Spirit into one body, the church. But the supper, besides being the memorial of Christ and emphatically of His death, is now bound up with the body of Christ, as we have seen in 1Co 10:16 , 1Co 10:17 . This is so true that he who wilfully or under an act of discipline does not partake of that one loaf ceases to enjoy the privileges of God’s assembly on earth; he who partakes of it cannot free himself from the responsibilities of that holy fellowship. And as Paul was the chosen vessel by whom was to be revealed the mystery of Christ and the church, so did it seem good to the Lord that he should receive a special revelation of His supper, the standing sign of its unity and public witness of its communion.
It is striking to observe that, plainly as the Lord has revealed His mind here, even the Protestant Reformers failed to recover its lineaments. They have individualised the Lord’s supper. They make it “for thee.” “Take thou,” etc. This is consistent. They had not seen the one body and one Spirit. Even if they had limited it to those who were believed to be justified by faith, still this would have been only an aggregate of individuals. They never received the truth of the church as Christ’s body on earth. On the contrary they began the system of distinct or independent national churches on earth; they relegated the unity of the church to heaven. The one body, as an existing relationship to which the Christian belongs now, and on which he is bound to act continually, was unknown as a present reality; and this ignorance betrayed itself even in their mode of celebrating the sacrament, as it does to this day.
Even where there is no such form of individuality, there is as little sense or expression of the one body.* The reason is obvious. They do not contemplate all the faithful, being avowedly associations of certain souls on the ground of points of difference (that is, sects), or embracing the world as well as believers. In either way dissenting or nationalist, being off the basis of God’s church, they naturally drop the words as they are revealed for God’s order of things, and change them, perhaps unconsciously, into what suits their own condition. Communion there cannot be but in the Spirit, who exalts Christ, not opinions, and goes out toward all saints, not some only, nor the world at all in such worship.
* Early, in the Catholic days of Gregory, so little was the unity of Christ’s body apprehended that we find the form, “the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul,” enlarged before the time of Alcuin and Charlemagne to “the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life.” The grace of the gospel had then also faded greatly, as one can see.
It is the holy, gracious, and deep meaning of the Lord’s supper, and in no way the elements or the ministrant, which invests it with such value and blessing. He is in the midst of His own to give them the enjoyment of His love in present power, but as recalling their hearts to the sacrifice of Himself for their sins to place them without charge or question before God. The bread remains bread, and so does the wine; the thanksgiving, or blessing, we find as at all times of ordinary life in receiving the creatures of God; of miracle at this time the word of God whispers not a word. The Lord breaks the bread and says, This is My body which is on your behalf: this do in remembrance of Me; in like manner the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do as often as ye drink it in remembrance of Me.
The Lord’s supper then is to remind us of Christ, of His death; not of our sins but of our sins remitted and ourselves loved. It is in no wise the old covenant of condemnation, but the new covenant (God known in grace, iniquity forgiven, and sins remembered no more); not yet made with the houses of Israel set for ever the land under the reign of Messiah, but the blood shed which is its foundation, and we who believe, Jew or Gentile, having it in spirit, not in letter. (See 2Co 3 ) Of this the cup especially is the pledge.
But Romanism takes away the cup from its votaries, and consistently enough; for as a system it supposes sacrifice going on, not finished, and consequently it administers a sacrament of non-redemption. The bread, say they, contains the blood, flesh, soul, divinity, all in the body; that is, the blood is not shed, and therefore no remission of sins, no perfecting of the sanctified, for the one offering is always going on and not yet accomplished or accepted. Romanism therefore stands in contrast with Christianity in the capital truth of the efficacy of Christ’s death, indispensable both to God’s glory and to the cleansing of the conscience of the Christian.
But Protestantism has infringed on Christ’s institution, not only by impairing the grace of God in the Lord’s supper, but by letting in the world as we have seen and by insisting for the most part on an authorised official to administer it. All these ruin its simple, profound, and most affecting significance. Not that one denies for a moment ministry or rule; they are of exceeding moment and will be treated of in their place according to scripture. Yet in the Lord’s supper, not only as He instituted it at first but as it was revealed by Him to the apostle in its final shape, none of these things appear. It is essentially as members of the one body that we communicate. Even the gifts are introduced separately and afterwards. Elders, if any, are ignored; and this is the more remarkable, as the occasion might have seemed exactly one to have reminded them of the disorder allowed at Corinth, if it had really been their duty to preside at the supper. But, instead of reprehending any one’s neglect as specially responsible, the apostle deals with the hearts and consciences of all the saints and brings out its true meaning, object, and guard for the instruction of the entire church of God. To discern the body, to appreciate the unfathomable grace of our Lord in His death for our sins, is the true corrective for all that have faith in Him who deigns to be in their midst as thus gathered to His name. To introduce a human order however reverent in appearance, without divine warrant, for the purpose of shutting out the Corinthian excesses or any others, is more offensive to him that trembles at the word of the Lord than any abuse of His supper as it was instituted. Even under such circumstances as those of Corinth the apostle adds nothing, takes away nothing, corrects nothing of that institution; in which we are called to announce the death of the Lord until He shall have come.
These last words convict of a great, perilous, and irreverent error those who count the Lord’s supper a relic of Judaism and argue for its disuse among Christians like the community of goods practised only for a brief space after Pentecost. A fresh revelation to the apostle of the Gentiles ought to have put such a notion to the rout, even apart from words such as those of verse 26 which suppose the constant and frequent observance of the supper till Christ returns in glory. And in fact the history of such theorists as the Society of Friends is the strongest proof of their error; for no christian sect has more thoroughly lost the force of the truth of redemption in discarding its signs. As is well known, they refuse as a whole (I speak not of evangelical individuals) both baptism and the Lord’s supper. In accordance with this they do not see death Healed on the race, nor the efficacy of Christ’s death in grace for the believer. They think of Christ as putting all mankind into a state of indefinite improvableness and so of saving those who do their best, Jew, Turk, or heathen; they repudiate therefore both institutions which set forth objectively that one can have no part with Christ risen but through His death. Subject to the word, we were buried with Him by baptism to death; and now continually announce His death till He come. Self is thus judged, yet are we kept in the constant sense of His grace. Is it not the truth as to ourselves, and due to Him? Is it not in perfect harmony with the gospel, which combines peace and salvation in Him with the confession of good-for-nothingness in those who are thus blessed to the praise of God’s mercy in Christ? Worship and even discipline only confirm this.
Such is the institution and the aim of the Lord’s supper. Let us pursue the consequences pressed by the apostle with his wonted fulness, depth, and solemnity.
“Wherefore whoever eateth* the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty as to the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body.|| For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and pretty many are falling asleep. But** if we were discerning ourselves, we should not be judged; but when judged we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when coming together to eat, wait for each other. If any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment. But the rest will I arrange when I come.” (Vers. 27-34.)
* K L P, most cursives, several ancient versions, and so Text. Rec., contrary to AB1CDEFG, several cursives and ancient versions.
Dcorr. L and twenty cursives, add “of the Lord.”
Text. Rec., with some cursives, omits .
Text. Rec. adds and with many MSS and versions, contrary to A B C, etc.
|| p.m. A B D E F G, etc.; corr. C K L P, etc. Text. Rec.
** B C, etc., which Text. Rec. omits with most.
Text. Rec. adds with most, contrary to p.m. A B C Dp.m. F G, etc.
But the more precious the Lord’s supper is, as the gathering of christian affection to a focus in the remembrance of His death, the greater the danger, if the heart be careless, or the conscience not before God. It is not a question of allowing unworthy persons to communicate. Low as the Corinthians might be through their unjudged carnal thoughts and worldly desires, they had not fallen so grievously as that; they had not yet learned to make excuses for admitting the unrenewed and open enemies of the Lord to His table. But they were in danger of reducing its observance to a form for themselves, of partaking in the supper without exercise of soul, either as to their own ways, or as to His unspeakable love who was thus reminding them of His death for them. Hence the solemn admonition of the apostle, “Wherefore whosoever eateth the bread (for the added emphasis of the common text is uncalled for) or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” To eat or drink it as an ordinary meal, or a common thing, without reflection or self-judgment, is to eat and drink “unworthily;” and the more so because it is a Christian who does so; for of all men he should feel most what he owes the Lord, and what the Lord expressly brings to his remembrance at that serious moment. It is to be guilty of an offence, not merely against Himself in general, but in respect of His body and His blood, if he treat their memorials with indifference. There meet together the extremity of our need and guilt, the fulness of suffering in Christ, the deepest possible judgment of sin, yet withal grace to the uttermost, leaving not a sin unforgiven: what facts, feelings, motives, results, surround the cross of the Lord Jesus! For this reason it appeals, as nothing else can, to the believer’s heart as well as to his conscience, and therefore does the apostle censure and stigmatize the Corinthians’ fault so strongly. How much for their and our profit!
“But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body.” Grace is thus maintained, but through righteousness, as ever. Each is to put himself to the proof, and so to eat and drink. The Lord would have His own to come, but not with negligence of spirit or levity; this were to be a party both to His own dishonour, and the deeper evil of his followers. Still He invites all, if He urges the trying of our ways. Self-judgment is with a view to coming, not to staying away. For it is a question of those whom grace counts worthy; whatever their past or personal unworthiness, they are washed, they are sanctified, they are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Having the Spirit, not of fear, but of power and love and a sound mind, they are assumed to be in peace with God, and delivered from the law of sin; they are contemplated as jealous for the Lord’s glory, and hating what grieves the Holy Spirit of God, whereby they are sealed unto the day of redemption.
It is not supposed that they could persevere in evil that they discover themselves exposed to, or that they confess sin in which they begin again to indulge, as if God were mocked by an acknowledgment which would thus aggravate their wickedness. Grace strengthens the man who tries himself with integrity, and it emboldens him to come. Where there is lightness on the other hand, the Lord shows Himself there to judge. “For he that eateth and drinketh (most add “unworthily,” but the most ancient omit) eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body,” that is, the Lord’s body, as the mass add, in both cases needlessly, though right enough for the sense which is implied. To bring in the church would falsify the thought: the wrong was forgetfulness of the Lord’s self-sacrificing love. He instituted the supper to remind us of it continually.
But there is another error still more prevalent, and even long and widely consecrated, which has wrought as much mischief as almost any other single mistranslation of a scripture. It is not “damnation” of which verse 29 speaks, but in contrast with it judgment, . Yet all the celebrated English versions, from Wiclif downward, have sanctioned the grievous mistake, save the worst of them, the Rhemish, through its servile adherence to the Vulgate, which here happens to give judicium rightly. The curious fact however is, that of all systems none is really so tainted with the unbelief which led to the mistranslation as the Romanist. For it naturally regards with the utmost superstition the Lord’s supper, and with it interweaves its idolatry of the real presence. Hence its interpretation of guilt as to the body and the blood of the Lord. Hence its notion of “damnation” attaching to a misuse of the sacrament, followed by almost all the Protestant associations. But the Protestant is misled by his version, while the Romanist is the less excusable, inasmuch as his Vulgate and vernacular versions are so far right, yet he is even more deeply under the delusion which denies christian relationship and an atom of grace in God, as a fact now know to the heart by faith.
Here the Spirit really teaches us that, where the true and holy aim of the Lord’s supper is slighted, and the communicant does not discern the body (that is, does not discriminate between the memorial of Christ and an ordinary meal), he eats and drinks judgment as a present thing. He brings on himself the chastening hand of the Lord in vindication of His honour and His love. Hence it is added, “For this cause [are] many weak and sick among you, and a considerable number are falling asleep.” There sin, sickness, was to death, And there is still further instruction: “For if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged; but when judged we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” This is conclusive. The express aim of the Lord in inflicting these bodily sufferings at the present is in order that His faulty saints may escape damnation. Condemnation awaits the world because, rejecting the Lord, it must bear its own doom. He has borne the sins of the faithful; but if they are light about His grace, they come under His rebukes now, that they may be spared condemnation by and by with the world which they so far resemble. If they discerned the evil in its working within, they would avoid, not only its manifestation without, but His chastening; if they fail in this self-judgment, He does not fail in watchful care, and deals with them; but even such judgment flows from His love, and takes the shape of chastening, that they may not perish in the condemnation yet to fall on the guilty world. How grievous on the part of the saints; how gracious and holy on His part! But it is evidently and only present judgment that they may not fall into future condemnation; that is, it is in contrast with “damnation.”
The apostle closes his grave censure and instruction with the exhortation to wait for each other when coming together to eat; self would thus be judged, and love in active exercise. “If any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment.” The indulgence of flesh in one provokes flesh in another, and the Lord must then judge more than the one who first dishonoured Him.
The apostle manifestly did not say all he might. “The rest will I arrange when I come.” It would not be for the best interests of the assembly if all were laid down formally. The Spirit in living power is the true supplement to the written word as the unerring standard, not tradition. We need and have the Holy Ghost as well as scripture; but scripture is the rule, not the Spirit, though we cannot use it aright without Him. This keeps up practical dependence on God, who would not have us to act either alone or together without the distinct light of His word, for which, if we have it not, we ought to wait. And waiting on God for light which we have not, though humbling, is ever wholesome, as God Himself is faithful who has called us to the fellowship of His Son. But it is evident that what despises the plain word of God cannot be His light, however high be the pretensions of those who are beguiled by it. No lie is of the truth, which surely hangs together as a whole. So it is in Christ; and not otherwise with the written word. It refuses the admixture of that which is not of God; and those who are led of the Spirit will prove the divine energy which works in them, not by presuming to bring in any thoughts of their own, as if scripture were at fault, but by a juster and fuller application of scripture than others could have seen till it was thus pointed out there.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Be = Become.
followers = imitators. Greek. mimetes. See 1Co 4:16.
Christ. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
1Co 11:1.] , scil. . Compare on the sense, Php 2:4-5.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Shall we turn in our Bibles now to 1Co 11:1-34 .
Paul here in the first verse said,
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ ( 1Co 11:1 ).
In the previous verse he spoke about how he was not seeking his own profit, his own glory, but the profit of the whole body of Christ. And then he said, “Be followers of me.” The word followers in the Greek is mimetes, in which we get our word mimic. Be mimickers, or be imitators of me. Follow the example that I have set. That is, don’t seek for your own profit, but seek for the profit of the whole body. Don’t just be looking out for yourself, but look out for one another. Be sensitive to one another’s needs, and be looking out for each other.
Now [he said] I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and you keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you ( 1Co 11:2 ).
So Paul is giving them praise for the fact that they did remember him, that they were keeping ordinances that he had established among them.
But I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head ( 1Co 11:3-4 ).
Now, Paul is establishing here sort of a chain of command. The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband the authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ. This, of course, gets into issues which are being debated today in our society as we find all of these E.R.A. type of movements.
I do not believe that the Bible has ever taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman. When God looked at man and said, “It is not good that man should live alone,” and so He made the woman from man that she might be a helpmeet for him.
Now, some people misinterpret that. The helpmeet, the word meet is an old English word fit, a help that is fit for him, created for him. No way does it signify a subservient position. God saw that man by himself could never make it, and thus, the woman created, as God said, “for the man.”
Now, the woman is weaker than the man, in a physical sense. I had a mental picture of these women and, of course, I guess it has become quite a thing for women to get involved now in bodybuilding programs. I personally think that men involved in bodybuilding programs get to the place where they look grotesque; those bulges and all, they get grotesque. But for a woman to be bulging in the wrong areas is also grotesque. I think it is rather sad that to develop an identity of sorts to try and show that they are capable and all that they get involved in this bodybuilding kind of a thing. That isn’t really, to me, the best use of a person’s time.
He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I feel that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. And I am totally opposed to that kind of an interpretation or understanding of the scripture that a woman thinks, “Well, he is my husband. I have got to be in submission to him.” Yes, as he is in submission to Christ.
Now, we are dealing with an Eastern culture. In this Eastern culture the women wore veils, and the veils, many times, were across the bridge of their nose tied in the back and went all the way to the ground. Now, in some of the Eastern areas it was even more than that. The veils covered their head and they had just slits for their eyes. And of course, they wore these bulky clothes, and how can you know you were really in love when all you can see is just the eyes? When you got married it was really an interesting thing, I suppose. However, this veil was a protection to the woman. It was a covering for her, which was a covering of protection, and no man would approach a woman, accost a woman, or flirt with a woman who was covered with a veil. It was almost death for the man to touch a woman or to approach her in an overt way when she was covered with her veil. For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, “I am available.” But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering.
Today it is still this way in Eastern cultures, especially in the Moslem world. Of course, the women in Iran, the more liberalized women are really chasing under Khomeini, because he went back to the old veils. You see, these orthodox Moslem women now with the black covers, and all you can see are the eyes again. Many times on our tours to the Middle East, the liberated ladies from America, not understanding the mindset of the Oriental, would go over there with sleeveless dresses or things of this nature, and they don’t know what it does to some of these men who are used to not seeing a woman except she be totally veiled. Many times they have been accosted by these men, because it is just a part of their whole cultural background and thinking.
So, Paul is dealing with a cultural situation when he addresses the subject here of head coverings, or of veils.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head ( 1Co 11:4 ).
The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied. Now that is interesting coming from Paul considering that in Orthodox Jewry today, they all wear their little hats whenever they come into any sacred place of prayer. You can wear any kind of a hat, but they won’t let the men into the Western Wall, or those areas, unless you do have your head covered. Coming from Paul, it is an interesting thing that he would speak of the men with their heads uncovered and it would be a dishonoring thing to pray with his head covered.
But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even as one if she were shaven ( 1Co 11:5-6 ).
So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled.
Now evidently, the women in Corinth were feeling that liberty that was theirs in Christ. “We are no longer under a yoke of bondage, for in Christ we are all one, neither male nor female, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free.” So they were beginning to come without veils and it, no doubt, created some problems. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. The temple of Aphrodite was on the Acropolis above Corinth. The priestesses within the temple of Aphrodite, some one thousand of them, would nightly come down into the city of Corinth. They were prostitutes, and the temple was supported by their prostitution. And they could be recognized in that they didn’t wear veils. So the women in Corinth who were then beginning to feel liberty in Christ, not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands. So Paul is encouraging them to continue with the customs of wearing the veils there in Corinth.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man ( 1Co 11:7 ).
That is, God created man in His own image, and from the man He took the woman.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power [or the authority, the veil] upon her head [then he said] because of the angels ( 1Co 11:8-10 ).
Now, I wish he hadn’t of said that, because I was able to follow him pretty well up to this point. But what he meant by “because of the angels” is something that theologians have discussed through the years. One suggestion . . . now, we know that when we gather together, the angels of the Lord gather with us. And it has been suggested that the angels, being creatures of rank and order, respect the order of God, and they like to see the orders and the rankings of God followed.
The second suggestion is that there are also evil angels present and a woman without a veil is attractive to them. I sort of reject the second idea, because nowhere in the New Testament where angels are mentioned in this sense are they fallen angels. I would prefer the former, but I am not satisfied with it. I don’t really know what he is referring to, to tell you the truth.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord ( 1Co 11:11 ).
In other words, as far as the Lord is concerned we are all on an equal par. And the woman is not without the man and the man is not without the woman. We are both necessary for each other.
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God ( 1Co 11:12 ).
I was born by my mother is what Paul is saying. My mother was necessary for my existence being here. The woman was taken out of the man, but yet, it is reversed now. God has established them male and female and they are all a part of God’s divine order.
Now judging yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? ( 1Co 11:13 )
Is it proper? Is it the right thing to do?
One thing that we should definitely note here in light of 1Co 14:1-40 , where Paul said, “Let the women keep silent in the church, and if they would learn, let them ask their husbands when they get home,” Paul evidently is not at all assigning her to total silence in the church. Here she is recognized as having a right to pray. Here she is recognized as having a right to exercise the gift of prophecy within the church. He is not saying anything contrary or against her praying and prophesying, only should she be doing it without a veil in the church of Corinth.
So he said,
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? ( 1Co 11:14 )
Now, during the hippie movement when a lot of the fellows decided to let their hair grow, this was a scripture that was brought up quite a bit by the Bible thumpers down in the south who were so opposed to these young men having long hair.
I, in traveling around the country, was a guest on some of the radio talk shows, and some of these irate people would call in. And the thing that was really bothering them were these young people with long hair, because they had pictures of our baptisms and a lot of young men with long hair and all were being baptized, and it really bothered these people for these young men to have long hair. They would call in and they would make their crude remarks and then quote this verse of scripture.
So, the Lord did a very interesting thing. He called me to defend these young men, their right to have long hair. I always figured the Lord had a sense of humor. And I would point out to these irate callers that, first of all, Paul said, “Does not nature itself.” It doesn’t say that God is teaching this. It said that nature is teaching it. “Does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame?” It doesn’t teach you that it is a sin. They were trying to make a sin out of this thing. But it doesn’t say God says it is a sin. It says nature says it is a shame.
Now, long hair is a relative term. My barber this morning signaled me in service . . . I do go to the barber. And it’s coming over my collar in the back and it is time. But long is a relative term.
If you look at some of the presidents of the United States, they had long hair compared to the forties and fifties looks where the guys had the crew cuts and all. So long is a relative term.
I have seen some fellows whose hair I would say was indeed a shame with flowing hair down to their waist. Nature tells you what a shame. I see them with their long locks and I just sort of say, “What a shame.” But in reality, when I try to comb what I have, I also say, “What a shame!” So, nature teaches you to not have long hair, and if you don’t have any hair, it is all a shame. That is all it is.
But if a woman have long hair ( 1Co 11:15 ),
Hey, that is another matter.
it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for her covering. But if any man seems to be contentious ( 1Co 11:15-16 ),
Now, if you got a big deal over this, Paul says,
we don’t have any such custom, in all of the churches ( 1Co 11:16 ).
Thus, it was not intended to be a universal rule for the church as some of the churches sought to make it a universal rule. For years the women have had to wear hats and all when they went to church. But Paul said that we don’t have any such custom in all the churches. If you want to argue about it and all, there is no such custom in all the churches. It was something that did relate more to the church in Corinth.
I praise you that you kept my ordinances and all, but there is something I don’t praise you for, what I am going to talk to you about now.
For when you gather together sometimes it is for the worse, not for the better. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I really partly believe this. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one takes before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken ( 1Co 11:17-21 ).
Now, in the early church they had a beautiful fellowship that seemed that it happened every week. And in this beautiful fellowship they had what they called the agape feast. Today, we call it a potluck. We have got a crude name for it. They had a beautiful name, an agape feast. Our various fellowship groups in the church that have their potlucks, it would probably be a good idea to start calling them agape feasts. That is much better, a love feast.
In these love feasts, which were like a potluck, everybody would bring their dishes and they’d pool it all together and all would eat. But there were some piggish fellows who would make their way to the front of the line and they would just take more than their share. So oftentimes there would not be enough food to go around. And so some people were left hungry, while others had more than they could handle. It seemed that the wealthier people were those that were just sort of pushing their way ahead. And the poor people who really were needing it . . . actually, you see, the church in those days had many slaves, and a lot to them never did have a decent meal, except for the agape feast. That is the only time they really had a decent meal. And yet, these people were not really sensitive to the needs of the poor and they were going in and filling their plates and the poor were being left hungry. So Paul said, “That is not good.”
Don’t you have your own house to feast in and to drink in? Do you despise the church of God, and do you shame those [that are poor] that have not? ( 1Co 11:22 )
Actually became embarrassed and ashamed. And these people were sort of making it that way.
I do remember when we used to have our church picnic and we had our houses where a lot of the young people were living. You remember those days of the Mansion Messiah and the Lord’s House and the House of Psalms and these various houses that we had. This one time at our picnic out at Orange County Park, one of the houses brought to the picnic a large pan of beans. You know, put it in the potluck. And then the kids headed for the steaks. That’s good that we ate beans that year, because a lot of them hadn’t had a steak in a long time.
Paul said, “Look, a lot of you have your own homes. You can eat and drink in your own homes. You shouldn’t really make these people feel embarrassed or ashamed because of their financial plights.”
What shall I say to you? I don’t praise you in this matter ( 1Co 11:22 ).
He is actually rebuking them for this.
Now, in talking about the Lord’s supper, this agape feast, they would always end the agape feast with the Lord’s supper, or taking together of the bread and the cup. And so Paul said,
As I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ( 1Co 11:23 ):
This phrase, “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” this should be a phrase that every minister of Jesus Christ should be able to use every time he stands up to talk to the church. “I have received of the Lord that which I have delivered unto you.” That should always be the origin of the message that we bring. God having spoken to our hearts and now we impart that which God has spoken to us.
As we mentioned this morning, the first work of the Spirit in our lives is subjective. The second is objective. God works in me that He might work through me. I must partake in order that I might impart. That which I have received from the Lord I also delivered. That is always the true order in which God works. And that should always be the concern of every man of God who stands before the people of God as he talks to them of the things of God. That which I received of the Lord I also delivered unto you.
That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me ( 1Co 11:23-24 ).
There are those who interpret the bread to be transubstantiated into the actual body of Christ by some miracle. However, it is important to note that when Jesus said this He was still in His body. And thus, it had to be a spiritualization, so that the bread becomes representative of the body of Christ. To me it represents the body of Christ. But it is not changed by some miracle into the actual physical body of Jesus. And the same is true of the cup. That is, it becomes to me a very poignant reminder of the body of Jesus broken for me and the blood of Jesus shed for my sins. I am to do it in remembrance of Him.
After the same manner also he took the cup, after their supper, and he said, This cup is a new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do show the Lord’s death till he comes ( 1Co 11:25-26 ).
Notice he did not tell us how often we were to do it. In the early church, it seems that in some of them they did it once a week. These agape feasts were usually a weekly affair. Some churches today observe it once a week. It doesn’t really matter how often you do it. It just does matter that every time you do it, that you do it in remembrance of Him, showing the Lord’s death until He comes.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord ( 1Co 11:27 ).
Now, he is talking about their coming together and they were getting drunk at these feasts. They were gorging themselves at the agape feasts and getting drunk, and then going right in and partaking of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of communion.
A person when he is drunk oftentimes loses a lot of his inhibitions. He is not fully aware of what is going on. And to partake of the Holy Communion in this condition would be to do it in an unworthy fashion. This is what Paul is warning against.
When I was a child they interpreted this as saying that you have to be worthy to partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and if you are taking it unworthily, you are drinking damnation to your own soul. There was more than once that I let the cup go by. I was really afraid to drink, because I thought, “Man, I’m not worthy.” The problem was they usually served it Sunday morning and I didn’t get saved till Sunday night…again, every Sunday night. I really did well for the statistics of those pastors. I was always concerned about my unworthiness. And when I really stopped to think about it, I would think, “Man, I am not worthy to partake of the body and blood of Jesus.” So many times I would pass on communion. But my worthiness is not something that is predicated upon my goodness, my works or my efforts, but it is on the grace of God and my believing in Jesus Christ. Thus, I partake freely today, because I believe in Him and I rest in His grace. You talk about truly being worthy, in that sense, I never have been, but by the grace of God I stand through faith in Jesus Christ.
What Paul is referring to here is the manner in which they were eating and drinking. It was disgraceful. Paul is rebuking them for it.
Therefore whosoever shall eat the bread, and drink the cup of the Lord, in an unworthily fashion [or an unworthy way], shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. So let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and some have even died ( 1Co 11:27-30 ).
There is another possible interpretation for this that I have heard suggested, and it does have merit. That is, partaking of the Lord’s body without discerning the Lord’s body. Because people partake of it not discerning the Lord’s body, many are weak and sickly and some have even died. The suggestion has been made, what does the broken bread truly symbolize? Jesus said, “This is My body broken for you.” What was meant by that? When was the body of Christ broken?
We read that because it was the preparation for the Sabbath the Jews came to Pilate that they might have permission to break the legs of the prisoners that their bodies would not be hanging on the Sabbath day, and so Pilate gave them permission. They broke the legs of both of the thieves on either side of Jesus, but when they came to Jesus, they saw that He was already dead. So they did not break His legs, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled that says, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken.” You see, under the law you could not offer to God a lamb for a sacrifice that had any broken bones. So in keeping with the type of the Lamb of God for the sin of the world, He could not have broken bones. So one of the soldiers took his spear and thrust it in His side, into His heart, to make sure that He was dead. And when he pulled the spear out there came out blood and water.
If they did not break His legs so the scriptures might be fulfilled that not a bone of Him was broken, then what did He mean, “This is my body broken for you”? When was the body of Jesus broken? And how was it broken? There is one event related to the cross that the scripture in the New Testament only refers to in the gospels, “And Pilate took Him and scourged Him.”
The scourging was a method of interrogation by the Roman government, and those who were to be crucified were usually scourged before their crucifixion. They were tied to a post, leaning over so that their back was exposed and stretched out. A Roman soldier would take a whip in which were embedded little bits of glass and lead, and he would lay the whip across the back of the prisoner. The idea in interrogation was that the prisoner would then call out a crime that he had committed. And every time they would lay a stripe on his back, if he would cry out a crime, they would lay it a little softer and a little softer. But if he would not confess to a crime, then each time they would lay the whip across his back, they would lay it on harder and harder until the back was completely ripped to shreds. It looked like hamburger. By this method of interrogation the Roman government was able to solve a lot of their unsolved crimes. It was a common practice.
You remember when Paul the apostle was caught in the temple by the Jews and they were trying to kill him when the captain of the guard, Lysias, came down with a bunch of Roman soldiers and rescued Paul. When they got back up to the steps of the Antonio Fortress, Paul said, “Can I speak to these guys?” He said, “You speak Greek?” And Paul said, “Of course.” He said, “Aren’t you that Egyptian?” He said, “No,” and gave his background, and started speaking to the people in Hebrew, which the captain could not understand. As Paul was talking to the people, suddenly they went into a rage. They started throwing dirt in the air. They started calling out. They started ripping off their clothes. And Lysias said to the soldiers, “Get him inside quickly.” And then sort of turning in a matter-of-fact way said, “Scourge him to find out what he said,” interrogate him with the scourging process. So as the guy started to tie Paul to scourge him, Paul said, “Is it lawful to scourge a Roman citizen who has not been condemned?” The guy said, “Are you a Roman citizen?” Paul said, “Yes.” So he ran and told the captain, Lysias, and said, “That guy is a Roman citizen.” So he came to Paul and said, “Are you a Roman citizen?” And Paul said, “You bet I am.” He said, “I bought my citizenship. It cost me quite a bit of money. How much did you have to pay?” Paul said, “I was free born.” So he was fearful and untied Paul and did not scourge him because there was a law that no Roman citizen could be scourged without charges first having been filled against him. But it was the third degree, the Roman method of interrogation.
Now Jesus, according to Isaiah, “As a lamb before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth” ( Isa 53:7 ). Pilate scourged Him. He had laid upon Him thirty-nine lashes or stripes. This was no accident. This was something that was prophesied in the book of Isaiah, when Isaiah prophesied of His death. He said, “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquity. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed” ( Isa 53:5 ).
So through the broken body of Christ we were healed. He suffered for us. So that he who eats of the body of Christ not discerning the Lord’s body does not take and receive that healing provided for through the suffering of Jesus. And for this cause a lot of people are sick, a lot of people are weak; some have even died. You could have been healed if you had only appropriated the work of Jesus Christ. But they have not discerned the Lord’s body when they took the broken bread.
I think that there is a lot of validity to this position. There are those that object to it, but I really feel that an honest evaluation of the scriptures does lend a lot of validity to that position. I personally take it. I believe that there are a lot of people who could be healed if they would just appropriate that work of Jesus Christ.
Now Paul told us to examine ourselves when we eat the bread. Take a look at yourself.
For if we would judge ourselves, [he said] we would not be judged of God ( 1Co 11:31 ).
It is a very serious thing the partaking of the body of Jesus Christ and of the blood of Jesus Christ. We should really examine our hearts before we do so and always do it in a very reverent and worshipful manner.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord ( 1Co 11:32 ),
So Paul is probably talking about some of the sicknesses and the weaknesses that people have as they have eaten and drunk in an unworthy manner. So when we are judged, God chastens us for what purpose?
that we would not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait one for another ( 1Co 11:32-33 ).
Don’t rush to the head of the table to fill your plate and disregard others that are there. Wait for each other.
And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto condemnation [to just gorge yourselves]. And the rest I will take care of when I get there ( 1Co 11:34 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1Co 11:1. , imitators [followers] of me) He adds this verse to the former to show, that we must look to Christ, not to him [the apostle], as our highest example.-, of Christ) who did not please Himself, Rom 15:3, but gave Himself at all costs for our salvation, Eph 5:2.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 11:1
1Co 11:1
Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.- Having just told them how he himself acted in cases of the kind referred to, Paul bids them to follow his example, and in so doing they would copy that of Christ. [Christ alone is the perfect model; each believer is a model to his brethren only in so far as he is a copy in relation to Christ. In making the exhortation Paul had in mind especially the greatness of the self-denial of the Son of God in taking upon himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross (Php 2:7-8), that he might save men from their sins.] If we are not willing to deny self, and suffer the loss of all earthly things in order to serve and honor God and save men, we have not the spirit of Christ and are none of his.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Another Corinthian question concerned the position of woman and her true attitude in the exercise of divinely bestowed gifts. He declared that woman’s true position is subservience to man. The nature of that subservience, however, the apostle was also very careful to indicate. God is equal with Christ. God co-operates with Christ. God is the Head of Christ.
Then follows a touch of purely local color. The women in Corinth itself, whose heads were shaven and went uncovered, were women of shame. The apostle therefore enjoined woman exercising gifts of ministry to do so with those outward manifestations of her true relationship to man which are proper and becoming. However, the great value to us of this teaching is its recognition of the right of women to pray and prophesy. The question of wearing a veil is of no permanent importance. Not wearing a covering for the head in this country has not the significance that it had in Corinth.
The last matter to be discussed was the Lord’s Supper. Grave abuses had arisen, and in order to correct these abuses the apostle told the story of the institution of the Supper. In brief words, the apostle declared the value of the feast to the world. The arresting word is ”proclaim.” The Supper of the Lord, observed by the saints from year to year, from century to century, is the one outward and visible sign and symbol of His death. It is to continue until He Himself shall return. Instituted in the concluding days of His First Advent, it must be maintained until He come.
And thus that dark betrayal night
With the last advent we unite,
By one long chain of loving rite,
Until He come.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
11:1. The division of the chapters is unfortunate. This verse clearly belongs to what precedes. He has just stated his own principle of action, and he begs them to follow it, because it is Christs: Hinc apparet, quam ineptae sint capitum sectiones (Calv.). There is no connexion with what follows.
. Become imitators of me. Excepting Heb 6:12, is in N.T. peculiar to Paul (4:16; Eph 5:1; 1Th 1:6, 1Th 2:14): not found in LXX. Everywhere it is joined with , which indicates moral effort; Strive to behave as I do. Everywhere the more definite imitator (RV.) is to be preferred to follower (AV.): Be ye followers of me is doubly defective. Cf. (Xen. Mem. I. vi. 3).
. This addition dispels the idea that it is in any spirit of arrogance that he asks them to imitate him; once more he is only asking them to do what he does himself, to follow the example of one whom they recognized as their teacher: nihil praescribit aliis quod non prior observaverit; deinde se et alios ad Christum, tanquam unicum recte agendi exemplar revocat (Calv.). It is as an example of self-sacrifice that he takes Christ as his model; the whole context shows this. And it is commonly this aspect of Christs life that is regarded, when He is put before us in N.T. as an example: Rom 15:2, Rom 15:3; 2Co 8:9; Eph 5:2; Php 2:4, Php 2:5. The details of His life are not generally imitable, our calling and circumstances being so different from His. Indeed, the question, What would Jesus do? may be actually misleading (Goudge). The wiser question is, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? It is seldom that St Paul mentions any of the details of our Lords life on earth, and it is therefore unlikely that he is thinking of anything but the subject in hand-sacrificing ones own rights and pleasures for the good of others. Nevertheless, the knowledge which St Paul displays of details is sufficient to show that he knew a great deal more than he mentions, and exaggerated statements have been made respecting his supposed ignorance. See Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, Lect. x.; Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du NT., II. 22-24; The Fifth Gospel, pp. 75, 195 f. On the supposed difference between the teaching of Christ and that of St Paul see Kaftan, Jesus und Paulus, Tbingen 1906, esp. pp. 24, 32, 58; Walther, Paulf Christentum Jesu Evangelium, Leipzig, 1908, esp. pp. 25-30; Jlicher, Paulus and Jesus, Tbingen, 1907, esp. pp. 35 f.
11:2-14:40. DISORDERS IN CONNEXION WITH PUBLIC WORSHIP AND THE MANIFESTATION OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS
This constitutes the third* main division of the Epistle, and it contains three clearly marked sections; respecting (1) the Veiling of Women, 9:2-16; (2) Disorders connected with the Lords Supper, 11:17-34; (3) Spiritual Gifts, especially Prophesying and Tongues, 12:1-14:40. At the outset there is a possible reference to the Corinthians letter to the Apostle; but the sections deal with evils which had come to his knowledge in other ways.
11:2-16. The Veiling of Women in Public Worship
Although in respect of religion men and women are on an equality, yet the Gospel does not overthrow the natural ordinance, which is really of Divine appointment, that woman is subject to man. To disavow this subjection before the congregation must cause grave scandal; and such shamelessness is condemned by nature, by authority, and by general custom.
2 Now, as to another question, I do commend you for remembering me, as you assure me you do, in all things, and for loyally holding to the traditions just as I transmitted them to you. 3 But I should like you to grasp, what has not previously been mentioned, that of every man, whether married or unmarried, Christ is the head, while a womans head is her husband, and Christs head is God. 4 Every man, whether married or unmarried, who has any covering on his head when he publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours his head: 5 whereas every woman, whether married or unmarried, who has her head uncovered when she publicly prays to God or expounds the will of God, thereby dishonours her head; for she is then not one whit the better than the wanton whose head is shaven. 6 A woman who persists in being unveiled like a man should go the whole length of cutting her hair short like a man. But seeing that it is a mark of infamy for a woman to have her hair cut off or shorn, let her wear a veil. 7 And man has no right to cover his head; he is by constitution the image of God and reflects Gods glory: whereas the woman reflects mans glory.
8 Man was created first; he does not owe his origin to woman, but woman owes hers to him; 9 and, what is more, she was made for his sake, and not he for Heb_10 For this reason she ought, by covering her head, publicly to acknowledge her subjection. Even if she does not shrink from scandalizing men, she might surely fear to be an offence to angels.
11 Nevertheless, this dependence of the woman has its limits: in the Lord neither sex has any exclusive privileges, but each has an equal share. 12 For as, at the first, the woman came into being from the man, so, ever since then, the man has come into being by means of the woman; and, like everything else, both are from God.
13 Use your own powers of discernment. Is it decent that a woman should have her head uncovered when she publicly offers prayer to God? 14 Surely even nature itself teaches you that for a man to wear his hair long is degrading to him; 15 whereas this is a glory to a woman, because her long hair is Gods gift to her, to serve her as a covering. 10 Yet, if any one is so contentious as to dispute this conclusion, it will suffice to say that both Christian authority and Christian usage are against him.
