Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 11:17
Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise [you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
17 34. Disorders at the Lord’s Supper
17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not ] St Paul was able to praise the Corinthians ( 1Co 11:2) for their attention to the injunctions he had given them. He could not praise them for their irregularities in a matter on which their Christian instincts ought to have enlightened them. The disorders at the administration of the Eucharist were such as ought not to have needed correction.
that you come together not for the better, but for the worse ] Literally, unto the better and unto the worse, i.e. they were the worse, not the better, for meeting together for worship.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Now in this that I declare – In this that I am about to state to you; to wit, your conduct in regard to the Lords Supper. Why this subject is introduced here is not very apparent. The connection may be this. In the subjects immediately preceding he had seen much to commend, and he was desirous of commending them as far as it could be done. In 1Co 11:2 of this chapter he commends them in general for their regard to the ordinances which he had appointed when he was with them. But while he thus commended them, he takes occasion to observe that there was one subject on which he could not employ the language of approval or praise. Of their irregularities in regard to the Lords supper he had probably heard by rumor, and as the subject was of great importance, and their irregularities gross and deplorable, he takes occasion to state to them again more fully the nature of that ordinance, and to reprove them for the manner in which they had celebrated it.
That ye come together – You assemble for public worship.
Not for the better, but for the worse – Your meetings, and your observance of the ordinances of the gospel, do not promote your edification, your piety, spirituality, and harmony; but tend to division, alienation, and disorder. You should assemble to worship God, and promote harmony, love, and piety; the actual effect of your assembling is just the reverse. In what way this was done he states in the following verses. These evil consequences were chiefly two, first, divisions and contentions; and, secondly, the abuse and profanation of the Lords Supper.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 11:17-22
Now I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
Unprofitable public worship
I. When do we come together, not for the better, but for the worse? This may be known–
1. By the principles which influence our attendance.
(1) Do we come to receive instruction, to get good that we may grow in conformity to God, or do we come only to gratify curiosity, to subserve our worldly interest, etc.?
(2) Do we come without any preparation of heart? Are we soon weary of the service (Eze 14:3)?
2. From the manner of our attendance. If we are either captious, careless, or sleepy; if we suffer the fowls to come down and devour the sacrifice, and the buyers and sellers to occupy the inward sanctuary; if we have no love for the work in which we are engaged, but can indulge in a trifling or stupid frame of mind, assuredly we come together, not for the better, but for the worse.
3. By the effects of our attendance. Some, like Festus, treat the Word with derision. Some, like Agrippa, are half convinced, but they stifle their convictions. Others, again, hear and approve, but never practise. In the parable of the sower we hear of four sorts of ground, and only one of them good.
II. The evil of such conduct. If we do not come together for the better, it will be for the worse. Where the Word does not soften it generally hardens; and where it does not make the heart contrite it often makes it desperate (1Co 2:16). More particularly–
1. It is highly displeasing to God.
2. It is a great grief to godly ministers; and what can be more unreasonable than to afflict those who labour for our good, and are seeking our everlasting salvation (Jer 13:17; Php 3:18).
3. In the end it will be a source of sorrow to themselves, and will issue in their ruin (Pro 5:11-14; 1Co 11:30). (B. Beddome, M.A.)
Religious institutions–their abuse
Observe–
I. That attendance on the institutions of religion may prove pernicious rather than beneficial (1Co 11:17). Men cannot be made religious; an irresistible moral force is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility in fact. Hence the highest redemptive forces on man often conduce to his ruin. The gospel is either the savour of life unto life, or of death unto death. Pharaohs heart was hardened under the ministry of Moses, and the hearts of the men of Chorazin, etc., were hardened under the ministry of Christ.
II. That assembling together for religious purposes does not necessarily imply unity of soul (1Co 11:18-19). It does not follow that because people are brought together in the same church that they are united together in spirit. Two people may sit in the same pew, hear the same discourse, etc., and yet in soul be as remote from one another as the poles. No real spiritual unity can exist where there is not a supreme affection for Christ, who is the only uniting place of souls.
III. That the very best institutions on earth are often sadly perverted by men. For many reasons the Lords Supper may be regarded as one of the best ordinances. But it was now perverted into a means of gluttony and drunkenness (1Co 11:20-21). Are not men constantly perverting Divine institutions, Churches, Bibles, the Christian Ministry, etc.? (D. Thomas, D.D.)
The abuse of the means of grace is
I. Very common. Through–
1. Carelessness.
2. The indulgence of an improper spirit, as enmity, pride, unbelief, etc.
II. Highly criminal–because a direct offence against the purity, majesty, mercy of God.
III. Exceedingly dangerous. It makes a man worse by increasing his sin, hardening his heart, augmenting his guilt and punishment. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Abuse of the Lords Supper
In this paragraph (1Co 11:17-34) Paul speaks of an abuse which can scarcely be credited in our times. A respectable citizen would hardly have permitted at his own table the licence visible at the table of the Lord.
I. How did such disorders arise?
1. It was common in Greece for clubs to meet periodically and to share a common meal. This custom, not unknown in Palestine, had been adopted by the primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians then felt themselves to be more closely related than the members of any trade guild or political club. Speedily love feasts (agape?) became prevalent institutions. On a fixed day, generally the first day of the week, the Christians assembled, each bringing what he could as a contribution to the feast. In some places the proceedings began by partaking of the consecrated bread and wine; but in other places physical appetite was first appeased.
2. This mode of celebrating the Lords Supper was recommended by its close resemblance to its original celebration. It was at the close of the paschal supper that our Lord took bread and brake it. But when the first solemnity passed away the love-feast was liable to many corruptions. Those who had no need to use the common stock, but had houses of their own to eat and to drink in, yet, for the sake of appearances, brought their contribution to the meal, but consumed it themselves. The consequence was that from being truly love-feasts, these meetings became scenes of greedy selfishness, and profane conduct, and besotted excess.
II. To the reform of this abuse Paul now addresses himself.
1. Negatively.
(1) He does not propose to disjoin absolutely the religious rite from the ordinary meal. In the case of the richer members of the Church this disjunction is enjoined (1Co 11:22). But with those who had no well-provided homes another rule must be adopted. It would shame the Christian community, and undo its reputation for brotherly love were its members observed begging their bread on the streets.
(2) Although the wine of the holy communion had been so sadly abused, Paul does not prohibit its use. On infinitely less occasion alterations have been introduced with a view to preventing its abuse by reclaimed drunkards, and on still slighter pretext in the Church of Rome the lay communicant is only allowed to partake of the bread. Mohler says that this arose from a nice sense of delicacy, a pious dread of desecrating, by spilling and the like, even in the most conscientious ministration. In contrast to all such contrivances we recognise the sagacity which directed that the ordinance should not be tampered with to suit the avoidable weaknesses of men, but that men should learn to live up to the requirements of the ordinance.
(3) Paul does not insist that because frequent communion had been abused, this must give place to monthly or yearly communion. For some centuries it was expected that all members of the Church should partake weekly. That familiarity breeds contempt, or heedlessness, is a rule that ordinarily holds good. And by the same law it is feared, and not without reason, that if we observed frequent communion we should cease to feel the sacredness of the ordinance. But our method of procedure is first to find out what it is right to do, and then, though it cost us an effort, to do it. If our reverence for the ordinance in question depends on its rare celebration, may it not be a merely superstitious or sentimental reverence? Paul seeks to restore reverence in the Corinthians, not by prohibiting frequent communion, but by setting more clearly before them the solemn facts which underlie the rite. But does not our shrinking from communion often mean that we shrink from being more distinctly confronted with the love and holiness of Christ and with His purpose in dying for us–that we are not quite reconciled to be always living as the children of God, whose citizenship is in heaven ?
2. The positive counsel Paul gives regarding suitable preparation for participation in this sacrament is very simple. He offers no elaborate scheme of self-examination which might fill the mind with scruples and induce introspective habits and spiritual hypochondria.
(1) He would have every man answer the plain question, Do you discern the Lords body in the sacrament? The Corinthians were chastened by sickness, and apparently by death that they might see and repent of the enormity of using these symbols as common food; and in order that they might escape this chastening, they had but to recall the institution of the sacrament by our Lord Himself.
(2) The brief narrative gives prominence to the truth that the sacrament was intended primarily as a memorial or remembrance of the Saviour. As the dying gift of a friend becomes sacred to us as his own person, and we cannot bear to see it handed about by unsympathetic hands, and as when we gaze at his portrait, or use the pencil worn smooth by his fingers, we recall the many happy times we spent together, so does this sacrament seem sacred to us as Christs own person, and by means of it grateful memories of all He was and did throng into the mind.
(3) The form of this memorial is fitted to recall the actual life and death of the Lord. By the symbols we are brought into the presence of an actual living Person. Our religion is not a theory; we are saved by being brought into right personal relations by remembering Christ and by assimilating the spirit of His life and death.
(4) But especially by giving His flesh and blood He means that He gives us His all, Himself wholly; and by inviting us to partake of His flesh and blood He means that we must receive Him into the most real connection possible, must admit His self-sacrificing love into our heart as our most cherished possession. (M. Dods, D.D.)
When ye come together in the Church, I hear there be divisions among you.—
Divisions in the Church
I. Are a serious evil.
1. They hinder prosperity.
2. Demoralise many.
3. Occasion reproach.
4. Dishonour Christ.
II. Ought not to excite surprise. Because offences must come–
1. Through the imperfections of humanity.
2. The instigation of Satan.
III. Are overruled by God, as a test of the faith, purity, steadfastness of those who are approved before God. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
A spirit of disunion in the Church
1. Destroys edification.
2. Occasions divisions.
3. Profanes what is most holy.
4. Usually springs from selfishness and pride.
5. Is deserving of the strongest condemnation. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
And I partly believe it.—
Charitable judgments
I. Some of you are guilty of this fault, though others be innocent. General censures, condemning whole churches, are altogether uncharitable. Angle out the offenders, but take heed of killing all with a dragnet: and grant many, yea, most to be faulty, yet some may be guiltless. Wickedness was not so general in Sodom, but that righteous Lot was an exception. Obadiah was steward of Ahabs wicked household. Yea, seeing impiety intrudes itself amongst the thickest of Gods saints, just it is that God should have some names even where the throne of Satan is erected (Rev 3:4). Let us therefore follow the wary proceedings of Jehu (2Ki 10:23). When we are about with censuring to murder the credits of many together, let us take heed that there be not some orthodox amongst those whom we condemn to be all heretics; some that desire to be peaceful in our Israel, amongst those whom we condemn for all factious schismatics.
II. I believe these accusations only in part, and hope they are not so bad as they are reported. When fames are brought unto us from good hands, let us not be so incredulous as to believe no part of them; nor so uncharitable as to believe all; but with St. Paul partly believe it.
1. Because fame often creates something of nothing, always makes a great deal of a little. It is true of fame what is said of the devil; it has been a liar from the beginning; yea, and sometimes a murderer. Absalom slew one of Davids sons, and fame killed all the rest (2Sa 13:30)
2. Because men in reporting things often mingle their own interests and engagements with their relations, making them better or worse, as they themselves stand affected. Water resembleth both the taste and colour of that earth through which it runneth; so reports relish of their relators, and have a smack of their partial dispositions; and therefore such relations are not to be believed in their full extent. Conclusion:
1. This confutes–
(1) Those that will believe nothing of what they hear reported, though warranted by never so good witnesses. I bear them witness, these men have charity, but not according to knowledge.
(2) But where too much charity hath slain her thousands, too little hath slain her ten thousands.
2. Let not our beliefs be altogether of clay to receive any impression; nor altogether of iron to receive none at all. But as the toes in the image of Nebuchadnezzars dream were partly iron and partly clay, so let our beliefs be composed of charity, mixed with our credulity; that, when a crime is reported, we may with St. Paul partly believe it. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
.
For there must be also heresies among you.—
Heresies
Consider–
I. What heresy is. There are two opinions upon this subject. One is, that it is a schism. But the apostle in the text and in verse 18 makes a distinction between the two. By heresies, all denominations mean false doctrines, contrary to, and subversive of, the gospel (Tit 3:10-11; Gal 1:6-9). Every error is not a heresy, yet every error which subverts the gospel is.
II. That heresies have been in the Church from the beginning. Immediately after the gospel was preached by Philip, Simon professed to believe it; but he soon propagated the grossest heresies. Paul intimates that there were heretics in the Church of Rome (Rom 16:17-18). Our text assures us that there were heresies in the Church of Corinth. And John mentions various dangerous heresies in the seven Churches of Asia. If we consult ecclesiastical history, we shall find that the Church has never been free from them. Christ predicted that there would always be tares among the wheat to the end of the world.
III. In what sense it is necessary that heresies should be in the Church. There never can be any natural necessity. Those who enjoy the gospel may always know the truth. Heresy is always the fruit of an evil heart of unbelief. There is, therefore, only a moral necessity arising from the corruption of the heart. As long as this is the case, some will love error better than truth.
IV. Why God chooses that heresies should exist.
1. To distinguish truth from error. Darkness renders light more visible, and light renders darkness more visible. The errors in the heathen would illustrate the truths believed in the Christian world. The errors in the Romish illustrate the truths professed in the Protestant Church.
2. That true believers may be distinguished from false professors. Paul gives this reason in the text. The heterodox everywhere are a foil to the orthodox, and exhibit their characters in a beautiful light.
3. That mankind may have a fair opportunity of choosing the way to life or the way to death. Accordingly, it had always been Gods method to exhibit both truth and error before their minds, and give them opportunity of choosing the one or the other, that they may be saved or that they may be damned.
V. Improvement.
1. If heresies are opposite to, and subversive of, the gospel, then we have reason to think that they have had a long and extensive spread in the world.
2. It appears, from the nature and tendency of heresy, that the Church ought to censure and reject any of its members who embrace it.
3. If it be one design of God in continuing heresies to distinguish real Christians from false and erroneous professors, then there is a palpable impropriety and absurdity in attempting to unite those together in Christian communion who differ essentially in their religious sentiments.
4. When fatal heresies greatly prevail, then is a time when God is about to purify the Church, and make manifest those who are approved among the professors of religion.
5. Learn the importance of ministers preaching the gospel fully and plainly. If the gospel had always been preached fully and plainly, it is hard to conceive how heresies should have abounded.
6. From the nature and tendency of heresy, we conclude that sinners are in the most dangerous situation, for they are surrounded by heretics on every side. (N. Emmons, D.D.)
Heresy
Heresies sin against faith and schism, against charity; and, as children say they love father and mother both best, so let us hate heresies and schisms both worst.
I. What is a heresy? An error in the fundamentals of religion, maintained with obstinacy.
1. Note those qualities which dispose a man to be the founder of a heresy.
(1) Pride. When one is elated with conceited sanctity above others, he will quarrel with those who are before him in place, which are behind him in piety.
(2) Discontent that his preferments bear not proportion to his supposed deserts. Thus Arius would be an Arian, because he could not be a bishop.
(3) Learning void of humility; or good natural parts, especially memory and a fluent expression. But if both be wanting, yet boldness and brazen-faced impudence will supply the place, especially if he trades with the vulgar.
(4) To varnish all these, there must be pretended piety and austerity of life. Put all these together, and they spell together hoeresiarcham. To prevent these mischiefs, let such men pray to God for humility. Let them beware of discontentment, which is a direct quarrelling with God, who is the Fountain of all preferment. Grant preferment is denied thee; be not so childish to cast away a crown, because thou canst not get a counter. Lastly, if God hath bestowed good parts upon thee, pray to Him to sanctify them; otherwise the greatest memory may soon forget itself, and a fluent tongue may cut his throat that hath it.
2. A plain follower of a heresy may be thus described. He must be–
(1) Ignorant; for he that knows nothing will believe anything (2Ti 3:6).
(2) Desirous of novelty. It is an old humour for men to love new things.
(3) As a result of these two, he must have the persons of men in much admiration, and entertaining anything that is said because they say it. To prevent these mischiefs, let the meanest labour to attain to some measure of knowledge in matters of salvation, that so he may not trust every spirit, but be able to try whether he be of God or no. Secondly, kill the itch of novelty in thy soul, practising the prophets precept (Jer 6:16). Lastly, love and admire no mans doctrine for his person, but rather love his person for his doctrine.
II. There must be heresies. A conditionate necessity is this: for upon the pre-supposition of these two things, which cannot be denied–that the devil goeth about like a roaring lion, etc., and that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, making men prone to all wickedness; hence it followeth there must be heresies. Thus he that beholdeth a family, and findeth the master to be careless, the mistress negligent, the sons riotous, the servants unfaithful, he may safely conclude that family cannot be safe, but must be ruined (Luk 17:1). (T. Fuller, D.D.)
Heresies in the Church
I. The assertion–there must be heresies–is made in the same sense as It must needs be that offences come (Mat 18:7). Not that he is excusable who introduces heresies, or occasions offences; for woe unto him by whom they come. But in the natural course of things, such evils will happen.
1. Could no external cause be assigned, our common frailties and corruptions may prepare us to expect them in a society composed of men. Of all parts of our knowledge, we are inclined to be fondest of those in which we differ from other men. It appears dull and undistinguishing to tread on in the common road, and think and believe as other men do. And if we observe how deeply this is rooted in our nature, and how difficult it is even for good men to restrain it within due bounds; and if we take farther into our reflection that envy, resentment, and almost every other passion may accidentally concur in producing heresies, we must confess that these evils are, humanly speaking, unavoidable. And accordingly the Scriptures prepare us for them, as natural effects of the corrupt passions of mankind (Act 20:30; 2Ti 3:2-4; 2Pe 2:1).
2. From false teachers and seducers, then, the Church must never hope to be perfectly free in this world. Nor shall we be surprised at their success if we reflect that there will be hearers–light and unstable men with itching ears–strongly inclined to hearken after new discoveries.
II. The providential end assigned for Gods permission of these evils–the trial and manifestation of these who are approved (see Deu 13:1; Luk 21:13). This manifestation may be understood–
1. With respect to ourselves. It is a comfort unspeakable to a good man to find his graces of strength to endure this trial. Unless our constancy has been tried, we know not how far an esteem for the virtues and abilities of any man may prevail on us to desert the faith. If upon experiment we find ourselves equal to the trial, we may then hope well of our integrity, and that we shall hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.
2. With respect to the Church. Known unto God only are they who are His, by an internal inspection into their hearts. To the Church, however, this character can only appear by outward evidences; and, therefore, professions of faith have been always required, as terms of admission into its society. But these cautions are not always sufficient to reach the heart and discover the sincerity of the man. But he who has stood firm in the day of temptation has given an evidence of his integrity which cannot be suspected; and if to his faith he has added knowledge, and is able to convince gainsayers and defeat the craft of those who lie in wait to deceive, we must distinguish him in our esteem, not only as a sincere member, but as a light and ornament of the Church.
III. The advantages derived to the Church from these manifestations.
1. It is hereby enabled better to exercise its discipline, to separate the sound from the corrupted members of the body.
2. Hereby its enemies are discovered in their proper character.
3. Hereby Church governors are enabled to choose fit persons to serve in the sacred office.
4. By occasions of inquiry into heresy, the doctrines of the Church become more attentively considered and more firmly established. To the early heresies we owe many of the writings of the primitive fathers, and several parts of the Scriptures themselves.
5. By the appearance of these dangers, pastors are quickened to a more diligent attendance on the duties of their station, and at the same time carefully to examine their own lives, and, by an unblamable conduct, to keep up the dignity and influence of their ministry, that the enemy may have no occasion to blaspheme.
Conclusion:
1. It may hence appear with how little reason Rome reproaches us with those schisms and heresies which God has permitted to vex our Church, and to use them as an argument of our rejection by Christ. It may as reasonably be objected that it is composed of men, and has enemies. And least of all can this objection become those who are well known to have been the authors of these evils to us.
2. If, as the apostle affirms, the providential end of these heresies is that they who are approved by God may be made manifest, then it follows–
(1) That they who under these trials persist in the faith and communion of the Church are thereby manifested to be approved by God.