2. . Now I do praise you that in all things ye remember me and hold fast the delivered instructions exactly as I delivered them to you. The verse is introductory to the whole of this division of the letter which treats of public worship. With his usual tact and generosity, the Apostle, before finding fault, mentions things which he can heartily and honestly praise.* The marks the transition to a new topic, and perhaps from topics which the Corinthians had mentioned in their letter to others which he selects for himself. looks forward to which is coming (v. 17): here he can praise, in some other matters he cannot. He may be referring to his own letter (v. 9); Now, it is quite true that I praise you. Or he may be referring to their letter, Now, I do praise you that, as you tell me, in all things you remember me; comp. 8:1. Primasius, in any case, gives the right key; Quid erat, quod subito laudat quos ante vituperavit? Ubi legis auctoritatem non habet, blandimentis provocat ad rationem. The translation, that ye remember everything of mine, is possible but not probable: c. acc. is fairly common in classical Greek, but is not found in N.T. Both and are emphatic: their remembrance of him was unfailing, and they observed with loyal precision what he had told them-by word of mouth or in the lost letter. Neither (in this sense) nor (Gal 1:14; Col 2:8; 2Th 2:15, 2Th 3:6) are common in the Pauline Epp. It is possible that in some of these passages, as in v. 23 and 15:3, we have an allusion to some rudimentary creed which was given to missionaries and catechists comp. 2Th 2:5. There had been a Jewish of monstrous growth, and it had done much harm (Mat 15:6; Mar 7:8; Gal 1:14). There is now a Christian to supersede it, and it was from the first regarded as precious (1Ti 6:20; 2Ti 1:14). See Mayor, St Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 23, 61; A. E. Burn, Intr. to the Creeds, ch. ii. This contained the leading facts of the Gospel and the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. As yet there were no written Gospels for St Paul to appeal to, although there may have been written collections of the Sayings of our Lord. For cf. 15:2; 1Th 5:21; Heb 10:23; Luk 8:15; and see Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 155. There may be a reference to v. 1; in this they are imitating him; or a reference to their own letter.
The brethren in AV., following D E F G K L, Latt., is an interpolation: A B C P Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.
3. . But I would have you know something not previously mentioned, but of more importance than they supposed, because of the principles involved. In Col 2:1 we have the same formula, but more often (10:1, 12:1; 2Co 1:8; Rom 1:13, Rom 11:25), which is always accompanied by the affectionate address, . He feels bound to insist upon the point in question, and perhaps would hint that the Corinthians do not know everything.
. Of every man Christ is the head: is emphatic, every male of the human family. He says rather than (15:45) to mark the constrast with , and he takes the middle relationship first; man to Christ comes between woman to man and Christ to God. By is meant supremacy, and in each clause it is the predicate; Christ is the head of man, man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ: 3:23; Eph 1:22, Eph 4:15, Eph 5:23, comp. Jdg 11:11; 2Sa 22:44. God is supreme in reference to the Messiah as having sent Him. This was a favourite Arian text; it is in harmony with 15:24-28, and, like that passage, it implies more than the inferiority of Christs human nature; Joh 6:57. See Ellicott, 1 Corinthians, pp. 64, 65; H. St J. Thackeray, St Paul and Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 49; Godet, ad loc.
4. . When he prays or prophesies having (a veil) down over his head. The participles are temporal and give the circumstances of the case. With . comp. . of Haman (Est 6:12), Vulg. operto capite; here velato capite. The prophesying means public teaching, admonishing or comforting; delivering Gods message to the congregation (13:9, 14:1, 3, 24, 31, 39). Such conduct dishonours his head because covering it is a usage which symbolizes subjection to some visible superior, and in common worship the man has none those who are visibly present are either his equals or his inferiors. There is no reason for supposing that men at Corinth had been making this mistake in the congregation. The conduct which would be improper for men is mentioned in order to give point to the censure on women, who in this matter had been acting as men. It is doubtful whether the Jews used the tallith or veil in prayer as early as this. We need not suppose that the Apostle is advocating the Greek practice of praying bare-headed in opposition to Jewish custom: he is arguing on independent Christian principles. Tertullians protest to the heathen (Apol. 30), that the Christians pray with head uncovered, because they have nothing to be ashamed of, is not quite in point here.
If in dishonoureth his head (not Head) there is any allusion to Christ (v. 3), it is only indirect. The head, as the symbol of Christ, must be treated with reverence; so also the body (6:19), as the temple of the Spirit. And there may be a hint that, in covering his head in public worship, the man would be acknowledging some head other than Christ. See Edwards and Ellicott; also Art. Schleier in Kraus, Real-Ency. d. christ. Alt. 11. p. 735.
5. Praying or prophesying must be understood in the same way in both verses: it is arbitrary to say that the man is supposed to be taking the lead in full public worship, but the woman in mission services or family prayers. Was a woman to be veiled at family prayers? Yet in public worship women were not to speak at all (14:34; 1Ti 2:12). Very possibly the women had urged that, if the Spirit moved them to speak, they must speak; and how could they speak if their faces were veiled? In that extreme case, which perhaps would never occur, the Apostle says that they must speak veiled. They must not outrage propriety by coming to public worship unveiled because of the bare possibility that the Spirit may compel them to speak.* Comp. Philips daughters (Act 21:9), and the quotation from Joel (Act 2:18). In neither men nor women must prophesying be interpreted as speaking with Tongues. The latter was addressed to God and was unintelligible to most hearers; prophesying was addressed to the congregation. The women perhaps argued that distinctions of sex were done away in Christ (Gal 3:28), and that it was not seemly that a mark of servitude should be worn in Christian worship; or they may have asked why considerations about the head should lead to women being veiled and men not. And perhaps they expected that the Apostle who preached against the bondage of the Law would be in favour of the emancipation of women. See De Wette, ad loc.
The unveiled woman dishonours her head, because that is the part in which the indecency is manifested. Also by claiming equality with the other sex she disgraces the head of her own sex; she is a bare-faced woman, for she is one and the same thing (neut. Mass, Gr. B1. 2) with the woman that is shaven, either as a disgrace for some scandalous offence, or out of bravado. Aristoph. Thesm. 838; Tac. Germ. 19; and other illustrations in Wetst. The Apostle has married women chiefly in view. In Corinth anything questionable in Christian wives was specially dangerous, and the Gospel had difficulties enough to contend against without shocking people by breaches of usage. Christianity does not cancel the natural ordinances of life; and it is by the original ordinance of God that the husband has control of the wife. Only here and v. 13 does occur in N.T. Having decided the matter in question (vv. 4, 5), St Paul now proceeds (vv. 6-16) to justify his decision.
6. If a woman refuses to be veiled, let her be consistently masculine and cut her hair close; no veil, short hair: the verbs are middle, not passive, and express her own action (Blass, Gr. 55. 2). If she flings away the covering provided by Divine ordinance, let her also fling away the covering provided by nature (Chrys.). The combination of the aor. mid. with the pres. mid. ( ) is so unusual that some editors prefer , aor. mid. from , a late form found in Plutarch (Veitch, s.v.; Blass, Gr. 24).
7. The connexion between (v. 10) and here must be marked: the woman is morally bound, the man is not morally bound, to veil his head. But not bound to may be an understatement for bound not to; comp. Act 17:29: St Paul can hardly mean that the man may please himself, while the woman may not-magis liber est viro habitus capitis quam mulieri (Beng.); for he has just said that the man puts his head to shame by covering it, as a woman puts her head to shame by not doing so. Sicut vir professione libertatis caput suum honorat, ita mulier, subjectionis (Calvin). The man ought not to wear a covering, since he is by original constitution () Gods image and glory, reflecting the Creators will and power, while the wife is her husbands glory. This she is as a matter of fact (, not ). See Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 674. She also was made , for in Gen 1:26 includes both sexes, but this fact is omitted here, because it is the relation of woman to man, not of woman to God, that is under consideration; and, as she has a superior, she does not so well represent Him who has no superior. Moreover, it is the son, rather than the wife, who is the of the man. Comp. 1Ti 2:13.
8, 9. Parenthetical, to confirm the statement that the woman is mans glory by an appeal to both initial () and final ( c. acc.) causes. Woman was created out of man, and moreover ( ) for man, not vice versa. The articles in v. 9, , may mean the woman and the man in Gen 2:18-22, Eve and Adam. For see Blass, 78. 6.
10. . Because* man is a reflexion of the divine glory, while woman is only a reflexion of that reflexion, therefore the woman (generic) is morally bound to have [the mark of his] authority upon her head. The passage is unique, no satisfactory parallel having been found. There is no real doubt as to the meaning, which is clear from the context. The difficulty is to see why the Apostle has expressed himself in this extraordinary manner. That authority () is put for sign of authority is not difficult; but why does St Paul say authority when he means subjection? The man has the symbol of authority, no veil on his head; the woman has the symbol of subjection, a veil on her head. For we should expect (1Ti 2:11, 1Ti 3:4, of the subjection of women), or (Plut. 2. 751D of the subjection of women; comp. , Heb 13:17), or (Rom 5:19, Rom 6:16, Rom 16:19). Is it likely that St Paul would say the exact opposite of what he means? The words put in square brackets can scarcely be the true explanation. For conjectural emendations of (all worthless) see Stanley, ad loc. p. 184.
In Rev 11:6, means have control over the waters, 14:18, , having control over fire, 20:6, . over these the second death has no control. Comp. Rom 9:21; 1Co 7:37; the LXX of Dan 3:30 (97). Can the meaning here be, ought to have control over her head, so as not to expose it to indignity? If she unveils it, every one has control over it and can gaze at her so as to put her out of countenance. Her face is no longer under her own control.
Ramsay (The Cities of St Paul, pp. 202 ff.) scouts the common explanation that the authority which the woman wears on her head is the authority to which she is subject, a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at any where except in the N.T. Following Thomson (The Land and the Book, p. 31) he explains thus. In Oriental lands the veil is the power and the honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd. But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom any one may insult. A womans authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards. That is the Oriental view, which Paul learned at Tarsus. In his preface (vi.) Ramsay adds; In the Hebrew marriage ceremony, as it is celebrated in modern Palestine, I am informed that the husband snatches off the brides veil and throws it on his own shoulder, as a sign that he has assumed authority over her Was Rebekahs veiling herself a sign of subjection? Gen 24:65. See Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Roman World, p. 154.
. These words have produced much discussion, but there is not serious doubt as to their meaning. They are not a gloss (Baur), still less is the whole verse an interpolation (Holsten, Baljon). Marcion had the words, and the evidence for them is overwhelming.* An interpolator would have made his meaning clearer. Accepting them, we may safely reject the explanation that angels here mean the bishops (Ambrose) or presbyters (Ephraem) or all the clergy (Primasius). Nor can evil angels be meant (Tert. De Virg. vel. vii., xvii.); the article is against it: always means good angels (8:1; Mat 13:49, Mat 13:25:31; Luk 16:22; Heb 1:4, Heb 1:5, etc.). And the suggestion that the Apostle is hinting that unveiled women might be a temptation to angels (Gen 6:1, Gen 6:2) is somewhat childish It is to be supposed that a veil hides a human face from angels, or that public worship would be the only occasion when an unveiled woman might lead angels into temptation? It is a mistake to quote the Testament of the XII. Patriarchs (Reuben v. 6), or the Book of Jubilees (iv. 15, 22), or Theodotus (Frag. 44; C.R. Gregory, Enleit. in d. N.T. P. 151), in illustration of this passage. The meaning is plain. If a woman thinks lightly of shocking men, she must remember that she will also be shocking the angels, who of course are present at public worship. Compare 4:9, and (Psa 138:1), and O ye angels of the Lord, Bless ye the Lord (Song of the Three Children, 37). Ancient liturgies often bear witness to this belief, as does our own,; Therefore with Angels and Archangels etc., Chrysostom says, knowest thou not that thou standest in the midst of the angels? with them thou singest, with them thou chantest, and dost thou stand laughing? See Luk 15:7, Luk 15:10, Luk 15:12:8, Luk 15:9.
One other suggestion is worth considering, viz. that . might mean because the angels do so. Angels, in the presence of their direct and visible Superior, veil their faces (Isa 6:2); a woman, when worshipping in the presence of her direct and visible superior (man), should do the same.
Conjectural emendations (all worthless) are quoted by Stanley: see also Expositor, 1st series, xi. p. 20. None of the known emendations can possibly be right; and the intrinsic and obvious difficulty is itself enough to set aside the suggestion that the whole verse is an interpolation (WH. App. p. 116).
11. . Limitation. Although by original constitution woman is dependent on man, yet he has no right to look down on her. In the Christian sphere each is dependent on the other, and both are dependent on God (8:6; Rom 11:36); and it is only in the Christian sphere that womans rights are duly respected. Each sex is incomplete without the other.
. There can be no separation between man and woman when both are members of Christ. Cf. for 1Th 4:1; 1Th_2 Thess, 3:4; Gal 5:10; Eph 4:17.
A B C D* D3 E F G H P, RV. have . . before .. D2 K L, Vulg. AV. transpose the clauses.
12. This mutual dependence of the sexes is shown by the fact that, although originally woman sprang from man, yet ever since then it is through woman that man comes into existence: if he is her initial cause (), she is his instrumental cause ( c. gen). But (another reason why man must not be contemptuous) the whole universe-man and woman and their whole environment-owes its origin to God. Cf. 15:27; Eph 5:23; and see Basil, De Spiritu, v. 12, xviii. 46.
13. In conclusion he asks two questions, the second of which clinches the first. He appeals to their general sense of propriety, as sense which is in harmony with the teaching of and is doubtlness inspired by . Their ideas of what is are in the best sense natural. It should be noted that both in AV. and RV. the second question is brought to a close too soon. The note of interrogation should be placed after it is a glory to her, as in the Vulgate, Luther, Tyndale, and Coverdale. Beza and others make three questions, breaking up the second into two.
. In their own inner judgment (6:2), cannot they decide (10:15)? Is it becoming that a woman should pray to god unveiled? Usually has no case after it, but here is added to emphasize the principle that when she is addressing God she ought not to be asserting her equality with men or trying to draw the attention of men: comp. Mat 6:6. For see Westcott on Heb 2:10.
14. A further argument, supporting the previous one. Instinctively they must feel the impropriety; and then external nature confirms the instinctive feeling. Even if the internal feeling should not arise, does not even nature by itself show that, while doubtless man, being short-haired, is by Divine order unveiled, woman, being long-haired, is by Divine order veiled? Naturae debet respondere voluntas (Beng.).* While fanaticism defies nature, Christianity respects and refines it; and whatever shocks the common feelings of mankind is not likely to be right. At this period, civilized men, whether Jews, Greeks, or Romans, wore their hair short. Long hair is a permanent endowment () of woman, to serve as an enveloping mantle (Heb 1:12 from Ps. 101:27; Jdg 8:26; Eze 16:13, Eze 16:27:7; Isa 59:17). Note the emphasis on and , also on the clause introduced by . Nowhere else in Biblical Greek does occur. Milligan, Grk. Papyri, p. 84.
16. This is best taken as concluding the subject of the veil; it makes a clumsy opening to the next subject. But if any one seemeth to be (or is minded to be) contentious, we have no such custom, not yet the Churches of God. There are people who are so fond of disputing that they will contest the clearest conclusions, and the Corinthians were fond of disputation. But the Apostle will not encourage them. If such should question the dictates of decorum and of nature in this matter, they may be told that the teachers have no such usage as permitting women to be unveiled,-a thing unheard of in Christian congregations. It is possible that means only himself, but he probably means that he knows of no Apostle who allows this.
Throughout the section he appeals to principles. The wearing or not wearing a veil may seem to be a small matter. Everything depends upon what the wearing or not wearing implies, and what kind of sanction the one practice or the other can claim. He does not use about the matter; there is no intrinsic necessity (v. 19): but he does use both (7, 10) and (13); for there is both moral obligation and natural fitness. His final appeal-to the practice of all congregations-would be of special weight in democratic Corinth. For comp. 2Th 1:4. See Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 108, 117, 120. There is no need to conjecture that v. 16 is an interpolation, or that refers to contentiousness. Would St Paul think it necessary to say that Apostles have no habit of contentiousness? For Greek and Roman customs respecting the hair and veils, see Smith, Dict. of Ant. Artt. Coma,, Flammeum Vestales.. The cases in which males, both Greek and Roman, wore long hair do not interfere with the argument.* Such cases were either exceptional or temporary; and they were temporary because nature taught men otherwise. For men to wear their hair long, and for women to wear it short, for men to veil their heads in public assemblies, and for women not to do so, were alike attempts to obliterate natural distinctions of sex. In the Catacombs the men are represented with short hair.
11:17-34. Disorders Connected with the Lords Supper
There are abuses of a grave kind in your public worship; a chronic state of dissension, and gross selfishness and excess in your love feasts and celebrations of the Lords Supper. This profanation brings grievous judgments on you. Avert the judgments by putting a stop to the profanation.
17 Now, in giving you this charge about the veiling of women, I do not commend you that your religious gatherings do you more harm than good. 18 First of all, when you meet as a Christian congregation, you are split into sets:-so I am told, and to some extent I am afraid that it is true. 19 Indeed, party divisions among you can hardly be avoided if men of proved worth are not to be lost in the crowd.
20 Well then, as to your religious gatherings: it cannot be said that it is the Lords Supper that you eat. 21 For everybodys first thought is to be beforehand in getting his own supper; and so, while the poor man who brings nothing cannot get enough even to eat, the rich man who brings abundance takes a great deal too much even to drink. 22 Surely you do not mean that you have no homes in which you can satisfy hunger and thirst? Or do you think that you need have no reverence for Gods congregation; or that because a man is poor you may treat him with contempt? What am I to say to you? Do you expect me to commend you? In this matter that is impossible.
23 Quite impossible; for I know that you know better. I myself received from the Lord that which in turn I transmitted to you, namely, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was being delivered up, took bread: 24 and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, This is My Body, which is for you. This do ye, in remembrance of Me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after supper was over, saying, This cup is the new covenant in virtue of My Blood. This do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
26 Yes, He gave this command; for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, it is the death of the Lord that you are proclaiming,-nothing less than that,-until His return. 27 It follows, therefore, that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in a way that dishonours Him, shall be held responsible for profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. 28 But, in order to avoid this profanation, let a man scrutinize his own spiritual condition and his motives; then, and not till then, let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks is thereby eating and drinking a sentence on himself, if he fails to recognize the sanctity of the Body. 30 The proof of this is within your own experience; for it is because people fail to recognize this sanctity that so many of you are sick and ill, while not a few have died. 31 But if we recognized our own condition and motives, we should escape this sentence. 32 Yet, when we are thus sentenced, we are being chastened by the Lord, to save us from being involved in the final condemnation of the world.
33 So then, my brothers, at your religious gatherings for a common meal, wait until all are ready. 34 If any one is too hungry to wait, let him stay at home and eat; so that your gatherings may not have these fatal results. All the other matters in which you need instruction I will regulate whenever I come.
The shocking desecration of the Lords Supper by the disorders which St Paul here censures was, no doubt, the primary reason why he is so severe in his condemnation of the conduct of those Corinthians who profaned it by their selfish misbehaviour, but it was not the only reason for distress and indignation. In the whole range of history there is no more striking contrast than that of the Apostolic Churches with the heathenism round them. They had shortcomings enough, it is true, and divisions and scandals not a few, for even apostolic times were no golden age of purity and primitive simplicity. Yet we can see that their fulness of life, and hope, and promise for the future was a new power in the world. Within their own limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem which baffled Rome, and baffles Europe still. They had lifted woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour, abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom Christ died (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p. 73). The Corinthian offenders were reviving the selfishness of class, were treating with contumely the image of God visible in their fellowmen, and were thus bringing into serious peril the best results of this blessed revolution. The Apostle does not hesitate to declare (vv. 30-32) that this evil work of theirs is bringing upon them the manifest judgments of God.
It is worth noting that he appeals to what the Lord Jesus did at the Supper, not to what Jesus did. There is no basis for the hypothesis that St Paul did not regard Jesus as the Son of God until after His Resurrection, comp. v. 4, 5. See Introduction, Doctrine.
17. . The reading is somewhat doubtful (see below), as also is the meaning of . If refers to the charge which he gives respecting the Love-feasts (28-34), then the interval between this preface and the words which it anticipates is awkwardly prolonged. It is not impossible that refers to the charge about women wearing veils.* The connexion between the two subjects is close, both being concerned with proper behaviour at public worship. Now in giving you this charge I do not praise [you], that your religious gatherings do you harm instead of good. It is an understatement, purposely made in contrast to v. 2, that he does not praise them. He censures them severely. What was intended for their wealth they had made an occasion of falling. These gatherings, instead of quickening their spiritual life, had led to grievous misconduct and consequent suffering. For , of result, comp. Col 3:10.
The evidence for is somewhat stronger than for . B is neutral with , and D with : Vulg. praecipio non landans. There is no in the Greek; but neither AV. nor RV. put you in italics.
Both the Attic (7:9) and the un-Attic (here and 7:38) are well attested: here only; comp. 2Co 12:15. It is possible that both and were pronounced in a similar way (kreesson heesson); if so, we have a play upon sound.
18. For, to begin with. The Apostle hastens to justify his refusal to give praise. The has no or afterwards, and possibly there is no antithesis; but some find it in the section about spiritual gifts (12:1 f.): cf. Rom 1:8, Rom 1:3:2, Rom 1:10:1, Rom 1:11:13; 2Co 12:12: Blass, Gr. 77. 12.
. In assembly, i.e. in a gathering of the members of the Corinthian Church. This use is at once classical and a return to the original force of qhl (Hort, The Chr. Eccles. p. 118): 14:19, 28, 35; comp. 3Jn 1:6 and , Joh 6:59, Joh 18:20. Church in the sense of a building for public worship cannot be meant; there were no such buildings.
I continually hear (pres.) that dissensions among you prevail (not simply ): these splits are the rule. In the Love-feasts they seem to have been chiefly social, between rich and poor. Possibly what St James condemns (2:1-4) took place; the wealthy got the best places at the tables. Yet neither (see on 1:10) nor are separations from the Church, but dissensions within it. Wherever people deliberately choose () their own line independently of authority, there is : Gal 5:20.
. The Apostle has the love which hopeth all things (13:7), and he will not believe that all that he hears to their discredit is true; miti sermone utitur (Beng.).
The reading . (Tr., in the Church AV.) is found only in a few cursives. There is no reason for suspecting that . (all uncials) is an interpolation.
is the accusative of the extent to which the action applies: comp. (10:33). We might have had (13:9, 12).
19. . Comp. Mat 18:7. In the nature of things, if there are splits of any kind, these are sure to settle down into parties,-factions with self-chosen views. Human nature being what it is, and Corinthian love of faction being so great, if a division once became chronic, it was certain to be intensified. But here perhaps there is not much difference between and . Justin M. (Try. 35) mixes the words . with Mat 24:5, Mat 24:11, Mat 24:24, Mat 24:7:15, and attributes them to our Lord. Comp. Clem. Hom. xvi. 21, and see Resch, p. 100. For comp. Act 5:17, Act 15:5, Act 26:5, etc.
[] . Divine Providence turns this evil tendency to good account: it is the means of causing the trusty and true to become recognizable. Either by coming to the front in the interests of unity, or by keeping aloof from all divisions, the more stable characters will become manifest: 2Th 2:11, 2Th 2:12. To have religious zeal. without becoming a religious partizan, is a great proof of true devotion. contrast (9:27).
D F G Latt. omit before . B D, Latt, insert before : A C E F G K L P, Syrr . omit. The ar those who have been accepted after being tested like metals or stones (Gen 23:16); hence proved and approved (Rom 16:10; 2Co 10:18, 2Co 13:7). See Origen, Con. Cels. iii. 13, Philocalia xvi. 2. Quite needlessly, some suspect that is an interpolation.
20. . When therefore you come together to one place (Act 1:15, Act 2:1. Act 2:44, Act 3:1), when you are assembled , i.e. for a religious purpose. Or might (less probably) mean for the same object. The place is not yet a building set apart. In any case, emphasizes the contrast between the external union and the internal dissension. Compare 7:5, 14:23.
. The adjective is emphatic by position: there is no eating a Lords supper. A supper they may eat, but it is not the Lords: , there is no such thing, for such conduct as theirs excludes it. Hence may be rendered it is not possible, non licet (Ecclus. 14:16); but this is not necessary. At first, the Eucharist proper seems to have followed the Agape or Love-feast, being a continuation of it. Later the Eucharist preceded and was transferred from evening to morning. Here, probably includes both, the whole re-enactment of the Last Supper including the Eucharist. Placuit Spiritui Sancto ut in honorem tanti sacraments in os Christians prius Dominicum corpus intraret quam exteri cibi (Aug. Ep. cxviii. 6, 7, ad Januar.). See Hastings, DB. III. P. 157; Smith, D. Chr. Ant. 1. P. 40; Ency. bibl ii. 1424. We cannot be sure from the use of instead of that the name was already in use. The expression must have had a beginning, and this may be the first use of it. Inscriptions and papyri show that, as early as a.d. 68, was in use in the sense of pertaining to the Emperor, imperial (Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. p. 82, Bible Studies, p. 217, Light, p. 361). The word occurs only here and Rev 19:9, Rev 19:17, outside the Gospels; in LXX, only in Daniel and 4 Macc.
21. For each one takes before the rest (instead of with them) his own supper: he anticipates the partaking in common, and thus destroys the whole meaning and beauty of the ordinance. It was thus not even a , much less . The is not an otiose addition: it is a mere eating, which he might just as well or better have done elsewhere and elsewhen.*
. The consequence is that one man cannot even satisfy his hunger, while another even drinks to excess. These are probably respectively the rich and the poor. The poor brought little or nothing to the common meal, and got little or nothing from the rich, who brought plenty; while some of the rich, out of their abundant supplies, became drunk. There is a sharp antithesis between deficiency in necessary food and excess in superfluous drink. There is no need to water down the usual meaning of (Mat 24:49; Joh 2:10; Act 2:15; 1Th 5:7). Even in a heathen such selfish and disgusting behaviour would have been considered shameful, as the directions given by Socrates show; they are very similar to those of St Paul (Xen. Mem. III. iv. 1). Certainly such meetings must have been for the worse; hungry poor meeting intoxicated rich, at what was supposed to be a supper of the Lord! In these gatherings the religious element was far more important than the social; but the Corinthians had destroyed both. For this late use of the relative, comp. Rom 9:21; 2Ti 2:20; Mat 21:35, Mat 22:5, Mat 25:15. Coincidence is implied.
For ( B C D E F G K L P) A and some cursives have , the active of which does not occur in the N.T., except as a variant here and Act 27:34.
22. . for surely you do not mean that you have not got houses to eat and to drink in! Comp. (9:4, 5, 6), and (8:10); and see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2702 b. Well, then, if that is not true (and of course it is not), there is only one alternative, which is introduced by . Ye despise the congregation that is assembled for the worship of God, and ye put the poor to shame. They treated a religious meal as if it were a licentious entertainment, and therein exposed the poverty of those who were in need. There can be little doubt that, as = the rich, = the poor,. Here it might mean those who have not houses for meals (Alford); so also Wiclif, han noon; but this is very improbable. The is added with solemnity (v. 16, 10:32) to give emphasis to the profanity. The addition is frequent in the two earliest groups of the Pauline Epistles (Hort, The Chr. Eccles. pp. 103, 108, 117): , as Rom 2:4; Mat 18:10; , as Rom 5:5. The majority of the Corinthian Christians would be poor.*
; ; Deliberative subjunctives: What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you? The may be taken with what precedes (AV., RV.), or with what follows (Tisch., WH., Ell.). The latter seems to be better, as limiting the censure to this particular, and also as preparing for what follows.
23. . I cannot praise you, for what I received from the Lord, and also delivered to you, was this. We cannot tell how St Paul received this. Neither does the imply that the communication was direct, nor does the that it was not direct, although, if it was direct, we should probably have had (Gal 1:12; 1Th 2:13, 1Th 2:4:1; etc.). The balances : the Apostle received and transmitted to them this very thing, so that both know exactly what took place. He was a sure link in a chain which reached from the Lord Himself to them. They did not receive it from the Lord, but they received it from one who had so received it, and therefore they have no excuse. This is one of the which they professed to be holding fast (v. 2). See Ramsay, Exp. Times, April 1910; Jlicher, Paulus u. Jesus, p.30.
It is urged that in a matter of such moment a direct revelation to the Apostle is not incredible. On the other hand, why assume a supernatural communication when a natural one was ready at hand? It would be easy for St Paul to learn everything from some of the Twelve. But what is important is, not the mode of the communication, but the source. In some way or other St Paul received this from Christ, and its authenticity cannot be gainsaid; but his adding is no guide as to the way in which he received it. More important also than the mode are the contents of the communication, and it is to them that frequently points (1Th 2:13; 2Th 3:6; 1Co 15:1, 1Co 15:3): see Lightfoot on Gal 1:1, Gal 1:13. It certainly does not point to anything written: St Paul does not say that he had read what he delivered to them. See Knowling, The Testimony of St Paul to Christ, pp. 275 f. Zahn and Schmiedel are here agreed that St Paul is appealing to historical tradition. See also Camb. Bibl. Ess. pp. 336 f.; Mansfield College Essays, pp. 48 f.
. Which I also delivered to you. He transmitted to them the very thing which he had received from the Lord, so that they were well aware of what ought to have made these disorders impossible. This would be St Pauls own reply to the assertion that he, and not Jesus, is the founder of Christianity.
. In the night in which He was being delivered up. St Paul mentions the sad solemnity of the occasion in contrast to the irreverent revelry of the Corinthians. Neither AV. nor RV. keeps the same translations for in this verse, nor marks the imperfect. The delivery to His enemies had already begun and was going on at the very time when the Lord instituted the Eucharist. Moreover, to translate was betrayed confines the meaning to the action of Judas; whereas the Fathers surrender of the Son is included, and perhaps is chiefly meant, and the Sons self-sacrifice may also be included (E. A. Abbott, Paradosis, 1155, 1202, 1417). It is plain that St Paul assumes that his readers are acquainted with the details of the Passion; and the precision with which he writes here and 15:3-8 is evidence that he is drawing from a well-furnished store (Sanday, DCG. 11. p. 888). He himself is well acquainted with the chief facts in the life of Christ (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, p. 89; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, pp. 55 f.).
. Took a loaf, one of the thin cakes of bread used for the Paschal meal. It was perhaps more like our biscuit or oatcake than ordinary loaves. Hastings, DCG. 1. pp. 230 f.
24. . All four accounts of the Institution have here, a detail of Divinely-appointed ritual. Luke also has , for which Mark and Matthew substitute . The two words doubtless refer to the same utterance of Christ, in which He gave thanks and blessed God, and both contain the significant : comp. , , and see T. S. Evans ad loc. Mark has these features, which are omitted here; as they were eating, Take ye, they all drank of it, which is shed for many. For the third of these Matthew substitutes Drink ye all of it; he has the other three. Luke has none of them. Mark, Matthew, and Luke have , of the cup also, and here covers it. The three, moreover, give, what is omitted here, I say to you I will in no wise drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom. The details which are common to all four accounts are (1) the taking bread, (2) the giving thanks, (3) the breaking, (4) the words, This is My Body, (5) the cup; and, if the disputed passage in Luke be retained, (6) the words blood and covenant. The disputed passage is almost verbatim as vv. 24, 25 here, from .
Of the four accounts of the Institution this is the earliest that has come down to us, and the words of our Lord which are contained in it are the earliest record of any of His utterances; for this Epistle was written before any of the Gospels. It is, however, possible that Mark used a document in giving his account, and this document might be earlier than this Epistle.
. All carnal ideas respecting these much-discussed words are excluded by the fact that the Institution took place before the Passion. Our Lords human Body was present, and His Blood was not yet shed. What is certain is that those who rightly receive the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist receive spiritually the Body and the Blood of Christ. How this takes place is beyond our comprehension, and it is vain to claim knowledge which cannot be possessed, or to attempt to explain what cannot be explained. If there is a point on which the witness of Scripture, of the purest ecclesiastical tradition, and of our own Church, is more express and uniform than another, it is the peculiar and transcendent quality of the blessing which this Sacrament both represents and exhibits, and consequently of the Presence by which that blessing is conferred. How this Presence differs from that of which we are assured by our Lords promise, where two or three are gathered together in His name-whether only in degree or in kind-it is beyond the power of human language to define and of human thought to conceive. It is a subject fit, not for curious speculation, but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling; and it is one in which there is a certainty that the highest flight of contemplation will always fall short of the Divine reality (Bishop Thirlwall, Charges, vol. i. p. 278; see also pp. 245, 246). I could not consent to make our Church answerable for a dogma committing those who hold it to the belief that, in the institution of the Supper, that which our Lord held in His hand, and gave to His disciples, was nothing less than His own Person, Body, Soul, and Godhead (Ibid. vol. ii. P. 251; see also the appendix on Transubstantiation, pp. 281 f.). The notes of Ellicott and Evans ad loc., with Gould on Mar 14:22; Westcott on Joh_6 and 18; Gore, Dissertations, pp. 230 f.; Hastings, DB. iii. pp. 148 f., with the bibliography there given, may be consulted. Excellent remarks and summaries of doctrine will be found in Beet, A Manual of Theology, pp. 380-96. Happily, no theory of the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist is necessary for the fruitful reception of it, and to have this demonstrated would not make us better Christians, any more than a knowledge of the chemical properties of bread makes us better able to digest it. Stanley, Christian Institutions, ch. vi.
. Perform this action (continue to take bread, give thanks, and break it) in remembrance of Me (Num 10:10; Psa 38:1, Psa 70:1). This implies that hereafter He is to be absent from sight. The words are not in Mark or Matthew, nor in Luke, except in the disputed verses. Therefore the command to continue the celebration of the Lords Supper rests upon the testimony of St Paul. This, however, does not for a moment imply that he was the first to repeat the celebration, or the first to teach Christians to do so. This passage plainly implies that repeated celebrations were already a firmly established practice. The authority of St Paul was quite inadequate to this immense result. Nothing less than the authority of Christ would have sufficed to produce it. See Knowling, pp. 279 f.
The proposal to give to the meaning sacrifice this must be abandoned. As the Romanist commentator Estius says, it is plane praeter mentem Scripturae.* So also Westcott; I have not the least doubt that can mean only do this act (including the whole action of hands and lips), and not sacrifice this; and that the Latin also can have only the same rendering (in a letter quoted in his Life, II. p. 353): and Bachmann, geht auf die ganze Handlung, wie sie durch das Tun Jesu und seiner Jnger dargestellt ist: and Herveius; Hoc facite, id est, corpus meum accipite et manducate per successionem temporis usque in finem saeculi, in memoriam passionis meae. See Ellicott and Goudge ad loc.; Expositor, 3rd series, 7:441; T. K. Abbott, Essays on the Original Texts of O. and N.T. p. 110; A Reply to Mr. Supples and other Criticisms; and notes on Luk 22:19 in the Int. Crit. Com. p. 497.
Edwards translates , My commemoration, in contrast to that of Moses (10:2), thus making parallel to (v. 25). See Blass, Gr. 48. 7. The Eucharist perpetually calls to mind the redemption by Christ from the bondage of sin, as the Passover recalled the redemption from the bondage of Egypt. Christ did not say, in remembrance of My death. The recorded words, as My memorial, are of wider import; they imply in remembrance of all that I have done for you and all that I am to you. The early Christians seem to have regarded the Eucharist as a commemoration of the Resurrection as well as the Death, for they selected the first day of the week for this memorial. Wetstein compares the address of T. Manlius to the troops after his colleague Decius had devoted himself to secure their success; Consurgite nunc, memores consulis pro vestra victoria morte occumbentis (Livy, 8:10).
, (C3 K L P, Syrr. Aeth.) are an interpolation from Mat 26:26; A B C* D E F G, Lat-Vet. Aegyptt. Arm. omit. After , 3 C3 E F G K L P insert D* inserts , Vulg. (quod tradetur) and some other versions have a rendering which implies . * A B C* 17 and other witnesses omit. The interpolation of any of these words weakens the neruosa sententia (Beng.), , which means for your salvation (Mar 10:45). AV. inserts Take, eat, and broken; RV. gives the latter a place in the margin.
25. . He acted with the cup as with the bread: He took it, gave thanks, and administered it to the disciples. The cup means the usual cup, the wellknown one (10:16). The addition of shows that the bread was distributed during the meal, (Mar 14:22): but it was after supper was over, postquam caenatum est (Aug.), not postquam coenavit (Vulg.), that the cup was administered. Perhaps the Apostle is pointing out that the cup, against which they had so grievously offended by intoxication, was no part of the meal, but a solemn addition to it. But we must not translate, the after-supper cup, which would require . . Thomas Aquinas would give a meaning to the fact that the bread was distributed during the meal, while the cup was not administered till the meal was over. The one represents the Incarnation, which took place while the observances of the Law still had force; but the other represents the Passion, which put an end to the observances of the Law. And Cornelius Lapide regards Christs taking the cup into His hands as a token of His voluntarily taking death for us. Such thoughts are admissible, if it is not maintained that they are the meaning which is intended in Scripture*.
. Hic calix novum testamentum est in meo sanguine. The position of is against combining with . Rather, This cup is the new covenant, and it is so in virtue of My Blood. In My Blood is an expansion or explanation of the is, and is equivalent to an adverb such as mystically. The cup represents that which it contains, and the wine which it contains represents the Blood which seals the covenant. The Atonement is implied, without which doctrine the Lords Supper is scarcely intelligible. Only St Paul (and Luke?) has the . The covenant is fresh as distinct from the former covenant which is now obsolete. It is in its contents, in the blessings which it secures, viz. forgiveness and grace: and . is in contrast to the blood with which the old covenant was confirmed (Exo 24:8). See Jer 31:31, the only place in O.T. in which occurs. The choice of , rather than , which is the common word for covenant, is no doubt deliberate, for might imply that the parties to the covenant contracted on equal terms. Between God and man that is impossible. When He enters into a contract He disposes everything, as a man disposes of his property by will: hence often means a testament or will. In the LXX is freq.; in the N.T. it does not occur. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 299. On the meaning of blood, which is the life, in connexion with Christs Sacrifice, see Westcott, Hebrews, pp. 293 f.; Epp. of St john, pp. 34 f.; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 89, 91.
… St Paul alone has these words of the cup. In the disputed passage in Luke they are wanting.
. This makes the command very comprehensive; quotiescunque: comp. (Rev 11:6). Every time that they partake of the sacramental cup ( ), they are to do as He has done in remembrance of Him. He does not merely give permission; He commands. It is perverse to interpret this as a general command, referring to all meals at which anything is drunk. What precedes and follows limits the meaning to the cup of blessing. The Lord commands that the Supper be often repeated, and His Apostle charges those who repeat it to keep in view Him who instituted it, and who died to give life to them. In liturgies these words are transferred to Christ; ye proclaim My death till I come.
With regard to the Lords presence in Holy Communion, Bishop Westcott wrote to the Archbishop of York, 8th Oct. 1900; The circumstances of the Institution are, we may say, spiritually reproduced. The Lord Himself offers His Body given and His Blood shed. But these gifts are not either separately (as the Council of Trent) or in combination Himself I shrink with my whole nature from speaking of such a mystery, but it seems to me to be vital to guard against the thought of the Presence of the Lord in or under the forms of bread and wine. From this the greatest practical errors follow (Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, II. p. 351).