(2) That they who introduce heresies into the Church, or follow those who introduce them, are thereby manifested to be disapproved by God; and therefore that the Church may, and ought, to treat them in its discipline as sufficiently discovered under that character. (J. Rogers, D.D.)
That they which are approved may be made manifest among you.—
Heresy manifesting truth
Oftentimes goldsmiths, though they themselves be sufficiently satisfied of the goodness of the gold, yet put it to the touch, to content the beholders. Never had Athanasius so answered his name, and been so truly immortal in his memory, but for opposing of the Arians. Never had St. Augustine been so famous, but for quelling of Manicheans, Pelsgians, Donatlsts, etc. Many parts of true doctrine have been but slenderly guarded, till once they were assaulted by heretics; and many good authors in those points which were never opposed have written but loosely, and suffered unwary passages to fall from their posting pens. But when thieves are about the country, every one will ride with his sword and stand on his guard: when heretics are abroad in the world, writers weigh each word, ponder each phrase, that they may give the enemies no advantage. Again, the hardened will be made unexcusable, who obstinately persist in their errors. They cannot plead they lost their way for want of guides, but for mere wilfulness. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper.—
The love-feast and the Lords Supper
The Church of Corinth introduced what was called a love-feast previous to the reception of the Lords Supper–rich and poor bringing their own provisions. This idea seemed in strict accordance with the original institution of the Lords Supper, for that was preceded by a common meal. There was a great beauty in this arrangement, because it showed the conviction of the Church of Corinth that differences of birth and rank are but temporary, and are intended to join by reciprocal bonds the different classes together. Still, beautiful as the idea was, it was liable to great abuse. Thus there arises a perpetual lesson for the Church of Christ: it is never good to mix things religious with things worldly. In the highest conceivable form of the Church of Christ, the two will be identified, for the kingdoms of the world are to become the kingdoms of God and of His Christ. In order to make these two one, the Christian plan has been to set apart certain days as holy, that through these all other days may be sanctified: to set apart a certain class of men, through them to, sanctify all other men: to set apart one particular meal, that all meals through that one may be dedicated to God. The worlds way is rather this: to identify things religious and worldly by throwing the spirit of the week-day into the Sabbath; to make Christian ministers like other men, by infusing into them its own secular spirit; and to eat and drink of the Lords Supper in the spirit of a common meal. (F. W. Robertson, M.A.)
The heavenly banquet
Let me notice here the many words which are connected with the Lord by the apostle: the Lords body (verse 29), the Lords blood (verse 27), the Lords bread (verse 27), the Lords cup (verse 27), the Lords death (verse 26), the Lords Supper (verse 20). For in this ordinance Christ is all and in all; He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Why does the apostle call it the Lords Supper?
I. The lord appointed it. It is not mans feast, or the Churchs feast, it is the feast of the Lord.
II. He provides. The feast of fat things is of His providing, so is the table, so is the banqueting house, so is the raiment. All the viands are of His selection, His purchase, His setting out. He is both appointer and provider. The provisions must be rare and suitable and nourishing in such a case. His wisdom knows what we need, and His love prepares it all.
III. He invites. Come, is His message to us!
IV. He is himself the feast. He is the Paschal Lamb. He is the bread and wine. Yes; Christ is Himself the provision, as well as the Provider.
V. He partakes with us. He sits at the table Himself, and forms one of our number. Here we have fellowship with Him, and He with us. Seated at this table, and partaking of this Supper–
1. We look backward. And as we look back we see the passover, we see the shewbread, we see the Cross.
2. We look forward. For we show His death till He come. We fix our eye on the coming glory.
3. We look inward. In doing so, we ask, Is my soul prospering?
4. We look around. Brethren in the Lord are on each side–our fellow-believers, our fellow-pilgrims. Love circulates around, as well as joy and peace.
5. We look outward. We cannot, at a feast like this, forget a world which is famishing; shutting itself out from this heavenly feast, and revelling in its lusts and vanities. We pity, we pray for you, we plead with you to come. For here at this table we find all we need–the fulness of Christ. Here we taste–
(1) His love.
(2) His peace and joy.
(3) His consolations.
(4) His glory.
For that glory is our hope, specially at the table. Here we get the foretaste of it. (H. Bonar, D.D.)
Eating the Lords Supper
Those who do, and those who do not, sit at this board, may alike wish to understand what it is to eat the Lords Supper.
1. First, it is not to eat the Lords Supper to make it a feast for the satisfaction of outward appetite. Into so low an estate, as we learn from Pauls rebuke, had it degenerated among the Corinthians. They may, indeed, have but imitated an earlier example, set in the depravity of human nature. It was a custom at Athens, in the age of Socrates, for each person coming to a feast to bring his own provision; not that, as in some later social festivals, he might add it to the common stock, but to feed on it by himself alone. No wonder the apostle said this was not to eat the Lords Supper. It is upon something far different, even upon making a sensual feast of the Lords Supper, that Paul lays his ban. They fancied, forsooth, they were eating the Lords Supper because they came together in one place. Without hesitation he explodes the superstition, which, alas! has reached our own day, that any local sacredness of temple or altar made an act holy. The Lords Supper was a showing forth of the Lords death. The apostles admonition is still instructive. Some, in our own age, have complained of the grave and serious manner of observing the Lords Supper. They would have it more of a social and friendly feast. Surely, there should be no coldness round the Lords table. Yet this table cannot furnish what is like any other feast, the dinner given to a hero, or even the family thanksgiving of kindred and friends, eating and drinking, in gay, though innocent, hilarity together. In the Lords Supper is the presence of a spirit peculiar, awful in purity, as it is tender in love.
2. But the apostles description shows again, that it is not eating the Lords Supper to make it a mere form. Externally, no doubt, it is a form. But there are two kinds of forms, the dead and the living. The dead are those that have lost, or never had, life. The true form is the tree, that buds and blooms, to show in flower and fruit the hidden meaning which God set in its seed.
3. Once more, the meaning of our text shows that eating the Lords Supper is not to make a profession of holiness. This is a very common mistake. Many are prevented from coming to the table by their reluctance to make such a profession. Yet, so far from being a profession of holiness, it is, in truth, the very opposite. It is a declaration of our not having attained what we desire, because so anxiously we use this means of attaining it.
4. Still, again, eating the Lords Supper, as Paul describes it, is not to increase our moral obligations. Infinitely bound are we beforehand to love and serve God. Eating the Lords Supper reminds us of our obilgations, and may assist us to fulfil them, but does not originally impose them, or add to their essential weight or number.
5. In fine, according to the mind of the apostle, eating the Lords Supper is not swearing an oath. The Romish dogma, that the communicant eats the real flesh and drinks the real blood of Christ, and thus assumes a vow and performs a sacrament, such as men have sealed with awful ceremonies and signed in their hearts gore, is a fancy no less unscriptural than irrational, and contrary especially to the discourse of Christ. The words that I speak unto you are spirit, and they are life. As much as to say, It is no physical or literal meaning I intend by them, but a sense of spiritual, cordial communion with my own feeling and mind. So he stops their murmur at what they were at first inclined to think a hard saying. Let us now consider, more positively, what to eat the Lords Supper is.
(1) First, as a showing forth of His death, it is the highest manifestation of the Divine love. So, in the Scriptures, the death of Christ, the sinless Son of God, is described. This meaning of the Lords Supper, as the supreme sign of Divine love, let us now observe, falls in with all that is best in human thought and knowledge. It is a fact of singular and transcendent beauty, that all discovery, through all history, in all the world, has been but the gradual and ever cumulative discovery of the goodness of God. Now, all this scientific discovery of Gods goodness is but a ladder to the highest point of that goodness revealed in the gospel, whose crown is in the death of Christ, and whose celebration is in the Lords Supper. The Lords Supper, as the great peculiar symbol of the spiritual fact, especially tells us that our Father is pure, essential love, in long-suffering and willingness to forgive. Nothing can refute its witness, that, when He chastens, it is still love, not hatred, that wields the scourge; and that His wrath to the wicked is but His kindness for their case.
(2) But, as eating the Lords Supper is a recognition of this Divine love, it is, too, a corresponding expression of our own love. It should be regarded and observed in all the largeness and liberality of this idea. It was not meant by Christ, as it has been often made by man, to be a subtle, tormenting test, on minor points, of formal custom or intellectual opinion. But all the troublesome theories, arising or imposed, are, in the light of the new covenant itself, brought down to one which may indeed be sharper and stricter than any, or all beside, and to which those otherwise most rigid may give place. Do we love Jesus Christ?
(3) Furthermore, to eat the Lords Supper, according to the universal law of exercise, is to increase the love it expresses. This law holds peculiarly of all true affections and right exertions. The waxing love for Christ is its highest illustration. It especially is a magnet whose use enhances its power. It is true our love for Christ is a spiritual love for a now spiritual being, whom our fleshly eye never saw, or mortal ear heard. So the love of the Master and the follower is no antiquarian tradition. Truly, of what worth is love, if not personal? This Christian love passes and repasses, with Gods own spirit, the great conveyancer of all good things, like a dove through the air, and knits those who share it together. The feeling below tends to rise to the level of that from which it runs, on high.
(4) Eating the Lords Supper, thus expressing and increasing our love, furthermore supplies the loftiest and most efficient motive to all duty. All our life, all earnest labour, flows out of our heart. We give all, by natural and inevitable consequence, to Him to whom we have first given our heart. Eating the Lords Supper, therefore, while it may seem merely formal, is of all things most practical. It does not end as an exhibition or ceremony. It nerves to toil, endurance, and sacrifice, for the sake of God and humanity.
(5) In fine, the Lords Supper, while thus empowering for earthly duty, prepares us for scenes beyond this passing world. Its shadow falls two ways, back into time, and forth into eternity. It wings the soul to fly in another atmosphere, beyond this grosser air. It is preparation for the world to come. It is making ready for the second coming of Christ. Shall we extend this principle of preparation in all that is palpably useful, no further, but let it stop with the brink of the grave? Taking but a step in our little footing in this world, shall we not receive that staff of the bread of life which helps us to take the next, the second step, beyond the grave? Ah! in its true sense and meaning, both for present support and coming exigencies, we need the Lords Supper. All the ministrations of this world cannot satisfy our appetite, that immortal hunger and thirst with which God has made our souls to be hungry and thirsty. (C. A. Bartol.)