It is very remarkable that the words of institution differ widely in the four accounts. There is substantial agreement in meaning; but the only clause in which all four agree is This is My Body; and even here there is a difference of order between (1 Cor.) and (Mark, Matt., Luke). It is quite clear that in all four accounts these words are words of administration, not of consecration. This is specially manifest in Mark, where they are preceded by Take ye (), and in Matt., where they are preceded by Take, eat (, ). The same may be said of This is My Blood (Mark, Matt.): they are words of administration, not of consecration. The consecration has preceded, and would seem to be included in or . All liturgies of every type agree in bearing witness to the fact that the original form of consecration was a thanksgiving; and the form of words in which our Lord gave thanks has not been preserved. In the Eastern liturgies the words of institution were not recited as of themselves effecting the consecration, but rather as the authority in obedience to which the rite is performed (W. C. Bishop, Ch. Quart. Rev., July 1908, pp. 387-92). In the main lines of Eucharistic teaching in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, The moment of consecration is associated with the invocation of God the Word (Serapion, 1), or with the invocation of God the Holy Ghost (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xxi:3), or with the Invocation of the Holy Trinity (Ibid. xix:7),* or with the recital of the words recorded to have been used by our Lord at the institution (Pseudo-Ambrose, De Sacr. 4:21-23) (Darwell Stone, Ch. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1908, p. 36). Cyril of Jerusalem quotes St Paul as saying (v. 25), And having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood, which is wide of St Pauls words, and agrees exactly with none of the other accounts (Cat. xxi:1). It would thus appear that we know the eact words of institution only very imperfectly, and the exact words of consecration not at all. Again, just as we do not know the manner of our Lords Presence in the rite as a whole, so we do not know the supreme moment of consecration. It is lawful to believe that we should not be in a better position for making a good use of this mystery if all these things were known.*
26. . In Apost. Const. 8:12, 16 these words are put into Christs mouth, with the change, My death, till I come. The introduces the Apostles explanation of the Lords command to continue making this commemorative act. Or possibly refers to the whole passage (23-25); Such being the original Institution, it follows that as often as ye eat, etc. To make the co-ordinate with the of v. 23, as giving an additional reason for , is very forced. St Paul gives no directions as to how frequently the Lords Supper is to be celebrated, but he implies that it is to be done frequently, in order to keep the remembrance of the Lord fresh. We may conjecture that at Corinth celebrations had been frequent, and that it was familiarity with them that had led to their being so dishonoured. By this bread ( ) would seem to be meant bread used in the manner prescribed by Christ (vv. 23, 24).
The with (this cup, AV.) is manifest interpolation: * A B C* D* F G, Latt. Arm. omit. Note the chiasmus between and , but the change of order seems to have no significance. What is significant is the addition of , which can heardly be reconciled with the practice of denying the cup to the laity.
. Ye proclaim (shew is inadequate) continually (pres. indic.) the death of the Lord. The Eucharist is an acted sermon, an acted proclamation of the death which it commemorates; but it is possible that there is reference to some expression of belief in the atoning death of Christ as being a usual element in the service. The verb is indicative, not imperative.
. The Eucharist looks backwards to the Crucifixion and forwards to the Return: hoc mysterium duo tempora extrema conjungit (Beng.). But at the Second Advent Eucharists will come to an end, for the commemoration of the absent ceases when the absent returns. No further need of symbols of the Body, when the Body itself appears (Theodoret). Then instead of their drinking in memory of Him, He will drink with them in His Kingdom (Mat 26:29).
The between or and is not likely be genuine: * A B C D* F and Fathers omit. If it were genuine, it would indicate that the Coming is uncertain, and this can hardly be the Apostles meaning. How near the Coming may be is not here in question; but Eucharists must continue till then.
27. . Consequently he will be guilty. Seeing that partaking of the bread and of the cup is a proclaiming of the Lords death, partaking unworthily must be a grievous sin. No definition of unworthily is given; but the expression covers all that is incompatible with the intention of Christ in instituting the rite. It is quite certain that selfish and greedy irreverence is incompatible. But what follows shows that not only external behaviour but an inward attitude of soul is included. There must be brotherly love towards all and sure faith in Christ. Weinel fails to notice this (p. 259).
. As the cup followed the bread at a considerable interval, it was possible to receive one unworthily without receiving the other at all. In either case the whole sacrament was profaned. It is on the use of here, and not , that an argument is based for communion to one kind only; and it is the only one that can be found in Scripture. But the argument is baseless. Because profaning one element involves profaning both, it does not follow that receiving one element worthily is the same as worthily receiving both.* It is eating this bread and drinking the cup that proclaims the death of the Lord (v. 26): we have no right to assume that eating without drinking, or vice versa, will suffice. The whole passage, especially vv. 22, 26, 28, 29, may be called proof that we are to eat and drink. And see Blass, 77. 11 on the quasi-copulative sense which has in such sentences: vel (Vulg.), aut (Calvin).
. The cup which has reference to the Lord and brings us into communion with Him, as the cup of demons ( ) brings the partakers into communion with them (10:21): comp. (v. 20). Nowhere else in N.T. does occur: in 6:2 we have .
… Shall be under guilt of violating, be guilty of a sin against, the Body and the Blood of the Lord. The dignity of that of which they partake (10:16) is the measure of the dignity which their irreverence profanes. He does not say . ., par facit, quasi Christum trucidaret (Grotius). The guilt is rather that of deliberate injury or insult to the kings effigy or seal, or profane treatment of a crucifix. Dishonour to the symbols is dishonour to that which they represent; and to use the bread and the wine as the Corinthians used them was to treat the memorials of Christs death, and therefore that which they commemorated, with insult.
The use of is varied: c. gen. of the offence (Mar 3:29), of that which is violated (here and Jam 2:10), and of the penalty (Mar 14:64; Heb 2:15); c. dat. of that which is violated (Deu 19:10), and of the tribunal (Mat 5:21, Mat 5:22).
After , K L P, Vulg. AV. add : A B C D E F G, Lat.-Vet. RV. omit. For before A, Aegypt. Aeth. AV. read , a manifest correction. After D L Pesh. Goth. add . A few unimportant witnesses support the TR. in omitting before . The AV. inserts this before cup of the Lord, without authority.
28. . But (in order to avoid all this profanity) let a man (4:1; Gal 6:1) prove himself (1Th 5:21; Gal 6:4). Let him see whether he is in a proper state of mind for commemorating and proclaiming the death of the Lord. The emphasis is on . It is assumed that the result of the testing will either directly or indirectly be satisfactory. This is sometimes implied in as distinct from : Lightfoot on 1Th 5:21; Trench, Syn. lxxiv. The man will either find that he is already in a right condition to receive, or he will take the necessary means to become so. Nothing is said here either for or against employing the help of a minister, as in private confession: but shows that the individual Christian can do it for himself, and perhaps implies that this is the normal condition of things.* Those who are unskilful in testing themselves may reasonably seek help; and confession, whether public or private, is help supplied by the Church to those who need it. But when the right condition has been reached, by whatever means, then and not till then () let him come and partake.
. The prepositions seem to imply that there are other communicants (10:17); but the change of construction in 9:7 renders this doubtful. Evans interprets the of the mystical effects of the bread eaten.
29. It is impossible to reproduce in English the play upon words which is manifest in these verses (29-34), in which changes are rung upon and with its compounds: Blass, Gr. 82. 4. Such things are very common in 2 Cor. (1:13, 3:2, 4:8, 6:10, 10:6, 12, 12:4). The exact meaning of this verse is uncertain. Either (1) For the (mere) eater and drinker, who turns the Supper into an ordinary meal; or, (2) For he who eats and drinks (unworthily, or without testing himself). There is not much difference between these two, and in either case must mean because he does not rightly judge, or without rightly judging. Or else, (3) He who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not rightly judge. In any case is a neutral word, judgment or sentence, not condemnation, still less damnation. The context implies that the judgment is adverse and penal (v. 30); but it also implies that the punishments are temporal, not eternal. These temporal chastisements are sent to save offenders from eternal condemnation. For , not , comp. Rom 3:8, Rom 3:5:16; Gal 5:10; and see Thayers Grimm.
It seems to be safe to assume that has the same meaning in vv. 29 and 31. In that case discern or discriminate (RV. and marg.) can hardly be right, for this meaning makes poor sense in v. 31. Judge rightly makes good sense in both places. Of course one who forms a right judgment will discern and discriminate (in this case, will distinguish the Body from ordinary food), but distinguish is not the primary idea. Chrysostom paraphrases, , , . It is not likely that, because the bread symbolizes the many grains of Christian souls united in one Church, here means the body of Christians;*. still less that it means the substance which is veiled in the bread, as some Lutherans interpret.
The addition of after , and of after in a number of texts, are obvious interpolations. Why should * A B C* and other authorities omit in both cases, if the additions were genuine?
Editors differ as to the accent of In classical Greek is right, but in this later Greek the earlier witnesses for accents give . Much the same difference is found with regard to which Tisch. accents . See Lightfoot on Gal 2:9, Gal 5:10.
On the insoluble as to what it is that the wicked receive in the Lords Supper, see E. H. Browne and E. C. S. Gibson on article xxix; the correspondence between Keble and Pusey at the end of vol. 3. of The Life of Pusey; and J. B Mozley, Lectures and other Theological papers, P. 205. If he receive unworthy, he vrily rejects the Body and Blood of Christ (Khomiakoff, Essay on the Church, in Birkbeck. Russia and the English P.207). Some problems respecting the Eucharist are the result of theories (which may be erroneous) respecting the manner of christs Presence in the Eucharist: if the theory is relinquished, the diffcuilty disappears. It is clear from vv. 28, 29. which have and not between . and ., that communion in both kinds ws usual, and there is no mention of special ministers who distributed the bread and the wine. But these abuses might suggests the employment of ministers.
30. . He proceeds to prove the truth of from the Corinthians own experiences. It is because of their irreverence at the Lords Supper that many among them have been chastised with sickness, and some even with death. To interpret this of spiritual weakness and deadness is inadequate; and no ancient commentator thus explains the words. Their spiritual deadness produced the irreverence, and for this irreverence God chastised them with bodily suffering. Had spiritual maladies been meant, we should probably have had , or . Perhaps at this time there was much sickness in the Church of Corinth, and St Paul points out the cause of it. We need not assume that he had received a special revelation on the subject. It is possible that the excess in drinking may have led in some cases to illness. Both and imply the weakness of ill-health (Mar 6:5, Mar 6:13; Mat 14:14), and it is not clear which is the stronger word of the two: infirmi et imbecilles (Vulg.); but (2Ch 32:24) is perhaps more than . By is meant enough to be considerable: in this sense the word is frequent in Luke and Acts, and in 1 and 2 Mac., but is rare elsewhere: in Rom 15:23 the reading is some what doubtful. See Swete on Mar 10:46.
. Are sleeping (in death), dormiunt, rather than are falling asleep, obdormiunt: here and elsewhere the Vulg. has dormio. The word was welcomed by Christians as harmonizing with the belief in a resurrection, but it was previously used by Jews and heathen without any such belief. Test. of 12. Patr. Joseph 20:4, , where some texts read . : comp. , and (Jer 51:39, Jer 51:57);* Book of Jubilees 23:1; Tum consanguineus Leti Sopor (Virg. Aen. 6. 278. See Milligan on 1Th 4:13). Calvin points out that these consequences of profanation must be regarded as admonitions: neque enim frustra nos affligit Deus, quia malis nostris non delectatur; argumentum copiosum et amplum. He also seems to regard solitary masses as a repetition of the offence in v. 21; ut unus seorsum epulam suam habeat, abolita communicatione.
31. . But if we made a practice (imperf.) of rightly judging ourselves: is emphatic, and . is stronger than the middle. The reference is to v. 28. If we habitually tested ourselves, and reached a right estimate, we should not receive judgment (such as these sicknesses and deaths). For the construction comp. Joh 5:46, Joh 5:8:19, Joh 5:42, Joh 5:15:19, Joh 5:18:36; and for with the 1st pers. Act 23:14; 1Jn 1:8. In using the 1st pers. the Apostle softens the admonition by including himself. What follows is much less stern than what precedes. He is anxious to close gently.
(* A B D E F G, Vulg, Aeth. Goth. RV.) is certainly to be preferred to ( 3 C K L P, Syrr. Aegyptt. AV.).
32. . But when we do receive judgment (as is actually the case by these sicknesses), we are being chastened by the Lord, in order that we may not receive judgment of condemnation (be judged to death) with the world. These temporal sufferings are indeed punishments for sin, but their purpose is disciplinary and educational (1Ti 1:20), to induce us to amend our ways and escape the sentence which will be pronounced on rebels at the last day. The here is, not Gods well-ordered creature, but His enemy, as commonly in St John. I beseech therefore those who read this book, that they be not discouraged because of the calamities, but account that these punishments were not for the destruction, but for the chastening of our race (2 Mac. 6:12). For (as implying moral training as distinct from mere teaching), see Westcott on Heb 12:7; Trench, Syn. xxxii.; Milligan, Grk. Papyri, p. 94.*
33. , . In vv. 31, 32 he has been regarding offences generally. He now returns to the disorders in connexion with the Lords Supper in order to close the subject, and in so doing he repeats the affectionate address (1:11) which still further migitates the recent severity. This conclusion indicates where the great fault has been: in the common meal of Christian love and fellowship there has been no love or fellowship. Having charged them to secure the necessary internal feeling by means of self-examination, he now insists upon the necessity for the external expression of it. To the last he harps upon . These are meetings, Christian gatherings, the object of which is to manifest mutual love. Moreover, the purpose of the congregational meal is spiritual, not physical; not to satisfy hunger, but to commemorate and to hold communion with Christ. Let them cease to come together , . As in v. 21, is a general expression for a common meal.
. Wait for one another, invicem expectate (Vulg.). This is the usual meaning of the verb in the N.T. (16:2; Heb 10:13, Heb 10:11:10; Act 17:16; Jam 5:7). The meaning receive ye one another (common in the LXX and in class. Grk.) is less suitable: for this he would perhaps have used (Rom 14:1, Rom 15:7). The waiting would prevent the greedy (21): and Chrysostom points out the delicacy of the expression. It is the rich who are to wait for the poor; but neither rich nor poor are mentioned.
34. The mere satisfying of hunger should be done (14:35), not (v. 18). Comp. (Act 2:46, Act 5:42). The abrupt conclusion is similar to the conclusion of the discussion about women wearing veils (v. 16). He is not going to argue the matter any further; the difference between the Supper and ordinary meals must be clearly marked: that is final.
The after , – ( 3 D3 E K L P, Syrr. AV.) is a manifest interpolation (* A B C D* F G,Latt. RV. omit). The asyndeton makes an abrupt conclusion.
. One may guess for ever, and without result, as to what things the Apostle was going to set in order, just as one may guess for ever as to what directions our Lord gave to the Apostles respecting Church order during the forty days. Here all the other matters possibly refers to matters about which the Corinthians had asked, and probably to matters connected with the Love-feasts and the Eucharist. The use of (7:17, 9:14, 16:1; Tit 1:5) suggests that these had reference to externals, , rather than to the inner meaning of the rite. But the evidence is slight, and does not carry us far.
. Whensoever I shall have come, or according as I come. The makes both event and time uncertain. Comp. (Rom 15:24); (Php 2:23). J. H. Moulton, 1. p. 167. Meanwhile there seems to be no overseer or body of elders to act for him.
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON 11:17-34
This passage throws considerable light upon the manner of celebrating the Lords Supper in St Pauls day. On the negative side we have important evidence. As J.A. Beet in loc. points out very incisively, the Apostle says nothing about consecration by a priest; and, had there been anything of the kind, would he not have said, Wait for the consecration, rather than Wait for one another (v. 33)? Beet points out further (Manual of Theology, p. 388) that private members were able to appropriate beforehand the food designed for the communion, which implies that they were not in the habit of receiving the bread and wine from the church officers. And St Paul does not tell them that they must not help themselves to the bread and wine, although this would have effectually put a stop to the abuses in question; which shows that he did not look upon reception of the elements as essential to the validity of the rite. From this we infer with certainty that, when Christ ordained the Supper, He did not direct, and that, when 1 Corinthians was written, the Apostles had not directed, that the sacred rite should be administered by the church officers and them alone. Nor have we in the N.T. any evidence that the Apostles afterwards gave this direction. What we have is evidence that a body of church officers was being developed: and it is reasonable to suppose that, when a distinction had been made between laity and clergy, the duty of celebrating the Lords Supper would very soon be reserved for the clergy.
On the positive side we may assume from that the Christian Supper was closely modelled, in all essentials, on what Christ did at the Paschal Supper. This carries with it-
() The Blessing and Breaking of Bread and the Blessing of a Cup, as then by Christ, so later by a presiding person.
() The Meal itself, originally meant, like the Passover, to be a genuine meal, for satisfying hunger and thirst.
But (v. 22) St Paul began a change which tended to make the meal connected with the Lords Supper a mere ceremony. The genuine meal, for satisfying hunger, is to be taken at home, and the Lords Supper is not to be used for that purpose by all communicants as a matter of course, although the poor are to have an opportunity of satisfying their appetites. This change naturally tended to the goal which was ultimately reached, viz., the complete separation of the Eucharist from the Supper, which became a mere Agape. The contributions of food brought by the worshippers survived in later times as the First Oblation, the . See Diet. of Chr. Ant. Artt. Agape, Eulogia, Eucharist; Kraus, Real-Enc. D. christ. Alt. 1. Artt. Eucharistie, Eulogien Hastings, DB. and DCG. Artt. Lords Supper, Communion.
* The fourth, if the Introduction (1:1-9) he counted.
* Atto of Vercelli seems to be mistaken in saying, Haec nempe verba per ironiam dicta sunt. So also Herveius; Per ironiam incipit loqui. His verbis plus illos tangit, quart si manifeste, increparet eos. Quasi diceret; Ves obliti estis mei, et traditiones meas non tenetis, sed volo ut ista quae subjungo, sciatis. There is no sarcasm. Cf. 1:4-9.
See Basil De Spir. xxix. 71. The rather implies a considerable time since he had been at Corinth. It may have been over two years.
D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 -22 is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).
E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant
F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).
G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1Co 3:8-16, 1Co 6:7-14 (F).
K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 : 8:7 -8:11 .
L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.
(Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.
A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.
B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.
C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 -9:6 : 13:8 -14:40 .
P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 -17 : 12:23 -13:5 -: 14:23 . A good type of text in St Pauls Epistles.
* See Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 11. pp. 65, 395-6, ed. 1902. See also Tert. De Virgin vel. 13; De Orat. 21.
* One might say, Precisely for this reason, being stronger than , and introducing a special , if an exclusive reason. This helps to decide the explanation of , which must mean something that is at least a very important reason for women being veiled in public worship, if not the only reason.
* St Paul assumes, as obvious to his readers, a connexion obvious to us. We can hardly regard the reason intended as falling outside the scope of the . (see above). The question is , what point of contact for . . is furnished in vv. 3-9?
H H (Sixth century). Coisl. 202. At Paris (the part containing 10:22-29, 11:9-16. An important witness, but unhappily seldom available. The MS. is scattered in seven different libraries, having been employed for bindings.
* Was the obscure metaphor of the veil, which Dante (Purg. xxix. 27) uses of Eve, Non sofferse di star sotto alcun velo, suggested by the revolt of the women of Corinth against standing under any veil in public worship?
Comp. 3:18, 8:2, and especially 14:37, where we have a summary conclusion similar to this.
Herveius interprets as we Jews. Post rationes ponit auctoritatem, at contentiosos vincat, quia neque Judaismus hoc habuit, nec Ecclesia Dei, ostendens quia neque Mayses neque Salvator sic tradidit. Atto has the same idea. Nos propter Judaeos, Ecclesia dicit propter gentes. Quapropter, si hanc consuetudinem hebetis, non solum non Christi, sed nec Moysi discipulos fore monstratis. Nowhere else in N.T. or LXX is found , excepling Eze 3:7, where all Israrel are said to be such.
* Hom, ll. ii. 472, 542; Hdt. i. 82, v. 72; Aristoph. Eq. 580. Cf. our Cavaliers
* There is similar doubt as to the scope of the in 7:6, and the in 9:3. HIere the doubt is considerable. The . about veiling was prefaced by praise (v. 2) : and may introduce another . where praise is impossible; In giving this charge I have no praise to give.
* Comp. And no prophet that orders a table in the spirit eats of it himself: but if he does, he is false probhet (Didache 11:9). This calling for a Love-feast in astate of ecetacy ( ) is a curious possiblity, which had probably been ecperienced. Only a false prophet would do this in order to get food for himself.
* Rutherford translates; Or do you think that you need stand on no ceremony with the Church of God; that because men are poor you may affront them?
* Hoc facite, id est accipite et date (Card. I Iugo de Sto. Caro, d. 1263); Mandat fieri quod ipse fecit, scilicet accipere panem, gratias agere, frangere, consecrare, sumere, ac dare (Card. Thomas de Vio, Caietanus, d. 1534).
17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. 211, 212.
* On the other hand, the crude suggestion of Professor P. Gardner (The Origin of the Lords Supper, 1893), that St Paul borrowed the idea of the Eucharist from the Eleusinian Mysteries, which he may have learned about at Corinth, is not admissible. The theory ignores the evidence of the Mark-tradition, and involves misapprehension of the Eleusinian Mysteries. See E. L. Hicks, Studia Biblica, iv:12. Ramsay thinks that the interval between the bread and the cup was occupied with instruction in the meaning of the symbolism (Exp. Times, March 1910.)
* To this may be added the still earlier testimony of Origen; see on 7:5.
* See art. Abendmahl in Schiele, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, in which the doubtful points in the history of the institution are clearly stated; also Plummer, S. Matthew, pp. 361 f.; Dobschtz, Probleme d. Ap. Zeitalters, p. 73; Hastings, DB. iii. p. 146, DCG. ii. p. 66.
Comp. Cyprian (De zelo et livore, 17); De sacramento crucis et cibum sumis et potum.
* To break one commandment is to break the whole Law, but to keep one command is not to keep the whole Law. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2759 f., and comp. in Rom 1:21.
* Chrysostom insists on this; He does not order one man to test another, but each man himself; thus making the court a private one and the verdict without witnesses. Unicuique committitur suimet judicium (Cajetan).
* Stanely storngly contends for this meanings; it was the communityand fellowship one with another which the Corinthian Christians were so slow to discern and he appeals to 12:12, 13, 20, 27; Rom 12:4, Rom 12:5; Eph 2:16, Eph 2:3:6, Eph 2:4:12, Eph 2:16; Col 1:18, Col 2:19, Col 3:15 (Christian Institutions, P. 3). In any case we may compare the striking saying of Ignatius (Rom_7, Trall. 8), that the Blood of Jesus Christ islove.
S S (Same date.) Codex Athous Laurae. Contains 1:1-5:8, 13:8 -24.
* With . here comp. (Hom. Il 11:241); ferreus urget somnus (Virg. Aen. 10:745), Perpetuns sopor urget (Hor. Od. 1:24:5). These illnesses and deaths would be all the more remarkable in a Church which had a (12:9).
* The Apostle did not say nor , but . For his purpose is to admonish, not to condermn; to heal to requite; to correct, not to punish (Chrys.).
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
Do All to the Glory of God
1Co 10:23-33; 1Co 11:1
There seems to be a, clear distinction in the Apostles directions between feasting in an idol temple on the one hand, and the acceptance of an invitation to a private house, as in 1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27, on the other. The believer in Christ knew that an idol was nothing in itself, and the fact of food having been offered before a shrine did not make it better or worse. It was a common practice, and meant nothing so far as Christian disciples were concerned. But if an unbeliever were to make the meal a test of faith, by reminding believers that in partaking of such food they were implicitly partners in heathen rites, then there was no course but to refuse and abstain.
In every meal and act we must so conduct ourselves that praise and honor may redound to God. The thankful enjoyment of Gods gifts of food, which constitutes the essence of a Christian meal, must always be subordinated to our consideration of the religious scruples of others; and we must avoid doing anything which would blunt and injure their faith. Though our intelligence may give us a wide liberty in regard to personal conduct, we must allow a check to be placed on it by the thoughtfulness of Christian love.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
The Veiled Woman
1Co 11:1-16
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (vv. 1-16)
In our study of this epistle we have noticed that in the first six chapters the apostle brings before the Corinthian church certain matters that require correction and instruction. We can be very thankful that God providentially permitted so many things to come up in the early church in order that they might be corrected by apostolic authority during that first century of the Christian era, because similar things come up continually in the churches of God down through the years. The remarkable fact is that there are no circumstances that can arise, no sins that may cause trouble and distress, no irregularities that may appear, that are not already met and provided for right here in the epistles of the New Testament. Because these things were rife in the beginning of the churchs history they were met by the Holy Spirit through inspired man, and all we need to do today is to walk in obedience to the Word.
In those first six chapters the apostle deals with such questions as divisions among Christians, schisms of various kinds, immorality getting into the church of God, Christians going to law one with another, and other things that disturb the peace of the church.
Beginning with chapter 7 and going right on to the end of the epistle, Paul takes up certain things concerning which the church wrote for instruction and help. He says in the opening verse of chapter 7, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, and he deals first with the question of marriage and divorce, the relationship of a Christian wife to a heathen husband or a Christian husband to a heathen wife. And then in chapters 8 and 9 he takes up the question of meats offered to idols and the Christians relationship to idol temples. He carries that on over into chapter 10 and shows how carefully the Christian ought to walk apart from everything that savors of idolatry.
And now in chapter 11 he touches on another problem that was disturbing the early church. In order to properly understand this portion we need to try to visualize conditions existing in those distant days. Corinth was a very loose, a very dissolute city. I question if any of the great cities in which the apostle preached the gospel were worse in character in this respect than the city of Corinth. We are rapidly getting into the same condition, for we are living in a day when everything like purity and chastity is looked upon as a joke, and people are utterly cynical and indifferent in regard to personal morality. The literature of our day reeks with filth and impurity, pictures are vile and lewd, theaters and movies, they tell me, are characterized by the same thing. Low ideas of morals and behavior are prevalent. Corinth was a city in which this could be seen at the very worst.
In that city looseness of every kind had to be faced by the early church, and the apostle was desirous that Christian women should not permit anything in their behavior that would allow the least cloud upon their purity. Loose women in those days went bareheaded, and were found in the streets unblushingly seeking those who might be companions with them in their sin and wickedness. Women who sought to live in chastity and purity were very particular never to appear in public unveiled. The unveiled woman was the careless woman, the immoral woman; the veiled woman was the careful wife or mother who was concerned about her character and her reputation. It would seem that after Christianity came to Corinth and converted women rejoiced in a liberty they had never known in the old pagan days, that some of them were inclined to be rather careless and indifferent as to the customs of the day and were saying perhaps, We are all one in Christ; Paul himself has taught us that in the new creation there is neither male nor female, and so there is no reason now why Christian women should be subject to any of the conventionalities of the day. We can go unveiled and bareheaded in public places, and we need not be concerned about it. The Corinthians wrote to Paul to get his judgment in this matter and this is his answer, Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. In other words, I am about to give you instruction, instruction which I have a right to give as a divinely appointed apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. I seek in all things to be subject to Christ. When He speaks, I endeavor to obey. Now, in what I am going to put before you I trust you will have the same spirit, that you will seek to follow me in this, to be led by me as I seek to be led by the Lord Jesus Christ. In all matters in which you have been obedient to the instructions formerly given, I praise you-I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. He was the one who under God had founded the church at Corinth. He had given instruction ere leaving them as to how things should be carried on, and though now he had to touch on a rather delicate subject and one which some among them might resent, he first of all gave them credit for all their past obedience to the instruction they had received.
When he says, And keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you, he is not simply referring to the two Christian ordinances, baptism and the Lords Supper, though these would certainly be included. It is unthinkable that any subject Christian should ever set to one side these ordinances of the Christian church, but the word here has a much wider meaning than that. It refers to the instruction given to them regarding a great many things which have to do with the happy fellowship of saints. A little while ago these people had been idolaters, led by Satan, captive at his will; now they were redeemed and seeking to walk together in Christian fellowship. There must be subjection to the revealed will of God in order to have happy fellowship in the church.
He now takes up this question of womans place in nature and in the church, and I wish you would bear in mind that he is not speaking, as he does elsewhere, of womans place in the new creation. In the new creation, as already intimated, there are no distinctions. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28). We are all one in Christ. We were all sinners alike, we have all been redeemed alike, we are all indwelt by the Holy Spirit alike, we have all been baptized into one body alike, and so all these distinctions vanish and we think of one another as members of Christ. But this does not alter the fact that we still have our place in nature and must maintain that place. The Christian is not to be careless as to his responsibilities. You will see how important this is if I illustrate in this way: According to the Word of God I am a heavenly citizen. Suppose I say, Inasmuch as I am a heavenly citizen, I have no responsibilities to any country here on earth, I will soon have to reckon with the income tax collector and other authorities. I will soon find out that though I may pride myself on being a citizen of heaven only and may say that I have no responsibilities here, the governors of this world are not satisfied to have it so and I shall have to learn by experience that I have responsibilities, I have earthly relationships that must be maintained. Just so, although there is neither male nor female in the new creation, yet we have our places to fill in nature and in the church.
I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Somebody may say, But is not Christ the head of every woman? Yes, in the new creation Christ is the Head, and men and women are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones, but this verse emphasizes the fact that it is not that of which he now speaks. In creation the Head of every man is Christ. When God made man He said, Let us make man in our image, and He had Christ in view, and when the first man came into the world, he came as the type of Him which was to come. And so the Head of every man is Christ, and man is to be subject to Christ and to represent Christ. But God did not leave man alone in the world; He said, I will make him an helpmeet, and so He created woman and said to the woman, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Gen 3:16). He gave Eve to Adam, and she saw in Adam her head, and that relationship still exists. The head of woman is the man. I suspect there are some women in our modern day who would resent that, they would like to make the head of the man the woman. They resent the thought that God has given to woman anything that looks like a subject or inferior place. Let us put aside any thought of inferiority. The point is that it is the responsibility of the husband to care for and to protect the wife-Giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7). The woman, when she agrees to take a mans name, tacitly consents to what we have here. Some extremely modern women do refuse to take their husbands names. They say, We will not subject ourselves in any way, as we would in taking a mans name. I would say to you, young women, if you have any thought of getting married, do not marry a man until you are willing to accept him as your head and take his name. Otherwise it is far better that you should remain single where you can run things to suit yourself!
The head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Why does he bring Christ in here? I take it that someone might say, But I refuse to take that place of subjection, and he would say, Remember, the Lord Jesus took that place. He humbled Himself, but it is His glory to be in that place. When the Son of God became Man, He took the place of subjection which He will keep for all eternity-The Head of Christ is God.
And then he says, Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. Notice how he meets their difficulty. If a man should stand up in public to pray or to preach (the word prophesieth really means preach), wearing a covering on his head, he would be dishonoring his Head. Not that which is above his neck, but dishonoring his Head which is Christ. If I stood in this pulpit preaching with my hat on, every one of you would rightfully say, Has he no respect for the Master whom he professes to serve? I come into the presence of God and Christ and of the angels who are learning the wisdom of God in the church, and I remove my hat. For the same reason when a woman comes into the church, she keeps her hat on. Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head. Who is her head? The man. She shows by uncovering her head that she wants to be like the man; she dishonors her head when she says, I am not going to take any subject place, I have as much right to have my hat off in a public meeting as a man. It does not say that she dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ. She may be quite unconscious of dishonoring any one, but I am giving what the Word of God says.
Concerning this and other matters it has well been said, Some things are commanded because they are right, other things are right because they are commanded. Thou shalt not steal. The commandment did not make it wrong to steal, it was always wrong to steal. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. This is right because it is commanded. God has spoken and it is very often in little things like this that we test our state, whether there is self-will working or whether one is ready to be subject to the Word of God.
In that pagan city it would have been a great shame and disgrace for a woman to have appeared in public with her head uncovered, it would have marked her out as an immoral person. Of course we must recognize that customs change, but nevertheless the principle of this chapter abides. God is calling Christian women to modesty of deportment, that in this way they may be distinguished from worldly women. Here he says, If the woman be not covered (the word is really veiled), if she does not have a veil covering her hair, let her come out and be just like a man. Let her go to the barber shop and have her beautiful locks all shorn, as many do today. I do not understand why women want to be so manlike. I think a womanly woman is one of the sweetest and most beautiful creatures God ever made. I like a womanly woman and a manly man, but I wonder if any one really admires a manly woman or a womanly man! Let each one hold to his proper place in creation, but if not willing to cover her head, let the woman come out and be shorn and shaven.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. God had said, Let us make man in our image. But the woman is the glory of the man. She is of so much finer character than the man, she is so superior to the man in many ways that he feels ashamed to see her getting out of her place and lowering herself by trying to take the place of a man. I wonder sometimes whether women have any idea how even worldly men express their disgust in the days in which we live at the manlike behavior of women in public places. I have been on railroad trains, in hotels or restaurants, and when women have, for instance, taken out a cigarette and begun to smoke, I have heard even unsaved men say, What are we coming to? I am glad I did not have a mother like that. Even unsaved men hate to see women copying men, and Christian women should be absolutely above reproach.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. The woman was taken from man. An old writer says, When God created man, He made him of the dust of the ground; when He created woman, He took her from the man. He did not take her from his head in order that she might lord it over him; He did not take her from his feet that he might trample upon her, but He took her from his side, close to his heart, in order that she might be his companion and that he might love and care for her. And so we read, Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Passing over the tenth verse for a moment and continuing with the eleventh, we read, Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man [through creation], even so is the man also by the woman [through birth]; but all things of God. So every one has his place to fill in creation and none can take the place of the other.
What about that tenth verse which comes in parenthetically? For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. This is admittedly a somewhat difficult verse. In the margin of our Bibles we have, power-in sign that she is under the power or authority of her husband. I think that marginal note was probably put in by some worthy brother in years gone by who may have had a little difficulty in maintaining his position as head of the house! I question that this is what it means. You see, if a woman in a city like Corinth appeared in a public place with uncovered head, it would at once expose her to insult. Therefore, when going shopping or visiting her friends or going to the Christian services, she put the veil, the covering, over her head and walked down the street unmolested. Her covering was her power. I spent the first six years of my Christian experience as an officer in the Salvation Army. In those days I often had occasion to see how that beautiful little blue bonnet was the power of the Salvation Army lassie. I remember going into a saloon on the Barbary Coast in San Francisco seeking the lost. Two of our Salvation Army lassies appeared, and I noticed that everybody treated them respectfully and nicely excepting one man, a half-drunken sailor. When the Salvation Army girl approached him with her paper, he turned toward her and made a movement as though he would have kissed her, and in a moment as she drew back five of those ungodly men sprang to their feet, knocked him down, thrashed him within an inch of his life, and then threw him out into the gutter for the police. Her bonnet was her power on her head. There were lots of other girls there, God help them, that nobody would have fought for or protected. There they were with their brazen faces and uncovered heads, but this little lassies power was her bonnet, and so the apostle is saying, Women, you are not belittling yourselves, you are not degrading yourselves when you show proper respect by appearing in public places with your heads covered. You are simply availing yourself of that which is your protection against insult.
But what does the expression, Because of the angels mean? It is a little difficult to know, after nineteen centuries, just what was in the mind of the apostle. Did he mean, as many think, that whenever the Christian company are gathered together, Gods holy angels in heaven are looking down with delight upon the scene, and that they note everything that savors of subjection and obedience to the Word of God, note it with approval, but also observe with disapproval everything that savors of self-will and insubjection? We are told that angels are learning the wisdom of God in us, that is, in the church, and so the apostle may be saying, Let the angel hosts see in Christian women a reverence, a modesty, and a respect for holy things which is not found in the women of the world. If that is the meaning, it is very beautiful. We read of one class of those holy angels called the seraphim. Every one had six wings, with twain he covered his face, with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. Angels cover their faces in the presence of God and the angels looking down see the covered women sitting in reverence and modesty in the presence of God, and approve. That may be the meaning.
William Thomson in his volume, The Land and the Book, points out that ever since the days of the apostle John the word angel has been used for a minister in the church, and in some eastern churches the ministers are still called the angels of the churches. In those oriental lands even until very recent times the women and men were segregated as they gathered together that there might be nothing to disturb the equanimity of the men. But the angel stood on a platform and saw both groups, and Dr. Thomson points out that practically none of these angels had ever looked upon the uncovered face of a woman except his mother or sister or some other near relative, and he says that no one who has not seen for himself conditions under which they work can understand why the apostle should tell Christian women that they should keep their faces veiled because of the angels or ministers. He would be so disconcerted by looking into the unveiled faces of so many women that he might get his mind off from his message! This is at least most suggestive.
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Should she not take that reverent attitude? It is perfectly right for me to pray with my head uncovered, but a woman is to cover her head as a sign of reverent subjection.
And now he goes back to nature and says, Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Somebody says, That settles the question. Her hair is her covering. But the apostle says that if she is not veiled she is to let her hair be shorn. She has that natural covering which distinguishes her from man and over that she puts a veil. Why? Because her hair is her glory. Is not that most striking? In the presence of God she covers her chief beauty in order that no mind may be turned from Christ to her beautiful hair. It is precious to think of Mary of Bethany and of the poor woman in Luke 7 who washed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with their hair. They cast their glory at His feet.
In closing he says, If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God-if people are going to make a fuss about a matter of this kind, all I have to say is we have no such custom. If women will persist in being disorderly in this way, you cannot discipline them, you cannot put them out of the church. I have laid down Gods Word, now let women settle it themselves as to how far they will subject themselves to the Word of the living God.
What is the real importance of this? It is the test of whether our wills are subject to God or whether we are going to be subject to the fashions and order of the day in which we live. The Christian is one who has forsaken the world for Christs sake, has turned his back on the fashion of this world that passeth away in order that he may subject himself to Another, even the Lord from heaven, and I do beg of you, my brother and sister, remember the word, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. You settle it with God as to just how far a passage like this, having to do with customs of long ago, still has authority over your conscience at the present time, but do not go beyond conscience. Seek to be obedient in all things to the Word of the living God, for this is the path of blessing.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
1Co 11:26
I. It is a very wonderful fact, very startling at first sight to those who have not steadily considered it, that the chief ordinance of Christianity is the commemoration and proclamation of a death. Festivals of the nativity, of the resurrection, of the ascension, however beautiful may be their meaning and benign their influence, are at any rate not of Divine institution. The feast which Christ instituted is the proclamation to all ages of His death. Most surely our Lord must have intended to indicate thereby that feature of His work which He conceived to be in most vital relation to the accomplishment of His great hope for man. The death rather than the life, the life as looking on to the death and to all that was to spring from it, and the death as the most fruitful act and the most powerful instrument of His love, must be the chief fountain of peace, joy, and hope for mankind.
II. If this be true, if the Lord’s death be the most luminous, the most blessed, the most quickening act of His life, truly and most deeply a birth into the eternal sphere, it casts most beautiful light upon our life and our death. The man who knew most deeply God’s counsel about life, whose human life grew richer, grander, more pregnant with a glorious hope as the earthly element dropped piece-meal into the tomb, made this his aspiration and his prayer-“That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.” No lives are so drearily cheerless as those which have been successful in the sole pursuit of gold; no future so blank as theirs, no eternity so dread. Look round on your supremely successful men. Estimate the number of rays of pure joy that shine upon their hearts and break the dreary gloom of their lives, and compare them with the man whose life is one deep-voiced hymn of triumph-“I thank my God, through Jesus Christ my Lord,” because I have learnt from Him, through His death, to call that life, and that only, which is eternal.
J. Baldwin Brown, The Sunday Afternoon, p. 219.
References: 1Co 11:26.-G. Calthrop, Pulpit Recollections, p. 207; W. Cunningham, Sermons, p. 356; S. Minton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 42; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 283; vol. iv., p. 224; vol. vi., p. 83; T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 228; F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 111; T. Birkett Dover, A Lent Manual, p. 151; Sermons on the Catechism, p. 242.
1Co 11:27
The absence of teaching on the subject of the Holy Communion in the Epistles is no argument that the Holy Communion was an unimportant part of Divine worship in apostolic days. It only bears witness to the fact, which we know very well from other sources, that the Holy Communion was that part of a Christian’s duty and privilege in early days which he was least likely to neglect. So far as I have observed, there are only two places in which direct reference is made to the subject; they are both in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians.
I. In the first the circumstances were these. Some of the Corinthians had been induced to take part in idol worship: at least, they had done so indirectly. They were not easy in their consciences about the matter; they fancied that after all it might possibly be wrong, and they applied to St. Paul for a determination of the difficulty. St. Paul solved the difficulty by explaining to them that, as in joining in Holy Communion they really became partakers of Christ, so in joining in an idol feast they really became partakers of idolatry. St. Paul was led to speak of the Holy Communion because the Corinthians had done something which they ought not to have done, because they had brought disgrace on their Christian name, and because the privilege which they enjoyed as partakers of Christ in the Holy Communion was the best proof possible of the manner in which their Christian name had been disgraced.
II. How came it that the Apostle wrote the latter part of chap. xi.? The reason is obvious enough. The most horrible abuses had crept into the Corinthian Church: men did not discern the Lord’s body; they treated His table as a common table, made it a table of revelry; they ate and drank unworthily, and so received condemnation to themselves. It is this horrible profanity to which we are indebted for St. Paul’s views on the subject of the Lord’s Supper.
III. When he did take the subject in hand how did he treat it? He went back at once to the first institution of the Holy Sacrament by the Lord Himself. He deals in no harsh and severe language; he simply recounts the history of what our blessed Lord did on the eve of His passion. He put more faith in the recital of this simple tale than in any strong language he could use. You can add nothing which will give the argument more strength, and you can find no better commentary upon the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 5th series, p. 335.
References: 1Co 11:27.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 96. 1Co 11:28.-R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 4th series, p. 40; Sermons on the Catechism, p. 285. 1Co 11:29.-G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons to English Congregations in India, p. 207; Church of England Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 183; R. Tuck, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 350. 1Co 11:30.-G. Salmon, Gnosticism and Agnosticism, p. 100. 1Co 11:31.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 18. 1Co 11:31, 1Co 11:32.-E. L. Hull, Sermons, 1st series, p. 216. 1Co 11:32.-E. White, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 50.
1Co 11:33
I. Tarry for the young. Do not consider that religion consists all in correct thinking, defined belief, mature experience, manly and womanly strength. It has its beginnings in youthful struggles, in wonder, in simplicity, in teachableness, in sorrowing, in longing, in following. And you cannot look for the steady tread of those who have been long in the way in the case of those who are just coming into it; you cannot expect them to keep up with the manly and the strong. “Tarry one for another.”
II. Tarry for the weak. We ought to be as the weak themselves, and carry them along with us as we go. We ought to be willing to be carried if we are the weak, and thus we ought to tarry one for another. Some are fainting, but when they have rested awhile they will come. Some are hungry; when they are fed they will be stronger. Some have been sick; nothing can recruit them but time and gracious weather and kindly nourishment.
III. Tarry for the doubting. Not for the captious and the insincere, but for those who are honestly and earnestly seeking for light, A man may doubt while he loves the truth, but in this case he is sure to be led into it in the end. Tarry for him.
IV. Tarry for the stricken, for the afflicted, and the sorrowful, and those that are wounded in spirit. As the great Sufferer, now the great Conqueror, waits for all, let us wait for one another.
V. There is a sublimer waiting yet-of the whole Church for the whole world. The Church can never submit herself to the world, but the world shall ground its weapons and hold out the hand of friendship to the Church, and the conciliation shall be perfect, followed by no severance or estrangement.
A. Raleigh, The Way to the City, p. 34.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
II. THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST: CHAPTERS 11-14
1. Headship, and the Position of Woman. The Lords Supper.
CHAPTER 11.
1. The Headship of Christ and of the Man; Position of Woman. (1Co 11:1-16.)
2. The Lords Supper. (1Co 11:17-31.)
The opening verse belongs to the preceding chapter. And now after the church in relation to the world had been treated by the Apostle in the first part of the epistle, he takes up next the affairs of the church itself. Here, too, much had to be corrected into which the Corinthian assembly had drifted. After the brief and excellent word of praise by which he expressed his confidence in them ((1Co 11:2), he calls their attention to an important truth, which in our times is not only overlooked, but often belittled and altogether set aside. It concerns the headship of Christ, of the man, and the position of woman. It is evident that Corinthian women had assumed in the church a position which was not according to Gods order in creation. They had not yet learned it. Gods order in creation has to be manifested in the church. This order is unaltered by redemption, though in Christ there is neither male nor female, yet has God assigned to man and to woman their respective places which must be maintained. This divine order the Apostle states. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. These are weighty and blessed statements. Christ is the Creator, the Lord of all, but He also became man and is the First born of all Creation (Col 1:15-16). He is therefore in possession of the headship in creation, and head of man as the Man, as He is also the head of the Church. God has given Him the preeminence in all things. And the head of the woman is the man; this is the place which God has given to woman on earth. In creation the head of the woman is man. Yet what would man be without the woman!–she is necessary to him.
The woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. To these statements about the headship of Christ, the headship of man, he being head of the woman, the Apostle adds and the head of Christ is God. Christ is the eternal Son of God, coequal in Godhead in every way. He is God. But the Only-Begotten humbled Himself; He took on the creatures form and was made of a woman. And as Man He has taken the place under God, yielding perfect obedience in all things. In all His redemption work He is under God, not only on earth, but now in glory, as the glorified Man at the right hand of God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory.
The purpose of the declaration of this order of the ways of God in creation was to set them right on a matter which in our days is often sneered at. Man praying or prophesying is not to cover his head. Woman praying and prophesying is to have a covering on her head. The man who covereth his head in praying dishonoreth his head. Woman uncovered dishonoreth her head. A covering on the head is the outward sign of being in the place of subjection. An uncovered head signifies the opposite. The order which God has instituted as to the place of man and woman, His people are bound to respect. It may appear a little thing, yet if disobeyed, as it was in Corinth (where women seemed to be puffed up and refused to follow this order), it becomes a stepping stone towards more serious evil. Woman is to testify to her place of subjection by covering her head in praying and testifying. Man similarly engaged does not cover his head, for the authority is vested in man for as much as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. How all this is denied and woman aims to take leadership and rulership in place of man, we need not to enlarge upon.
If woman persists in leaving the place (in subjection) where her glory shines, if she will persist in pushing out into the glare of public life and thrust herself into the struggle and grinding competition that wears out mens lives and tenderer instincts, let her not be astonished if she lose her distinctive grace–the delicate sheen that cannot bear the worlds rough, unhallowed ways (Prof. Moorehead).
Another reason is given why praying women should wear outwardly a sign of subjection–because of the angels. Angels are watchers and attendants of the heirs of salvation. As the church is known to them and by it they know the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:10), so are they observers of Christian worship and the order and behavior of Gods people in His house. And angels themselves are in subjection and yield perfect obedience.
Then the church itself is brought into view. The first thing is not the fact that Christians are the members of Christ, who constituted the body of Christ, the gifts of the body and the exercise of these gifts. The Lords supper, that blessed memorial of His love in His sacrificial death, the love which passeth knowledge, is the first thing mentioned. Do this in remembrance of Me was His request in the night in which He was betrayed. When the Holy Spirit came and the company gathered in fellowship we read at once of the breaking of bread, to remember Him (Act 2:46). The first thing in the assembly must be to remember Christ, His death, His presence in glory, His coming again. But before the Apostle tells them what he had received of the Lord, he had to reprove them for their disorder and their divisions. In these sects and parties they denied the very truth of the church as the one body, the body of Christ. They had a custom of eating a meal in connection with the Lords supper. And at this meal some drank to excess, while it seems this custom of a preliminary meal led to a complete neglect or unworthy observance of the supper itself. Then he writes of what he had received of the Lord. How simple it all is! This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lords death till He come. The Lords supper is to remember Him, to show the Lords death till He come. And all else that man has made of it is pure invention, if not wicked blasphemy, like the idolatrous mass of Romanism. And how often shall this feast, which delights His heart, where Gods children worship and adore, be kept? In Apostolic days it was evidently kept every Lords day (Act 20:7).
And all Gods children, whom the Lord has received, have a right to the Lords table and gather thus around His blessed Person. The only things which bar from the Lords table, are evil doctrines and an evil walk. And the Lords supper may be eaten unworthily. He, who comes to the Lords table without self-judgment, eats and drinks of it unworthily. We eat and drink unworthily when we partake without discerning the Lords body and blood represented by the bread and the wine, for we do not then show to God the death of Christ. Let a man examine (judge) himself before eating or else he eats for his own judgment. This is Gods way of producing and maintaining holiness in the church. And the Corinthians had experienced that the Lord dealt with a number of them in judgment. Upon many the Lord had laid His hand, many were weak and stricken with disease, while others had fallen asleep. It was mercy, but when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
The world is condemned. Sin in the Christian is judged; it escapes neither the eye nor the judgment of God. He never permits it; He cleanses the believer from it by chastening him, although He does not condemn, because Christ has borne his sins, and been made sin for him. The death of Christ forms then the center of communion in the assembly, and the touchstone of conscience, and that, with respect to the assembly, in the Lords supper. (Synopsis of the Bible).
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
saved
(See Scofield “Rom 1:16”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Be ye: 1Co 4:16, 1Co 10:33, Phi 3:17, 1Th 1:6, 2Th 3:9, Heb 6:12
even: Rom 15:2, Rom 15:3, Eph 5:1, Eph 5:2, Phi 2:4, Phi 2:5
Reciprocal: Jdg 7:17 – General Son 1:8 – go Joh 10:4 – he goeth 1Co 8:11 – shall 1Co 8:13 – if meat Phi 4:9 – which 2Th 3:7 – how 1Ti 4:12 – be thou Heb 13:7 – whose 1Pe 2:21 – leaving 1Jo 2:6 – to walk 3Jo 1:11 – follow
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE FRESH PARAGRAPH begins with verse 1Co 11:2, which stands in very direct contrast with verse 17. The Apostle had referred to the institution of the Lords Supper in 1Co 10:1-33, as we have seen; and there had been grave disorders in connection with it, demanding very heavy censure. However there were certain matters as to which he could praise them. So first he utters a word of praise. Certain ordinances, or directions, had been given to them, and they had remembered Paul and observed them. So even in this we see the Apostle exemplifying what he had just been saying. He sought the profit of the Corinthians by praising them before he blamed them, and in this he followed Christ, for it is exactly His way, as exemplified in His messages to the seven churches in Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22.
But even here there was something as to which the Corinthians were ignorant. It seems that they observed directions given as to the behaviour of men and of women in connection with prayer and prophecy, without understanding the truth that governed those directions. That the man should engage in these spiritual exercises with uncovered head, and the woman with covered head, was not a mere whim, an arbitrary order. On the contrary it was in accord with the Divine order, established in connection with Christ. Three headships are mentioned in verse 1Co 11:3.
The highest of these springs from the fact that in becoming Man, that He might assume the office of Mediator, the Lord Jesus took the place of subjection. Isaiah had prophesied the coming of Jehovahs Servant, who would have the ear of the learner, and never swerve from His direction: that is to say, Jehovah would be His Head and Director in all things. This was perfectly fulfilled in Christ; and the fact that He is now risen and glorified has not altered the position. He is still the Servant of the will of God (though never less than God Himself) and the pleasure of Jehovah is to prosper in His hand to eternity. So the Head of Christ is God.
But then Christ is the Head of the man, as distinguished from the woman. A certain order was established in creation since Adam was first formed, then Eve. That order is stated also in verses 1Co 11:8-9 of our chapter. She shared in his place and his distinctions, and even in the days of innocence headship was vested in Adam. Sin did not alter that headship, neither has the coming in of Gods grace in Christ. So Christ is the Head of man, and of every man. And the head of the woman is the man.
Every member of the human body is directed from the head. So the figure is very simple and expressive. It is a matter, in one word, of direction. The woman is to accept direction from the man. The man is to accept direction from Christ. And Christ accepts direction from God, and does so perfectly. For the rest, it is done very imperfectly. The great mass of menfolk do not recognize Christ at all; and at the present time there is a great uprising of womenfolk against the direction and leadership of men, and that-significantly enough-especially in Christendom. Still none of these things alter that which is the divine ideal and order.
Now if any believer, man or woman, has to do with God and His things, whether it be in praying (i.e., addressing oneself to Him), or in prophesying (i.e., speaking forth words from Him), there is to be the observance of these directions as to the uncovering or covering of the head, as a sign that Gods order is recognized and obeyed. Verses 1Co 11:14-15 further show that it is in keeping with this that the man has short and the woman long hair.
There is no contradiction between verse 1Co 11:5 of our chapter and 1Co 14:34, for the simple reason that there speaking in the assembly is in question, whereas in our chapter the assembly does not come into view until verse 1Co 11:17 is reached. Only then do we begin to consider things that may happen when we come together. The praying or prophesying contemplated in verse 1Co 11:5 is not in connection with the formal assemblies of Gods saints.
It was when the Apostle turned to deal with things that were transpiring in connection with their assemblies that he found himself bound to blame them. They came together to no profit but the reverse. In the first chapter he had alluded to these divisions or schisms in their midst, and it was when they came together that they were so painfully manifest. They still came together in one place. Things had not reached such a pass that they refused to meet any longer as one, and met in different buildings. Yet there were internal splits or fissures in the assembly, with all their disastrous effects.
Tidings of this had reached Pauls ears and he tells them plainly that he partly believed it, for he knew their carnal state. The word heresies, in verse 1Co 11:19 means, sects, or schools of opinion; and they are mentioned in Gal 5:20, amongst the terrible works of the flesh. If saints are found in a fleshly condition, heresies crop up as sure as they are alive. Hence, says the Apostle to the fleshly Corinthians, there must be heresies among you. These heresies may have the effect of making manifest those foolishly approved by men: they will certainly reveal those who refuse this party making, and hence are approved of God.
What must be the judgment of the Spirit of God as to us today, in view of the way in which schools of opinion are flourishing in the church of God?
It is quite clear from the 20th verse that the Corinthian saints, though very numerous, were still meeting together in one building. They came together in the church, as verse eighteen puts it: but those words have no reference to a building of any kind, but rather to the fact that they came together in assembly; that is in their church or assembly character. And when they did so these sects, or parties became painfully manifest, and also their proceedings were very disorderly; so disorderly in fact that the apostle refuses to recognize their feasts, which they called, the Lords supper, as being truly the supper of the Lord at all. They are not he says, the Lords Supper, but each one taking his own supper.
There is, we believe, a double contrast here. First, between the Lords and his own. They treated the matter as if they were the masters of it and hence could arrange it as they pleased and generally do as they liked. This led to outrageous disorder at Corinth-some getting nothing, and others getting so much of the wine as to be drunken. Similar gross disorder may be avoided today, but have not many assumed that they are masters of the situation when this holy ordinance is in question, and so felt themselves perfectly free to alter it to taste?-free to turn it into a mass, or a sacrifice, free to have it ornate, or choral, free to confine its ministration to a priestly caste and have it so frequently as to be almost continuous, free to have it only once in several months, or to abolish it altogether.
But there is also the contrast between the Lords supper which is a matter of fellowship, as 1Co 10:1-33 has just unfolded, and every one (or each one) taking his own supper: that is, making it a purely individual matter. Even supposing that saints come together and observe the ordinance quite faultlessly, as regards all its externals, and yet treat it as a purely personal privilege, eliminating from it in their mind the thought that we do it as one body, they have missed the mark. It is not each one acting and eating for himself: it is rather all acting together.
Now the only remedy for disorder in connection with the Lords supper-even in apostolic days, be it noted-was to go back to the original institution in its spirit, its significance, its orderly simplicity. Paul did not argue on the subject. In verses 1Co 11:23-27, he simply reverts to what had been instituted by the Lord Himself. And he did so, not as having received authentic information from the other apostles who had been present, but as having received the ordinance directly from the Lord, by divinely-given revelation. This revelation confirms the account already given by the inspired evangelists, and clarifies its meaning. Much that passes as an orderly and beautiful celebration or observance of this institution is simply disorder in the divine estimation. Any order, however ornate or beautiful to human eyes, which is not the divine order, is disorder in the Divine eyes.
God has been pleased to give us four accounts of the institution of the Lords supper, and the fourth through Paul has its own peculiar importance, inasmuch as it makes it quite clear that it is to be observed by Gentile believers as much as by Jewish, and also that it is to continue till He come. The materials used are of the simplest-the bread, the cup- everyday sights in the homes of those days. The significance of the materials was very profound- My body, the new testament in my blood. And the whole spirit of the ordinance is remembrance. We are to remember Him in the circumstances in which once He was, in death, though we know Him as the One now glorified in heaven.
The supper of the Lord then begins with remembrance of Him in death. Much will flow out of this remembrance and we cannot fail to be conscious of blessing (it is, the cup of blessing) and consequently bless God in return. But we must penetrate beneath the symbols to that which they symbolize. We must discern the body and blood of Christ; and discerning this, we shall be preserved from treating these holy things in an unholy or unworthy manner, as the Corinthians had been doing. The Lord did not hold them guiltless, and they were eating and drinking judgment (see, margin) to themselves. They were guilty in respect of dishonour done not merely to a loaf and a cup, but to the body and blood of Christ, symbolized by the loaf and the cup. This is the plain force of verses 1Co 11:27; 1Co 11:29.
What then should we do? When the Lord smote Uzzah in judgment because he treated the Ark of God as though it had been an ordinary object (see 2Sa 6:1-23) David was displeased and left the Ark severely alone for a time. This was a mistake, which afterwards he rectified by honouring the Ark, and treating it as had been commanded by God. Pauls instructions to the Corinthians, in verses 1Co 11:28-30, exactly agree with this. God had interfered in judgment amongst them, many were weak and sickly and some had been removed by death. But this should not make them refuse to observe the Lords supper further. The rather it should make them examine themselves and partake in a spirit of self-judgment. There had been abuse, but the remedy for this was not disuse but rather a careful use, in obedience to the design of God.
The closing verses of the chapter give us an example of Gods chastening by way of retribution. They were being disciplined because of wrong committed. God chastens His children that they may not be judged with the world. And if only we judged ourselves we should be preserved from the evil and hence not need the hand of God upon us. Let us mark that! How excellent is the holy art of self-judgment; and how little practised. Let us cultivate it more and more. By it we should be preserved from innumerable errors. The Corinthians evidently neglected it and much was wrong with them. The Apostle had corrected the most glaring of their errors when they partook of the Lords supper. There were others, but these could wait until he visited them in person: so he closes the chapter by saying, the rest will I set in order when I come.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
1Co 11:1. Followers is from MIMETES, which Thayer defines, “an imitator.” The word does not require the presence of authority, although an apostle would have that: it may be said of any Christian when the proviso that Paul names is observed, namely, that the person who is imitated is himself an imitator of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 11:1. Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ. This verse manifestly belongs to the former chapter, from which it has been unhappily severed. Having just told them how he himself acted in cases of the kind referred to, the apostle here simply bids them follow his example, as in so doing they would copy that of Christ Himself.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Division 2. (1Co 11:1-34; 1Co 12:1-31; 1Co 13:1-13; 1Co 14:1-40.)
The activities and fellowship of the assembly.
We have now reached the second division of the epistle, in which we are no longer dealing with outside questions, with the relations of the Church to the world, as one may say, but with that which was proper to the Church itself as a company of those gathered to the Lord’s name. We have before us the spiritual activities of the assembly and the fellowship found in it. The apostle has hitherto been contending for the keeping up the fence of separation. He is now turning to what is entirely different from this. It is the fellowship of the assembly, the common enjoyment of the common blessings, which belong to it.
1. In the first place, however, it is very striking that we have not the assembly as such exactly before us. The apostle begins, rather, with that which has to do with man’s place in creation, apart, plainly, from the effects of the fall, therefore. He must settle this point before he goes on, -a most important point, -to show that the Church, with all its higher privileges, was still to be submitted to God as the Creator, and according to that which He had instituted for man as such. In all this he finds, indeed, the types of spiritual things. Nature is this throughout. If we look at nature apart from the word of God, nothing in it will be properly intelligible to us. If we take Scripture as the key to it, we shall find every where that we are in contact with the same spiritual truths as we find in Scripture. But this is not simply a question of such a kind: it is the simple truth that we have, as those who are Christ’s, been restored (and more than restored) to the place which the fall had forfeited for man. We are to be filling, therefore, that place which God gave man first. We are to be observers of the order which creation has established for us. We must not use the thought of grace, or even of our place in Christ, (which is above and beyond all this,) to make void our obligation to carry out that which God has in this way appointed.
The apostle urges them to be imitators of him as he was of Christ. He could praise them that they kept him in mind in those things that he delivered to them, that they were keeping the things delivered; but he wants them to know that Christ is the Head of every man, come to be a Man Himself; taking His place as such, He takes it in necessary supremacy. He is not simply the Head of the Church here. He is the Head of man as a Man. He is indeed the Creator, but He is also, as elsewhere declared, the “First-born of all creation.” As that First-born, he is not what Adam was; and yet, in another sense, we may speak of Adam also coming from the hand of God as the first-born of men. In that way Adam was the head of every man naturally. Christ is the spiritual Head, the One in whom manhood reaches its highest dignity, in whom the whole human race, so far as redeemed, rises again to the full thought of God for man, and beyond that which Adam himself, unfallen, could declare to us.
But Christ, then, is the Head of every man. The head of the woman is the man. Here is what we were saying; something which in the minds of many now would be contradicted or set aside by the place in Christ which we have got, in which there is neither man nor woman. That is quite true, and remains always true, that there is in Christ neither male nor female. There is a common equality, and one of the most perfect and highest kind, which can never be touched, never set aside, but to be acknowledged in the fullest possible way. That does not, on the other hand, set aside the fact that in God’s order for earth, and in the place which God has given to man and woman respectively on the earth, the head of the woman is the man. The higher fact is shown forth in the lower one. There are not two heads in creation, but one. Two heads would mean division. God’s thought is unity. The man, as he says afterward, is not without the woman in the Lord. The man and die woman form the man in the full sense of humanity, and the woman is necessary thus to make the man what he is; but that alters nothing, but rather confirms what he contends for here according to God’s thought, as we look back and see it in creation itself, -the head of the woman is the man. Let us go further, he says. The Head of Christ is God. Is that something derogatory to His true character? Is not He God? Is not He divine? Yet, after all, it can be said, “the Head of Christ is God.” Christ has taken His place as man, and He is not ashamed of it, and He does not refuse the consequences of it. He has come to be in creation the example of most perfect obedience on the creature’s part, as well as on God’s part the example of the most perfect grace, the fullest revelation of God that can be found. Thus, then, we have these things established.
There are some practical consequences in the exhibition of this order of things upon the earth. If a man pray or prophesy having his head covered, he dishonors his head; in itself a very small thing surely, -in that which it signifies not small at all. Everything depends upon the truth which is in it, or the error. The head covered for him is, as we see directly, the place of subjection taken. The woman covering her head does not profess to be the head. The head is covered with her, if she takes her place praying or prophesying; that is, as we see clearly, where it is a question of the assembly, -not necessarily as gathered, however, where her place in connection with others, therefore, is in question. If she prays or prophesies, although this prophesying was by a higher power than that of nature, -by the Spirit of God, and thus asserting for her her full rights as one in Christ, equal rights with any other, -yet if she prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered, she dishonored her head. Everything that is out of its place before God, is dishonored. If we exalt ourselves, it is our own dishonor. It is one and the same thing, therefore, he says, as if she were shaven. Why not let the woman cut off the hair which nature has given her? Plainly she has it in a way that man has not. You say, perhaps, if she has the hair, let that be enough, it is what nature has given her, let her wear that. But the wearing of the hair is not of necessity at all the owning the truth which is in it. The covering of the head owns for her, on her part, the truth which is in that testimony of nature. She is giving heed to the testimony when she covers her head. Thus the man ought not to have his head covered, because he is, in a direct way, as one may say, the image and glory of God, His representative upon the earth. The woman is the glory of the man.
All this has reference, of course, to present display. It is not a question of what is final, what is heavenly, what is eternal. It is God’s order as He has instituted it, and which we are bound to respect. There is meaning in it also, and we shall suffer if we refuse it; but the point here is, the order of creation. Thus, if we look hack, the man is not of the woman. The man did not originally come from the woman. On the other hand, the woman came from the man, -not the order of things now, as one may say; but that is what God showed us at the beginning. Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. The man was created first, and it was not good for him that he should be alone. The woman was created in view of this need, -a woman for that very reason why not another man? Just because, as another man, there would, not be really the same help found. He needs that which, while a symbol of the dependence of the creature rather than the independence given in a sense to man, would appeal to him by that very fact, and to his heart as one dependent on him. In every way, however, the woman (not, the individual as such, but as woman) is for the man; and “for this cause,” he says, “the woman ought to have authority upon her head,” -the sign of authority, -“on account of the angels.” The angels are the witnesses of creation. They have seen from the beginning what God did.; They are acquainted with His thoughts with regard to man, and we are a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men. Thus, then, the woman is to heed these angelic spectators.
However, he adds: “Neither is the man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord; for as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman, abut all things are of God.” God has instituted these things. If we learn them aright, we shall admire the wisdom of them; but whether or not, we are to submit ourselves to His appointment. A lower place is not of necessity a really inferior place. Christ has come into the lowest place of all in order to serve us, yet it was the most wonderful, the most glorious place that He could have taken, and all. God’s glory has been manifested in, it. Thus we must dismiss altogether the thought of what things are, as we may say, in themselves, A servant’s place, how unsuited to the Lord of glory! but look again, how suited and wonderful that Servant’s place! Nay, is not God over all the One who serves all? And is He not by that very fact the Better who blesses the lesser? Has not Christ taken the place of service? and in that human body which He has, has He not pledged Himself to it in some sense forever? Let us, then, own that which God has done, and find the good of it. It is in our filling the place that we shall find the recompense from God -not just according to the place we fill, but in the way we fill it. God has appointed for us everywhere, -as we find when we come to the thought of the body itself, -God has appointed everywhere diversity, and in some sense therefore the inferiority of many, the parts that are weak and the parts that are not in honor as the other parts are; yet how perfectly are all fitted together, and how perfectly is every part necessary to the blessing of the whole.! How fully has God united us in this way! Creation is but the witness of that which we find in the Church of God itself, so that the apostle appeals directly here to the teaching of nature. If a man have but long hair, is it not a dishonor, to him.? Why? Nature has not provided for him that covering which it has provided for the woman. If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for her covering; and how truly we feel that the more a, woman hides herself the more beautiful she is -that in this hiding one’s self is the very glory of the creature after all, and that she is but a lesson to us, one of the many lessons that God has given us as creatures, in this way. The apostle ends the matter, however, abruptly, by saying if this does not suffice, it must suffice then to say that we have no other custom than this, nor have the assemblies of God. He could speak for these, as, of course, being the one whom God had appointed to be the layer of the foundations for the whole Church at large.
2. We now come to the consideration of the assembly itself, and, first, in what gathers it The order here is very simple and beautiful. We have, first of all, Christ in the exhibition of His love for us in the sacrifice of His death as that which draws us together. This is what our eyes are first fixed upon. This is where communion is found with one another.
We next turn to look at those who are in this way gathered, They are members of Christ, the body of Christ Himself; and we learn what is implied in this not only that which makes them one but the diversity which exists in this unity as that which is implied in the body as an organism. Then we have, in the thirteenth chapter, the spirit which practically animates the body of Christ, the spirit of love, which is the spirit of ministry, -a ministry which the body in itself implies, for the members are members one of another, and exist not merely for themselves, but for the whole. We are then competent to look at the exercise of the gifts belonging to them in this character, as come together in actual assembly. This is in the fourteenth chapter, and we see how the spirit of love is that which in fact orders everything, produces that which is true spiritual order according to God. This closes this part of the epistle.
We have, then, now before us, in the first place, the centre of communion, Christ Himself, but Christ not looked at as a living Person, as many would expect. We do not start with the thought that Christ is in the midst, although He is in the midst where people are gathered together to His Name; but that is a different thing, and in fact we are not drawn to Him as personally thus present, We are gathered together to His Name. That implies His absence rather, than His presence, but it is time expression of what we know of Him as the absent One. It is this apprehension of Him that gathers us, and we, see at once that it is not a living Christ, but a dead Christ that is before us. That is the very point of it. We are brought to look back upon the hole of the pit from which we are digged, and to realize our indebtedness to this blessed One whom we remember. Important it is that we should realize this fact, that it is a dead Christ and not a living One we remember. It is, as already said, the destruction of ritualism, in this respect, to its very centre, -the body of Christ which people speak of as indeed receiving in the Lord’s supper. What body, do they think, of -a living or a dead body? Do they really think that they receive the dead body of Christ in any real sense in the Lord’s supper? The living body is out of the question. It is a dream which is not found in any text of Scripture whatever. A dead body no one thinks of, and yet if it be any participation that we have here, it is in the dead body and not in the living one.
The apostle begins here with a reference once more to their divisions. The first thing was that in coming together they came not for the better, but for the worse, to make apparent, -as coming near to God in fact does, -their true condition. When they came together, time first thing that was manifest was their divisions. In their very way of coming together they showed themselves apart. Their sects declared themselves in making separate parties of that which they owned to be the one body of Christ, even going so far as, in eating, each to take before others his own supper. It was manifest that he made it his own and not the supper of the Church as a whole, and one was hungry and another was even drinking to excess.
The license about it all is manifest; and there was an opportunity for this which now no longer exists. In fact, the Lord’s supper was instituted, as we know, in connection with the celebration of the passover, and the passover supper was that, therefore, that introduced it. The “agape,” or love feast, which existed at any rate very early in the Church, was the continuation of this paschal supper, which, though it did not really belong to the supper of the Lord itself, yet was supposed to make it all more exactly according to the institution. Thus there was in connection with the supper the taking of a meal, which gave the opportunity that we see here the Corinthians availed themselves of for license. The preliminary feast was crowding out, in fact, the Lord’s supper altogether, and they were going on as if in entire forgetfulness of it. That is evidently what the apostle is saying here. He reproves them by asking, have they not houses for eating and drinking in, or were they putting to shame the poor who had not, and despising the assembly of God which embraces them all? Could he praise them in this? It was impossible that he could do so. Then he calls them back to the institution of the supper as the Lord had given it. It is striking that he had received this of the Lord Himself. As the distinct minister of the Church, it was not simply that he found existing that which he went on with, as in the case of baptism. As to baptism, Christ had not sent him specially to baptize, although he did baptize as others did; but the Lord’s supper has a different place altogether. As that in which the unity of the body of Christ was manifested, he must have a special revelation concerning it. Thus he speaks of the special way and circumstances, so touching as they were, in which the Lord had instituted this gathering feast; it was on the night on which He was delivered up, in which there was given opportunity for the treachery of one of His own, one of those specially gathered around Himself, and who had walked in company with Him, beholding the manifestation of divine love and power in Him, which had been given. It was upon such a night as this, and in the midst of the shadow which was thus coming upon His soul, that He had taken the bread, giving thanks, and broken it, and said: “This is my body, which is for you; [“broken” is not in the original] this do in remembrance of Me.” Simplicity itself all this is; how completely opposite, again, to all that ritualism has connected with it! In like manner also, after supper He took the cup, saying: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” The apostle adds, as his interpretation of it: “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye declare the Lord’s death until He come.”
Here is the whole matter. No atmosphere of mystery surrounds it whatever. It is simply the memorial of a death to which we as Christians owe our all, -the death of the One whom it has made our Lord forever. In contrast with all this, think of what ritualism has made of it! It is striking, also, that the very point here, the thing for which he is reproving the Corinthians, is for not discerning the Lord’s body. It is plain, therefore, that it was the very opportunity to show what this discernment of the Lord’s body would be. He takes no trouble to define it. He does not in the least suppose that there is any mystery about it, in the sense in which men speak of it. That which he speaks of is bread and the cup. These are the memorials of the Lord in His death. The bread is His body, more strictly Himself, as one may say. The cup is His blood, the remembrance not so much of Himself as of His work. The body and the blood are separate. It is, again, a dead Christ that we remember. We surely remember, also, that He is risen from the dead, and we know by faith, even, that He is present with us; but all this, while it gives additional gladness to the celebration, in no wise forms part of the celebration itself. The Person of the Lord, as already said, appears more distinctly in the bread which we break. It is this One, the Man Christ Jesus, whom we remember. This implies no forgetfulness of what He was, of course; but it is in fact the One who was here in the world in that life and death of His which were for us, which give us all our knowledge of Him as He lives now before God. All our apprehension of Him belongs, we may say, to this manifestation of divine love and glory in Him who was upon earth among us. He is gone out of it, but He is the same Christ who was here, and He is coming again to receive us to Himself. We look back in the ordinance to His death. We look forward to His coming again.
The cup is here said to be the new covenant in His blood, -a hard text for ritualism, that! Is it literally the cup that is this? We may say that is a figure, -the cup is used for what is contained in it. Granted. Well, is what is contained in it, then, the new covenant in Christ’s blood? It is the blood itself if anything, -that blood which we are quite sure He did not carry into heaven, but which was shed upon earth. It is the memorial of a life given up for us, and which, as given up, in its sacrificial character is the foundation of the new covenant of grace in which we stand. The words are simple enough, and easy to be understood. It is only ritualism itself that makes them hard. The Lord adds again in this case: “Do this in remembrance of Me.” That is its distinctive character, a remembrance. A remembrance is not of something existing at the present moment, but of something in the past. It is all our joy to know that this death that we celebrate is actually past, and that it can never take place again. To talk of an unbloody offering, as men do in their mass, is only to destroy the whole reality of what is expressed here. There is no such thing as an unbloody offering. “Without shedding of blood is no remission,” and this the Lord did once when He offered up Himself. Thus the significance is as plain as can be. It is absolute simplicity, which we may darken by reading into it what is not there, and which it has even been confessed by many as not there. They tell us we shall not find the doctrine in this chapter. Where should we look for it so well as here? here where the apostle is insisting upon our discernment of the Lord’s body, and putting before us the very thing that gathers us? The previous chapter, to which we are sometimes referred as giving the real doctrine, has, as we have seen already, no such doctrine in it. The bread is the communion of the body of Christ. The cup is the communion of the blood of Christ. It is not the thing itself; but the expression of our fellowship in it, which is the very thing which the common remembrance implies. There is absolutely nothing else but this. We do not forget that we are one bread and one body, because we are all partakers of this one bread or loaf. It cannot be said that we are one loaf in any sense but as being identified with that of which we partake, -therefore, with all the thoughts that are implied in it. So if it be said we are one body, we have plainly, that which gives us unity merely as a body, brings us into one mind, one thought. It is not even said here, we are the body of Christ; and if it were, there would be an immense difference between the body of Christ which we are and that body of Christ which we celebrate in the supper. The body that we have before us is not the body the Church, and we could not possibly, in the nature of things, become the body the Church, by any reception of the body of Christ. They are different thoughts in different connections. Nor, as already said, is it really the body of Christ that is spoken of here at all, although it is quite true that the gathering is the gathering of the body of Christ; but that is not in the apostle’s mind, as is evident.
He is thinking simply of the unity which, in fact, makes us one body in any proper sense, this unity of apprehension of that blessed death which Christ has died for us, and which our hearts own as having power over us in this very coming together; but there is really no difficulty here. In the wisdom of God, things are so expressed that we can scarcely make mischief of them if we would. The doctrine of the tenth chapter is in absolute conformity with the doctrine of the eleventh. There is no difference between them. In both alike it is the thing expressed with which we are identified, identified in the apprehension that we have of it and the part which God’s grace has given us in the effect. We partake of the bread and the wine, and the bread and the wine would be nothing to us except we saw in them the body and the blood of the Lord. We partake in this way of the body and blood of the Lord, assuredly not in the gross, material sense, but in the joy of the apprehension of what these are to us. It is the same truth as the Lord has Himself given us in the sixth chapter of the gospel of John, and which is, in the minds of so many, itself to be referred to the Lord’s supper. The fact is that the Lord’s supper and what the Lord states there as to the bread from heaven refer to the same thing. That is all. It has been the triumph of Satan to materialize all this in such a way as to, make it the instrument of a designing priesthood to get glory to itself, and to lord it over the souls and consciences of men. In no way has this been done more cruelly than in the transformation of the Lord’s supper into a mass, or something approaching this. We cannot but remember, also, that at the Reformation the martyrdoms of the Lord’s saints had largely reference to their refusal of this unholy doctrine, -a doctrine which would make the Lord die innumerable times, make His original death to be proportionately of little effect, and put the whole into the hands of men to make merchandise out of, and to assume to themselves the glory which is due to God.
How thankful we may be for the simplicity that we find in all this scripture! The thing that bewilders many as they look at it is just this simplicity; but there is, none the less, in the celebration of the Lord’s supper a solemnity which the apostle warns us of. They could not eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord in a light manner without being guilty in respect to the body and blood of the Lord. Here it is distinctly the “Lord” who is spoken of, that we may realize the character of the slight here given. We cannot bring sin into the presence of that which we celebrate as having put it away from us. If we come to celebrate the Lord’s death without self-judgment, we destroy the holy character of that which is the most impressive proof of the holiness of God that could be given. Where shall we find it manifested as in the sacrifice of the Son of God Himself for sin? And “he that sinneth,” says the apostle, “hath not seen Him, neither known Him.” It is impossible, as he puts it, that sin and the knowledge of the Lord in that way can go on together.
He would not frighten us away from the table of the Lord by any means. He does not say, “let a man judge himself and refrain from eating.” He says: “Let a man examine (or judge) himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” It is true that “he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” if he discerneth not the body. That is the whole point, and must be so. It is evident that the Corinthians were making a mere common meal of that which was intended Ito be the constant reminder of a love which has nowhere else any equivalent. They were reaping the fruits of this laxity. There were those, he says, many, weak and sickly among them, and a good many had fallen asleep. Thus the judgment of the Lord was necessarily upon them; not because they were not His own; rather, in fact, because they were; for, as the apostle says, “When we are judged” in this way, “we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” He distinguishes, therefore, in the sharpest way, between this present judgment and the judgment to come. But it is evident that this present judgment is a most serious and awful thing. It is the infliction of a love which, because it is holy and because it is love, must inflict what, as we may say, it is pain to inflict. We force the Lord to judge us in this way when we do not judge ourselves. God must of necessity exhibit His holiness with regard to the sins of His people. Whatever the work of Christ has done for us, (we cannot realize too much what it has done,) nevertheless it was never intended, it can never be allowed to be used for unholy purposes. Thus, they must not come together for judgment, as they were doing. These were the main points of what he had to say to them. “The rest,” he says, “will I set in order when I come.”
3. We come now, as already said, having seen the centre of communion, (that which forms in that way the one body,) to the body itself, to those who are gathered to the name of the Lord after this manner. We come now to see that it is in fact the body of Christ, and how far we are really to press the implications of this. “Body” is a figure, of course. We know perfectly well that it is the expression of a relationship to the Lord Jesus of the closest and most intimate nature, and which doubtless could not be expressed so well in any other way; but we do not fail to realize that it is, after all, a figure. The body is the expression of the mind. It is the link between the indwelling spirit and the external world in which we are placed. The body of Christ is thus that in which the mind of Christ is expressed, and that by which the One who is absent from the world nevertheless retains, in a certain sense, His place, and manifests Himself in it. We are the representatives here of the Lord Jesus, not simply individually, for as individuals we are not properly competent, but as a whole. We are not the epistles of Christ, but, as the second epistle declares, the epistle.