What despise ye the Church of God?—
Despising the Church
Take the term in the sense of:–
I. The house of God. Do you undervalue the place set apart for Gods service, to convert it into an ordinary banqueting-house?
1. Duties public and not pious more befit a guild-hall or town-house; duties pious and not public more become a closet (Psa 4:4); whilst duties public and pious beseem a church, as proper thereto.
2. The use is to blame those that turn the church into a counting-house, there to rate their neighbours–both to value their estates, and too often to revile their persons. Others make it a marketplace, there to bargain in; yea, some turn it into a kennel for their dogs, and a mew for their hawks, which they bring with them. Surely if Christ drove out thence sheep and doves, the emblems of innocency, He would not have suffered these to have abode in His temple.
II. The spiritual Church. The rich Corinthians, in not inviting the poor, made chaff of good corn; yea, refuse of Gods elect.
1. Objection. But not inviting the poor, was not despising them. A freewill offering is no debt.
2. Answer. This is true of civil and ordinary entertainments: but these being entitled love-feasts, and charity pretended the main motive of them, poor people were the most proper guests. Besides, if not Christianity, yet good nature might have moved them, whilst they gorged themselves, to have given something to the poor which stood by. To let them look on hungry was to wrong their peers in grace here, and glory hereafter.
3. Doctrine. He that despiseth the poor, despiseth the Church of God. Whereof they are a member inferior to none in piety (Jam 2:5); superior to all in number. Now he that pincheth the little toe paineth the whole body; the disgracing any member is the despising the whole church. Let us beware of affronting those in want. He that seeth his brother in need how dwelleth the love of God in him. (T.Fuller, D.D.)
Regard for the Church
I. There is such a thing as the Church of God. Nor need we travel far to find it. Wherever there is a congregation of believers among whom the gospel is preached and the ordinances observed, there is the Church of God. Such a church existed at Corinth. It was the assembly of them who were called to be saints, and had responded to that call in the confession of faith in Christ and in the observance of His commands.
II. There be some who despise this Church of God.
1. The particular offence of the Corinthians was, that they misapprehended the character and spirituality of the holy Supper, and thought to celebrate it after the manner of a worldly festival. This the apostle sets down as equivalent to contempt of the whole institution of which they were members.
2. On the same principle there are many ways of despising the Church of God.
(1) By contemning the Churchs faith.
(2)By despising its ministry.
(3) By neglecting its services.
(4) By ignoring Church fellowship and relations.
II. There is much in and about the Church to tempt men to despise it; much with which the carnal reason and taste of man is naturally offended, and which he is therefore predisposed to dislike and disesteem.
1. Take the faith of the Church, the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc., etc.
2. Its ordinances.
3. Its unimportance in the world in comparison with pompous organisations of mans devising!
4. Its members. How destitute of that style which is claimed amongst the worldly great and noble!
5. Its hypocritical adherents. Nevertheless–
IV. There is reason why the Church should not be despised. There is but one consideration to this effect named in the text; but that reason is ample. The Church is not of man, it is Divine. It is not a Masonic fraternity–a man-made institution.
1. God made the first Churches, and out of and through them He has made all Churches.
2. The faith of the Church is from Divine revelation.
3. Its sacraments are Divine ordinances.
4. The making of true members of the Church is by a new creation by the Holy Ghost.
5. And everything entering into the constitution of the Church is the work or gift of God. (J. A. Seiss, D.D.)
The Church: its note of universality
1. It is important to put the local church in its right Christian setting. The single congregation is a unit in the great multiple of communions which constitute the Church of God.
2. It is necessary that the kingdom of God should be localised in separate churches. The strong emotions gather around definite objects. Men in battle look to their regimental colours for their rallying-point; yet those colours would be nothing of themselves, did they not belong to and represent the country. To follow the colours of a particular church for its own sake might prove to be treason to the Church of God.
I. The Church of God is a universal institution for man.
1. If we listen to the gospel which Jesus preached we cannot fail to hear ringing in it this clear note of universality. It was not a gospel of individual election, nor of personal salvation simply, but the gospel of the Kingdom of a redeemed society organised in righteousness, and vital with the spirit of love.
2. His daily life was marked by the sign of universality. And so it was a constant surprise to His disciples. It was a larger humanity than Jerusalem could understand. Recall, e.g., that scene at which the Scribes and Pharisees were shocked, when Jesus sat at meat with publicans and sinners; and that scene at Jacobs well at which even the good disciples were surprised. He healed the impotent man, and restored the sight of the blind on the Sabbath day, and proclaimed that even an institution so sacred to God from the completion of the creation was made for man.
3. This note pervades also and harmonises all His doctrines. No teacher had ever used the universal adjectives in speaking to men. We cannot take all, any, whosoever, etc. out of the speech of Jesus without taking all the music from it.
4. The Person also of Jesus is distinguished from all others by this. He has named Himself in His human place in history, the Son of Man. When the disciples began to realise who and what manner of man the Son of man was, the other confession followed of itself, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And upon the man who confessed that whole truth Christ said the Church should be built.
5. The Church, therefore, whose promise was given in that moment should be characterised by the same note of universality. It is not to be a chosen school of disciples around their Teacher; it is not to be a national church–another temple in Jerusalem.
II. Three days of the Son of man, at least, in Christian history have preceded our day.
1. The apostolic age, that day of glorious beginnings of Christianity. It was necessarily, however, an era of but partial applications of Christs words to the life of the people. The apostles were called to liberate and set in motion the Christian ideas, but not to apply them universally to their world and its customs.
2. The age of the power of external law, and the era of the outward unity of the Church. The Roman age witnessed an external universality of the Church; but its method was the way of Caesar rather than the way of the Son of man.
3. A return from Roman Catholic supremacy to the authority of the Son of man followed next, in the Divine order of history, through the Reformation.
III. And now what is the next step forward?
1. What are the chief questions of life now the world over? How not only in this city, or this country, but how in the whole world shall men live together? All labour troubles, or wasteful competitions, or hurtful combinations, are symptoms and signs of this vital problem of society. No nation can live for itself alone. The fates of the modern nations are bound together. There is nothing so foreign that it may not become domestic to any country. The destiny of this world, it is increasingly evident, is to be one destiny.
2. To the Church of God providence is bringing home this one social question. How then are the churches to answer it?
(1) Not in the way of Rome. The Son of man will not be enthroned as Caesar. There is no way of legislation to the millennium.
(2) Neither shall the old man of Protestantism, shrunken in muscle, its separate members scarce hanging together, and living on the income of its capital laid up in other days, be the new man of the coming day.
(3) Verily, the days are coming–are they not now at hand?–when the Son of man will open His mouth, and bless the multitudes in our churches, and in the power of His Spirit our Christianity shall become as never before the Church of God for the world. The churches are becoming more deeply conscious that they exist not for themselves; but for some Divine blessing for all men. The Church belongs to you, whether you will belong to it or not. The Church is for the world, whether the world now be for or against it.
IV. Two consequences of great moment follow.
1. That we who belong to particular communions should be careful in our administration of them not to interfere with the Divine rights of any man in the Church of God. We must look carefully to it lest we exclude some souls from our churchly participation in the kingdom of God. All disciples have Divine rights to any table of communion which is spread in the name of Christ. The Divine rights of the world to the Church, and in the Church, impose upon us the present and urgent missionary obligation.
2. That men who are already in the Church have right to stay there, and to work out honestly and patiently within the Church any questions which may trouble them. The disciples of old were constantly going back to the Son of man with some new question, or from some fresh perplexity. Still, the Son of man dwells among the questionings of men. And there is no better place than within the communion of the Church for you to meet the questions of your lives. Thomas of old kept in the Church, although he doubted. And so Thomas, the honest sceptic, became an honest apostle. Conclusion: It follows from this truth that every man to whom the Church is presented has some corresponding obligation towards it. The world is redeemed in Christ, and it is a sin and a shame to live in it as though it were not redeemed. There is a Church of God forming, growing, having a glorious world-task committed to it; and it is ignoble not to have part in it and its work. (N. Smyth, D.D.)
Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.–
Ministerial blame and commendation
I. Pastors may and must praise their people wherein they do well.
1. Reasons.
(1) Hereby they shall peaceably possess themselves of the good-wills of their people, which may advance the efficacy of their preaching.
(2) Men will more willingly digest a reproof for their faults, if praised when they do well.
(3) Virtue being commended doth increase and multiply; creepers in goodness will go, goers run, runners fly.
2. Use. Those ministers are to be blamed which are ever blaming, God doth not always chide (Psa 103:9). These preachers use their reproofs so commonly, till their physic turns natural, and will not work with their people. Do any desire to hear what Themistocles counted the best music–namely, themselves commended? On these conditions, we ministers will indent with them: Let them find matter, we will find words; let them do what is commendable, and blame us if we commend not what they do. Such work would be a pleasure. To reprove is pressed from us, as wine from grapes; but praises would flow from our lips, as water from a fountain. But, alas! how can we build, when they afford us neither brick nor straw? If with Ahab they will do what is evil, then with Micaiah we must always prophesy evil unto them.
II. Ministers must not commend their people when they do ill.
1. Reasons.
(1) Dishonourable to God.
(2) Dangerous to the ministers. That ambassador who, being sent to proclaim war, pronounceth peace to rebels (Isa 57:21), deserves at his return to be preferred to the gallows.
(3) Dangerous to the people who are soothed in their sins. Honey-dews, though they be sweet in taste, do black and blast the corn: so those who praise their people without cause, are cruelly kind unto them: it is pleasent to the palate of flesh, but destroyeth and damneth the soul.
2. Use. It were to be wished, that as those that live under the equinoctial at noonday have no shadows at all; so great men should have no shadows, no parasites, no flatterers to commend them when they least deserve it.
3. Objection. But why doth St. Paul deal so mildly with the Corinthians, I praise you not? Me thinks he should have made his little finger as heavy as his loins.