This is one rendering of what this body of Christ implies, but then we realize that there is not simply a relation to the. Lord which is involved, but a relation to one another. In this body, as in other bodies, each member has indeed its own individual Significance, and we must give full place for this individuality. Except the members of the body had their individual place, there would be no body at all. If there were no diversity, there would be no unity in this sense. The unity or organism depends upon the diversity which is in it. It is the unity of aim and purpose among parts that differ from one another. That is what we find then here, and it is, in fact, the relationship to one another which is dwelt upon in this chapter, rather than the higher character of it as in relation to the Lord. For that we must go to Ephesians and to Colossians; it is noticeable, by the way, that when we go to these epistles, we are outside all question of the supper of the Lord. We have nothing of the kind in them. We get beyond it, as one may say. We are on the heaven-side of it; whereas this remembrance is for the world below; but the body, as already said, is here, therefore, exhibited more in the relationship of its several members than in its relationship to the Head. Being the body of Christ is that which gives it all its real significance, of course.
(1) We have, first, then, by way of preface to it, the unity which is in the diversity. The apostle begins by speaking of spiritual manifestations. There were more manifestations of this kind than simply those among Christians. There were manifestations of evil spirits as in that idolatrous worship of the Gentiles in which the Corinthians had had their part in the old times of darkness. They knew that they had been led away to dumb idols in whatever way they had been led. Now, on the other hand, with the manifestations of the Spirit in the midst, they must learn to distinguish. They must be intelligent in order to profit by them -in fact, not to be deceived by the power of the enemy; for where God works there the enemy will work as far as possible, a work by imitation, as Jannes and Jambres, the apostle tells us, withstood Moses in Egypt. It is plain that in the very midst of the Christian assembly the power of Satan might manifest itself in this way, and Christians be deceived, except they were in the power of the Spirit Himself who was manifesting Himself in the assembly. Thus the apostle gives them to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could say, “anathema Jesus;” and no one could say, “Lord Jesus,” except by the Holy Spirit. It is plain he does not mean by this that even an unbeliever among Christians could not say Lord Jesus, and that he is not speaking of anything which would inferentially and consequentially affect His Lordship. He is giving us simply that which distinguishes an evil spirit from the Spirit of God. The evil spirits, the demons upon earth, as we read in the Gospels, could freely own that Christ was the Holy One of God, but we never hear them say “Lord Jesus.” That would be taking the place of subjection to Him, which, except when finally they are forced to do so, they will never take. All this removes, perhaps, what the apostle says here from what we find in the present day. We are, at least, little accustomed to think of an actual evil spirit manifesting itself in the midst of Christians after this manner. It is as plain that to those whom the apostle was addressing there was nothing at all strange about this, and it may be a question for us whether we have not rather lost sight of the doctrine than have lost the thing itself.
There is, of course, and we should all know it, that which is of real account in the tone of what is uttered professedly by Christian teachers. We are right in looking sharply to see whether the spirit of their teaching owns the Lordship of Jesus or whether there is that which is really derogatory and a dishonor to Him. This in the highest manner is what Satan works, and he is no doubt manifest in all that is fundamentally false in doctrine. The apostle, however, has here before him something more defined and more imposing. We have lost so much the thought of what speaking by the Spirit in the assembly is, -men are so much before us, (the instrument rather than the One who works by the instrument,) that naturally we are not tempted in the same way so easily to receive what may be uttered. We may, alas, receive it too easily from other points of view; but we are not, at least, imposed upon by any pretensions to spiritual utterances. We should rather discredit these. With those who were accustomed to the manifestations of the Spirit in the midst, in palpable miracles and gifts that have passed from among us, there was necessarily a temptation simply to accredit that which was uttered to its full extent, and thus Satan might get his opportunity. With us he has, no question, equal opportunity, but perhaps not manifesting himself after the same manner.
Diversities of gifts, then, are, in the apostle’s thought, spiritual manifestations. They are the voice of the one Spirit in the members of Christ. There are gifts of God’s grace which are different as adapting themselves to different needs, and which are different, no doubt, because also it is safer to have these various ministries than a ministry all of the same kind, a ministry too copious and too full on the part of any. In the way in which God acts, it is plain that Christians are more bound together by their very needs, and that the instruments are designed to be kept more in humility by the sense of their imperfection, -of the necessary way in which one must supplement another. This is the manner in which, as we have seen many times, God has linked men together in creation. We are more debtors to our needs, to our very imperfections in this sense, (we are not speaking of moral imperfections,) we are more debtors to our deficiencies, than we have any idea of. God binds the whole body together, as the apostle says directly, in giving the more abundant honor to that part which lacks. But these are different gifts of grace, then. Withal there is the same Spirit. There are differences of administrations and the same Lord. In the ministrations of these gifts themselves, it is the Lord to whom the gifted ones are subject. The Spirit is the power by which the gifts are made known, but the Lord it is to whom the servants are always subject. Then there are diversities of workings, (this is more general), and the same God who worketh all things in all. Here is, then, the substantial unity amid all the diversity.
(2) Now we come to consider more distinctly the diversity in the unity. To every one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for profit. That is the thought of it. It is in a practical interest and in the interest of all that the Spirit manifests Himself. Thus the responsibility of every one who has gift at all is that by this he is made debtor to others for whose profit the gift is given. He is not his own in this sense. He belongs to those with whom God has given him his place.
But there are, then, these different manifestations. In one it is the word of wisdom. That is that which would put knowledge in its proper place and give it its proper application. To another might be given the word of knowledge, still by the same Spirit, but which nevertheless exhibited itself within the limits of the individual. For instance, the word of knowledge would be the doctrine in itself, rather than in its practical application. To a different one, again, might be given faith by the same spirit; not the ordinary faith of Christians, of course, but a special character and boldness of it which would lead the possessor into paths in which others not so gifted would break down. Then there were gifts of healing by the same Spirit; in others, the working of miracles; in others, prophecy; in others, the discerning of spirits, -not the discerning of what was working in men’s minds, but rather of spiritual beings themselves in their work amongst men. Then, again, there were tongues and the interpretation of tongues. He puts lowest what the Corinthians were evidently tending to put in the highest place. We shall find in a little while how he distinguishes between tongues and prophesying, for instance, and his comparative estimate of each; but in all these things there was the work of the one and the same Spirit, who gave as He pleased to every one.
It was not to be considered, therefore, a failure in any one of the different instruments that he did not suffice for every character of ministry. On the contrary, it was the very opposite which was implied in the idea of a body. “The body is one and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body.” That we understand in the natural way, and just so it is as to the body in this case; “so also” he says, “is Christ.” That is, for the moment, he looks at the body and Head in connection with one another, the “one new man” of which the apostle speaks in Ephesians. He does not touch this really, but merely uses language which is in accordance with it. The Church is Christ mystically in that way. For by one Spirit,” he adds, “we have been all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit.” Here the propensity for materializing has been strongly manifested by interpreters, who, of course, have found the sacraments in words like these. They have perverted water baptism into a baptism into the body of Christ, a thing which is in the Lord’s hands entirely, as surely as the gift of the Spirit is that which forms the body. On the other hand, the baptism of the Spirit is here plainly something different from that mere influence of the Spirit which people think about when they talk of being again and again baptized of Him. The body cannot be formed again and again. It has been formed, in fact, once for all, although it is constantly receiving accessions, of course; but the baptism of the Spirit is merely in analogy with the baptism of water, while absolutely and entirely independent of it. Again, the drinking of one Spirit, while it does not refer to the formation of the body, is clearly as disconnected with any sacramental ministrations. The reference is to that stream from the rock in the wilderness of which the apostle has already spoken. We have the reality of that.
(3) We come now to consider more distinctly the body of Christ as thus that which unites together the many members. It is plain that the body is not one member, but many. The foot has a different function from the hand, but how foolish it would be for the foot to say, because it was not the hand, it was not of the body! It is plain that Christians are capable, nevertheless, of some similar foolishness. They have not the gifts of other people, and therefore they suppose they have none. They look at the manifestation of the Spirit in others, and they are only hindered and restrained instead of encouraged by it. As to What is implied in it, they practically make themselves to be not of the body; but, asks the apostle, if the doctrine already maintained be indeed the truth, is that any proper consequence at all? “If the ear should say, because I am not an eye, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body?” On the contrary, it is just because there are these diversities of gifts that the body as a whole exists. “If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” God has indeed acted according to His own good pleasure as to it all, and we must therefore bow to His will about it; but it is plain that if all were one member, the body would be gone. As a consequence of the members being many and the body one, the eye cannot be in independence of the hand, the head cannot be in independence of the feet. It is not Christ that is spoken of here as the head: that does not seem to be the connection. These are not, either, the words which one would expect in reference to the Head of the body, the Church; but the apostle is simply referring to a body as such -of course in relation to what is here before him, but still giving only, as it were, a natural illustration. All the way through it is nature, as it were, he uses to teach us; so the members of the body which seem to be the feebler are still necessary; whatever they may be in themselves, each has some part to perform; which, if it failed, the body would suffer by it; and the very parts of the body, he says, “which we think to be less honorable, these we clothe with more abundant honor, and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.” This is but the natural compensation which we find everywhere. The comely parts have no need. “God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that which lacked.” The application of this may be very wide and that may hinder, in some measure, the proper realization of it; but it is the public place evidently, which seems to exalt one member of the body above another, which people constantly tend to think of as that which gives importance; whereas it is plain that the public place is what belongs rather to the few than to the many, and that God has ordained for the many rather, a service that is more hidden from public view. Yet how much do we owe as Christians to those who are never known, perhaps, in public! How much do we owe to those of whom, perhaps, we never think as of any account at all! On the other hand, what honor may we find that God has bestowed upon those very persons when the day of manifestation comes! How much may they have wrought that has never been realized by us, that we were too unspiritual to realize! How much honor does God put, even, upon the simple acceptance of a quiet place, a place that brings no dignity with it, but in which one can serve God just for the sake of that sweet service!
Thus may we realize, after all, that God may have given more abundant honor to the very part which lacked; and it is easy to understand that in this way He would unite us all together, making us profoundly conscious of our need of one another, and that there might be no division in the body, -such as these Corinthians were exhibiting, such as Christendom, alas, exhibits so much at the present day, but that the members might have the same care one for another. Sure it is that, “if one member suffer all the members suffer with it; and if one member be honored,” it is really the honor and should be the joy of all. Thus he says here: “Ye are the body of Christ, and severally members.” And God has been pleased to set some in the assembly in an order of His own, -first, apostles, who have laid the foundations; secondly, prophets, who have, with apostles as layers of the foundations, necessarily passed away, but whose work remains with us. Then teachers, doctrine being that which now and in all times lays the foundation still, the foundation for all practice and for all blessing. Then in this enumeration come miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues. He does not give these as if they were the whole, after all. This is only a specimen, evidently, of how God has wrought; but it is plain that all were not prophets, all were not even teachers; all, too, were not workers of miracles. We can see that this was not simple a question of faith, as we speak, and that it is not to be argued that, if we had faith enough for it, then we might expect miracles to be restored. Even in the apostle’s days all had not miracles. This is what the apostle recognizes as what is normal, not abnormal. All had not gifts of healing, nor spoke with tongues, nor interpreted. After all, the eyes of men were too apt to be upon that which was prominent, forgetting that which was spiritual and moral, and that which had greater value before God. The apostle, therefore, turns now to speak of this which is indeed the spirit of all ministry, the thing which underlies all these gifts if there is to be anything in them, and which exalts in God’s sight many an unknown worker, many a man ungifted, -as men might think, -into a blessed place such as may he far above the greatest of gifts. As the apostle says, greater than all gifts was that of which he was going to speak.
4. We have had thus before us the assembly and what is implied in the fact that it is the body of Christ. The analogy of the human body is preserved all through. The parts are organs. Each member in its place has its distinct capacity and therefore its function and its work. and the whole implies ministry and self-edification, which is to be the result of all this. “The body edifieth itself in love.” We come now to this love, which is the practical test of all that is truly edification according to God. Love is the spirit of service, as is plain. It is that which prompts not simply to work, but to serve in working. It seeketh not its own, but the things of others; and thus it is that upon which the apostle sets a higher value than upon any gift. It is the divine nature in its manifestation in men.
(1) Now he first of all insists upon the unique value of love. If this one element be removed, we have really nothing. It is not exactly the whole spirit of a Christian, but it is that which is above all necessary to his being that. No tongues thus, he says, have any value apart from this, whether they be the tongues of men or even of angels. It is merely like sounding brass or a cymbal clanging. It is dead, not living. Even the gift of prophecy becomes, apart from this, what it might be in a Balaam, -something that God may put to use, but which has no value to the one who exercises it. So with all knowledge, however universal it might be; so with all faith, if it manifested itself in such work as removing mountains; still without love it was all nothing. If there were that which simulated love still more, the bestowing of all one’s goods to feed the poor; if there were that burning zeal in which one could deliver up his body to the flame, and yet love did not really prompt in all this, it would still be nothing. Nothing could possibly be more complete as to the full value of love and its necessity in everything.
(2) We have now the character of love itself; for we cannot be trusted to know what it is, as it were, instinctively, or by the signs of it even, which obtain amongst men. How often, in fact, do we mistake for it what may be social feeling, even the enjoyment which springs from a certain satisfaction of self in the object! How often do we fail to distinguish such things as these from the love that seeketh not her own! The apostle John, the apostle of love, in the same way has to give signs by which we shall know whether it is in fact divine, that is to say, true love according to God at all. Quite true that if a man say he loves God and loveth not his brother that will not avail, but on the other hand: “Hereby we know we love the children of God, because we love God and keep His commandments.” The divine element must enter into it and characterize it everywhere, or it is not love as God would have it. The characteristics, therefore, are given here more particularly than elsewhere.
First of all, “Love suffereth long.” It is in fact a sufferer in a world like this necessarily, as we see in Christ. What a field is this sorrow-stricken scene for its display, but how many calls upon it are there, therefore! Love suffereth long and still is kind. It does not wear out. It is not disappointed, not at least with such a disappointment as would check its outflow. Again, it envieth not. Plainly, it has not self before it, and therefore does not seek a place above others. It does not, therefore, envy others the possession of that which its possessor has not. For the same reason, “love vaunteth not itself.” It does not think of itself more highly than it ought to think. It does not parade its deeds or its quality. It is not self-assertive. Still less does it go beyond what is due. It is not puffed up.
Its acts, therefore, are of a kind suitable to this. “It doth not behave itself unseemly.” Love is the bond of perfectness, and puts every detail, even of common behavior, right. The world imitates it, as far as may be, because it sees its comeliness. It will give the highest manners to one who may be otherwise the lowest clown. Wherever it is, it reigns. It is the governing spirit. It brings other things into subjection to itself; but then, again, it seeketh not its own. This is its grand characteristic, although expressed in the negative, as so much of this is; for, as with regard to heaven itself; we learn it so much by its contradiction to what we find around, -what we find, alas, so much in ourselves too. Love “seeketh not its own.” Its activities must of necessity go forth to others. It is not, therefore, quickly provoked. It is not sensitive of that which touches oneself; yet assuredly, it may be provoked into anger. It was love in Christ when He looked around upon them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. It was the desire of His heart for them which made their condition so serious in His eyes; but this anger is not nursed into malice. It subsides under the check of pity, the realization of what evil of necessity produces in the soul. This evil it does not impute; it does not reckon it to be there when there is not positive evidence. It has no pleasure in finding it. What it finds there is no question about imputing, in the sense in which this is said. If it be found, then, as far as may be, love covereth sin. It does not bring it out except there be positive requirement of divine righteousness or holiness that it should be brought out. It does not, therefore, rejoice in unrighteousness. How much, alas, of that which seems to be but the display of righteousness (as in Satan’s accusation even of the saints) is a mere joy in unrighteousness, the very opposite, therefore, of righteousness itself! On the contrary, love “rejoiceth with the truth.” Truth is the basis of all holiness, nay, of all good. There can be nothing apart from it. Love is not, therefore, blind. It has not the character which we may impute, perhaps, to human love. On the contrary, nothing is, quicker or more penetrating in its view of things; but then, again, it “beareth all things.” That is, as we saw at the beginning, it can patiently endure, it can suffer long. It “believeth all things” too; that is, it gives ready and unsuspicious credence. It does not suspect. As a consequence of all this, it hopeth all things.” It looks upon the good side rather than upon the evil, and, above all, God, in whom love is, who is always present to it, therefore always a cause of hope. After all, good reigns and not evil. Everything is in the hands of perfect goodness, little as at times this may appear outwardly, but thus there is no pessimism in love; it is optimistic in the highest way; but its ground of confidence is not in man, but in God. Hope, then, gives it energy or endurance. It “endureth all things.” If we have not hope, there will soon be no strength to endure. Let discouragement be utter and complete, there is the end of all activity, there is the end of all service. There will be no power to serve where there is no hope in service.
(3) We now look at it in another way, not in the character which it displays, but in its permanence as compared with all other things. Prophecies will he done away. Whatever their value for the time being, there will come a time when they will be indeed no more, and when their actual fulfilment will bring them to an end, whatever the honor which may be put upon them. Tongues, too, shall cease. They have reference to the condition of man, to what sin has caused, and do not put away the effects of sin, although they manifest divine power and divine love meeting man in these conditions; but they shall cease necessarily, therefore. Knowledge too shall be done away; that is, the kind of knowledge, of course, that we have now. He goes on to describe it afterwards as such a knowledge of things as we have by seeing them in a mirror when we cannot be in close contact with them so as to examine them for ourselves. We have to argue, to infer about them. It is largely not so much that things, are, but that they must be so. This kind of knowing, -not the truth itself, concerning which the, knowledge is, not knowledge in the high, full sense therefore, but the knowing, this kind of spelling out and putting together and learning, as he says, in part, -all this will necessarily come to an end when that which is merely in part is done away. It will vanish as the light of the taper in the sun. The light will be at the full when the means of light are, nevertheless, largely changed.
The apostle illustrates the present as the childhood state, therefore. A child necessarily speaks as one, thinks as one, reasons as one, -in fact, it has to do plenty of reasoning, and no one would make light of its imperfect condition; but it is imperfect, as we know. “When I became a man I put away childish things, for now we see by a mirror, in an enigma.” That is the force of the words. We see the reflection of things, in a sense, rather than the reality. We are conscious of them by the impression they make upon the senses, and we have to argue from these impressions as to the facts. This is, in fact, a child’s main business, which being done for those who are men, the process does not in the same way appear, although it still goes on. It is what is involved for us now, no doubt, in our being living souls, rather than spirits. We have often noticed that the living soul is what gives character to man’s actual condition, as the book of Genesis may teach us, while the spirit is nevertheless in man, but embarrassed by the conditions of its existence. The body is the instrument of the soul, as the soul, too, is the instrument of the spirit. External nature is thus that which teaches us so much, and the very language which we use as to the deepest realities is borrowed altogether from external things. The spiritual we know not except as encased in the natural. This involves the enigma of which the apostle speaks.
As soon as a man is out of the body be is not conceived of any longer as a living soul, but as a spirit. The soul-life now is, no doubt, a needed discipline for the spirit; and in view of all that God foresaw as to man’s condition and the outcome of his trial upon earth; the spiritual body, -as we shall see in what the apostle says beyond, -alters this relation between spirit and soul by putting the spirit completely in the governing place and making all conditions work in perfect subjection to it. That is the meaning of a spiritual body, -not a body which is formed of spirit, but a body which is characterized by the spirit that dwells in it. Such, it is plain, the body of Christ should be, for the Church has already entered by faith into the sphere of the invisible and eternal, while for it also there is, however, the necessary discipline from the state of things in the world in which it is. The apostle here, of course, is speaking of the individual: “Now we know in part, then shall we know even as also we are known.” How wonderful a thing that! It is divine knowledge, as far as it goes, though, of course, having all the creature characteristics; it is not the omniscience of God, and never will be.
Thus, then, the apostle concludes from it all: “Faith, hope and love abide.” He is not speaking here of eternity, but rather in contrast with such gifts as, in fact, will come to an end, having served their purpose. Love abides, for it is the divine nature. Faith, as the evidence of things unseen, necessarily passes away when all is seen with the perfect knowledge of which the apostle has spoken. Hope, too, implies the imperfection which counts upon God, but sees not. It too, therefore, must pass away in full fruition; but love abides. Therefore, the greatest of these three things which morally characterize the Christian, is love.
5. We now come to the conditions upon which alone the divine can co-operate with the human, as in the exercise of the gifts in the body of Christ. That is the main point which the apostle insists upon here. We see, indeed, the gifts in exercise, and in the assembly, but we are not to suppose that we have a full account of this. It is rather that we have urged upon us that which will put every gift in its right place, and are made to have a right comparative estimate of them, -a thing of the highest use of necessity in the assembly, in the practical service which the gifts render to the body as a whole.
(1) We are to follow after love, therefore, while emulous of spiritual things. How has this been lost sight of in the condition of things which has so long obtained in the professing Church! Who thinks of seeking spiritual gifts? If God has given them, they may be (with certain restrictions, alas,) sanctioned in their exercise; but who thinks of seeking from God gifts which he has not got? If we seek them to glorify ourselves with them, then of necessity we shall seek in vain; and thus the two things are put together, -the following after love and the desire for spiritual gifts. We see how love rules, moreover, in the broad distinctions that the apostle makes now between two representative things, prophesying, on the one hand and tongues on the other. Of course, this does not embrace all that is the exercise of spiritual gift in the assembly, by any means; but all the more are we distinctly shown the principle which is to govern all in the assembly, -what in fact the rule, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” involves. What is decently and orderly in God’s sight? The speaking with a tongue and the interpretation of the tongue are given at the end of the twelfth chapter -last; and not without a meaning, last, in the enumeration there. In its miraculous character, the tongue was, on the other hand, a thing most notable, and which, -as we see at Pentecost, -struck men everywhere with amazement. It acted as an alarm-peal for their consciences, or as an invitation to nascent faith. But whatever its value, -and it is plain that the apostle does not mean to deny its value, -yet it is one of the things which has vanished away. As a fact, people can hardly understand at the present time what a “tongue” meant, and many are the disputes about it. The thing is gone, however men may urge that it is through the failure of faith that it is gone, which they can not show from Scripture; but it is gone, and there are things in relation to it which are even difficult, perhaps, for us to understand in the absence of it. It is for us an appeal to the past rather than the present. We must not conclude from this that we are to refer all this teaching of the chapter pretty much to a past condition, as is almost taken to be a matter of course by so many. On the contrary, the apostle is putting that which could not pass in contrast with the thing that has passed. Tongues, whatever their value, might pass. Prophesying, which he puts in contrast with it, could not pass, and this follows from the account which he gives of each. “He that speaketh with a tongue speaketh not,” he says, “unto men, but unto God, for no one heareth,” that is, with the understanding, although in spirit he may speak mysteries. Thus it is evident that this speaking with a tongue, -although it be, as we see clearly by what follows, the speaking of a real language, as the hearers at Pentecost heard each in his own tongue that which was being uttered, -implied speaking in a language which was not understood, at least by the mass of the hearers. It is upon this that the apostle insists as governing the use of it. A man could get no good by that which he did not understand. If there could be no understanding, if there were no one to interpret, then the tongue was out of place entirely. However much a man might have it, he was not to exercise it. In that character he spoke, as speaking in this unintelligible way, not to men who could not understand him, but to God only, who of course did. In spirit, too, he might speak mysteries. On the other hand, he that prophesied spake directly to men, and that for edification, and exhortation, and comfort. This does not, of course, define what prophesying is, but what it does. The effect of it is such that it could not possibly be lacking in the Church at any time. The Lord never ceases to care for the edification of His people, and thus we see, also, that prophesying here by no means has necessarily the character of predicting, though in those days there might be prediction, for the time of revelation was not passed. Revelation is now complete. If any man pretends to have what is fresh in this way, it is a false pretension, -the man is a false prophet and nothing else; but it could not be supposed that the people of God came together just to hear predictions of the future.
Prophesying means, rather, in itself the speaking in a direct manner from God and for God, and is in this way something which of necessity shows the spirit of Christianity, the heavenly places being opened to us, God capable of approach in that way, and which, if we know our privileges rightly, we shall easily understand. The man who is earnest to realize the place with God which this supposes, will be he who, in the power of that communion, will be possessed most of the mind of God. But this, therefore, will not be for himself alone. That which he has he has for others also. How important just to have this, -God’s word for the time, which does not of necessity imply any great gift in the speaker of it! It might be, as the apostle puts it hypothetically here, but five words. It might be but the recital of the apt scripture upon the subject, or which deals with the state of soul of the assembly. It is something which implies spirituality rather than gift, and a spirituality which should be found, therefore, in every Christian. Thus it is that he says directly that they might all prophesy one by one. He did not certainly mean by this that they might all teach one by one, that such a gift lay within the power of any one to exercise. That would only make the actual distribution of gifts ineffectual, make all gifts conditionally one and the same gift, or every person possessor of every gift; which is plainly not so, and was never intended to be so. The diversity of gift, as has already been said, is the very thing which necessitates this ministry of every one to all the rest, and thus it abides in itself, a distinction which is to be maintained and insisted upon.
On the other hand, the thing that they were all to covet was that they might prophesy. How simple and how much needed the exhortation when it implies simply that all are bound to be with God so as to learn each for himself from God, in a sense as if there were not another! But this does not lead to the disregard of others. Rather, it makes one capable of the truest service. It might, as we see in the Acts, -where, of course, we have it in the full character of those times, -be found in a woman as well as in a man. Spirituality knows no sex, and the presence and mind of God is not denied to any one that seeks it, be it man or woman. The restriction with regard to the use of it in the assembly is another matter, and is based upon that which we have seen already, that is, that the public place is not the place which God has designed for the woman; but it has nothing to do with the reality of blessing such as this, which, if we do not realize and appreciate aright, we shall forfeit immensely. In fact, the whole Church has forfeited, how much, by the misapprehension of such scriptures as these! It has had, therefore, to relegate them in their application to the past or to maintain that prophesying as it is represented nowadays is preaching! The result of this will be very evident. On the other hand, the exhortation as, to prophesying is the voice of God calling His people to enjoy their place of privilege with Himself, to learn in His presence, to have His mind, and thus to be fitted each one for the place given to him in connection with all others. How important, then, that we should realize this!
“He that speaketh with a tongue,” the apostle goes on, “edifieth himself.” He has not, as people strangely imagine, the thought that he might not himself understand the tongue that he was using. He edifieth himself, and we are told shortly after that the assembly cannot receive edifying except it be by the interpretation of the tongue. If there is not meaning in the tongue, it is like a mere lifeless thing, giving sound. This principle applies plainly to the possessor of the tongue, as it does to others. The apostle has no idea, as some have put it, that the mere consciousness, as it were, of speaking by a divine impulse (however ignorant one may be of what is contained in it) is that which edifies. The whole assembly might be edified on the same principle, if that were edification; but the apostle insists that there must be the intelligent apprehension of what is heard, or there is no use, no edification. Thus, he that speaketh with a tongue, but with no power to interpret (for the gift of interpretation might not necessarily accompany the gift of the tongue) edifieth himself simply, but he that prophesieth edifieth the assembly. He does not in the least desire to set aside the speaking with tongues. He would that they all spake with them, but much rather would he that they prophesied, because “greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues.” It is evident that the Corinthians thought very differently as to that. The tongue, in their minds, put a man upon a much greater eminence than any prophesying could do, but how different where love rules! and that is the whole matter here. The edification of others is that which decides upon the greatness of the speaker. The one who speaks to most edification, whatever the manner of speech, is the one who is greatest. If, then, one came speaking with tongues, what would the profit be unless there was revelation or knowledge or prophesying, (which we see he makes, therefore, distinct from revelation: there might be a prophesying without that,) or doctrine, -the teaching of some truth?
He appeals to the lifeless thing even giving sound. If there were no distinctions in the sounds, if it were all unmeaning, how would anything be gathered from what was piped or harped? If the trumpet gave an uncertain sound, who would prepare himself to the war? So, also, ye with a tongue, he says, except ye give a distinct word, that is, a word appreciable, -a word that shall be known in its significance by those addressed, how shall it be known what is spoken? You are just speaking, he says, into the air. Not a voice that God has given in the world but has its significance! If, therefore, tongues are to be merely a sound, the one who speaks will be simply a Barbarian to others, as those who listen are for him Barbarians. The rule, therefore, was for those who were emulous of spiritual gifts, that they might abound indeed, but for the edifying of the Church. So if a man were speaking with a tongue, he might pray that he might interpret. It may seem a strange thing that the gift of interpretation did not necessarily accompany the gift of the tongue itself; but in this way one can at least see that a gift of this showy character would be kept in more complete dependence, as was needed so much at Corinth; for the abuses which the apostle would remedy were necessarily found more or less among the people to whom he was speaking. Thus the one who seemed in their eyes so exalted by the gift of the tongue, nevertheless had to be indebted to the service of another for the interpretation of it. No doubt, where it was love that dictated, where love was in earnest for the help of men, God might add the gift of interpretation to the tongue itself, but the two things, as is plain, were distinct.
(2) The apostle goes on: “For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my mind is unfruitful.” It has been thought, perhaps generally, that here his inability to understand what he was saying was necessarily supposed, but why? Is not the fruit which the apostle is teaching us everywhere to look for, the edification of the assembly? And thus if a man prayed simply with a tongue, apart from interpretation, there could be no fruitfulness; in that respect the mind was really unfruitful. “But,” says the apostle, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the understanding. I will praise with the spirit and I will praise with the understanding.” That is, surely, therefore, in connection with the context here, in such a way that there shall be understanding all round, for he goes on directly to argue that if you bless in the spirit only, the one who occupies the place of the unlearned cannot possibly say “amen” to the giving of thanks; for he does not know what is being said. You may give thanks ever so well, but there is no edification for the other. Thus even in prayer and praise the same principle obtains. In the assembly all is done for the assembly. The speaker must be either the voice of the assembly to God or the voice of God to the assembly, but the assembly as such is always in mind, and the gathering is not to be diverted into any mere field for the private exercises of the saints, whatever their character might be. Solemn it is to realize that even the giving thanks well in this way would not justify the thanksgiving. The fact that the gift is from God does not of necessity justify the use of it. The use at any particular time must be governed by the principle which runs through all this, the principle of edification, which is sought always. The apostle was not speaking to discredit tongues, the ability to use which he had more than all, yet he deliberately chooses rather to speak five words with his understanding, to instruct others, (there he defines really what he means by five words with the understanding, which is that he may instruct others by them,) he would rather speak five words this way than ten thousand in a tongue. To think otherwise would be to be children in their minds; but he does not want them to be children in mind, although he would be happy that they were children in malice; but in their minds they were to be full grown. What, in fact, had God shown with regard to this use of tongues, unintelligible tongues, as we see? That is really the point of it. It was written in the law, in the book of Isaiah (the whole of the Old Testament is characterized as law): “With other tongues and lips of others I will speak unto this people, and not even so will they bear me, saith the Lord.” But to what did this refer? In fact, to their captivity among foreigners or the dominion of foreigners over them, a thing in itself which would necessarily and notably speak to a people who could only be in this condition through their own sin and failure, and yet their sin would not be remedied by it, nor would they listen, as the Lord says, to these tongues by which He was speaking so strangely to them; so that in this case tongues were for a sign not to believers, but to unbelievers. God was speaking to them indeed, but in a strange language through their unbelief, and this only, through the hardness of their heart, shut them up the more in that unbelief, did not deliver them. Prophesying, on the other hand, was directly for believers, not for unbelievers. Now if the whole assembly come together in one place and all speak with tongues, he urges, and there come in unlearned persons or unbelievers, what will they say? What effect will it have upon them? “Will they not say that ye are mad?” It is supposed, of course, that there is no making plain the thing so as to edify; just used as strange tongues because of the wonder of such speech. They are tongues, he supposes, that are not understood. On the other hand, if all prophesied, and there came in one who was an unbeliever or unlearned, this bringing in of the mind of God, unbaring as it does the secrets of the heart, would bring conviction to the man who came. He might not indeed be converted by it, but be would find, in fact, his inmost heart searched out, and would recognize that it was God who was searching; so, falling upon his face, he would worship God, and declare that God was with them of a truth. How plainly is the character of prophesying thus seen as the bringing in of God in such a way as would speak for itself; the voice of God made audible in the speaker, with its direct power over the conscience of those who heard.
(3) The apostle now gives general instructions as to the assembly itself, instructions which have singular inapplicability to the Christian meeting as understood most largely in the present day. It is a gathering of the assembly as such, with room for every one to find his place and to contribute his share to the general edification and under the guidance and rule of the Spirit of God alone. “When ye come together,” says the apostle, as if it were the normal thing when coming together, “every one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation.” He neither commends nor condemns this in any wholesale way. The Corinthians, no doubt, were ready enough, and their meetings would not lack in variety. The apostle’s simple rule is that all things are to be done to edifying. That is the one practical direction, so simple that it is easily understood by any Christian. Any one is competent to say what ministers to himself and helps him.
It is important to see that while the Spirit is the power and energy always for this, yet at the same time he does not in any wise direct them to analyze their own convictions as to it. They are not to be before themselves in any wise. The object is to edify others, and the assembly, if right at all, will always be able to bear witness if it is edified. This governs also in what follows, that if any one speak in a tongue there are to be not more, at any rate, than two or three speakers, each in his turn, (does not that seem as if there were disorder enough in the Corinthian assembly?) and with one to interpret in each case. If there were no interpreter, then it is enjoined that there shall be silence kept in the assembly. Let such an one speak, if he be full, to himself and to God, but there can be no edification except a man can understand the language in which he is addressed. Even as to the prophets the same rule obtains. that there are to be but two or three speakers. There is not to be enough to distract or to weary, but to edify, and the rest are to judge. They are not to receive -because the ideal is a ministry of the Spirit -all that comes with the assumption of this. They are to judge. Scripture is in their hands as the means of judgment, and thus they are to discern, by that which the Spirit has already communicated, the character of present communications. If anything is revealed to another who sitteth by, the first speaker is to be silent -not, as is supposed by some, to give way to the new revelation. The apostle’s words directly afterwards surely contradict that. All might prophesy, one by one. There would be time for each one, and no interference on the part of one with the liberty of another.
There is no question here of the reality of the prophesying, as there can be no question of the reality of a tongue; but the reality of the gift does not hinder the regulation of the gift, or show, therefore, that the exercise of it is always according to God. The rule is still and ever the edification of the assembly. The contributions of all are thrown, as it were, into a common fund, that all may be enriched by them, and in this general enrichment no one need strive for his own things and no one is given room to take exception to that which perhaps may not minister specifically to his own need, and yet may be meeting, in the abundant grace of God, the need of others. All have need to learn and all to be exhorted, and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. There is in each case the responsible man whom his gift is not to control, but who, by the Spirit, is to control the gift. Human responsibility is everywhere prominent, and the practical result is that which manifests the character of what is given. God is never a God of confusion, but of peace, and this is His manner of working in all the assemblies of the saints.
(4) There was to he one exception as to this general liberty. In the assemblies, when the saints were all actually come together, the women were to keep silence. It is a question, not of a woman’s capability of exhorting others or of edifying, but just that question of order with which the apostle started, and which creation establishes. The woman’s sphere of liberty, and, one may say, sovereignty, is at home; that is to say, it is private and not public. It must not be thought that this does not give ample scope for the exercise of gift of whatever kind. If there were only more of the cultivation on the woman’s part of that which belongs really to her sphere, how fruitful would be the exercise of gift with which God has endowed her and how many places would be open to her which men, by reason of their being men could not in the same way fill! Thus in relation to children, it is at once evident; with the younger children, the woman is still the best and the nature-ordained teacher. God has placed the babe in its mother’s arms and not its father’s; and this does not mean that the woman’s sphere is only in her own family. There are countless families to which her sex will introduce her, and where she may find herself fully at home and abundant profit and recompense of her work. So, through the wives, women have access in this way to an indefinite sphere of occupation for varied blessing. The wife is the heart-centre of the household, and the ability thus to reach the wife in a way that woman certainly can do far beyond others is an immense privilege and responsibility entrusted to her. Would that there were more realization of this! It would not be thought that the apostle’s rule here, which is evident, was intended to reduce the woman to a nonentity or to deprive her of the use of whatever gift God may have endowed her with. As already said, if you take men themselves, how many have their proper sphere in any public ministrations? Women are no more disqualified in this sense than the large number of men are. God has ordained to each his place, and the spirit of love is only needed to find the wisdom which will enable any one to realize the doors which God will ever open to those who seek to serve Hint among men.
Among the sick, again, how evidently is there a special place accorded to the woman! Here, the gentleness, the patience natural to her, the tender ministration of love, assert themselves with a power which God’s grace uses continually for blessing to souls. Just when the strength is prostrated and the ear only perhaps left open, the heart is in the readiest condition to receive, the truth. How blessed the privilege to be able here to sow the seed of life in souls plowed up and rendered receptive by God’s dealings with them!
Thus, while the apostle’s words are prohibitive in one way, they only open to us in another what is the true sphere in which the woman may he and ever has been blessed. But he allows no dispute about it. “Came the word of God,” he says, “out from you, or did it come to you only? If any one thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” How important is this here, where, most of all in the present day, as is evident, men tend to ignore or to resist what he here gives us! Indeed, as we easily may see, the whole chapter is largely set aside as pertaining to extraordinary gifts which have ceased, and which find their substitute as a whole, perhaps, in a preacher, who is supposed to have the remnant of all that exists in his own person, and to whom the congregation is for the most part confined. Thus a narrowness, in fact, attains which was never found in the Jewish synagogue, as one may easily see by the occurrences in the Acts. There was a ready invitation and scope for various speakers, even amid the iron rule and stiffness of rabbinism. Things are working at the present time, no doubt, to a larger liberty; alas, they are at the same time tending in an equal degree to laxity and to the disregard on another side of the apostle’s word here. He is short and decisive. “If any one be ignorant,” he says, “let him be ignorant.” If what I have said already is not enough for his enlightenment, let him go without such enlightenment. On the other hand, there is need of exhortation surely today after his manner here: “So, brethren, be emulous to prophesy.” Alas, it is hardly known what such words mean; and yet the responsibility remains as great as ever, and the thing to which we are all responsible to minister. He concludes with the simple words, so simple and so practical: “Let all things be done fittingly and in order.”
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
CHURCH DISORDERS
This chapter begins properly at 1Co 11:2, and treats of disorderly conduct of the women in the church assemblies, and of the misuse of the Lords supper. Head is used in the sense of source of dominion because it is that which directs the body, and the man is the head of the woman because he is under authority to him, the reference being to married women and their husbands. The head of Christ is God, when Christ is considered in the mediatorial sense, and from the point of view of the God-man. Of course both men and women are equal in Gods sight when salvation and all the spiritual blessings in Christ are under consideration (Gal 3:18), but human society could not exist without certain distinctions. It is evident that from this standpoint, the Christian women at Corinth went too far, and misinterpreting their newfound liberty in Christ, were overstepping bounds in an unbecoming way. Large principles when taken up by ardent and enthusiastic minds, without the modifications of experience, are almost sure to run into extravagance, and hence the spirit of law is by degree reduced to rules, and guarded by customs.
The offense of these women was praying and prophesying with uncovered heads, or rather unveiled faces, contrary to the custom of the times for both Jews and Gentiles, the head-covering being a symbol of the womans subordination to the man. It is difficult to say what is meant by the man dishonoring his head, since it is uncertain whether by his head is meant the Lord Jesus Christ. And in the same way we do not know whether the head which the woman dishonoreth is her own head, or her husband regarded as her head. We only know that it is the true glory of every creature to fulfill the law of its being (1Co 11:3-6).
The argument against this conduct on the womens part follows in 1Co 11:4-7 : (1) the woman has present a visible superior in man created in Gods image. He as the highest earthly being represents Gods glory. Woman, as such, is not the representation of Gods glory on earth, but to all inferior beings represents mans glory sharing his superiority over them (1Co 11:7); (2) woman was created second to man as to substance (1Co 11:8), and service (1Co 11:9); and (3) woman should consider the presence of the angels who are invisible spectators of Christian assemblies. This last is a mysterious subject, not merely that angels are present, but that women should exhibit modesty or submission in their presence. Dean Stanley comments on this passage that it may refer to evil angels and their unlawful intercourse with human flesh as spoken of in Genesis 6. Immodesty on the womens part might give them unholy opportunity, for it is impossible to decide how much of our public morality and private purity is owing to the spirit which refuses to overstep the smallest bound of ordinary decorum.
The apostle balances the whole subject as between man and woman in 1Co 11:11-12, and sums up so far as the latter is concerned by a couple of questions, the bearing of which is that the absence of a veil is uncomely (1Co 11:13-15). If however, they continue to be contentious in the matter despite his rebuke, he would have them know that their conduct is without precedent (1Co 11:16).
THE LORDS SUPPER
It is not a far cry from this to the disorder associated with the Lords supper, and which the apostle approached by a general statement (1Co 11:17-19). It should be said that the divisions here are not doctrinal so much as social cliques. They came together for a general meal prior to the Lords supper, and made it a sort of indoor picnic. The rich brought plenty to eat and drink while the poor had nothing. If this was what they desired to do it should be done in their own houses and not in the general assembly. The original institution of the rite is now referred to and its significance enlarged (1Co 11:23-26). A warning follows (1Co 11:27-34), in which unworthy is not to be understood as discouraging penitent sinners from partaking of this blessed feast, but to be taken in the sense of an unworthy manner. To be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord means to commit an offence against him, while damnation, (1Co 11:29), is to be taken in the sense of judgment as illustrated in 1Co 11:30-34. Not discerning the Lords body, means not appreciating the significance of his atonement, or the mystical relationship in which they as believers stand toward him their Head, and which the Lords supper so peculiarly makes manifest. Their erroneous practice in this particular had brought chastisement of a physical kind upon them; from which if they had judged themselves by putting away the sin, they would have escaped. Nevertheless, it was a mercy of God that they were thus chastened, which showed that they were His children, and not the people of the world, for there is a great distinction between chastisement and condemnation.
QUESTIONS
1. Where does this lesson begin, and what two things does it treat?
2. What does head mean, and what is the significance in each case of the head of the woman and the head of Christ?
3. Can you quote Robertson as to the application of large principles?
4. What was the particular offense of these women?
5. Give the three-fold argument against their conduct.
6. Define and describe the divisions referred to in the second case.
7. What does each of the following expressions mean: unworthy, guilty of the body and blood; damnation; not discerning, etc.?
8. What two things does Paul discriminate in this lesson?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
The apostle had in the foregoing chapters, by many cogent arguments, exhorted the Corinthians to deny themselves the lawful use of their Christian liberty, for the benefit of their brethren; to enforce which argument he propounds to them his own example in this verse, Be ye followers of me even as I follow Christ.
Where note, 1. The duty recommended to their practice; namely, to follow their spiritual guide: Be ye followers of me. It is the standing duty of a people whom God honours with the enjoyment of faithful spiritual guides, to follow their faith, and to imitate their exemplary conversation; the graces of all Christians in general, but of the ministers of the gospel in particular, whether living or dead, are patterns set forth to the world for their careful imitation: and for omission herein they must certainly become accountable to God.
Note, 2. With what great modesty and caution, with what restriction and limitation, St. Paul propounds his own example to the Corinthian’s view: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
As if he had said, “If at any time you find me, your spiritual guide, stepping aside, and walking unanswerably to that uniform pattern of holy and humble obedience, which the Lord Jesus set both before you and me, in his own examplary life, be sure you decline my example, and follow not my footsteps.”
Learn hence, That the best of ministers, and the best of men, being but men, our imitation of them must be an universal, but a limited imitation; we must follow pastors, teachers, nay, apostles themselves, no farther than they follow Christ, their infallible Lord and master: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Paul would have the Corinthians follow him as he followed Christ. He was especially referring to his willingness to give up his rights to attempt to save others, just as Christ had been willing to do. Remember, he gave up any wages he may have been due so no one would be hindered in their obedience to the gospel ( 1Co 11:1 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Co 11:1. 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. [In all matters that were indifferent Paul pleased others, rather than himself (1Co 9:19; 1 Cor 9:22; Rom 15:2). He did not needlessly trample upon the prejudices of any, whether in the church or out, and he counseled the Corinthians to follow his example in this, as he himself followed the example of Christ in thus showing mercy and consideration– Rom 15:1-3]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
1 Corinthians Chapter 11
Observe here the way in which the apostle grounded his replies with regard to details on the highest and fundamental principles. This is the manner of Christianity (compare Tit 2:10-14). He introduces God and charity, putting man in connection with God Himself. In that which follows we have also a striking example of this. The subject is a direction for women.
They were not to pray without having their heads covered. To decide this question, simply of what was decent and becoming, the apostle lays open the relationship and the order of the relationship subsisting between the depositories of Gods glory and Himself, [10] and brings in the angels, to whom Christians, as a spectacle set before them, should present that of order according to the mind of God. The head of the woman is the man; that of man is Christ; of Christ, God. This is the order of power, ascending to Him who is supreme. And then, with respect to their relationship to each other, he adds, the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. And as to their relations with other creatures, intelligent and conscious of the order of the ways of God, they were to be covered because of the angels, who are spectators of the ways of God in the dispensation of redemption, and of the effect which this marvellous intervention was to produce. Elsewhere (see note below) it is added, in reference to the history of that which took place, the man was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, transgressed first. Let us add-from the passage we are considering-that, as to creation, the man was not taken from the woman, but the woman from the man. Nevertheless the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord; but all things are of God;-and all this to regulate a question of modesty as to women, when in praying they were before the eyes of others.[11] The result-in that which concerns the details-is that the man was to have his head uncovered, because he represented authority, and in this respect was invested (as to his position) with the glory of God, of whom he was the image. The woman was to have her head covered, as a token that she was subject to the man (her covering being a token of the power to which she was subject). Man however could not do without woman, nor woman without man. Finally the apostle appeals to the order of creation, according to which a womans hair, her glory and ornament, shewed, in contrast with the hair of man, that she was not made to present herself with the boldness of man before all. Given as a veil, her hair shewed that modesty, submission-a covered head that hid itself, as it were, in that submission and in that modesty-was her true position, her distinctive glory. Moreover, if any one contested the point, it was a custom which neither the apostle nor the assemblies allowed.
Observe also here that, however man may have fallen, divine order in creation never loses its value as the expression of the mind of God. Thus also in James, man is said to be created in the image of God. As to his moral condition, he needs (now that he has knowledge of good and of evil) to be born again, created in righteousness and in true holiness, that he may be the image of God as now revealed through Christ; but his position in the world, as the head and centre of all things-which no angel has been-is the idea of God Himself, as well as the position of the woman, the companion of his glory but subject to him; an idea which will be gloriously accomplished in Christ, and with respect to the woman in the assembly; but which is true in itself, being the constituted order of God, and always right as such: for the ordinance of God creates order, although, no doubt, His wisdom and His perfection are displayed in it.
The reader will remark, that this order in creation, as well as that which is established in the counsels of God in respect of the woman, of the man, of Christ, and of God Himself, and the fact that men-at least Christians under redemption-are a spectacle to angels (compare 1Co 4:9), subjects which here I can only indicate, have the highest interest. [12] The apostle afterwards touches upon the subject of their assemblies. In 1Co 11:2 he had praised them; but on this point he could not do so (1Co 11:17). Their assemblies manifested a spirit of division. This division concerned the distinction between the rich and the poor, but, as it seems, gave rise to others: at least others were necessary to make manifest those who were really approved of God. Now these divisions had the character of sects; that is to say, particular opinions divided Christians of the same assembly, of the assembly of God, into schools; they were hostile to each other, although they took the Lords supper together-if indeed it could be said that they took it together. Jealousies that had arisen between the rich and the poor tended to foster the sectarian division. If, I observed, it could be said that they broke bread together; for each one took care to eat his own supper before the others did so, and some were hungry while others took their fill. This was not really eating the Lords supper.
The apostle, guided by the Holy Ghost, seizes the opportunity to declare to them the nature and the import of this ordinance. We may notice here, that the Lord had taught it him by an especial revelation-proof of the interest that belongs to it, [13] and that it is a part of the Lords mind in the entire Christian walk, to which He attaches importance in view of our moral condition, and of the state of our spiritual affections individually, as well as those of the assembly. In the joy of Christian liberty, amid the powerful effects of the presence of the Holy Ghost-of the gifts by which He manifested Himself in the assembly, the Lords death, His broken body, was brought to mind, and, as it were, made present to faith as the basis and foundation of everything. This act of love, this simple and solemn deed, weak and empty in appearance, preserved all its importance. The Lords body had been offered for us! to which the Holy Ghost Himself was to bear witness, and which was to maintain all its importance in the Christians heart, and to be the foundation and centre of the edifice of the assembly. Whatever might be the power that shone forth in the assembly, the heart was brought back to this. The body of the Lord Himself had been offered,[14] the lips of Jesus had claimed our remembrance. This moral equilibrium is very important to saints. Power, and the exercise of gifts do not necessarily act upon the conscience and the heart of those to whom they are committed, nor of those always who enjoy their display. And, although God is present (and when we are in a good state, that is felt), still it is a man who speaks and who acts upon others; he is prominent. In the Lords supper the heart is brought back to a point in which it is entirely dependent, in which man is nothing, in which Christ and His love are everything, in which the heart is exercised, and the conscience remembers that it has needed cleansing, and that it has been cleansed by the work of Christ-that we depend absolutely on this grace. The affections also are in the fullest exercise. It is important to remember this. The consequences that followed forgetfulness of the import of this ordinance confirmed its importance and the Lords earnest desire that they should take heed to it. The apostle is going to speak of the power of the Holy Ghost manifested in His gifts, and of the regulations necessary to maintain order and provide for edification where they were exercised in the assembly; but, before doing so, he places the Lords supper as the moral centre, the object of the assembly. Let us remark some of the thoughts of the Spirit in connection with this ordinance.
First, He links the affections with it in the strongest way. It was the same night on which Jesus was betrayed that He left this memorial of His sufferings and of His love. As the paschal lamb brought to mind the deliverance which the sacrifice offered in Egypt had procured for Israel, thus the Lords supper called to mind the sacrifice of Christ. He is in the glory, the Spirit is given; but they were to remember Him. His offered body was the object before their hearts in this memorial. Take notice of this word Remember. It is not a Christ as He now exists, it is not the realisation of what He is: that is not a remembrance-His body is now glorified. It is a remembrance of what He was on the cross. It is a body slain, and blood shed, not a glorified body. It is remembered, though, by those who are now united to Him in the glory into which He is entered. As risen and associated with Him in glory, they look back to that blessed work of love, and His love in it which gave them a place there. They drink also of the cup in remembrance of Him. In a word, it is Christ looked at as dead: there is not such a Christ now.
It is the remembrance of Christ Himself. It is that which attaches to Himself, it is not only the value of His sacrifice, but attachment to Himself, the remembrance of Himself. The apostle then shews us, if it is a dead Christ, who it is that died. Impossible to find two words, the bringing together of which has so important a meaning, The death of the Lord. How many things are comprised in that He who is called the Lord had died! What love! what purposes! what efficacy! what results! The Lord Himself gave Himself up for us. We celebrate His death. At the same time, it is the end of Gods relations with the world on the ground of mans responsibility, except the judgment. This death has broken every link-has proved the impossibility of any. We shew forth this death until the rejected Lord shall return, to establish new bonds of association by receiving us to Himself to have part in them. It is this which we proclaim in the ordinance when we keep it. Besides this, it is in itself a declaration that the blood on which the new covenant is founded has been already shed; it was established in this blood. I do not go beyond that which the passage presents; the object of the Spirit of God here, is to set before us, not the efficacy of the death of Christ, but that which attaches the heart to Him in remembering His death, and the meaning of the ordinance itself. It is a dead, betrayed Christ whom we remember. The offered body was, as it were, before their eyes at this supper. The shed blood of the Saviour claimed the affections of their heart for Him. They were guilty of despising these precious things, if they took part in the supper unworthily. The Lord Himself fixed our thoughts there in this ordinance, and in the most affecting way, at the very moment of His betrayal.
But if Christ attracted the heart thus to fix its attention there, discipline was also solemnly exercised in connection with this ordinance. If they despised the broken body and the blood of the Lord by taking part in it lightly, chastisement was inflicted. Many had become sick and weak, and many had fallen asleep, that is, had died. It is not the being worthy to partake that is spoken of, but the partaking in an unworthy manner. Every Christian, unless some sin had excluded him, was worthy to partake because he was a Christian. But a Christian might come to it without judging himself, or appreciating as he ought that which the supper brought to his mind, and which Christ had connected with it. He did not discern the Lords body; and he did not discern, did not judge, the evil in himself. God cannot leave us thus careless. If the believer judges himself, the Lord will not judge him; if we do not judge ourselves, the Lord judges; but when the Christian is judged, he is chastened of the Lord that he may not be condemned with the world. It is the government of God in the hands of the Lord who judges His own house: an important and too much forgotten truth. No doubt the result of all is according to the counsels of God, who displays in it all His wisdom, His patience, and the righteousness of His ways; but this government is real. He desires the good of His people in the end; but He will have holiness, a heart whose condition answers to that which He has revealed (and He has revealed Himself), a walk which is its expression. The normal state of a Christian is communion, according to the power of that which has been revealed. Is there failure in this-communion is lost, and with it the power to glorify God, a power found nowhere else. But if one judges oneself, there is restoration: the heart being cleansed from the evil by judging it, communion is restored. If one does not judge oneself, God must interpose and correct and cleanse us by discipline-discipline which may even be unto death (see Job 33:1-33, Job 36:1-33; 1Jn 5:16;Jam 5:14-15).
There are yet one or two remarks to be made. To judge oneself, is not the same word as to be judged of the Lord. It is the same that is used in chapter 11:29, discerning the Lords body. Thus, what we have to do is not only to judge an evil committed, it is to discern ones condition, as it is manifested in the light-even as God Himself is in the light-by walking in it. This prevents our falling into evil either in act or thought. But if we have fallen, it is not enough to judge the action; it is ourselves we must judge, and the state of heart, the tendency, the neglect, which occasioned our falling into the evil-in a word, that which is not communion with God or that which hinders it. It was thus theLord dealt with Peter. He did not reproach him for his fault, He judged its root.
Moreover the assembly ought to have power to discern these things. God acts in this way, as we have seen in Job; but the saints have the mind of Christ by the Spirit of Christ, and ought to discern their own condition.
The foundation and centre of all this, is the position in which we stand towards Christ in the Lords supper, as the visible centre of communion and the expression of His death; in which sin, all sin, is judged. Now we are in connection with this holy judgment of sin as our portion. We cannot mingle the death of Christ with sin. It is, as to its nature and efficacy, of which the full result will in the end be manifested, the total putting away of sin. It is the divine negation of sin. He died to sin, and that in love to us. It is the absolute holiness of God made sensible and expressed to us in that which took place with regard to sin. It is absolute devotedness to God for His glory in this respect. To bring sin or carelessness into it, is to profane the death of Christ, who died rather than allow sin to subsist before God. We cannot be condemned with the world, because He has died and has put away sin for us; but to bring sin to that which represents this very death in which He suffered for sin is a thing which cannot be borne. God vindicates that which is due to the holiness and the love of a Christ who gave up His life to put away sin. One cannot say, I will not go to the table; that is, I will accept the sin and give up the confession of the value of that death. We examine ourselves, and we go; we re-establish the rights of His death in our conscience-for all is pardoned and expiated as to guilt, and we go to acknowledge these rights as the proof of infinite grace.
The world is condemned. Sin in the Christian is judged, it escapes neither the eye nor the judgment of God. He never permits it; He cleanses the believer from it by chastening him, although He does not condemn, because Christ has borne his sins, and been made sin for him. The death of Christ forms then the centre of communion in the assembly, and the touchstone of conscience, and that, with respect to the assembly, in the Lords supper.
Footnotes for 1 Corinthians Chapter 11
10: In 1Ti 2:11-15 the moral effect of the circumstances of the fall is introduced, as giving the woman her true place in the assembly with regard to man.
11: We are not as yet come to the order in the assembly. That commences with1 Corinthians 11:17.
12: The first chapter of Genesis gives us man in his place in creation as from God the Creator; the second, his own relationship with Jehovah God, where he was placed in connection with Him, and the womans with himself.
13: This connects itself too with the fact that it is the expression of the unity of the body-truth specially committed to the apostle. On the other hand, he was not sent to baptise. That was mere admission to the house already formed, and to which the apostle had been admitted like others.
14: I do not say broken, the best MSS. omitting it; but it is the memorial of Christ slain, and His precious blood poured out.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
1. Be ye imitators of me as I am of Christ. Not even an apostle enjoyed a right to human leadership, only so far as he was in harmony with Christ. Hence the utter futility and glaring preposterosity of all human leadership. All we can do is to walk in the footprints of Jesus, and shout aloud:
Follow me as I follow the Lord. The clergy men in the fallen churches have in all ages sought to lead the people, and demanded their obedience. Entire sanctification saves us all from human leadership. Hence it has been antagonized by the ruling clergy, who have usurped the prerogative of the Holy Ghost and constituted themselves leaders in all ages.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
1Co 11:2. Keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. The apostle mentions these twice to the Thessalonians, and nearly in the same words. 2Th 2:15; 2Th 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.
1Co 11:3. The head of every man is Christ. He rose to be Lord both of the living and the dead. Rom 14:9. The head of the woman is the man: thy desire shall be to thy husband. Gen 3:16. And the head of Christ is God, as the Father, and fountain of deity. Joh 5:19-20. Christ in his humiliation was the servant of rulers, Isa 49:7; and was made a little lower than the angels. Psa 8:6. Heb 2:7; Heb 2:9. But now he has no head, except the Father, who is in himself all in all.
1Co 11:4. 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. NEID. 4:509.
1Co 11:7. 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 Stephens, 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.
1Co 11:9. 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.
1Co 11:10. 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. Psa 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.
1Co 11:13-16. 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 1Co 11:19 to have been the case at Corinth, and which produced disorders that invoked divine correction.
1Co 11:19. 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 Act 24:14.
1Co 11:23. 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. Gal 1:12.
1Co 11:27. 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.
1Co 11:28. 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.
1Co 11:29. He eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Erasmus reads , 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.
REFLECTIONS.
Corinth contained a great church composed of various nations, many of them but imperfectly washed from gentile pollutions, and still much perplexed with gentile customs. St. Paul having retrenched and regulated their intercourse with the idolaters, proceeds next to enforce decency of devotion. In a city where fornication was so rife, the veil worn by women was peculiarly essential. This veil was a sign of modesty. Gen 24:65, Gen 38:14. It was a gift to our mother Eve, in the fine tresses of her hair; and the want of a veil to this day in oriental nations is regarded as an indication of immodesty. Even the men among the jews veiled their heads in devotion, a custom which St. Paul disapproved, for man was made in the image of God. The woman was created also in the image of God, but yet of mans substance, and placed second in the family; hence she is taught to reverence her husband. She ought to be veiled also because of the holy angels who crowd religious assemblies, to promote reverence and devotion in the audience: and Sarah was reproved for unseasonable laughter in presence of the angels who visited her tent.
The wise and holy apostle, desiring to withdraw the saints from pagan feasts, sets before them the hallowed ordinance of the Lords supper. This ordinance is distinguished in importance, being made the subject of a new revelation. He received the particulars of its order and administration from the Lord. It was a final pledge of the Saviours love before his passion, and equally so of his second coming. Let us improve such occasions with the sincerest piety: and may the idea that Christ has taken us from the dunghill, and allowed us to feast with the family of heaven, break our hearts with contrition.
Let our faith be lively; and not as certain licentious professors, who eat without distinguishing and discerning the Lords body. Oh what glories may we see in his person, what mysteries in his redemption, and what consolations in his love! While we participate of the sacred symbols, the water is all changed to wine. Our sins are all forgiven, and the joys of remission flow with eternal life in the heart. In this ordinance we renew our covenant with the Lord; yes, and with the blood of that covenant, as our Saviour said concerning the wine. Then every covenant blessing is ours. The heart of stone is removed, the law of kindness is restored, we are received into the household of faith, and sit in heavenly places. The bread that we break is the body of the Lord, and all the members of his church have a mutual participation of all the fruits of his passion and death. Hence the feast is celestial and divine. God cheers his people with earnests and foretastes of future felicity. We eat the bread of angels, and have fellowship with the family above. Hence tears are congealed to gems of joy, and prayer is changed to praise. Our blessed Lord introduced at this feast all kinds of consolatory discourse and talk of heaven, closing the sacred scene with a hymn. Hence this supper is called by the Greeks the holy eucharist, because of the praises and hymns of thanksgiving which are then offered to God. Thus heaven opens on earth in the souls of the faithful. The Redeemer conveys to his friends the seals and pledges of everlasting love; and they travel, like Elijah, in the strength of that meat to the mount of God.
Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. Sincerity is the grand requisite in the guests. The Master of the feast says, Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden. He came to bind up the broken hearted, and to comfort all that mourn; to give them the oil of joy for mourning, and the garments of praise for the spirit of heaviness. Come, tender and contrite souls, and do not fear the condemnation threatened to apostates, who crucified the Lord afresh, and put him to an open shame. These, and not you, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1. From the meal in the idols temple Paul passes to the question as it arose in daily life. He repeats that while all might be lawful all was not expedient (1Co 6:12) or tended to edify. Each must study his brothers interest rather than his own. What was exposed for sale in the meat market might be freely bought without question as to its antecedents, for it belonged to God. If they accepted a heathens invitation (Paul does not encourage them to do so), they should similarly eat without question. But if anyone volunteers the information that certain food has been offered in sacrifice, they should abstain. Perhaps the weak brother is the informer, though he would not be likely to accept the invitation or be in a position to make this definite statement. It may quite well be a heathen, possibly the host who would best know the origin of the meat. If so, he saves his Christian guest from violating his principles. He assumes that he will have a conscientious objection to such food. The Christian may really have no such scruples, and could, therefore, take the meat freely. But the heathen would inevitably regard him as untrue to his convictions and playing fast and loose with religion. And this will prejudice him against Christianity, but it may also blunt his own conscience to see conscience thus apparently flouted. Anothers conscience must not be made the measure of ones own, nor can one be censured for eating food over which thanks has been pronounced. All must be done to Gods glory without placing a hindrance before the Jews, heathen, or Christians, just as Paul seeks the profit of others for their salvation, so they should make him their pattern, as he makes Christ his own.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Chapters 11 to 14 no longer consider the question of testimony or conduct as before the world, but rather the conduct, order, unity that is becoming in the Assembly, the body of Christ. Yet this is introduced, not with direct reference to the gathering of the Assembly (which begins with verse 17), but with the basic truths of God’s order in creation. For if this first and lower is ignored, then how can the higher be rightly kept’?
But verse 1 preserves the continuity from chapter 10. As Paul followed Christ in his self-sacrificing devotion to the glory of God, so he exhorts saints to follow him; not to be tinder his domination, but to follow his example. And he commends them for keeping him in such remembrance as to keep the instructions he had given them, no doubt as to their assembly character. He is glad to give such commendation first, though correction was necessary in some things.
They must be reminded that the head of every man is Christ. Adam had this place, but through sin has forfeited it. Now Christ, since He is Creator, coming as Man into His own creation, is rightly given the place of “Firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15-16). He is the One Man who can be trusted as Head of every man. “And the head of the woman is the man.” This has been true from the time God created them; and 1Ti 2:14 adds to this the fact that “the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” But beside this, “the head of Christ is God.” It’ we should resent being in subjection to a “head,” let us consider well that Christ who is Himself “equal with God,” has come down in grace to take the Servant’s place, in lowly subjection to the supreme will of God. This being true, is it difficult for a believer to gladly accept the place God gives in subjection to whatever headship God has established? These fundamental principles the apostle lays down as basic to that which follows. Too frequently there are those who quarrel with the following conclusions because they have not properly considered the basics, which are so deeply important and precious.
The man in praying or prophesying with his head covered, dishonors his head, that is, he dishonors Christ, outwardly. His own physical head is typical of Christ, and Christ is to be manifested, not covered. Let the man express this. On the other hand, if a woman prays or prophesies without a head covering, she dishonors her head, that is, she outwardly dishonors the man. How does she do this? By virtually putting the man in the place of Christ! For her head is typical of the man, who should not be manifested, but covered. It is not he himself who should be uncovered, but his head. The man himself should be covered, but his head uncovered. The woman should not only herself be covered, but her head covered also because it is typical of the man.
For if the woman’s head is not covered, it is the same as if she were shaven. For it is in the very nature of things that God has given her long hair, to indicate the fact of her subjection to the headship of man; and if she refuses to use a covering to acknowledge this on her own part, then why not also reject God’s testimony to her subjection by shaving her head? But of course it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. Then let her be covered. Surely it is no burdensome bondage for a woman who loves the Lord to simply put on a head covering at times of prayer or prophesying.
Verse 7 indicates that the important matter is that God’s glory should be manifested, not the glory of the man. Man is said here to be “God’s image and glory,” that is, that he represents God who is in fact revealed in the Person of Christ. “But the woman is the glory of the man;” and this glory is not that to be displayed: indeed it is her very glory to be in lowly subjection that seeks no public place.
For in creation the woman was made from the man, not the reverse; and she was created for the man. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that God ordered it so, and nothing can change it. And for this reason the woman ought to have on her head that which signifies her subjection to authority. It is interesting too that angels are introduced as being concerned witnesses of this. They are also members of God’s creation, having their own distinct place, – neither male nor female, – but interested to observe how God’s order is carried out on earth. This emphasizes for us the fact that there is a unity in God’s creation such as should encourage our walking in thorough harmony with its overall order.
Some have objected that since, “In Christ Jesus” “there is neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28), then these things may now be ignored, but this is merely using one side of the truth as a denial of the other. “In Christ” we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies, and our position also is in the heavenlies; but by the very fact of our still being on earth we have a decided connection with the first creation, and cannot ignore its order without serious consequences. Such objectors would in effect tell us that God ought not to have included this chapter (and many others) in His Word! Indeed,
they have no proper discernment of either side of the truth.
Verses 11 and 12 show however, that the man and the woman are the complement of one another: it is not that the man is a dictator and the woman a slave: each is necessary in his or her place for the maintenance of the human race. If the woman came from man in the beginning, yet ever since then the man has been “by the woman.” “But all things of God.” His wisdom and work is supreme in every aspect of creation.
Verses 13 and 14 make an appeal to the believer’s sense of propriety. One’s own proper discernment should lead to the conclusion that a woman ought not to pray to God uncovered. Even nature teaches that if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him, but it is a glory to a woman to have long hair. It is true that many ignore this evident voice of nature; but there is no excuse for a Christian to do so. In many areas custom has dulled this sense of propriety, but faith should certainly restore its keen edge.
Some would argue that since a woman’s hair is given her for a covering, there is no need of any other covering, but this assumption ignores the force of the entire passage. The apostle is rather showing that, since God has on His part given her the covering of long hair to indicate her place of subjection, then on her part she is to acquiesce in this, by using a covering on her head.
But the Spirit of God has anticipated the fact that in this matter some would be contentious; and the subject is decidedly closed by the declaration that the apostles had no such custom of being contentious. God has spoken: they had declared the truth of God: they will not descend to the level of merely arguing over it. And the assemblies of God are not to be in any wise contentious either; but to obey the Word of God.
Verse 17 now begins the subject of order in the actual gathering of the assembly. This is local, of course, but is to be the expression locally of the unity of the entire body of Christ. Corinth was faulty as to this matter. Paul could not commend them in their coming together, for their very gathering was a detriment to unity, rather than a help. Did they come together only to show that they were divided? In the breaking of bread particularly this was a serious shame; for the loaf itself symbolizes the unity of the entire one body of Christ, as we have seen in chapter 10:17.
Verse 19 shows that heresies (or sects) would inevitably arise among saints because of our own sinful natures, just as in Mat 18:7, “It must needs be that offences come.” The “sects” here are differing shades of opinion based upon a one-sided view of the truth. Certainly we have no excuse for these, but they will arise. But if so, then will this not make manifest those who do not take part in such sectarian contention, but seek honourably the unity of saints by a well balanced view and presentation of the truth? Today of course, men have justified their sects by separations into innumerable denominations. Yet even then they will denounce the sectarian spirit of others who do not fraternize with them! But an avowed sectarian position is far worse than a sectarian attitude. Still, we want neither the one nor the other, nor sectarian action either. Both sectarian practice and a sectarian attitude are strongly reproved here. If this had been heeded by the church generally, then sectarian separations would not have developed, with their denominational distinctions. And if these are justified, then it is impossible to avoid sectarian practice; for in this case one takes the adamant position that evil is good.
The Corinthians are told that, though they came together with the purpose of eating the Lord’s supper, they were not really doing so at all. Some were eating before others, and independently: one remained hungry, another drinking to excess. There was evidently a so-called “love-feast” held in connection with the breaking of bread; and instead of giving the Lord’s supper a place distinctly apart, with all engaging unitedly; apparently in the very place of gathering, they were broken into groups in their eating and drinking. It was an aggravated case, but yet illustrates the attitude that may too easily infect any of the people of God. But if they wanted to eat and drink independently of others in the assembly could they not do this in their homes? They were despising the Church of God, and shaming others less privileged than themselves.
The Lord’s supper is a most sacred institution, and shown here to have first importance of all the gatherings of the assembly. Paul had personally received from the Lord the truth concerning it, as a special revelation for the sake of the Assembly. Other apostles still living had been present, as Paul had not, at the actual institution of the supper; but Paul did not simply consult them: the Lord Himself had given him this, for he had been chosen as special minister to the Church. Others had been sent to baptize: he had not: the breaking of bread was to him a much more vital and important matter. The solemnity, the stark reality, the tender feeling that pervades the atmosphere of the Lord’s institution of the supper, is in this account intended to affect the believing heart in such a way as to both thank and adore the Lord Jesus, and to do so in purest unity with the Assembly, which is His body.
It is not that, when we so gather, we can stir up feelings of worship within ourselves, but that we are simply to remember Him. And essentially we remember Him as the One come from the eternal glory He had with the Father, down to the suffering and agony of Calvary, the dreadful death of the curse of God. The bread and the cup, separate from each other, emphasize this solemnly. And what child of God can reflect on this without his soul being drawn out in thankful worship? Yet it is not said we remember His death, but we remember Him, and we announce His death. Every such occasion is a fresh, public announcement, for every observer, angels or men, of the blessed death of our Lord. But if it is He Himself who so draws the heart, this cannot but produce both worship and unity on the part of those gathered.
It is not to be practiced without the fellowship of the assembly. Some have conceived the thought of having the Lord’s supper independently of the assembly on any occasion that may arise, but this is wrong. If one of the saints were for some time sick or incapacitated, there is surely no objection to others of the assembly going to have breaking of bread with him, so long as this is in full fellowship with the assembly, with all of the assembly welcome to be present, if they so desired, and were able. But our chapter reproves all independent practice in the Lord’s supper.
In verse 27 it is the manner of eating – eating and drinking unworthily – that is so serious. A selfish, inconsiderate attitude that ignored other beloved saints of God, was insulting to the body and blood of the Lord: the offender is said to be “guilty.” It is not here a question of one being personally unworthy, but of the way he acts at the Lord’s supper. Each one in the assembly, therefore, is called upon to judge himself (for this is the force of the word “examine”), and in this spirit of self-judgment to eat. He is not told to examine himself to find whether he should eat or not, but after judging himself, to eat. This is of course one already in the assembly, not someone coming from outside.
For if one eats in a selfish, independent manner, he eats and drinks judgment to himself, “not discerning the Lord’s body.” This was a reason in Corinth for the Lord’s chastening hand upon them, many being weak and sickly, and many also taken away by death. God would not allow a matter of this kind to be treated lightly. If they would judge themselves, then He would not have judged them in this way. But when the necessity was there, the Lord would chasten because they were His own, and not leave this to the time when He will condemn the world.
When they are told, then, to “tarry one for another,” the force of this is evident. There is to be such dependence upon the Lord that this makes for an interdependence among the saints, a true consideration of each other. We must guard against pressing ourselves forward, yet also against leaving responsibility entirely to others. If it was the physical appetite that needed satisfying, this was to be done at home, so that mere selfish desires would not enter into the sacred feast of the Lord. These things at least they must correct, and other things Paul would set in order when he came.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 1
Two subjects are considered in this chapter, both of which, it would appear, had been referred to the apostle in the letter from the Corinthian church. The first (1 Corinthians 11:3-16) relates to the demeanor of females in the meetings of the church, and the second (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) to the mode of celebrating the Lord’s supper.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 10:33 to 1Co 11:1. Paul’s own example, as in 1Co 8:13, supporting his advice. This example received irresistible force in 1 Corinthians 9, which expounded and justified the principle which found expression in 1Co 8:13.
In all things: as in 1Co 9:25.
Please all men: not an end but a means, viz. that they may be saved. Cp. Rom 15:2. Else it would be unworthy: Gal 1:10; 1Th 2:4. But, to seek men’s favor in order to save them and only thus far, is one of the noblest acts of service to God.
I please all: not actually; but noting, according to the use of the Greek present tense, a course of action tending in the direction. So Rom 2:4; Gal 5:4; 2Co 5:19; Gal 1:13.
Not seeking etc.: as in 1Co 10:24.
That they may be saved: the final object Paul has in view in seeking the profit of the many. He wishes to save them: and, in view of so worthy and so serious an object, he gives up all thought of personal advantage and seeks only their good.
Imitators: as in 1Co 4:16.
As I also of Christ. Therefore, in following his example, they are walking in the steps of Christ. Cp. Rom 15:3.
Paul s advice about the IDOL-SACRIFICES (1Co 8:1) is now complete, He warns his readers in 18 to abstain from all contact with idolatry; and, especially, not to sanction by their presence idolatrous feasts. Such sanction helps forward the work of demons: and any pleasure resulting therefrom is a cup presented by demons. Yet there is no inherent defilement in meat offered to idols; and therefore ( 19) no need to inquire about the previous history of meat sold in the market or placed on the table of a heathen friend. Nevertheless, in the presence of one who conscientiously and openly disapproves of eating meat offered to idols, Paul advises his readers to abstain from it, lest their example inflict spiritual injury upon him. He does not find it needful to mention the case of meat which they may casually learn to have been offered to idols. For his whole argument implies that there is no sufficient reason for abstaining from it.
Notice that Paul disregards utterly the apostolic decree of Act 15:23 ff, which he himself apparently assented to and in his second missionary journey (which first brought him to Corinth) distributed to the churches, and which enjoined abstinence from idol-sacrifices as one of the necessary things. For even the advice of 1Co 10:28 referred, not to his readers’ conscience, but (1Co 10:29) to that of the weak brother who gave the information. This disregard cannot be accounted for by a change of circumstances, making expedient a change of practice in so short a time. It rather points to an advance of knowledge in the mind of the apostle, to a firmer grasp of (e.g. Mar 7:18) the teaching of Christ. This does not lessen the authority of the apostles as unanimous witnesses of the teaching of Christ. But it warns us to be careful in accepting, as binding for all time, the letter of their advice in matters of small detail. The contrast of Rev 2:20 is a difficulty which I can neither dissemble nor solve. It refers, however, to specific erroneous teaching, known to the readers but not to us, and perhaps to such an eating as directly sanctioned idolatry.
Section 19 teaches that our conduct must often be limited, not only by what we think, but by what those around us think, to be right. Else we may lead them to do what their conscience condemns, and thus inflict upon them serious injury. By thus refraining for their good, we are bearing their burdens and fulfilling (Gal 6:2; Rom 15:1) the law of Christ.
REVIEW OF DIV. IV. Paul might have passed at once from 14 to 18. Indeed 15-17, like 3, 4, and 12, seem to interrupt the matter in hand. But, in reality, they immensely increase the force of the advice which follows them. From matters of detail Paul rises to broad principles, that he may bring the principles to bear with accumulated force on the matters of detail. He thus makes passing details a pattern of the application of great abiding principles.
In 14 Paul bids his readers consider the effect upon others of their own conduct. This advice he supports by expounding in 15 his rights in the Gospel, and in 16 his cheerful surrender of them to save men; that, by the example of his own self-denial, an example well known to his readers, he may drive away by very shame all hesitation to submit to a trifling limitation in a matter so trifling as food rather than expose to risk of destruction those who are already brethren in Christ. Their confident but false security, Paul puts to shame by saying that this unlimited self-sacrifice is needful for his own salvation; and supports the warning herein implied by the example in 17 of those who fell in the wilderness for conduct exactly analogous to that of the Corinthians. And for this conduct there is no excuse: for God ever provides a way of escape. The destruction of the Israelites in the wilderness gives great force to Paul’s specific warning in 18 against all contact with idolatry, especially all participation in idolatrous feasts. At the beginning of 19 he reasserts the great principle of which his own conduct (1 Corinthians 9) is so conspicuous an example; and then gives specific advice based on this principle about food eaten in private houses. He concludes DIV. IV. by reasserting the same all-important principle, as embodied in his own example and in that of Christ.
The principles exemplified in DIV. IV. have abiding and infinite value.
Now, as then, there are in the church differences of opinion about right and wrong: and there are many weak brethren. If we resolve to do whatever we think to be allowable, and to claim our rights to the full, we shall lose opportunities of doing men good and inflict actual injury, shall lose the spiritual progress which immediately follows all self-denial for the good of others, and imperil our own salvation.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
1 Corinthians 11.
Chapters 11 to 14 contain instruction of the deepest importance to the people of God throughout the Christian period, inasmuch as they contemplate believers when gathered together in one place in any locality, and set before us God’s order for such gatherings.
Amidst the confusion of Christendom, in which God’s order has been so largely set aside by human order, it is the greatest mercy that we have an inspired record of God’s mind for His people when come together. In our refusing all association with any form of gathering which sets aside God’s order, it is still possible, by following the apostolic directions, to meet in humble obedience to God’s word, and thus according to the simplicity of divine order.
A reference to 1Co 11:17-18; 1Co 11:20; 1Co 11:33-34 and 1Co 14:23; 1Co 14:26; 1Co 14:28; 1Co 14:34-35 will make it very clear that these chapters contemplate the people of God when assembled together in any given locality.
First, in 1Co 11:1-16 we are instructed as to God’s order in creation as a necessary introduction to God’s order in the assembly.
Secondly, in 1Co 11:17-34 we learn that the Lord Himself is the great rallying centre for His people, and that the highest motive that can gather God’s people together is the remembrance of Himself in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. We are instructed as to the condition and conduct suited to this holy occasion.
Thirdly, in 1 Cor. 12 we are instructed as to the sovereign action of the Holy Spirit in distributing gifts in the body of Christ, to every man severally as He will, and that our gathering together is governed by the great fact that believers are members of the body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the power for all ministry.