(1) Theophylact answers that St. Paul reproves the rich men the more mildly, lest otherwise they should be implacably incensed against the poor as the causers of the apostles anger.
(2) It was the first time he told the Corinthians of their fault, and therefore used them the more gently, on hope of their amendment. This corrupt humour in the Corinthians was not as yet clodded in them by custom, and therefore the easier purged and removed. So ministers must use mildness, especially at their first reproving of a sin. Yea, God so blessed the mild severity of St. Paul, that the Corinthians reformed their errors. (T. Fuller, D.D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 17. Now in this – I praise you not] In the beginning of this epistle the apostle did praise them for their attention in general to the rules he had laid down, see 1Co 11:2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly relative to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Through some false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the same way the Jews did their passover. That, we know, was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were, eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the crucifixion of his body, and the shedding of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind. The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear to have perverted the whole of this Divine institution; for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper appears to have been made among them a part of an ordinary meal. The people came together, and it appears brought their provisions with them; some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and the other was drunken, , was filled to the full; this is the sense of the word in many places of Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they appear to have done something in reference to our Lord’s institution, but more resembling the Jewish passover. These irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by the Divine ordinance, they were injured; they came together not for the better, but for the worse.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not; I come now to another thing of greater consequence, as to which I must much blame you; I am so far from being able to commend or approve of what you do, that I must for it smartly reflect upon you.
That ye come together not for the better, but for the worse; that when you meet in your church assemblies, for the performance of your religious duties, to pray, preach, hear, or receive the holy sacrament, you so meet and behave yourselves, as your meeting tends to the increase of your sin, rather than to the increase of your grace, and the promoting the work of God in yourselves and the souls of others.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17. in thiswhich follows.
I declarerather, “Ienjoin”; as the Greek is always so used. The oldestmanuscripts read literally “This I enjoin (you) not praising(you).”
thatinasmuch as; inthat you, c. Here he qualifies his praise (1Co11:2). “I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinancesdelivered to you but I must now give injunction in the name of theLord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord’sSupper (1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37).
not for the betternotso as to progress to what is better.
for the worseso as toretrograde to what is worse. The result of such “comingtogether” must be “condemnation” (1Co11:34).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now in this that I declare unto you,…. The Syriac version reads, “this is what I command”; which some refer to what he had been discoursing of, adding to his arguments, and the examples of the church, his own orders and command, that men should worship God publicly, uncovered, and women covered; though it seems rather to respect what follows, what the apostle was about to declare unto them; concerning which he says,
I praise you not; as he did in 1Co 11:2 that they were mindful of him, remembered his doctrines, and kept the ordinances in the manner he had delivered them to them: and it should seem by this, that the greater part of them were not to be blamed, though some few were, for their irregular and indecent appearance in public worship, men with a covering on their heads, and women without one; but in what he was about to say, he could not praise them at all:
that you come together; to the house of God, to pray unto him, to sing his praises, to hear his word, and attend his ordinances, particularly the Lord’s supper:
not for the better; for edification and instruction, for the quickening and comforting of your souls; that you may grow in grace and knowledge, become more holy, zealous, fruitful, and useful:
but for the worse; to indulge luxury and intemperance, to encourage heresies, schisms, and divisions, and so grow more carnal, scandalous, and useless.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Profanation of the Lord’s Supper. | A. D. 57. |
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord’s supper, which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the apostle here reprehends, concerning which observe,
I. The manner in which he introduces his charge: “Now in this that I declare to you I praise you not, v. 17. I cannot commend, but must blame and condemn you.” It is plain, from the beginning of the chapter, that he was willing and pleased to commend as far as he could. But such scandalous disorders, in so sacred an institution, as they were guilty of, called for a sharp reprehension. They quite turned the institution against itself. It was intended to make them better, to promote their spiritual interests; but it really made them worse. They came together, not for the better, but for the worse. Note, The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be very apt to make us worse; if they do not do our souls good, they do us harm; if they do not melt and mend, they will harden. Corruptions will be confirmed in us, if the proper means do not work a cure of them.
II. He enters upon his charge against them in more particulars than one. 1. He tells them that, upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms—schismata. Instead of concurring unanimously in celebrating the ordinance, they fell a quarrelling with one another. Note, There may be schism where there is no separation of communion. Persons may come together in the same church, and sit down at the same table of the Lord, and yet be schismatics. Uncharitableness, alienation of affection, especially if it grows up to discord, and feuds, and contentions, constitute schism. Christians may separate from each other’s communion, and yet be uncharitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, and yet be uncharitable. This latter is schism, rather than the former. The apostle had heard a report of the Corinthians’ divisions, and he tells them he had too much reason to believe it. For, adds he, there must be heresies also; not only quarrels, but factions, and perhaps such corrupt opinions as strike at the foundation of Christianity, and all sound religion. Note, No marvel there should be breaches of Christian love in the churches, when such offences will come as shall make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Such offences must come. Note that men are necessitated to be guilty of them; but the event is certain, and God permits them, that those who are approved (such honest hearts as will bear the trial) may be set to view, and appear faithful by their constant adherence to the truths and ways of God, notwithstanding the temptations of seducers. Note, The wisdom of God can make the wickedness and errors of others a foil to the piety and integrity of the saints. 2. He charges them not only with discord and division, but with scandalous disorder: For in eating every one taketh before the other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken, v. 21. Heathens used to drink plentifully at their feasts upon their sacrifices. Many of the wealthier Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord’s table, or at least at their Agapai, or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper. They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. This was profaning a sacred institution, and corrupting a divine ordinance, to the last degree. What was appointed to feed the soul was employed to feed their lusts and passions. What should have been a bond of mutual amity and affection was made an instrument of discord and disunion. The poor were deprived of the food prepared for them, and the rich turned a feast of charity into a debauch. This was scandalous irregularity.
III. The apostle lays the blame of this conduct closely on them, 1. By telling them that their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and use of such an institution: This is not to eat the Lord’s supper, v. 20. It was coming to the Lord’s table, and not coming. They might as well have staid away. Thus to eat the outward elements was not to eat Christ’s body. Note, There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord’s supper which is as none at all; it will turn to no account, but to increase guilt. Such an eating was that of the Corinthians; their practices were a direct contradiction to the purposes of this sacred institution. 2. Their conduct carried in it a contempt of God’s house, or of the church, v. 22. If they had a mind to feast, they might do it at home in their own houses; but to come to the Lord’s table, and cabal and quarrel, and keep the poor from their share of the provision there made for them as well as rich, was such an abuse of the ordinance, and such a contempt of the poorer members of the church more especially, as merited a very sharp rebuke. Such a behaviour tended much to the shame and discouragement of the poor, whose souls were as dear to Christ, and cost him as much, as those of the rich. Note, Common meals may be managed after a common manner, but religious feasts should be attended religiously. Note, also, It is a heinous evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord’s table. This is doing what they can to pour contempt on divine ordinances. And we should look carefully to it that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord’s table have the appearance of contemning so sacred an institution.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
This (). Probably the preceding one about the head-dress of women, and transition to what follows.
I praise you not ( ). In contrast to the praise in 11:2.
For the better ( ). Neuter articular comparative of , but used as comparative of , good. Attic form .
For the worse ( ). Old comparative from , softly, used as comparative of , bad. In N.T. only here and 2Co 12:15.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I declare [] . Wrong. It means in the New Testament only command. See on Luk 5:14; Act 1:4.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Now in this that I declare unto you.” (touto de paraggellon) “Now in this charging.” The charge he is about to bring against them regarding irregularities at the Lord’s Supper.
2) I praise you not.” (ouk epaino) I do not praise you.” He praised them for “keeping the ordinances,” 1Co 11:2, but then turned to charge them with and rebuke them for careless irregularities at the Lord’s table. 1Co 11:3-16 dealt with a custom of hair length, before Paul returned to this ordinance.,
3) “That ye come together.” (hoti sunerchesthe) “Because ye come together” (of your own accord) – a voluntary, yet agreed gathering of the church, indicated by the deponent of the verbiage.
4) “Not for the better, but for the worse.” (ouk eis to kreisson alla eis to hesson) “Not for or with reference to the better, but for or with reference to the worse.” This indicates that the purpose or motive of the gathering for the Lord’s supper was a bad motive or purpose, in error.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
His reproof of the fault previously noticed was but a mild and gentle admonition, because the Corinthians sinned in ignorance, so that it was proper that they should readily be forgiven. Paul, too, had praised them in the outset, because they had faithfully kept his enactments. (1Co 11:2.) Now he begins to reprove them more sharply, because they offended more grievously in some things, and not through ignorance.
17. But, in warning you as to this, I do not praise. (644) For I translate it in this way, because Paul appears to have made the participle and the verb change places. (645) I am also not satisfied with the interpretation of Erasmus, who takes παραγγέλλειν as meaning to command The verb to warn would suit better, but as to this I do not contend. There is an antithesis between this clause and the beginning of this chapter. “While I have praised you, do not think that it is unqualified commendation; for I have something to find fault with, as it is worthy of severe reproof.” This, however, in my opinion, does not refer exclusively to the Lord’s Supper, but also to other faults of which he makes mention. Let this then be taken as a general statement, that the Corinthians are reproved, because they came together not for the better but for the worse. Particular effects of this evil will be brought forward afterwards.
He finds fault with them, then, in the first place, because they come not together for the better, — and secondly, that they come together for the worse The second, it is true, is the more serious, but even the first is not to be endured, for if we consider what is transacted in the Church, there ought never to be a coming together without some fruit. There the doctrine of God is listened to, prayers are offered up, the Sacraments are administered. The fruit of the Word is, when confidence in God and fear of him are increased in us — when progress is made in holiness of life — when we put off more and more the old man, (Col 3:9) — when we advance in newness of life, etc. (Rom 6:4.) The Sacraments have a tendency to exercise us in piety and love. The prayers, too, ought to be of use for promoting all these purposes. In addition to this, the Lord works efficaciously by his Spirit, because he wills not that his ordinances should be vain. Hence if the sacred assemblies are of no benefit to us, and we are not made better by them, it is our ingratitude that is to blame, and therefore we deserve to be reproved. For the effect of our conduct is, that those things, which, from their own nature, and from God’s appointment, ought to have been salutary, become unprofitable.