Fourthly, in 1 Cor. 13 we learn that the spirit which animates the body of Christ is love, the spring of all true ministry.
Fifthly, in 1 Cor. 14 we are instructed as to the exercise of ministry in the assembly, so that all may be in love, to edification, and according to divine order.
Following upon the instructions in the early part of the Epistle that guide us as to our individual conduct, we have instructions as to God’s order in creation to set us in right relations with one another as men and women, thus preparing us to take our place rightly in relation to one another in the assembly.
(V. 2). According to the grace that delights to recognise all that is of God in the saints, the apostle opens this fresh division of the Epistle with a word of praise. While there was so much in the assembly to condemn, the apostle can at least praise them that in all their questions they remembered him, and kept the ordinances, or directions, delivered to them.
(V. 3). With this word of approval the apostle passes on to give directions which would imply that another grave disorder existed among believers at Corinth. Women were apparently getting out of their true place of subjection, while men were yielding their place of authority.
To correct this disorder the apostle takes a way often adopted in Scripture to settle questions. In order to learn the principles involved in any question or difficulty, we are taken back to the first occasion of the principles being set forth. Here, a question having arisen as to the relative position of men and women, we are taken back to the order first established in creation. It is true that in Christ – in the new creation – there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female. In the old creation, as in the assembly, these distinctions still exist. Christianity, however great the common privileges it confers, does not set aside the order of creation, and, while in these mortal bodies in a scene where these differences exist, the Christian is responsible to observe this order.
The apostle asserts, as the first great truth in connection with creation, that the Head of every man is Christ. Here there is no reference to the Headship of Christ in relation to the church. It asserts that Christ, having become a Man and entered the scene of creation, necessarily takes the place of pre-eminence and authority over man. Moreover, the head of the woman is the man; and the Head of Christ is God. This latter assertion does not in anywise detract from the Deity of the Son. It is no question in this passage of Christ’s place in the Godhead, but of the place He has taken in creation. This, then, is the simple and beautiful order of creation. The head of the woman is man; the Head of man is Christ; and the Head of Christ is God.
The source of all the lawlessness, disorder and consequent misery in this present world can be traced to the fall, when the woman was beguiled from her place of subjection to the man, and man failed in his place of authority over woman. In the creation order both the man and the woman have failed; but Christ has come into the creation scene, and with Him there is, and can be, no failure. From beginning to end of His wonderful path He was the perfectly subject Man, ever doing the will of God, even to death. While the failure of man has filled the scene with lawlessness and misery, the perfection of Christ will bring order and blessing to those who submit to Him as Head, and at last will introduce the new heavens and the new earth when God will be all in all.
In the Christian circle the blessing of the creation order should be enjoyed. If the woman were in subjection to the man, and the man were exercising right authority over the woman, as himself subject to Christ, the One Who, as Man, is perfectly subject to God, there would be order instead of confusion, and dependence upon each another instead of lawlessness.
(Vv. 4-6). The apostle proceeds to show the bearing of this creation order upon Christian men and women. He refers to the exercise of prayer and prophecy, in which, on the one hand, we speak to God on behalf of ourselves or others, and, on the other hand, we speak to men on behalf of God. In connection with praying or prophesying he speaks of the woman’s head being covered as a sign of subjection, and the man’s head uncovered as a sign of authority. If the man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours himself, for he professes to go to God in prayer for others, or to speak to men as from God, and at the same time he abandons the place of authority that God has given him. Under such circumstances can he wonder if neither God nor man will listen to him? As to the woman, if she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she professes to express her place of dependence upon God, or to come from God, and at the same time she is abandoning the place of subjection in which God has placed her. In either case they have dishonoured themselves, for every one out of his place is dishonoured before God. The uncovered woman is practically taking the place of a man who has his head shaven. The fact that it is a shame for a woman to have her head shaven should in itself teach her to be covered.
(V. 7). The apostle then gives us the reason for the creation order. Man was set in the creation to exercise dominion as the representative of God on the earth, and, as such, it was his responsibility to maintain authority. In carrying out his responsibility he would glorify God. The woman, in keeping her place of subjection, would be for the glory of the man.
(Vv. 8-10). The apostle reminds us that the woman was of the man and for the man. For this cause the woman should wear on her head that which is the sign that there is authority over her, so that there should be a testimony rendered, not only before men, but before the angels who are the interested spectators of God’s order in creation, as well as the wisdom of His ways in the church. (See 1Co 4:9; Eph 3:10.)
(Vv. 11, 12). Nevertheless, this question of authority and subjection in the creation order by no means weakens the fact that the man and the woman are dependent upon each another, a mutual dependence, however, that is to be taken up in the Lord. In the world men and women are throwing off their allegiance to God, and therefore increasingly seeking to be independent of one another. In Christianity we are brought back to dependence upon the Lord, and therefore upon one another, and to recognise that all things are of God. How can we be independent of the One from Whom we have our origin?
(Vv. 13-15). The apostle, having asserted the creation order, now appeals to nature, therein to learn what is comely. Inasmuch as, in her long hair, the woman has a natural covering, nature indicates her place of subjection, and tells us that a hidden woman is a beautiful woman, while a woman who cuts off her hair and apes the man is held in contempt by all. Even so, the man with long hair brings shame upon himself.
(V. 16). Finally, the apostle can appeal to custom. If any man is contentious, he is alone in a judgment that is contrary to the custom of the assemblies of God. Thus even custom, when no principle is concerned, can be invoked for the maintenance of order. Contempt of custom may indicate, as another has said, neither conscience nor spirituality, but a fleshly love of differing from others, and at bottom sheer vanity.
The apostle has thus spoken of what is true in creation (verses 3-10), of what is right in the Lord (verses 11, 12), of what is comely according to nature (verses 13-15), and what is allowed according to custom (verse 16), in order to show the true position of men and women in relation to one another.
In the portion that follows, the apostle passes on to speak of the maintenance of God’s order when the people of God come together in assembly, for which the creation order has prepared us.
(V. 17). Alas, such grave disorder existed in the assembly at Corinth that the feast of remembrance, which should have been for their blessing, had become the occasion for bringing the governmental dealings of God upon them. Their coming together was not for the better, but for the worse.
(Vv. 18, 19). First, the coming together in assembly, instead of expressing their unity, as members of the one body, as set forth in the one loaf, only manifested the spirit of division that existed among them. There were divisions (or schisms) amongst them, which were leading to heresies (or sects) being formed in the assembly. The two words are distinct, conveying different ideas. The division, or schism (Gk. schisma), is a difference of opinion, thought and feeling existing within the assembly. A heresy (Gk. hairesis) is a sect, or party, formed among the saints to maintain a particular opinion, or to follow a chosen teacher. At Corinth both apparently existed within the assembly; but division or schism within, if unjudged, will soon lead to a heresy or sect without, or even the entire breaking up of the assembly into different sects. The condition of the assembly had apparently become so bad that God had allowed these divisions to work out into sects or parties, in order to make manifest those who stood for the truth, here called the approved. The evil had reached such a pass that there was no other way of maintaining a witness for the truth. It was necessary to allow the evil to declare itself, so that the truth might be made manifest. (Compare Tit 3:10, where the heretic is to be rejected.)
(Vv. 20-22). When they came together, it was professedly to eat the Lord’s Supper; practically it was to indulge in a feast of their own. The apostle says, Each one in eating takes his own supper. The Supper was instituted by the Lord at the end of the paschal feast. The Corinthians, apparently taking this as their example, came together for a preliminary social feast, at the end of which they partook of the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, at this preliminary feast the poor were allowed to go hungry, while some were drinking to excess. But, apart from these excesses, the assembly was no place for social feasting. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?, asks the apostle; or were they putting to shame the poor, and despising the assembly of God, which embraces rich and poor? For the second time the apostle has to say, I praise you not. That they remembered the apostle and heeded his directions called forth his praise. For their divisions and abuse of the Lord’s Supper he can only condemn them. They introduced into the assembly the social element which led to social distinctions and fleshly indulgence. Their coming together was thus a practical denial both of the Lord’s Supper and the assembly of God.
(V. 23). To correct these scandals, the apostle brings forward the truth of the Supper as instituted by the Lord and revealed to him. It has been pointed out that the apostle had no special revelation as to baptism, which is an individual matter. With the Supper are found all the great truths connected with the one body that were specially given to Paul to make known. Although the Supper was given to the Twelve, it was not from them that Paul received his knowledge, but by special revelation from the Lord to be delivered to the Gentile believers. The apostle reminds us of the touching circumstances under which the Lord instituted the Supper. It was the same night in which He was betrayed. The very night on which the evil of man rose to its height the unselfish love of Christ was most blessedly displayed. When lust led to the betrayal, love instituted the Supper.
(Vv. 24, 25). No mystery surrounds this feast such as men delight to import into it. All is simplicity. It is the simple, but touching, memorial of the death of Christ. The bread speaks of His body – Himself. The cup speaks of His blood – His work. The symbols of the body and the blood are separate, speaking of a dead Christ. Both the bread and the cup were to be taken, said the Lord, in remembrance of Me. This gives the Supper its distinctive character; it is a Supper of remembrance, not a celebration of something existing at the moment, but a remembrance of something in the past. One has said, The Lord’s Supper is to remind us of Christ, of His death; not of our sins, but of our sins remitted and ourselves loved. The cup is the new covenant in Christ’s blood; not the old covenant sealed with the blood of bulls and goats, but the new covenant with all its blessings secured by the blood of Christ, a covenant that makes God known in grace, and in which sins are remembered no more.
(V. 26). In eating and drinking we show the Lord’s death till He come, words which rebuke those who from any cause argue for its disuse. The feast is never to be set aside until He comes.
(V. 27). Having reminded the brethren of the true character of the Supper, the apostle returns to the scandals that existed in their midst, and warns them against partaking of the Supper in an unworthy manner. They were eating unworthily inasmuch as they were taking the Supper without judging their ways, and without discerning that of which the bread and the cup speak – the Lord’s body and blood. They did not discern between an ordinary meal and that which was a memorial of the Lord’s body given for us and His blood shed for us.
(Vv. 28, 29). To correct their unworthy ways, the apostle exhorts that each one should prove himself, and so let him eat. The proving, or self-judgment, of everything inconsistent with the death of Christ, is an individual act. Having proved himself, he is not to refrain from the Supper; on the contrary, the word is, let him eat. We are thus warned against partaking in an unworthy manner. In this verse the word Lord should be omitted. The reference is probably to the one body of which all Christians are members, while in verse 27 the Lord’s actual body is in view. We must remember that the disorders at Corinth were setting aside both the Lord’s Supper and the assembly (verses 20, 22).
(Vv. 30-32). The disorders existing among the Corinthian believers had brought the chastening hand of the Lord upon the assembly. As the direct outcome of this chastening, many were weak and sickly, and many slept. They were removed by death from the assembly on earth. This leads the apostle to assert the important principle that if we judged ourselves we should not be judged. It is not only our ways that we need to judge, but also ourselves – the secret motives, thoughts, affections that form the condition of soul. Refusing to judge ourselves, we come under the chastening of the Lord. Even so, it is grace that chastens us in the present, rather than condemns us as sinners with the world in the future.
In the course of the Epistle there is a solemn progress in the warnings of the apostle. In 1 Cor. 8 we are warned against wounding the consciences of our brethren, and thus sinning against Christ (verse 12). In 1 Cor. 9 we are warned to keep under the body lest, having preached to others, we are ourselves rejected (verse 27). In 1 Cor. 10 the warning is to take heed lest we provoke the Lord to jealousy (verse 22). It is a solemn thing to ignore the consciences of one’s brethren; it may be a fatal thing to provoke the Lord to jealousy. So some found at Corinth, for in 1 Cor. 11 we read that the Lord, being provoked to jealousy, acts for His own glory, with the result that many were removed by death.
(Vv. 33, 34). It is a solemn consideration that many of the grave disorders at Corinth have no existence in Christendom today, not because God’s order is followed, but because Christendom has entirely altered the true character of the Supper and introduced an order of man’s devising. At Corinth there were scandalous abuses in the actual partaking of the Supper; nevertheless, they had not lost its meaning or changed its character. Christendom has indeed removed some of the gross abuses, but it has lost the true meaning of that to which the abuses were attached. Bad as was the Corinthian evil, that of Christendom is far worse. It has turned the Supper of remembrance into a means of grace. The feast, of which the Lord could say, This do in remembrance of Me, is partaken in the hope of receiving some blessing for self. The Supper that ministers to His heart is made the occasion for seeking grace for our souls. Worse still, the Supper of remembrance for the saints has been turned into an ordinance of salvation for sinners.
Moreover, while Christendom has sought to correct the unworthy way of partaking of the Supper, it admits to it unworthy people. The national churches cannot exclude from the Supper the unregenerate parishioner. The world is open to partake with the true believer. Further, not only has Christendom entirely altered the character of the Supper, but it has introduced its own order in the observance of it. In general none but a humanly authorised official can administer the Supper. It is striking that in the Epistle, which above all others speaks of God’s order for the assembly, there is no mention of deacons, elders or bishops. In the very chapter that deals with gross irregularities there is no suggestion of correcting them by the appointment of an official to administer the Supper. The true character of the Supper is given, the right condition of the soul is insisted upon, but, in the administration of it, all is left to the free and unrestrained guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the chapter that follows we are instructed as to this manifestation of the Spirit in the assembly.
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
CHAPTER 11
SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER
The Apostle proceeds to deal with the third point put before him, that of the veiling of women; for the Corinthians had asked of S. Paul whether or no women ought to be veiled. He replies that they ought, and especially at the time of public prayer, and he supports his decision by five reasons. (I.) that womanly honour and modesty demand it (vers. 5 and 14); (2.) that they are subject to men (vers. 7 et seq.); (3.) that if they go forth with uncovered head they offend the angels (ver. 10); (4.) that nature has given them hair for a )covering (ver. 15); (5.) that this is the custom of the Church (ver. 16).
The second part of the chapter (ver. 17) treats of the Eucharist, and in this he censures as an abuse that in the agape, or common meal, the rich excluded the poor, and sat apart by themselves, giving themselves to self-indulgence and drunkenness. Then (ver. 23) he gives an account of the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and declares the guilt and punishment of those who approach unworthily, and bids each one examine himself before he approach to it.
Ver. 1.-Be ye followers of me, even as also I am of Christ. This is a continuation of the preceding chapter. Imitate me, 0 Corinthians, in that, as I said, I do not seek my own advantage but that of many, that they may be saved; and in this I imitate the zeal of Christ, who sought not His own good but our salvation, and to gain it descended from heaven to earth, took our flesh, toiled, and gave Himself to the death of the Cross.
Ver. 2.-Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things. He here passes on and paves the way for a fresh question. In the following verses he proceeds to censure the abuses of the Corinthians in suffering their women to go unveiled, and in approaching the Eucharist when full of wine and mutual discords, and according to his custom he softens his rebuke that the Corinthians may take it the more readily and kindly, in the same way that physicians sugar their pills. He says, therefore, “I praise you that ye remember me in all things,” which, as Erasmus says, means “that ye keep in memory all my things,” or, as Euthymius says, “that ye are mindful of everything that belongs to me” Supply “precepts, teachings, or exhortations” after “all.” All these precepts, &c., must be understood with some limitation, and must mean that most of them were kept by the better sort of the Corinthians, for in other parts of this Epistle he censures some faults of the Corinthians, and especially in this chapter their abuse of the Eucharist, as a departure from the ordinance of Christ and His own precepts.
As I delivered them to you.-The Greek gives, when translated literally, as even Beza admits, “Ye keep the traditions as I delivered them to you.” Hence, since these traditions were not committed to writing by the Apostles, for no previous letter to the Corinthians containing a record of them is extant, it plainly follows that not everything which concerns faith and morals has been written down in Holy Scripture, and that S. Paul and the other Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth. This is even more clearly stated in vers. 23 and 34. It is evident, moreover, from the fact that before that had been written which S. Paul here writes about the Eucharist, &c, the Corinthians were bound to obey the precepts respecting them given by Christ and S. Paul, as he says himself in ver. 23. The law preserved in tradition binds equally with the written law. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others.
Ver. 3.–But I would have you know, that . . . the head of Christ is God. S. Paul here lays the foundation for his precepts about the veiling of women. We must bear in mind that the Corinthian women were greatly given, not only to lust, but also to the worship of Venus, so much so that a thousand maidens were every day exposed as prostitutes at her temple and in her honour. (Cf. notes to chap. vi. at the end.) Moreover, they thought this to be to their own honour and an act of piety, and they hoped to conciliate the goddess in this way to bestow upon them and their daughters, or to continue to them, a happy marriage. They were consequently wanton, and forward to attract lovers by exposing their features and displaying their form; and this was regarded at Corinth as a custom honourable, becoming and elegant, and Christian women thought that they ought to retain the custom of their fathers. Some of the Corinthians whose minds were of a higher cast advised S. Paul of this fact, and put to him the question whether it was lawful or becoming, for Christian women to go about with uncovered head, and especially in the Church. Paul replies that it is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins here to give his reasons. The first is that the woman is subject to the man as her head, therefore she ought to be veiled; again, man is subject to God as His image, and therefore he is not to be veiled. In vers. 7 and 10 he proves both conclusions.
Head here has the meaning of lord, superior, or ruler. So God, as being of a higher nature, is the head and ruler of Christ as man; while Christ, as being of the same nature with the Church, is her Head, and that, as S. Thomas says, in four ways: (1.) by reason of conformity of nature with other men, for Christ as man is the Head of the Church; (2.) by reason of the perfection of His graces; (3.) by reason of His exaltation above every creature; (4.) by reason of His power over all, and especially over the Church. So the man, S. Thomas says, is head of the woman in four ways: (1.) He is more perfect than the woman, not only physically, inasmuch as woman is but man with a difference, but also in regard to mental vigour, according to Ecc 7:28: “One man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.” (2.) Man is naturally superior to woman, according to Eph 5:22-23: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife.” (3.) The man has power to govern the woman, according to Gen 3:16: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (4.) The man and the woman enjoy conformity of nature, according to Gen 2:18: “I will make him an help meet for him.”
Vers. 4 and 5.–Every man praying, &c. This is the second reason: It is disgraceful for a man to be veiled, and, therefore, the honour, freedom, and manliness of man require that he veil not his head, but leave it free and unconstrained. On the other hand, it is disgraceful for a woman not to be veiled, for womanly honour and modesty require a woman to veil her head; therefore the woman ought to be veiled, the man ought not. The phrase, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth,” does not use “prophesieth” in its strict, and proper meaning of uttering a prophecy or an exposition, but in the improper sense of singing hymns or psalms to the praise of God. For S. Paul is here speaking of the public assembly, in which he does not allow a woman to speak or to teach, but only to sing her part well when the whole congregation sings. Prophet means singer in 1Ch 25:1, and in 1Sa 10:10. So Saul is said to have been among the prophets, that is among the singers of praises to God. So in the Books of Kings those are called prophets who served God with praises.
Some explain “that prophesieth” to mean “that hears prophecy;” but “prophecy” has never this passive meaning. Moreover, the Apostle here means any woman, whether unmarried, virgin, married, or unchaste. He bids all alike to go veiled. So Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 4 and 5) lays down, and adds that the Corinthians understood this to be S. Paul’s meaning, for up to that time, he says, they follow S., Paul’s injunction, and veil their wives and daughters.
Ver. 6.–For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn. For here is not causal, but an emphatic continuative. It is as disgraceful for a woman to have her head uncovered as to have her hair cut short or cut off. Heretics infer from this that it is wrong for religious virgins to be shorn; but I deny that it follows; for the Apostle is speaking in general of women living in the world, especially of married women, who are seen in public in the temple: he is not speaking of religious who have left the world. These latter rightly despoil themselves of their hair, to show (i.) that they contemn all the pomp of the world, (2.) that they have no husband but Christ. This was the custom at the time of S. Jerome, as he says (Ep. 48 ad Sabin.). The Nazarites did the same (Num. vi. 5).
It may be urged that the Council of Gangra (can. 17) forbids virgins to be shorn under pretext of religion. I reply from Sozomen (lib. iii. c. 13) that this canon does not refer to religious, but to heretical women, who left their husbands and against their will cut off their hair, in the name of religion, and donned man’s dress.
It is these that the Council excommunicates, as Baronius rightly points out (Annals, vol. iv.). Add to this that religious virgins wear a sacred veil instead of their hair.
It should be noticed that, although Theodosius (Codex Theod. lib. 27, de Epis. et Cler.) forbade virgins to be shorn in the West, that is to say, younger women not living within the walls of a monastery, but wishing to profess a religious life of chastity in the world, his reason was to prevent scandal, which would be caused if, as sometimes was the case, they happened to fall away into the ordinary secular life. This actually happened in the very same year that this law was passed by Theodosius, as Baronius has well pointed out (Annals, A.D. 390). Sozomen, too (lib. vii. c. 26), gives the same reason for its being passed. A young matron at Constantinople, and of noble birth, and a deaconness, had been, it would seem, seduced by a deacon; and when, according to custom, by the order of her confessor she was making a public confession of certain sins, she proceeded to confess also this sin of fornication to the great scandal of the people; and because of this Nectarius abolished public confession and the office of public penitentiary. Still it has ever been the common practice of the Church that virgins, when taking vows of religion, should be shorn. S. Jerome (Ep. 48) says that in Egypt and Syria women who had dedicated themselves to God were accustomed to cut off their hair. He says: “It is the custom of the monasteries in Egypt and Syria, that both virgin and widow who have vowed themselves to God, and have renounced and trodden underfoot all the delights of the world, should offer their hair to be cut off, and afterwards live, not with head uncovered, which, is forbidden by the Apostle, but with their heads both tied round and veiled.” Palladius (in Lausiaca) is our authority for saying that the Tabeunesiot, an order of sacred virgins founded by S. Pachomius in obedience to the command of an angel, did the same. Moreover, S. Basil (in Reg. Monach.) prescribes, that at the very beginning of the monastic life the head should be shaven, for he says that this well becomes him who is mourning for his sins.
Ver. 7.-For a man indeed ought two to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. This is a hendiadys, for man is the image of the glory of God, or the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shine forth most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were God’s vicegerent, ruling everything This is the major of a syllogism of which the minor is: but the glory of God must be manifested, the glory of man hidden. Therefore, since woman is the glory of the man, the man of God, it follows that woman should be veiled, that the man should not. S. Anicetus (Ep. ad. Episc. Galli) takes this verse of the Apostle chiefly of men in the ranks of the clergy, and of priests in particular, who, in obedience to S. Paul, ought not only to have their heads uncovered, but also a tonsure in the shape of a crown, as S. Peter had (Bede, Hist. Ang. lib. v. c. 23, and Greg. of Tours, de Glor. Conf. c. xxvii.), to represent Christ’s crown of thorns and the contumely endured by S. Peter and his fellow Apostles, from which they expect a crown of glory in the heavens.
It should be remarked that in the Old Testament the high-priest offered sacrifices with bare feet and covered head, i.e., wearing his mitre (Exod. xxviii. 37), but in the New Testament the priests offer the sacrifice of the Mass with their feet shod and with uncovered head. Epiphanius says (Hres. 8o) that, in the New Testament, Christ, who is our Head, is conspicuous and manifest to us, but was veiled and hidden from the Jews in the Old Law. However, the Apostle is evidently referring here to all men in general, not to the clergy only.
It is not contrary to this precept of the Apostle for our priests, when they celebrate, to use the amice among the other vestments, for they do not cover the head with it while sacrificing, but only use it round the opening in the chasuble (Rupert, de Div. Off. lib. i. c. 10). The amice is not used, then, to cover the head, but to represent the ephod of the high-priest under the Old Law, as Alcuin and Rabanus say, or to signify the veil with which the Jews bound the eyes of Christ (S. Mat 26:67). Cf. Dom. Soto, lib. iv. dist. 13, qu. 2, art. 4, and Hugh Vict. de Sacr. lib. ii. c. 4.
But S. Paul wishes to abolish the heathen custom, first instituted, say Plutarch and Servius, by neas, of sacrificing and making supplication to their gods with veiled head. Tertullian (in Apol.) remarked this distinction between Christians and heathen, and Varro (de Ling. Lat. lib. iv.) records that the Roman women, when sacrificing, had their heads veiled in the same way.
But the woman is the glory of the man. Woman was made of man to his glory, as his workmanship and image; therefore she is subject to him, and should be veiled, in token of her subordination.
The woman, that is the wife, is the glory of the man, his glorious image, because God formed Eve out of the man, in his likeness, so that the image might represent the man, as a copy the model. This image is seen in the mind and reason, inasmuch as the woman, like the man, is endowed with a rational soul, with intellect, will, memory, liberty, and is, equally with the man, capable of every degree of wisdom, grace, and glory. The woman, therefore, is the image of the man, but only improperly; for the woman, as regards the rational soul, is man’s equal, and both man and woman have been made in the image of God; but the woman was made from the man, after him, and is inferior to him, and created like him merely. Hence the Apostle does not say that “the woman is the image of the man,” but only “the woman is the glory of the man.” The reason is no doubt the one that Salmeron has pointed out, that woman is a notable ornament of man, as given to him for a means to propagate children and govern his family, and as the material over which he may exercise his jurisdiction and dominion. For man’s dominion not only extends to inanimate things and brute animals, but also to rational beings, viz., to women and wives.
Vers. 8, 9.–For the man is not of the woman . . . but the woman for the man. By two reasons he proves that the woman is the glory of man as her head-(1.) that woman is of later date than man, produced from him, and consequently man is the source and principle from which woman sprang. (2.) She was created to be a help to the man, the sharer of his life, and the mother of his children. As, then, man is the beginning from which, so is he the end for which woman was made. Hence the woman is the glory of the man, and not vice vers.
Ver. 10-For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. There is no good authority for reading “veil” instead of “power,” as some do. We should observe: (1.) Power denotes here the authority, right, or rule of the man over the woman, not of the woman herself. The reference is to Gen. iii. 16. (2.) Power, by metonymy, signifies here the symbol of the man’s power, the veil which the woman wears on her head to signify her subjection to her husband’s power, and to denote that the man, as it were, is enthroned upon and holds dominion over her head. Power here, then, is used with an active meaning with regard to the man, with a passive in regard to the woman; for a veil is worn by one who reverences the power of another. As a bare and unconstrained head is a sign of power and dominion, so when veiled it is a sign that this power of his is as it were veiled, fettered, and subdued to another. Hence Tertullian (de Cor. Mil, c. xiv.) calls this covering worn by women, “The burden of their humility,” and (de Vel. Virg. c. xvii.) “their yoke.” S. Chrysostom calls it “The sign of subjection;” the Council of Gangra (sess. xvii.), “The memorial of subjection.” (3.) From this covering it was that, by the Latins, women are said nubere, that is, caput obnubere, when they pass into the power of a husband. On the other hand, in the case of a man, a cap was the badge of the freedman, as Livy says at the end of lib. 45. Hence slaves who were to be enrolled as liable to military service, were said to be called “to the cap,” that is, to liberty.
Because of the angels. 1. The literal sense is that women ought to have a covering on the head out of reverence to the angels; not because angels have a body, and can be provoked to lust, as Justin, Clement, and Tertullian thought-this is an error I exposed in the notes to Gen. vi.-but because angels are witnesses of the honest modesty or the immodesty of women, as also of their obedience or disobedience. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, S. Thomas, Anselm.
2. Clement (Hypotypos, lib. ii.) understands by “angels,” good and holy men.
3. Ambrose, Anselm, and S. Thomas take it to mean priests and Bishops, who, in Rev. ii., are called angels, and who might be provoked to lust by the beauty of women with uncovered heads. Hence Clement of Alexandria (Pd. lib. ii. c. 10) thinks that this bids them cover, not merely their heads, but also their forehead and face, as we see the more honourable do in church. But the first meaning is the most literal and pertinent.
This reverence that is due to the angels is the third reason given by S. Paul why women should cover their heads. It is especially to be shown in church, for angels fill the church, and take notice of the gestures, prayers, and dress of every one present. Hear what S. Nilus relates happened to his master, S. Chrysostom, not once or twice (Ep. ad Anast.). He says: “John, the most reverend priest of the Church at Constantinople, and the light of the whole world, a man of great discernment, saw almost always the house of the Lord filled with a great company of angels, and especially whilst he was offering the holy and unbloody sacrifice; and it was soon after this that he, full of amazement and joy, related what he had seen to his chief friends. ‘When the priest had begun,’ he said, ‘the most holy sacrifice, many of these Powers immediately descended, clad in the most beautiful robes, barefooted, and with rapt look, and with great reverence silently prostrated themselves around the altar, until the dread mystery was fulfilled. Then they dispersed hither and thither through the whole building, and kept close to the bishops, priests, and deacons, as they distibuted the precious body and blood, doing all they could to help them.'”
S. Chrysostom himself (Hom. de Sac. Mensa) says in amazement: “At the altar cherubim stand; to it descend the seraphim, endowed with six wings and hiding their faces. There the whole host of angels joins the priest in his work of ambassador for you.” S. Ambrose, commenting on the first chapter of S. Luke, speaks of the angel who appeared to Zacharias, and says: “May the angel be present with us as we continually serve at the altar, and bring down the sacrifice; nay, would that he would show himself to our bodily eyes. Doubt not that the angel is present when Christ comes down and is immolated.” S. Gregory (Dial. lib. iv. c 58) says: “Which of the faithful doubts that at the moment of immolation, the heavens are opened at the voice of the priest, that the choirs of angels are present in this mystery of Jesus Christ; that the lowest are joined to the highest, things earthly with divine, that things visible and invisible become one?” S. Dionysius Areopagites (Clest. Hierarch. c. v. and ix.), says that angels of the highest order preside over the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the administration of the sacraments. Tertullian (de Orat. c. xiii.), censuring the custom of sitting during the Mass, says: “If indeed it is a mark of irreverence to sit down under the very eyes of one whom you fear and reverence, how much more impious is it to do so in the sight of the living God, while the angel of prayer is still standing? What else is it but to insult God because we are tired of praying?” John Moschus (in Prato Spir. c. 50) relates that a Roumelian Bishop, when celebrating Mass in the presence of Pope Agapitus, suddenly stopped, because he did not see as usual the descent of the Holy Spirit; and when the Pope asked him why he stopped, he said, “Remove the deacon from the altar who holds the fly-flap.” When this had been done, the wonted sign was given, and he finished the sacrifice. Metaphrastes (Vit S. Chrys.) says that the same thing happened to S. Chrysostom, through a deacon casting his eyes on a woman.
We should note (1.), that out of modesty and dignified reserve head-coverings were worn in the time before Christ by the women of Juda, Troy, Rome, Arabia, and Sparta. Valerius Maximus (lib. vi. c. .3) relates the severe punishment inflicted by C. Sulpicius on his wife: he divorced her because he had found her out of doors with uncovered head. Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. xiii). says: “The Gentile women of Arabia will rise up and judge us, for they cover, not only the head, but also the whole face, leaving only one eye to serve for both, rather than sell the whole face to every wanton gaze.” And again (de Cor. Milit. c. iv.) he says: “Among the Jewish women, so customary is it to wear a head-covering that they may be known by it.” As to the Spartan women, Plutarch (Apophth. Lacon.) records that it was the custom for their maidens to go out in public unveiled, but married women veiled. The reason was that the one might so find husbands, while those who already had husbands might not seek to attract the attention of other men. But, as Clement of Alexandria says (Pdag. lib. ii. c. i. c), that it is a reproach to the Spartans that they wore their dress down to the knee only, so neither are their maidens to be praised for going forth in public with unveiled face, for in that way maiden modesty was lost by being put up for sale.
2. Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. ii.) blames those women who used a thin veil, because it was a provocation to lust rather than a protection to modesty, and was borrowed more from the custom of Gentile women than of believers in Christ. In chapter xii. he calls those women who consulted their mirrors for evidence of their beauty, sellers of their chastity. Moreover, S. Justin, writing to Severus (de Vit Christ.), hints plainly enough that Christians at that time abhorred mirrors. In short, Tertullian wrote a treatise (de Vel. Virg.) on this very point, to prove that all women, married or unmarried, religious or secular, should be veiled, any custom to the contrary notwithstanding, because so the Apostle enjoins. The Corinthians he says, (cap. 4), so understood S. Paul, and up to that time kept their maidens veiled. Moreover, the reasons given by the Apostle apply to all women alike, so that any breach of the precept ought to be censured and corrected. In some places, e.g., maidens go abroad with the head wholly uncovered, to show their beauty and attract a husband, when all that they really do is to peril the chastity of themselves and others, and to expose themselves daily to the wiles of panders, and hence we see and hear of so many shipwrecks to chastity.
Let, then, a maiden be veiled, and go abroad covered, lest she see herself what she ought not, or others be too much attracted by her features. For those who have ruined themselves, or slain others through the eye, are not to be numbered, and therefore the greatest watch should be kept over the eyes. Hence Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 15), says: “Every public display of a maiden is a violation of her chastity,” no doubt meaning that any one who walks about freely with roving eyes and exposed face, to see and be seen, is easily robbed of the purity of her mind. This very want of control is an index that the mind is not sufficiently chaste. Hence Tertullian goes on to say: “Put on the armour of shame, throw around thee the rampart of modesty, raise a wall about thy sex which will suffer neither thy eyes to go out nor those of others to come in.”
3. The head-dress of sacred virgins formerly consisted of a bridal-veil, of which Tertullian (de Vel. Virg. c. 15) says: “Pure virginity is ever timid, and flies from the sight of men, flees for protection to its head-covering as its helmet against the attacks of temptation, the darts of scandal, against suspicions and back-bitings.” He adds that it was usual to solemnly bless these veils, whence the virgins were said to be wedded to God. Innocent I. (ad Victric. Ep. ii. c. 12) says too: “These virgins are united to Christ in spiritual wedlock, and are veiled by priests.” These virgins lastly were clad in a dark-coloured dress, and covered with a long cloak. On the other hand Lucian, (Philopater) thus satirises the first dress of Christian men: “A sorry cloak, bare head, hair cut short, no shoes.” They went then bare-footed, or at all events like the Capuchins, wearing only sandals.
Ver. 11.-Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. This is to be referred to ver. 9, not to the words immediately preceding, which by some Bibles are rightly put in a parenthesis. Having said, in ver. 9, that the woman was created for the man, the Apostle, lest he might seem to have given to men an occasion for pride, to women of indignation, here softens the force of it by adding that in marriage neither can man be without woman, nor woman without man. Each needs the other’s help, and that “in the Lord,” that is, by the will and disposition of the Lord. Cf. S. Ambrose and the following verse.
“In the Lord” may also be understood “in Christ, by Christian truth and law.” The rule of Christian law and of God’s ordinance is that the husband and wife give mutual help, procreate children, and educate them piously. This seems to be a reminder to married people of their duty to each other, and of Christian piety.
Ver. 12.-As the woman is of the man, &c. The first woman, Eve, was formed from, man; man is conceived, formed, born, propagated through woman: all is done, ordered, and disposed by God.
Ver. 14.-Doth not even nature itself teach you? The Latin Version reads, “Neither doth nature itself teach you,” i.e., Nature doth not teach that women should be veiled, but it does teach that if a man grow long hair, it is a disgrace to him; if a woman, it is her glory.
Ver. 15.-But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her. To let the hair grow long is contrary to what becomes man, is the mark of a weak and effeminate mind, unless it is done because of ill-health or intense cold. Hence S. Augustine reproves some monks who wore their hair down to their shoulders, to gain the appearance and reputation of holiness (de 0p. Monach.). Again, it seems fitting for a man to pray with uncovered head, for a woman with covered, as the Apostle has proved here. The woman ought, therefore, to let her hair grow long, but not the man, for her hair was given her for her covering.
Take note, however, that it is not absolutely enjoined, either by natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law, that a woman should let her hair grow long and man should not. Hence, as was said in the notes to ver. 6, religious women cut off their hair. On the other hand, the men of some tribes, like the Gauls, used to let their hair grow long for an ornament. Hence we get the name of Gallia Comata. Homer, too, frequently speaks of the “long-haired Achans.” The Romans, also, in ancient times, grew their hair long, and did not apply the scissors till the time of Scipio Africanus. Pliny says (lib. vii. c. 59) that the first barbers came into Italy from Sicily, A.U.C. 454. Lycurgus also enacted that the Lacedmonians should retain their hair. S. Paul, therefore, is not laying down any rule, but merely points to the teaching of nature, that it is fitting for a woman, when she goes out in public, to go with bonnet and veil, but not for a man. Still, he here adopts the decency taught by nature, and wishes the Corinthians to observe it as if it were a precept, hence he adds-
Ver. 16.-But if any man seem to be contentious. To be contentious is to contend for renown and victory, not for truth; and here it is to contend that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in Church, but should be bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen.
Ver. 17.-Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, &c. This is the fourth reason why women should be veiled, drawn from nature itself, which has given woman hair for a covering, to teach her that she ought to cover herself. The Apostle says, “In giving you this precept about the veiling of women, I do not at the same time, praise you for coming together, not for the better but for the worse.” What this means is explained in the next verse.
Ver. 18.-For first of all . . . I hear that there be divisions among you. Observe the word “Church,” which shows that, in the time of S. Paul, there were places set apart for worship. For the early form of churches, their paintings, use of the Cross, the separation of the sexes, &c., see Baronius in his commentary on this verse.
The Apostle here passes from the subject of the veiling of women to correct the abuses of the Corinthians in the Eucharist.
For there must also be heresies among you. Looking at the fickleness, pride, newness in the faith, and quarrelsomeness of the Corinthians, who were saying, “I am of Paul, I of Apollos,” which God permitted to prove them, it was necessary that there should he heresies. So Cajetan, Ambrose, Chrysostom. “Heresies” here denotes the divisions on points of faith and manners, which existed among the Corinthians about the Eucharist, e.g., where they should sit, when the Supper should begin, about the food and drink, about the persons they should sit down with. In the Lord’s Supper and the agap, the rich Corinthians excluded the poor and had their meat by themselves.
That they which are approved may be made manifest among you. In the time of heresy and schism, we see who are built on the foundation of faith and piety, as here amongst the Corinthians was seen the patient constancy of the poor, who were scorned by the rich, and also the modesty and charity of the rich who hated divisions, and invited the poor to their feasts and their agap. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, cumenius.
Ver. 20.-When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. When you come together in this way to the Eucharist and the supper of the Lord, your supper is no longer that of the Lord, as it once was; and your eating is no longer an eating of the Lord’s Supper. You do not institute a supper of the Lord, who admitted to His sober and holy meal all the Apostles, including even Judas, but a supper to Bacchus or Mars; for you come together to get drunk, and to exclude the poor, and so each one fills himself with wine, and the poor with violence. So Anselm, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vatablus, and Erasmus read for “it is not,” “it is not lawful,” i.e., “it is not lawful for you to eat the Lord’s Supper, and for this reason.” But the first meaning is more thorough, more forcible, and better reproves the Corinthians.
Ver. 21.-For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper. (1.) S. Augustine (Ep. 118) understands this to mean that they took their supper before they came to the Eucharist, and that ver. 33 orders them to wait for one another at the supper before the Eucharist; because at the Eucharist itself or after it there was no need of waiting, since it was not celebrated till all had assembled, when the poor would receive it mingled indiscriminately with the rich.