Then follows the second fault — that they come together for the worse. This is much more criminal, and yet it almost always follows the other, for if we derive no advantage from God’s benefits, he employs this method of punishing our carelessness — that we are made worse by them. It usually happens, too, that negligence gives birth to many corruptions, especially on this account, that those who do not observe the natural use of things usually fall erelong into hurtful inventions. (646)
(644) “ Or ie vous rememore ceci, non point eu louant. I1 y a au Grec mot; a mot. Or rememorant ie ne loue point;” — “ But I put you in, mind of this, not praising you for it. It is literally in the Greek: But putting you in mind I do not praise.”
(645) In explanation of this remark, let it be observed that the reading in the Alexandrine MS. is as follows: Τοῦτο δε παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν — But I warn you as to this, not praising. This reading is followed in the Latin and Syrian versions. In Wiclif (1380) the rendering is: “But this thing I comaunde, not preisynge.” In Rheims (1582) — “And this I commaund; not praising it.” — Ed
(646) “ Principalement pource que ceux qui ne regardent pas a tenir le droit et naturel usage des choses, sont suiets a tomber incontinent en beaucoup d’inuentions peruerses et dangereuses;” — “Chiefly because those who do not take care to observe the right and natural use of things, are liable to fall straightway into many perverse and dangerous inventions.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
NEW TOPIC: THE LORDS SUPPER AND THE LOVE-FEASTS
1Co. 11:17.Backward reference: the directions just given, and the general praise of 1Co. 11:2, are not to be taken to carry with them praise in regard to this further matter. Indeed, 1Co. 11:16 precludes it, for in this they are out of line with the holier manner and custom of other Churches. Better worse.Not for edification and spiritual improvement, but the reverse.
1Co. 11:18. First of all.Not formally completed by any second topic; perhaps 1Co. 11:34, the rest, covers all Paul had in his mind when he here says first of all. In the Church.Of course not any building so called; only in due and formal Church assembly. Divisions are again schisms as in 1Co. 1:10 [though not necessarily here the Church parties; perhaps only divisions of feeling arising from diversity of wealth and social position], 1Co. 12:25. Partly.Courteous, but serious; charity hopeth all things.
1Co. 11:19. Must.; Not stronger than in (say) Mat. 18:7. Fallen human nature being what it is, it is certain and inevitable that, etc. So, whether we shall say, with the result that or in order that, goes down to the roots of things, as to the co-working of the free wills of God and of man. No doubt the Hebrew mind saw all history so full of God that it connected His will very closely indeed with the course of events, inclining always to in order that; to ordaining rather than merely overruling. A close parallel is in Mat. 10:34-35. I am come to send a sword, to set at variance, etc.
1Co. 11:19. Heresies.Not yet in the technical sense; only divisions arising out of the choice of self-willed hearts, showing itself in open unbrotherliness, dissension, division. Approved.As usual (e.g. Rom. 16:10) those whom the testing shows to be the pure metal, genuine, true, loyal, to Paul, to the Church, to Christ. (2Co. 10:18; 2Co. 13:7; Jas. 1:12.)
1Co. 11:20.Cf. 1Co. 14:23; Act. 1:15; Act. 2:44; Act. 3:1; quite general, perhaps including not only place, but time and purpose. Choose between:
(1) Your way of doing things may be eating a supper, but it is no Lords supper; and
(2) Such love-feast suppers as yours, conducted as they are, cannot suitably lead up to the Lords Supper. Decision turns upon the historical question whether the Lords Supper itself was made a meal capable of (more than) satisfying hunger and including (even excessive and intoxicating, 1Co. 11:21) use of wine; or whether it was associated with (preceded by) such a substantial meal. Further
1Co. 11:21.Note, other is an insertion, depending in part for its warrant upon the decision as to the historical question. Choose between
(1) Takes beforehand, with a greedy eagerness which will not even wait for the whole company to be gathered and the proper Church ordinance to begin, but falls to forthwith, so soon as the place is entered, upon its own supper, brought to the feast; and
(2) Takes first with selfish preference its own (rich mans) supper; whilst the poor man, with his poor and scanty supper, must wait the rich mens convenience and pleasure before partaking of anything they had professed to bring towards a communion meal.
1Co. 11:22.Either way, the communion idea is sinned against and lost. Hungry and drunken sit side by side at the Lords table! Private meals should be eaten in private houses; natural hunger and thirst should be satisfied at home. [The historical questions involved are most variously decided upon, sometimes under (unconscious) theological bias. The facts are few; their interpretation is often still sub lite. (E.g. some would make the edict of Trajan [112, or earlier] occasioned by the well-known letter of Pliny the Younger,that the simple and harmless meal of the Bithynian Christians, taken in the evening of the Lords Day, should cease,the occasion of the disuse of the Love-feast, and of a morning use of the [distinctive] Lords Supper. But it is not agreed that the meal which he forbade was really taken in the evening, at a second meeting, in addition to the morning one which he so fully describes.) For homiletical purposes one important point is clear: the ordinance is to every participants thought and apprehension a Supper set out upon a Table. Whatever other meanings might lie latentor even then be understoodin the eating of bread and wine together at Christs supper table, it was certainly a Meal, not without analogies to the feats in heathen temples, or to the Jewish peace-offering banquets, or (more appositely) to the actual last supper of Christ. The analogy of this last may lend some support to the frequent exposition of 1Co. 11:17-20, that an ordinary meal (in part also reminiscent of the early community in Jerusalem, Acts 2, 4, 6): preceded the more definite Supper, as in Christs own instance. Without insisting too strongly upon we break (1Co. 10:16) or every one taketh (1Co. 11:21), it is also clear that this, like many more things in the Church, has not yet attained to much definiteness of form and manner of observance; there is little or no rubric as yet; differentiation of officials, and between Love-feast and Supper, is only in an inchoate stage.]
1Co. 11:23. Received.Two interpretations:
(1) Hearsay theory;
(2) Inspiration theory.
(1) supposes from, e.g., Peter during the fortnight of Gal. 1:18, and asks where the necessity was of any independent narrative, straight from the risen Christ to Paul;
(2) Evans (in opposition to Meyer) insists upon the meaning of the Greek for of, though this again need not necessarily imply oral communication from Christ to Paul. At all events,
(2) is preferable, and gives an independent, original account (which may have influenced the closely similar one in Luk. 22:19 sqq.) of the institution of the Supper. I also delivered.The two links in the chain, received, delivered, solemnly certified and vouched for as being duly in order. Note, I delivered was being delivered. Bread.A cake of bread, a loaf; one of those lying on the table, so far as appears.
1Co. 11:24.Note the shortened, correct reading (seen in R.V.). Therefore broken, though true and suggested by the facts, does not exhaust the significance for His peoples life and salvation of the fact that He had a real human body. Still, this broken is the pre-eminent serviceableness for you of His having become an incarnate Saviour. This do.Viz. Take, give thanks, break, [take, eat,] as I have done, in remembrance of Me. Himself, in all the developing discoveries of their reverent, Spirit-guided inquiry, is to be the object of thought and faith.
1Co. 11:25. In like manner.Viz. Taking, giving thanks, and giving to them. Observe this was after supper; the bread apparently being during supper. The Last Supper, then, would not set a very close precedent for any (assumed) sequence of definitely distinguished Agap meal and Lords Supper. Is.Spoken of the cup; the Cup IS the Covenant; exegetical of is in 1Co. 11:24. This do ye.As in 1Co. 11:24. Peculiar to this narrative, in connection with the cup. As oft as.Contemplates the continuance of the ordinance. [Are we to prefer, as verbally more exact, this particular record of Christs words over the bread and over the cup?]
1Co. 11:26.Communion (1Co. 10:14-21); Covenant (1Co. 11:25); now also Commemoration. (For this and other points, see Separate Homily on 1Co. 11:20.) Until He come to be Executor as well as Testator (Evans).
1Co. 11:27.With no worthy appreciation of its meaning, or, this appreciated, with no care to behave in a manner worthy of what he believes, and of what the Supper is, Guilty of.A fourfold use of the Greek word in New Testament; see
(1) Heb. 2:15. subject to bondage;
(2) Mar. 3:29, guilty of eternal sin;
(3) Mat. 26:11, guilty of death;
(4) here, approximating to
(2). Held bound to the responsibility for the act, and to pay the penalty of it; in this case, of dishonour done to Christ, almost in the manner of the apostates in Heb. 10:29hath counted the blood of the covenant a (merely) common thing. If the Corinthians evacuated the ordinance of its high and holy meaning, they made the bread and wine only the historical reminders of a malefactor who once was (perhaps justly) crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem. What was this but to assent to His crucifixionin fact, to crucify Him afresh; as He deserved, if He be not a Saviour Whose Supper has the full significance which Paul has expounded.
1Co. 11:28. So.I.e. having examined [proved, cognate with approved (1Co. 11:19)] his heart, and his intention in partaking of the Supper; then, with all the personal unworthiness he no doubt discovers, but with a real desire to use the Supper as the Lord intended, let him eat.
1Co. 11:29. Damnation.Judgment, condemnation; but these also include, not only the verdict upon the sinner, but the penalty. At Corinth this last was sickness, and in many cases death (1Co. 11:30). (Cf. Act. 5:5; Act. 13:11.)
1Co. 11:31.shows the verbal connection with 1Co. 11:29. When will we choose to have ourselves appraised, and our true position and character estimated? Now, or at the Day? And by whomourselves, or the Judge? Punishment now is chastisement, which may chasten the worldliness out of our heart and thought, so that we shall not come into the worlds irreversible condemnation. [He (Noah) condemned the world, Heb. 11:7.]
1Co. 11:33.Coming back to, as it might seem, the trivial piece of unseemly disorder out of which all this solemn profanity arose, with its sad sequel of punishment; disorder which also was symptomatic of their moral blindness to the meaning of the Supper.
HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.1Co. 11:17-34
[The specific subject of the section is dealt with under 1Co. 11:20. A general grouping of the many topics may be made around three nuclei of arrangement. Thus:]
I. Evil mingling with good.
II. Good arising out of evil.
III. A good thingonly, and of many-sided good.
I. Their assembling for public worship, and even their coming together for the Supper of the Lord, issues in evil, not in help to man or glory to God,not for the better, but for the worse. The fires of party divisions, always smouldering in the hearts of fellow-Corinthians, and fellow-Christians, are stirred into a fierce blaze so soon as they find themselves together within the same place of assembly, and are made to burn intensely by the behaviour of some of the rich towards the poor, as they sit down for the holy feast. Thus the place and the worship and its central ordinancethat which above all should be the sign and the bond of communionare profaned, and the crucified Lord, Whose broken body and Whose poured-out blood they profess thankfully to remember as the foundation of all their common hope, is dishonoured. Can there be no truce of God from their divisions there, where of all other places should be peace? Is the distinction between rich and poor to be offensively obtruded, and their poverty flung in the faces of the poorer saints [? even houseless ones (1Co. 11:22)] at that table where one [wedding garment of] undistinguishing redeeming love invests every guest alike, and covers and hides all such social rank and distinction? If there be one occasion in which should stand out conspicuous that glory of the Church of Christ as the home of all comers, of all races, ranks, ages, of both sexes, all sinners, all adopted children of God, alike,it should be at the Table of their common Elder Brother. To accentuate there the inevitable social distinctions of the secular life outsidethere, of all placesis the offence against the brotherhood the grossest; there, of all places, is the worldliness of such hearts shown up most staringly as sin against the Lord and Host of the Feast. How utterly unworthy is such eating and drinking! Do they, no better than that, discern and discriminate and judge between the covenant supper, where the Lord Himself is the true Passover Lamb, and the common meal in their own houses? Or, indeed, are they as heathenish still as those who eat at the table of idols, of devils? If their partisanship thus sins against the very idea of the unity; if their offensive flouting of the hungry poor of Christs flock by their greedy, selfish haste to demolish the heap of provisions they have brought to the common table, thus sins against the brotherhood; if such utter unpreparedness of heart and thought thus sins against the very Lord Himself, around whom they come together,is it any wonder that His judgments are abroad amongst them? Any wonder that their very eating and drinking thus only brings condemnation upon them? Any wonder that sickness is abroad, and that even the sleep of death has fallen upon some most conspicuous offenders? They did not connect the disorder and the deaths? They did not trace any connection between the prevalent sickness and the undiscerning, unworthy communicating? Very likely not. The world never does. It stops at natural causes; had perhaps its (crude) sanitary theory of the epidemic sickness at Corinth; could perfectly account for every death in the membership; knew exactly what had carried off each particular man or woman. If they shared in the ignorance of the undiscerning world which does not see God in such things, and in the practical heathenism which made the gathering nothing but a guild supper, such as abounded around them, was it any wonder that they were condemned with the world? (1Co. 11:32). They come together, indeed, for the worse. A Church in Corinth not three years old, a Church of Christ not fifty years old, and its most solemn assemblings have here come to this! Evil springing up amidst the good! The world is out of joint!
II. Good springing out of evil,
1. Just as these two consummately important and valuable Epistles have found their occasion, if not their cause, in these miserable factions and these shocking disorders in the Corinthian Church. All things have indeed thus worked together for good, for the Church of all lands and of all ages. The apologist of to-day comes to these two Epistles for his weapons of defence, for his facts of cogent significance and value (e.g. chap. 15). The theologian comes to them for full and explicit and far-leading revelations of truth upon some of the deepest themes of the Christian faith. The humble believer finds every line in some pages full of meat to eat that the world, and even some of the apologists and theologues, know not of. How great is the worth to the Church of this earliest-written account of the Lords last supper, of His own solemn expository words of institution, and those derived from the Lord Himself. And yet Paul rises to this universally precious, monumental, declaration and testimony, from the temporary and local and personal. Dictated to his amanuensis as he sat working at his trade in some humble lodging in Ephesus, there falls from his pen a palmary document of the Christian faith: received of the Lord, delivered unto the truly Catholic Church! Surely the wrath of man shall praise Him! (Psa. 76:10). The world is out of joint indeed; Gods fair order is sadly disturbed and marred. But every man can see, and can say, He meant it not so; He Who did so much that was manifestly intended to work for good, never left His work so nearly finished and yet so mischievously incomplete, so admirably designed and yet so imperfect in its actual working. And the wondering, grateful heart of His Church sees in a thousand instances Gods self-vindication for those who have hearts to feel its force and open eyes to see its facts; how He makes evil the seed-plot from whose very bosom good springs up; how not only parallel with evil, but occasioned by it, and helped forward by it, there arises the good. It is God working toward the restored order, the restitution of all things (Act. 3:21), towards which the most potently effectual contribution are the Redemption and the Church in whose midst is the significant Supper so profaned at Corinth. In 1Co. 11:19 is a particular example of the working of this ceaseless drift and movement of the Divine government of the world towards; restitution of the disturbed original order. It reads strongly: There must be heresies in order that. How and where do the Human and the Divine meet and work together? Who can tell? There is a Holy of Holies of secrecy within which the most adventurous human inquiry or analysis or speculation have never yet been able to set foot. [Kindred with the question: How and where do the Material and the Spiritual meet in Creation; e.g. in the chemistry, and the mechanics, and the mathematics, which are inwrought into the very structure of the natural world?] In the Incarnation, for example? In Inspiration, for example? In the Answer of Prayer? And, as here, in the Providential rule of the will of God over, and in, and through, creaturely wills, created by Himself as free as His own? It is one and the same problem, worked with many sets of data, and insoluble for the same reason in each particular case. Approach the meeting, the midway, reconciling point from one side, and all is Man, his free activity, his passions, his plans, his limitations, his sins; so much Man that there seems no roomnaturally, intellectually, morallyfor God. Approach from the other, and all is God; so entirely God that it is difficult to find room for mans freedom of thought and action, and for his responsibility or guilt. Yet it is noteworthy how seldom the heart raises or feels the difficulty. To the, not all unintelligent, bulk of Gods people, the every-day working hypothesis of life includes both: Much is of man; all is of God. The speculative difficulty is felt now and again, but the combination of man and God which defies intellectual analysis is a working principle which as a matter of fact does serve for the practical need of life. [How many readers, for example, or how many Jerusalem Christians in (say) A.D. 67 or 68, ever stopped to find any speculative difficulty in their Lords command, Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter? And yet how many lines of military, and political, and domestic plan and arrangement must converge; how many accidents of the weather, of the year, of the month, of the week; of the longer or briefer resistance of an army or a city, advancing or retarding the march of a general, and opening or closing the gates of a city; must concurwith chances simply infinite, mathematically calculated, against all the needed elements of a secure flight, in mild weather, to an open Pella of refuge, being found in combinationin order that the prayer might be answered.] In order that is for the understanding a problem of bottomless darkness, here and in all similar cases. But we do see a little way down. If we cannot always dissect out and exhibit in their distinctness Purpose and Result, we are oftentimes moved to deep and thankful wonder as we see Good resulting from Evil. For example:
2. Open evil keeps good on the alert.If only the Adversary were absolutely wise, he would oftener see that the game to play if he would win, is that of the subtle veiling of evil. The man, or the Church, that can, and does, withstand and struggle nobly and victoriously in the evil day (Eph. 6:13), often needs the emphatic caution, And having done all, to stand. When Evil has drawn off its beaten forces from the field, and the hard-pressed victor for faith, or principle, or public morality is breathing hard but freely, now that there seems a moments leisure, then is the need that watchfulness shall not be relaxed the greatest. It is not the evil which stands revealed as a heresy, from which a Church has most to fear, but that which puts on the guise of the most perfect congruity with the highest aspirations and work of a Church, or which robes itself in some innocent or friendly phraseology. Troy is still captured by the harmless horse of wood, which forsooth is really a thing devoted to the patron god of Troy! The world and its mischief are often hidden away in the harmless, innocent piece of politic concession to the needs of the age, or to the necessities of the young people whom we must keep with us, you know; in the offered assistance to the activities of the Church, which though not exactly claiming to be Christian, really is working, you see, towards the same end as yourselves. Let us help you, said the enemies of Jerusalem in the days of Zerubbabel, to build your temple; we seek your God as ye do (Ezr. 4:2). Zerubbabel and Jeshua would have no such help! The alliance, not the heresy, is to be feared. The heresy means that the uniforms of the opposing ranks are become more distinctive. When Confederate and Federal troops could hardly tell by speech or uniform whether friend or foe was stealing upon them and emerging from the mist, then was the peril of surprise and snatch-defeats. So again:
3. Defections and desertions have benefited the Church.Such defections stiffen faithfulness; not by provoking any mere dogged other-side-ishness, but by leading to heart-searching as to personal loyalty or unfaithfulness, to truth and Christ, by inducing new consecration on the part of the approved ones, by occasioning new inquiry into the meaning and worth of what is being assailed and defended. The diminished numbers close up their ranks and feel themselves the fitter for the fight. [See how, at the supper table, Christ Himself opened up to the approved eleven after Judas had withdrawn, as if even He breathed more freely where now all were faithful. Now is the Son of Man glorified, etc. (Joh. 13:31). The underlying idea of approved is well expounded e converso in 1Jn. 2:19 : [The many antichrists] went out from us that they might be made manifest that they were not of us. The deep essential cleavage which all along had divided the Church stood revealed. It was seen that they who were not for Christ were against Him. They stood out , reprobate, sifted out from the approved, the . In this instance the separation is made manifest by the secession of the antichrist party. In 2Ti. 2:19; 2Ti. 2:21 the secession is to be the action of the faithful party. Two hereticswhere the word is beginning to take on its later ecclesiastical colour and associationsare specified, Hymenus and Philetus. They had gone greatly wrong in doctrine (1Co. 11:18), and perhaps also in morals (1Co. 11:16); they were heretics who at least tended to become ungodly, immoral, heretics. They had gone out from the Church, or had been cast out; or, if not so much of separation had yet taken place, their error (1Co. 11:18) ranged them as not really belonging to the Great House. They had never really belonged to it, or had ceased to do so. It was only a human reckoning, which was originally imperfect, or which had become so by their falling away in doctrine and heart, that had accounted them so. Either mans hasty work had built in stones which never were living stones, or they had ceased to live, and so fell out from their place in the living temple, the spiritual House, to which they had ceased in any true sense to belong (1Pe. 2:4-5). So far as they had any connection with the Great House, it was that of vessels unto dishonor[not made to be broken in pieces; what house has any such?],the vessels which are needed to carry away from the house its sweepings and gathered impurities. [The heavenly Jerusalem, like the earthly; the Church, like the literal city; have their Gehenna outside the walls (Mat. 13:41). In the history of Churches, and of The Church, it is simple matter of observation that from time to time evil, error, disorder, and wilful, self-pleasing teaching seem to have gathered and gravitated toward some vessel unto dishonour. In some secessionsheretical or otherit has seemed as if the leaders have carried away with them the elements of turbulence and scandal. They have done good, indirectly. The vessel which carries away what cannot longer, for health or happiness, be suffered in the house, serves a useful turn. The Church has been left united, cleared in doctrine and life, purer and at peace, its approved ones appearing such to all.