We must remark that, at the time of S. Paul, in imitation of Christ, who, after the common meal on the Passover lamb, instituted the Eucharist, the Christians instituted before the Eucharist a meal common to all, rich and poor alike, in token of their mutual Christian charity. This custom lasted in some Churches for several centuries. As late as the time of Sozomen, as he relates (Hist.lib. vii. c. 29), it was the custom in many towns and villages of Egypt, first to take a meal in common, and then, following Christ’s example, celebrate and partake of the Holy Eucharist. The Third Council of Carthage (can. 29) points to the same custom as prevailing in several other Churches. The Apostle does not here censure this custom wherever or whenever it was allowed, but only the abuse of it by those who got drunk in this supper, and allowed others who were poor to go hungry. Hence he says, “0ne is hungry and another is drunken;” and again he says, that a man will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord who eats unworthily, i.e., in the mortal sin of drunkenness and contempt of the poor. He therefore, in ver. 33, bids them wait for one another when they eat the Lord’s Supper. He speaks, therefore, of the assembly which took place before, not after the Eucharist.
2. Others, however, think that “the supper taken before” is the agape after the Eucharist. In the primitive Church, in imitation of Christ, the richer members were in the habit of spreading a feast for rich and poor alike after the Holy Communion, in token of love, whence it was called the “agape;” but as charity grew cold and the number of the faithful increased, the practice became abused; for the rich would spread their own table sumptuously, even getting intoxicated, and would sit apart by themselves, the poor being excluded or not expected, far less invited, as ver. 33 implies, and it is this that the Apostle here censures. Cf. Chrysostom (Hom. xxiii. Moral.), Tertullian (Apol. 29), and Baronius in loco. It was for this reason that the Council of Laodicea (can. 28) abolished the agape.
But the former explanation seems the better for the reasons given above; for the agape in S. Paul’s time was held, not after but before the Eucharist; although shortly after these early days, when the Church laid down that, out of reverence, the Eucharist should be received fasting only, the agape was kept after the Eucharist, as will be seen by reference to the passages of Tertullian and Chrysostom, quoted above, and to S. Augustine (Ep. 118). By parity of reasoning this passage of S. Paul can be applied to those of the rich who celebrated the agape after the Eucharist; for he censures drunkenness and pride in the agape, whether before or after the Eucharist. Wherefore some Protestants are wrong in twisting this verse into an argument against private Masses, in which the priest alone communicates, merely because no one else wishes to communicate; for others are not excluded, nay, the Church wishes (Council of Trent, sess. xxii. can. 6 and 8) those who hear Mass to communicate. For the Apostle is not referring to this, nor is he speaking of the Eucharist at all, but of the common meal called the agape, as I have shown.
Ver. 22.-What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? &c. Why do you put to shame the poor who have not your wealth, and cannot contribute the delicacies which you can to the common meal? If you wish to feast and enjoy yourselves, do it at home among your equals, not in the church. For if you do it in church you sin in two ways: (1.) because you defile the church by your self-indulgence; (2.) because, by neglecting and despising the poor, you rend the Christian Church, which is common to rich and poor.
Ver. 23.-That which also I delivered unto you. Not by writing, as I said before, but by word of mouth. This is one authority for the traditions which, orthodox divines teach, should be added to the written word of God.
Vers. 23, 24.–That the Lord Jesus the same night, &c. Five actions of Christ are here described: (1.) He took bread; (2.) He gave thanks to the Father; (3.) He blessed the bread, as S. Matthew also says (Mat 26:26); (4.) He brake it; (5.) He gave it to His disciples, and in giving it, He said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” These are the words of one who gives as well as of one who consecrates.
Hence there is no foundation for the argument of Calvin, who says that all these words “took,” “blessed,” “brake,” “gave,” refer to bread only, and that therefore it was bread that the Apostles took and ate, not the body of Christ. My answer is that these words refer to the bread, not as it remained bread, but as it was changed into the body of Christ while being given, by the force of the words of consecration used by Christ. In the same way Christ might have said at Cana of Galilee, “Take, drink; this is wine,” if He had wished by these words to change the water into wine. So we are in the habit of saying, Herod imprisoned, slew, buried, or permitted to be buried, S. John, when what he buried was not what he imprisoned: he imprisoned a man; he buried a corpse. Like this, and consequently just as common, is this way of speaking about the Eucharist, which is used by the Evangelists and S. Paul.
Notice too from Christ’s words, “Take, for this is,” &c. that He seems to have taken one loaf, and in the act of consecration to have broken it into twelve parts, and to have given one part to each Apostle, and that each one seems to have received it into his hand. Hence the custom existed for a long time in the Church of giving the Eucharist into the hands of the faithful, as appears from Tertullian (de Spectac.), from Cyril of Jerusalem (Myst. Catech. 5), from S. Augustine (Serm. 44). Afterwards, however, it was put into the mouth to prevent accidents, and out of reverence.
This is My body. Heretics say that this is a figure of speech, a metonymy, or something of the sort, and that the meaning is, “This is a figure of My body,” “This represents My body.”
But that this is no mere figure of speech is evident (1.) from the emphasis on the word “This,” and from the words, “My body and My blood,” as well as from the whole sentence, which is so clearly expressed that it could not have been put more plainly. Add to this that the words were used on the last day of Christ’s life, at the time that He left His testament, instituted a new and everlasting covenant with His unlettered and beloved disciples, and also instituted this most sublime sacrament, at once a dogma and a Christian mystery, all which things men generally express as they ought to do in the clearest terms possible. Who can believe that the great wisdom and goodness of Christ would have given in His last words an inevitable occasion for false doctrine and never-ending idolatry?-which He surely did if these so clear words, “This is My body,” were meant to be understood merely as a figure of speech. If this is indeed true, then the whole Church, for the last 1500 years, has been living in the most grievous error and idolatry, and that too through Christ’s own words, which Luther thought so clear that he wrote to the men of Argentum: “If Carlstad could have persuaded me that in the sacrament there is nothing but bread and wine, he would have conferred a great kindness upon me; for so I should have been most utterly opposed to the Papacy. But I am held fast: there is no way of escape open; for the text of the Gospel is too apparent and too convincing, its force cannot well be evaded, much less can it be destroyed by words or glosses forged in some brain-sick head.” And Melancthon (ad. Fred. Myconium) says: “If you understand ‘My body’ to mean ‘a figure of My body,’ what difficulty is there that you will not be able to explain away? It will then be easy to transform the whole form of religion.” With Servetus, you will be able to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but three names of the one God, not Three Persons; that Christ took flesh, but only in appearance; that He died and suffered, but only as a phantasm, as the Manichans teach. In short, in this way who will not be able to say that the Gospel is the Gospel, Christ is Christ, God is God figuratively, and so come, as many do, to believe nothing at all? Observe how the Sacramentaries open here a door to atheism. Cardinal Hosius most truly prophesied that heretics would in course of time become atheists, and that the end of all heresy is atheism. When they fall away from Catholic truth into heresy, and find in that nothing fixed, or firm, or durable, what remains for them but to abjure their heretical opinions and believe nothing, and become that of which the Psalmist sings (Psa 14:1), “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God?” Would that we did not daily see the truth of this.
Again, not only Paul, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the institution in the same way and in the same words: “This is My body; this is My blood.” Not one, then, can say it is a figure of speech, or maintain that one explains the other where he is obscure. Erasmus was convinced by this argument, and replied to the attempts of Conrad Pellican to convert him to Zwinglianism: “I have always said that I could never bring my mind to believe that the true body of Christ was not in the Eucharist, especially when the writings of the Evangelists and S. Paul expressly speak of the body as given and of the blood as shed. . . . If you have persuaded yourself that in Holy Communion you receive nothing but bread and wine, I would rather under go all kinds of suffering, and be torn limb from limb, than profess what you do; nor will I suffer you to make me a supporter or associate of your doctrine; and so may it be my portion never to be separated from Christ. Amen.”
2. If in the Eucharist bread remains bread, then the figure of bread has succeeded to the figure of the lamb. Who is there that does not see that it is wrong to say that that can be? The lamb slain under the Old Law was a plainer representation of Christ suffering than the bread in the New Law. Again, the lamb would have been a poor type of the Eucharist if it is, as Calvin says, bread and nothing else. Any one would rather have the lamb, both for itself and as a figure of Christ, than the bread.
3. This is still more evident in the consecration of the cup. “This is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you”-words which are clearest of all in S. Luk 22:20-“This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you.” The relative in this verse undoubtedly refers to “cup.” S. Luke, therefore, says that the cup, or the chalice of the blood of Christ, was poured out for us; therefore, in this chalice there was truly the blood of Christ, so that, when this chalice was drunk from, there was poured out, not wine, which was before consecration, and, as heretics say, remains after consecration also, but the blood of Christ, which was contained in it after consecration; for this is the meaning of “the cup of My blood which is poured out for you.” Otherwise it was a cup of wine, not of blood, that was poured out for us, and Christ would have redeemed us with a cup of wine, which is most absurd. This will still more plainly appear from the next verse. Nor can it be said, as Beza does, that the text is corrupt, for all copies and commentators read it as we do, and always have so read it.
4. All the Evangelists and S. Paul explain what “this body” means by adding, “which is given for you,” or, as S. Paul says, “which is broken for you.” But it was not the figure of the body, but the true body of Christ that was given and “broken for us;” therefore it was the true body of Christ that Christ gave to His Apostles. Moreover, S. Paul says: “Whosoever shall eat this bread . . . unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Therefore there is here really “the body and blood of the Lord,” and he who handles and takes it unworthily does it an injury.
In short, the Greek and Latin Fathers of all ages explain these words of consecration literally. This was how the Church understood them for 1050 years, till the time of Berengarius. He was the first who publicly taught the contrary, being a man untaught indeed, but ambitious of obtaining the name of a new teacher. For J. Scotus and Bertram, who, at an earlier date, held the same views as Berengarius, were but little known, and were at once refuted and silenced by Paschasius Radbert, and others. This opinion of Berengarius was at once opposed as a dogma that had seen light for the first time by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, Guidmund, Alger, and the whole Catholic Church. The error of Berengarius was condemned at a council held at Versailles, under Leo IX., and at another held at Tours, under Victor II., at which Berengarius was present, and being convicted, he at once abjured his heresy, but having relapsed, he was once more convicted in a Roman council of 113 bishops, under Nicholas II., and his books were burnt. Having again lapsed, he condemned his error in a third Roman council, under Gregory VII., and uttered the following confession of faith given by Thomas Wald. (de Sacram. vol. ii. c. 43): “I, Berengarius, believe with my heart and profess with my mouth that the bread and wine are charged into the true and real and lifegiving flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that, after consecration, there is His true body which he took of the Virgin, and that there is the very blood which flowed from His side, not merely by way of sign, but in its natural properties, and in reality of substance.” Would that those who follow Berengarius now in his error would follow him also in his repentance. The heresy of Berengarius has been renewed in the present century by Andrew Carlstadt, who was at once opposed by Luther. Carlstadt was followed by Zwingli, he by Calvin; and yet there is no single article of faith which has such firm support of all the Fathers and of the whole Church as this of the reality of the body of Christ in the Eucharist.
The same truth has been defined in eight General Councils-the First and Second Nicene, the Roman under Nicholas II., the Lateran, those of Vienne, of Constance, Florence, and Trent, as well as by many provincial synods. If any one doubts this, let him read John Garetius, who gives in order the testimonies of the Fathers for sixteen centuries after Christ, and of the Councils of each century, who alike unanimously and clearly confess this truth. He also brings forward the profession of the same faith given by the Churches of Syria, Ethiopia, Armenia, and India. Let him read also Bellarmine (de Eucharisti), who gives and comments on the words of each. Whoever reads them will see that this has been the faith of the Church in all ages, so that Erasmus might well say to Louis Beer: “You will never persuade me that Christ, who is Truth and Love, would so long suffer His beloved bride to remain in so abominable an error as to worship a piece of bread instead of Himself.”
And here appears the art and ingenuity of Zwingli, Calvin, and their friends. They bring forward a new view of the Eucharist, and teach that in it there is not really the body of Christ, but merely a figure of the body. How do they prove it? From the Scriptures. Well, then, let the words be studied, let all the Evangelists be read, let Paul too be read, and let it be said whether they support them or us and the received teaching of the Church. What else do all clearly proclaim but a body, and that a body given for us? What else but blood shed for us? Where here is room for shadow, or figure, or type? But they say these words must be explained figuratively. Admit, then, that the words of Scripture, do not favour you, for you say that the mind of Scripture is to be ascertained elsewhere than from the words of Scripture. How, then, do you prove that these words ought to be explained figuratively? If they are ambiguous, whence is the exposition to be sought? Who is to end the strife save the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth handed down to her from the Fathers? What save the primitive authority of the Fathers, the tradition of our forefathers, and the consent of the first ages of the Church? We quote and allege the Fathers of every century, all our forefathers, the national and General Councils of each century: all take the words of Christ as they stand, and condemn the figurative interpretation. What remains, then, but to follow the plain words of Scripture, and the clear exposition of the Fathers and of the whole Church in all ages? And yet you obstinately adhere to your figurative explanation. What Scripture supports you-whose authority-what reason? You can only say that your heresy has so determined, and that you follow the trumpet of Luther. So I think, so I choose, so I will, so I determine: let my will do instead of reason. This is the only ground you have for all your beliefs.
Melancthon wrote far more truly and more soundly about this (de Ver. Corp. et Sang. Dom.): “If, relying on human reason, you deny that Christ is in the Eucharist, what will your conscience say in time of trial? What reason will it bring forward for departing from the doctrine received in the Church? Then will the words, ‘This is My body,’ be thunderbolts. What will your panic-stricken mind oppose to them? By what words of Scripture, by what promises of God will she fortify herself, and persuade herself that these words must necessarily be taken metaphorically, when the Word of God ought to be listened to before the judgment of reason?” At all events in the hour of death, and in that terrible day when we stand before the tribunal of Christ, to be examined of our life and faith, if Christ ask me, “Why didst thou believe that My body was in the Eucharist?” I can confidently answer, “I believed it, 0 Lord, because Thou saidst it, because Thou didst teach it me. Thou didst not explain Thy words as a figure, nor did I dare to explain them so. The Church took them in their simple meaning, and I took them as the Church did. I was persuaded that this faith and this reverence were due from me to Thy words and to Thy Church.”
If Christ ask the Calvinist, “Why didst thou wrest My words from their proper meaning into a figure of speech?” what answer will he make? “I thought that I must do so, for my reason could not understand how they could or ought to be true.”-“But,” He will reply, “which ought you to have listened to-your reason, which has human infirmity, or My word, which is all-powerful, than which nothing can be truer? Reason dictated to the Gentiles that to believe in Me as God, when born, suffering, and crucified, was folly. Yet you thought and believed that you should believe all this about Me, and you were persuaded of it from the words of Scripture only, which say this simply. Why, then, in this one article of the Eucharist did you presume to interpret what I expressly said, by the rule of your reason, according to the measure of your brain? Why did you not bow to the authoritative exposition of the Church of all ages? Why desire to be wiser than it?” What answer will he give-how excuse himself-whither turn? Let each one think earnestly of this ere it be too late, let him submit himself to God’s word and the Church with humble and loyal obedience, lest he be confounded in that day of the Lord, and receive his lot with the unbelievers in the lake of fire that burneth with fire and brimstone, lest he hear the words of thunder, “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” Nor let him marvel at such a wonderful mystery in the Eucharist, when Christ, throughout His whole life, was wonderful for His mysteries (Isa 9:6) ; and when Isaiah also says of Him (Isa 45:15): “Verily Thou art a God that hidest Thyself, 0 God of Israel, the Saviour.” If an angel should conceal himself under the form of the Host, he would be really there though hidden; you would see, touch, and taste bread only, not an angel; yet you would believe that an angel was hidden beneath it if an angel or a prophet had said so. Why, then, in like manner, do you not believe that Christ is concealed under the Host, when Christ Himself, who cannot lie, says so? For God, who is Almighty, can supernaturally give this mode of existence-spiritual, invisible, indivisible-to the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Let no one then faithlessly say: “How can Christ be in so small a Host?” Let him think that Christ is there, as an angel might be; let him not inquire as to the mode, but embrace instead the wonderful love of Christ, whose delights are with the sons of men, who went about to pass from the world to the Father; as S. John says (Joh 13:1), “having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end;” and of whom says the verse of S. Thomas-
Their meat when sitting at the board;
He died their Ransomer to be;
He ever reigns, their great Reward.”- “By birth their Fellow-man was He,
that by His love He might compel our love in return, that as often as we see and take our part in these mysteries we might think of Him as addressing us in the words: “So Christ gives Himself here wholly to thee; give, nay give again thyself wholly to Him.”
You will perhaps object that the Eucharist is called “bread and fruit of’ the vine,” i.e., wine, in S. Joh 6:57, S. Mat 26:29. I answer that in the account of the institution of the Eucharist it is called bread by no one, if it is elsewhere, and also that “bread” there denotes any kind of food. (See note on x. 17). So wine might signify any kind of drink, as being the common drink among the Jews, as it is now in Spain, Italy, France, and Germany.
But the better answer is that Christ applied the name “fruit of the vine,” not to what was in the Eucharistic chalice, but to that in the cup of the Passover Supper. For, as He said of the lamb (S. Luk 22:16), “I will not eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God,” so of the cup of the lamb, “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come.” For S. Luke plainly makes a distinction, not observed by S. Matthew and S. Mark, between the lamb and the cup of the Passover supper, and relates that Christ spoke of both before the Eucharist (Luk 22:17). Christ simply meant to say that He would not afterwards live with them, or take part in the common supper, as He had hitherto done, because He was going to His death, as Jerome, Theophylact and others say in their comments on the passage.
You may perhaps object, secondly, that the words, “This is My body” are a sacramental mode of speech, and are, therefore, typical and figurative.
But I deny that this follows; for this is a sacramental mode of speech, because, by these words, a true sacrament is worked, viz., because, under the species of bread and wine as the visible signs, there is present the very body of Christ. The words are not sacramental in the sense of being typical or figurative, for sacraments properly speaking signify what they contain and effect. For a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality which it causes and effects, as, e.g., when we say, “I baptize thee,” i.e., “wash thee,” the meaning is not, “I give thee a sign or figure of washing,” but strictly, “By this sacrament I wash thy body, and by this I wash thy soul from the stains of thy sins.” So when we say, “I absolve thee,” “I confirm thee,” “I anoint thee,” there is signified, not a figurative but a real and proper absolution, confirmation, and anointing of the body and soul.
If Christ, therefore, when He said “body,” had meant “figure of My body,” He ought to have explained Himself, and said, “I am speaking, not only sacramentally, but figuratively,” otherwise He would have given to the Apostles and to the whole Church an evident occasion for the most grievous error. The conclusion then has no basis that Christ is in the Eucharist as in a sacrament, that is, figuratively or typically, as the commentary ascribed to S. Ambrose says, in which it is followed by some of the Fathers, and that therefore He is not really there, but only figuratively; the contrary should be inferred. Christ is not, therefore, there figuratively, but truly and properly; for a sacrament signifies what is really present, not what is falsely absent. As, then, the conclusion is valid that where there is smoke there is fire, because smoke is the sign of the presence of fire; and again this body breathes, therefore life is present in it, because breathing is a sign of life, so also it rightly follows that the body of Christ is in the Eucharist as in a Sacrament; therefore, He is really there, because the Sacrament and the sacramental species signify that they as the true sacraments of Christ’s body, truly contain it.
You will object perhaps, thirdly, that Christ said (S. Joh 6:63): “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing;” therefore the flesh of Christ is not present, and is not eaten in the Eucharist.
3. I answer that it cannot be said without impiety that the flesh of Christ, suffering and crucified for us, profits us nothing. Indeed, the very opposite of this is taught by Christ Himself throughout S. Joh 6:35-65. He says in so many words that His flesh greatly profits us. His meaning therefore is, as S. Cyril points out, (1.) that the flesh of Christ has not its quickening power in the Eucharist from itself, but from the Spirit, that is from the Godhead of the Word, to which it is hypostatically united. (2.) That this manducation, as S. Chrysostom says, of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist is not carnal: that we do not press it with our teeth, as we might bull’s flesh, but that we eat it after a spiritual manner, one suited to the nature of spirit, viz., mysteriously sacramentally, invisibly. For you here eat the flesh of Christ in exactly the same way as you would feed on and appropriate the substance of an angel, if he lay concealed in the sacrament. The opposite of this was what was understood by the unspiritual people of Capernaum, and it is against them only that Christ says these words. Hence He proceeds to say: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” In other words, “They are spiritual, and must be understood spiritually: you will not eat My flesh in the carnal sense of being bloody, cut into pieces and chewed, but only in a spiritual way, as though it were a spirit couched invisibly and indivisibly beneath the Blessed Sacrament.” In the same way, “My words are life,” that is full of life, giving life to him that heareth, believeth, and eateth My flesh.
4. You will perhaps again urge that it seems impossible that Christ, being so great, should be in so small a Host and at so many different altars, and that it seems incredible that Christ should be there, subject to the chance of being eaten by mice or vomited, &c.
I reply to the first, “With God all things are possible.” Hence we say, “I believe in God the Father Almighty.” God can do more than a miserable man, nay, more than all the hosts of angels and men can conceive, else He would not be God. Moreover, faith transcends human capacity: these mysteries are matters for faith, not for reason. “Faith,” says S. Augustine (in Joan. Tract. 27 and 40), “is believing what you see not.” And S. Gregory (in Evang. Hom. xxvi.) says: “Faith has no merit where human reason supplies proof.” S. Thomas, therefore, well sings of this sacrament-
Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary
Paul recommended that his readers follow his example of exercising and limiting their Christian liberty, glorifying God, and giving no offense, as well as in other areas of their lives (cf. 1Co 4:16). [Note: See Robert L. Plummer, "Imitation of Paul and the Church’s Missionary Role in 1 Corinthians," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:2 (June 2001):219-35.]
All of chapters 8, 9, and 10, including 1Co 11:1, deal with the subject of the Christian’s relationship to food sacrificed to idols. In summary, Paul forbad going to pagan temples for cultic meals. However, he permitted the eating of marketplace meat under normal circumstances. If something is not sinful it is permissible for the believer, but even so it may be wise to avoid it for the sake of the spiritual welfare of others. The Christian should be willing to limit his or her exercise of his or her Christian liberty because of love for others.
The four principles Paul taught were these. Balance your knowledge with love (ch. 8). Balance your authority with discipline (ch. 9). Balance your experience with caution (1Co 10:1-22). And balance your freedom with responsibility (1Co 10:23-33). [Note: Wiersbe, 1:594.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 16
THE VEIL
AT this point of the Epistle Paul passes from the topics regarding which the Corinthians had requested him to inform them, to make some remarks on the manner in which, as he had heard, they were conducting their meetings for public worship. The next four chapters are occupied with instructions as to what constitutes seemliness and propriety in such meetings. He desires to express in general his satisfaction that on the whole they had adhered to the instructions he had already given them and the arrangements he had himself made while in Corinth. “I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” Yet there are one or two matters which cannot be spoken of in terms of commendation. He heard, in the first place, with surprise and vexation, that not only were women presuming to pray in public and address the assembled Christians, but even laid aside while they did so the characteristic dress of their sex, and spoke, to the scandal of all sober-minded Orientals and Greeks, unveiled. To reform this abuse he at once addresses himself. It is a singular specimen of the strange matters that must have come before Paul for decision when the care of all the Churches lay upon him. And his settlement of it is an admirable illustration of his manner of resolving all practical difficulties by means of principles which are as true and as useful for us today as they were for those primitive Christians who had heard his own voice admonishing them. In treating ethical or practical subjects, Paul is never superficial, never content with a mere rule.
In order to see the import and importance of this matter of dress, we must first of all know how it came to pass that the Christian women should have thought of making a demonstration so unfeminine as to shock the very heathen around them. What was their intention or meaning in doing so? What idea was possessing their minds? Throughout this long and interesting letter, Paul is doing little else than endeavouring to correct the hasty impressions which these new believers were receiving regarding their position as Christians. A great flood of new and vast ideas was suddenly poured in upon their minds; they were taught to look differently on themselves, differently on their neighbours, differently on God, differently on all things. Old things had in their case passed away with a will, and all things had become new. They were made alive from the dead, they were born again, and did not know how far this affected the relationships with this world into which their natural birth had brought them. The facts of the second birth and the new life took such hold upon them that they could not for a time understand how they were yet connected with the old life. So that for some of them Paul had to solve the simplest problems, as, for example, we find that the believing husband was in doubt whether he should live with his wife who remained an unbeliever, for was it not abhorrent to nature that he, the living, should be bound to the dead, that a child of God should remain in the most intimate connection with one who was yet a child of wrath? Was this not a monstrous anomaly, for which prompt divorce was the fit remedy? That such questions as these should be put shows us how difficult these early Christians found it to adjust themselves as children of God to their position in a corrupt, condemned world.
Now one of the ideas in Christianity which was newest to them was the equality of all before God, an idea well calculated to take powerful and absorbing hold of a world half slaves, half masters. The emperor and the slave must equally give account to God. Caesar is not above responsibility; the barbarian who swells his triumph and is afterwards slaughtered in his dungeon or his theatre is not beneath it. Each man and each woman must stand alone before God, and for himself and herself give account of the life received from God. Alongside of this idea came that of the one Saviour for all alike, the common salvation accessible to all on equal terms, and partaking of which all became brethren and on a level, one with Christ and one therefore with each other. There was neither Greek nor barbarian, male nor female, bond nor free, now. These three mighty distinctions that had tyrannised over the ancient world were abolished, for all were one in Christ Jesus. It dawned on the barbarian that though there was no Roman citizenship for him nor any entrance into the mighty commonwealth of Greek literature, he had a citizenship in heaven, was the heir of God, and could command even with his barbaric speech the ear of the Most High. It dawned on the slave as his fetter galled him, or as his soul sank under the sad hopelessness of his life, that he was Gods redeemed, rescued from the bondage of his own evil heart, and superior to all curse, being Gods friend. And it dawned on the woman that she was neither mans toy nor mans slave, a mere luxury or appendage to his establishment, but that she also had herself a soul, a responsibility equally momentous with the mans, and therefore a life to frame for herself. The astonishment with which such ideas must have been received, so subversive of the principles on which heathen society was proceeding, it is impossible now to realise; but we cannot wonder that they should by their fresh power and absorbing novelty have carried the Christians to quite the opposite extreme from those at which they had been living.
In the case before us the women who had been awakened to a sense of their own personal, individual responsibility and their equal right to the highest privileges of men began to think that in all things they should be recognised as the equals of the other sex. They were one with Christ; men could have no higher honour: was it not obvious that they were on an equality with those who had held them so cheap? They had the Holy Ghost dwelling in them; might not they, as well as the men, edify Christian assemblies by uttering the inspirations of the Spirit? They were not dependent on men for their Christian privileges; ought not they to show this by laying aside the veil, which was the acknowledged badge of dependence? This laying aside of the veil was not a mere change of fashion in dress, of which, Of course, Paul would have had nothing to say; it was not a feminine device for showing themselves to better advantage among their fellow worshippers; it was not even, though this also, alas! falls within the range of possible supposition, the immodest boldness and forwardness which are sometimes seen to accompany in both sexes the profession of Christianity; but it was the outward expression and easily read symbol of a great movement on the part of women in assertion of their rights and independence.
The exact meaning of the laying aside of the veil thus becomes plain. It was the part of female attire which could most readily be made the symbol of a change in the views of women regarding their own position. It was the most significant part of the womans dress. Among the Greeks it was the universal custom for the women to appear in public with the head covered, commonly with the corner of their shawl drawn over their head like a hood. Accordingly Paul does not insist on the face being covered, as in Eastern countries, but only the head. This covering of the head could be dispensed with only in places where they were secluded from public view. It was therefore the recognised badge of seclusion; it was the badge which proclaimed that she who wore it was a private, not a public, person, finding her duties at home, not abroad, in one household, not in the city. And a womans whole life and duties ought to lie so much apart from the public eye that both sexes looked upon the veil as the truest and most treasured emblem of womans position. In this seclusion there was of course implied a limitation of womans sphere of action and a subordination to one mans interests instead of to the public. It was the mans place to serve the State or the public, the womans place to serve the man. And so thoroughly was it recognised that the veil was a badge setting forth this private and subordinate position of the woman that it was the one significant rite in marriage that she assumed the veil in token that now her husband was her head, to whom she was prepared to hold herself subordinate. The laying aside the veil was therefore an expression on the part of the Christian women that their being assumed as members of Christs body raised them out of this position of dependence and subordination.
This movement of the Corinthian women towards independence, on the ground that all are one in Christ Jesus, Paul meets by reminding them that personal equality is perfectly consistent with social subordination. It was quite true, as Paul himself had taught them, that, so far as their connection with Christ went, there was no distinction of sex. To the woman, as to the man, the offer of salvation was made directly. It was not through her father or her husband that the woman had to deal with Christ. She came into contact with the living God and united herself to Christ independently of any male representative and on the same footing as her male relatives. There is but one Christ for all, rich and poor, high and low, male and female; and all are received by Him on the same footing, no distinction being made. While then in things civil and social the husband represents the wife, he cannot do so in matters of religion. Here each person must act for himself or herself. And the woman must not confound these two spheres in which she moves, or argue that because she is independent of her husband in the greater, she must also be independent of him in the less. Equality in the one sphere is not inconsistent with subordination in the other. “I would have you know, that. the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
The principle enounced in these words is of incalculable importance and very wide and constant application. Whatever is meant by the natural equality of men, it cannot mean that all are to be in every respect on the same level, and that none are to have authority over others. The application of Pauls principle to the matter in hand alone here concerns us. The woman must recognise that as Christ, though equal with the Father, is subordinate to Him, so is she herself subordinate to her husband or her father. In her private worship she deals with Christ independently; but when she appears in public and social worship, she appears as a woman with certain social relations. Her relation to Christ does not dissolve her relations to society. Rather does it intensify them. The inward change that has passed upon her, and the new relation which she has formed independently of her husband, only strengthen the bond by which she is tied to him. When a boy becomes a Christian, that confirms, and in no degree relaxes, his subordination to his parents. He holds a relation to Christ which they could not form for him, and which they cannot dissolve; but this independence in one matter does not make him independent in everything. A commissioned officer in the army holds his commission from the Crown; but this does not interfere with, but only confirms, his subordination to officers who, like himself, are servants of the Crown, but above him in rank. In order to the harmony of society, there is a gradation of ranks; and social grievances result, not from the existence of social distinctions, but from their abuse.
This gradation then involves Pauls inference that “every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.” The veil being the recognised badge of subordination, when a man appears veiled he would seem to acknowledge some one present and visible at his head, and would thus dishonour Christ, his true Head. A woman, on the other hand, appearing unveiled would seem to say that she acknowledges no visible human head, and thereby dishonours her head-that is, her husband-and so doing, dishonours herself. For a woman to appear unveiled on the streets of Corinth was to proclaim her shame. And so, says Paul, a woman who in public worship discards her veil might as well be shaven. She puts herself on the level of the woman with a shaven head, which both among Jews and Greeks was a brand of disgrace. In the eye of the angels, who, according to the Jewish belief, were present in meetings for worship, the woman is disgraced who does not appear with “power on her head”; that is to say, with the veil by which she silently acknowledges the authority of her husband.
This subordination of the woman to the man belongs not merely to the order of the Christian Church, but has its roots in nature. “Man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Pauls idea is that man was created to represent God and so to glorify Him, to be a visible embodiment of the goodness, and wisdom, and power of the unseen God. Nowhere so clearly or fully as in man can God be seen. Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to exhibit: in actual life the excellences which make God worthy of our love and worship. Looking at man as he actually and broadly is, we may think it a bold saying of Paul when he says, “Man is the glory of God”; and yet on consideration we see that this is no more than the truth. We should not scruple to say of the Man Christ Jesus that He is the glory of God, that in the whole universe of God nothing can more fully reveal the infinite Divine goodness. In Him we see how truly man is Gods image, and how fit a medium human nature is for expressing the Divine. We know of nothing higher than what Christ said, did, and was during the few months He went, about among men. He is the glory of God; and every man in his degree, and according to his fidelity to Christ, is also the glory of God.
This is of course true of woman as well as of man. It is true that woman can exhibit the nature of God and be His glory as well as man. But Paul is placing himself at the point of view of the writer of Genesis and speaking broadly of Gods purpose in creation. And he means that Gods purpose was to express Himself fully and crown all His works by bringing into being a creature made in His image, able to subdue, and rule, and develop all that is in the world. This creature was man, a masculine, resolved, capable creature. And just as it appeals to our sense of fitness that when God became incarnate He should appear as man, and not as woman, so does it appeal to our sense of fitness that it is man, and not woman, who should be thought of as created to be Gods representative on earth. But while man directly, woman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is Gods glory by being mans glory. She serves God by serving man. She exhibits Gods excellences by creating and cherishing excellence in man. Without woman man cannot accomplish aught. The woman is created for the man, because without her he is helpless. “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman.”
But as man becomes actually the glory of God when he perfectly subordinates himself to God with the absolute devotedness of love, so does woman become the glory of man when she upholds and serves man with that perfect devotedness of which woman so constantly shows herself to be capable. It is in winning the self-sacrificing love of man and his entire devotion that Gods glory appears, and mans glory appears in his power to kindle and maintain the devotion of woman. Not in independence of God does man find either his own glory or Gods, and not in independence of man does woman find either her own glory or mans. The desire of woman shall be to her husband; in the honourable devotedness to man which love prompts, woman fulfils the law of her creation; and it is only the imperfect and ignoble woman who has any sense of humiliation, degradation, or limitation of her sphere in following the lead of love for the individual. It is through this honourable service of man she serves God and fulfils the purpose of her existence. The woman who is most womanly will most readily recognise that her function is to be the glory of man, to mould, and elevate, and sustain the individual, to find her joy and her life in the private life, in which the affections are developed, principles formed, and all personal wants provided for. And man, on his part, must say,
“If aught of goodness or of grace
Be mine, hers be the glory.”
For, as a French writer says, “her influence embraces the whole of life. A wife, a mother-two magical words, comprising the sweetest sources of mans felicity! Theirs is the reign of beauty, of love, of reason, always a reign. A man takes counsel with his wife: he obeys his mother: he obeys her long after she has ceased to live, and the ideas he has received from her become principles even stronger than his passions.”
The position assigned to woman as the glory of man is therefore far removed from the view which cynically proclaims her mans mere convenience, whose function it is “to fatten household sinners,” “to suckle fools and chronicle small beer.” Pauls view, though adopted and exhibited in individual instances, is far as yet from commanding universal consent. But certainly nothing so distinguishes, elevates, purities, and balances a man in life as a high esteem for woman. A man shows his manliness chiefly by a true reverence for all women, by a clear recognition of the high service appointed to them by God, and by a tender sympathy with them in all the various endurance their nature and their position demand.
That this is womans normal sphere is indicated even by her unalterable physical characteristics. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” By nature woman is endowed with a symbol of modesty and retirement. The veil, which signifies her devotement to home duties, is merely the artificial continuation of her natural gift of hair. The long hair of the Greek fop or of the English cavalier was accepted by the people as an indication of effeminate and luxurious living. Suitable for women, it is unsuitable for men; such is the instinctive judgment. And nature, speaking through this visible sign of the womans hair, tells her that her place is in private, not in public, in the home, not in the city or the camp, in the attitude of free and loving subordination, not in the seat of authority and rule. In other respects also the physical constitution of woman points to a similar conclusion. Her shorter stature and slighter frame, her higher pitch of voice, her more graceful form and movement, indicate that she is intended for the gentler ministries of home life rather than for the rough work of the world. And similar indications are found in her mental peculiarities. She has the gifts which fit her for influencing individuals; man has those qualities which enable him to deal with things, with abstract thought, or with persons in the mass. Quicker in perception and trusting more to her intuitions, woman sees at a glance what man is sure of only after a process of reasoning.
These arguments and conclusions introduced by Paul of course apply only to the broad and normal distinction between man and woman. He does not argue that women are inferior to men, nor that they may not have equal spiritual endowments; but he maintains that, whatever be their endowments, there is a womanly mode of exercising them and a sphere for woman which she ought not to transgress. Not all women are of the distinctively womanly type. A Britomart may arm herself and overthrow the strongest knights. A Joan of Arc may infuse into a nation her own warlike and patriotic ardour. In art, in literature, in science, feminine names may occupy some of the highest places. In our own day many careers have been opened to women from which they had hitherto been debarred. They are now found in Government offices, in School Boards, in the medical profession. Again and again in the history of the Church attempts have been made to institute a female order in the ministry, but as yet both the clerical and the legal professions are closed to women. And we may reasonably conclude that as the army and navy will always be manned by the physically stronger sex, so there are other employments in which women would be entirely out of place.
But it will be asked, Why was Paul so exact in describing how a woman should comport herself while praying or prophesying in public, when he meant very shortly in this same Epistle to write, “Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church”? It has been suggested that although it was the standing order that women should not speak, there might be occasions when the Spirit urged them to address an assemblage of Christians; and the regulation here given is intended for these exceptional cases. This may be so, but the connection in which the absolute prohibition is given rather militates against this view, and I think it more likely that in his own mind Paul held the two matters quite distinct and felt that a mere prohibition preventing women from addressing public meetings would not touch the more serious transgression of female modesty involved in the discarding of the veil. He could not pass over this violent assertion of independence without separate treatment; and while he is treating it, it is not the speaking in public which is before his mind, but the unfeminine assertion of independence and the principle underlying this manifestation.
Besides the direct teaching of this passage on the position of woman, there are inferences to be drawn from it of some importance. First, Paul recognises that the God of nature is the God of grace, and that we may safely argue from the one sphere to the other. “All things are of God.” It is profitable to be recalled to the teaching of nature. It saves us from becoming fantastic in our beliefs, from cherishing fallacious expectations, from false, pharisaic, extravagant conduct.
Again, we are here reminded that every man and woman has to do directly with God, who has no respect of persons. Each soul is independent of all others in its relation to God. Each soul has the capacity of direct connection with God and of thus being raised above all oppression, not only of his fellows, but of all outward things. It is here man finds his true glory. His soul is his own to give it to God. He is dependent on nothing but on God only. Admitting God into his spirit, and believing in the love and rectitude of God, he is armed against all the ills of life, however little he may relish them. To all of us God offers Himself as Friend, Father, Saviour, Life. No man need remain in his sin; none need be content with a poor eternity; no man need go through life trembling or defeated: for God declares Himself on our side, and offers His love to all without respect of persons. We are all on the same footing before Him. God does not admit some freely, while He shrinks from the touch of others. It is as full and rich an inheritance that He puts within the reach of the poorest and most wretched of earths inhabitants as He offers to him on whom the eyes of men rest in admiration or in envy. To disbelieve or repudiate this privilege of uniting ourselves to God is in the truest sense to commit spiritual suicide. It is in God we live now; He is with us and in us: and to shut Him out from that inmost consciousness to which none else is admitted is to cut ourselves off, not only from the deepest joy and truest support, but from all in which we can find spiritual life.
Lastly, although there is in Christ an absolute levelling of distinctions, no one being more acceptable to God or nearer to Him because he belongs to a certain race or rank, or class, yet these distinctions remain and are valid in society. A woman is a woman still though she become a Christian; a subject must honour his king although by becoming a Christian he is himself in one aspect above all authority; a servant will show his Christianity, not by assuming an insolent familiarity with his Christian master, but by treating him with respectful fidelity. The Christian, above all men, needs sober mindedness to hold the balance level and not allow his Christian rank entirely to outweigh his social position. It forms a great part of our duty to accept our own place without envying others and to do honour to those to whom honour is due.