4. It is an extension of the same principle to say that heresies (in the technical sense, not in Pauls sense here) have served the good end that what is approved truth has stood out in clearer light and appreciation. The early Church found itself occupying its heritage of Truth, much as some pioneer settlers in a new land may plant themselves in the midst of a vast, vague territory whose limits are not easy to define; nor for a little while does any necessity to define them seem to press upon them. But as neighbours come and plant themselves in the same region, Mine and Thine must needs be ascertained and marked off. Sometimes claim is set up or occupation attempted where the first comer believes that he has already exclusive right. With much discussion, perhaps with more than a little of heat and temper, the matter is threshed out, and at last a boundary-mark is planted where the verdict determines that rightful Occupancy and wrongful Claim are parted. In the end the process has been repeated on all sides, until the original seat of our settlers is girdled with a series of boundary-posts, which have become a complete definition of their holding. So, beginning with a body of truth rather held experimentally than formulated for the intellect, the Christian Church had from time to time to investigate the claim, the pretension, of this teaching or that to be part of the Truth; and so, very often with heat and struggle, it became clear that thus far was Truth, beyond was Error; on this side and on that, in this direction and in that, the boundary-marks got planted, until a definition of doctrine more or less complete was arrived at. [E.g. truly God, perfectly man, without confusion two natures, without division one person, are four such boundary-posts, marking the limits within which the truth that takes in all the facts and declarations of Scripture has been ascertained to lie, and beyond which lie heresies in the ecclesiastical sense; sometimes imperfect or crude attempts after truth, which have overstated one aspect of the whole, or have omitted some of the data for determining the whole.] Heterodoxy has cleared Orthodoxy. The heresies have necessitated the Creeds. That they which are approvedthe truths which have endured the scrutiny and the test and the fire of discussion and controversymay be made manifest among you. An accommodation of Pauls word, heresy, of course; but a legitimate application of the principle of the sentence.
III. Good, and only good.
1. How restful the atmosphere of these verses (2325). We are escaped where God hides His people in a pavilion from the strife of tongues (Psa. 31:20); escaped from the noisy factions of Corinth into the calm of the upper room in Jerusalem, where every word of the Master of the Feast seems to come from within the penumbra of that Shadow which is creeping over His path, and into whose inmost darkness He will enter on the following day. Sitting at table in full health, He talks to His fellows at the table of His blood, the price, the pledge, of a new, better covenant. Still with them, He speaks of the days when it shall be remembrance, not enjoyment, of His presence, of Himself; as if with the accent of a dying parent or friend, giving last injunctions, and making, with a calmness hardly shared by any who stand around the bed, the little final arrangements for the days when all is over and he is gone. Still living, still the Teacher and Friend in their midst, yet His own hands give out and distribute His body the body of a true Passover Lamb,a Sacrifice of redemption and deliverance, the Provision of a Supper whose strength shall be for the pilgrimage of Gods new, ransomed Israel. To these men, who had once heard Him declare Himself the true, the original, the archetypal Bread from Heaven (John 6); and who had seen, and shared in, the hushed perplexity with which men that morning listened in the synagogue of Capernaum, and at last said, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?to these He says, Take, eat.
2. As oft as ye shall drink it; His words look forward through the long vista of years before His Church, as, each time they sit down at His table, they look backward down the years. He is with them always,all the days. The Supper board is never spread but He takes His place as the Head of the table. [As He who sat quietly eating, the invited guest in the inn at Emmaus, suddenly, significantly, took their bread into His hands, and did the hosts part, blessing and breaking, and vanishing! (Luk. 24:30-31). See Appended Note.]
3. And they are not to allow the simple feast to be dissevered from Himself, and their grateful, believing remembrance of His whole work. As oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance. No other meaning is to be attached to, to be accreted round, the simple arrangement; Himself, their communion in Him, the covenant in His blood,these are to be remembered, not repeated, nor extended, nor forgotten. They may institute, may disuse, [like Moravians and Methodists] may restore, love-feast suppers in the Churches, as matters of prudential, profitable arrangement and order; simple fellowship meals. But only He can institute in remembrancein this fullest sensea supper; and so long, so often, as they profess to continue His supper, they must always take care that this significance is attached to it. It must not be so stripped of meaning that it becomes only the simple love-feast, or the sub-Pentecostal common table of the Christian brotherhood.
4. Only He could institute it, and only He can abolish it. There will be a last celebration of the Lords Supper, somewhere, somewhen. How happy that company eating and drinking when the Son of Man comes,by His lightning-sudden appearing breaking in with startling abruptness upon all the medley of human employment (Mat. 24:38),if they are eating and drinking at His table; a celebration of the Lords Supper interrupted by the coming of the Lord! And even then the fit word will hardly be abolish. The analogy of the creation history, and of the redemption history, in the past will again be followed, and the only abolition will be that of the temporary, accidental clothing of the Idea. The Lords Supper is but one form of, one testimony to, the Communion between God and man in Christ, towards which the ages (1Co. 10:11) have all been convergently working. All the persistently repeated supper-imagery of the Gospel parables concerning the future bliss of the saved will be fulfilled when, and where, the Lords Supper has given place to His drinking of the new wine with us in the kingdom of God (Mat. 26:29, etc.). The words will have had their suggestive, anticipatory fulfilments all along; these may suffice until He come (1Co. 11:26).
5. When He comes, the Lord of the feast will declare the feast ended; the Heavenly Supper begins. The witness of the Supper to the faith of His Church, that the Unseen Lord is only unseen, not dead, and that He will one day again step out from behind the veil and appear with a visible intervention in human affairs, will be crowned with its triumphant vindication. It will need the vindication. Christ shall step forth just when Antichrist is lording it over men with fullest-blown blasphemy; when the love of many shall have waxed cold; when faith shall be hard to find in the earth, a few poor embers of its old fire almost smothered beneath the heap of ashes of mens dead beliefs (2Th. 2:8; Mat. 24:12; Luk. 18:8). Till He come. Happy the dwindling band who still spread the table, and eat the supper, preparing it in the midst of their enemies (Psa. 23:5), with dogged faith looking out for Him who is their hope (1Ti. 1:1); waiting for the Lord, as they that watch for the morning,not only as eagerly, but in as assured certainty that the morning whose breaking delays longest nevertheless will dawn (Psa. 130:6).
6. In the midst of, and in spite of, evil. And how the repeated celebration of the little supper will have sustained faith. [The old argument of Leslie in his Short and Easy Method with the Deists is essentially sound wherever there are:
(1) A fact of the past, near or remote, e.g. the Exodus of Israel;
(2) An ordinance, repeatedly celebrated, in professed commemoration of the fact, e.g. the Passover;
(3) the connection between the fact and the ordinance, asserted and embodied in a record, written or other, whose repetition is part of the commemorative rite; and
(4) this repetition resting upon a command to that effect which professes to go back to the time of the original institution, e.g. Exo. 12:26. He shows how impossible it is to conceive of a nation accepting the fact on the joint evidence of
(2) and
(3), unless on the supposition of its truth, seeing that
(4) guards against the subsequent attachment of a pretended significant connection with
(1)whether this also be pretended or be realto an existing ordinance of a different or unknown origin. Could a newly-devised Passover feast have been, at any but the contemporary date, offered to, or accepted by, a nation as an original and ancient memorial of the events connected with an Exodus itself perhaps a myth? Or, supposing that the only new thing was the asserted memorial significance, then with what success could those who propagated this, hope to attempt to attach it to a really ancient feast, when part of their assertion was also that the feast always had been celebrated with this commemorative meaning; and that, from the first, at least the instructions for celebrating it had included a prescribed question and answer expressly connecting the events and the festival? Presuming, that is, that this direction had always been obeyed, and that there had been no considerable periods during which the observance had not been kept up, Leslies argument was strong, and has close correspondence with the argument often built up upon the fact and manner of the observance of the Supper in the Christian Church.] This undisputed letter of St. Paul is the first of a long series of testimonies, patristic and other, that from the first the Church of Christ has celebrated a supper with this significance. Moreover, in the four great families of Liturgies, the Oriental, the Alexandrian, the Roman, the Gallican and Spanish, can be found evidence mounting up to the fourth century, and almost to the third, that the bread has always been broken and the wine poured out in connection with a memorial use of the original words of institution. Very strong historical evidence this that, even though in this last particular we cannot make the ascending chain of evidence demonstrably link itself to the use of the institutory formula by Christ Himself, yet the lines so manifestly converge, that they must have a meeting-place in a fact, whichreversing the direction of thoughtis also their common point of origin. [For a brief, popular, accurate sketch of this argument and its foundation facts, see Present Day Tracts, No. 36, by Sir William Muir.]
7. Indeed, the solemn tone of the opening words of the account in 1Co. 11:23, it is suggested, betrays an already fixed monumental form of the teaching as to the origin and meaning of the supper. It is suffused with a tender solemnity, as it recalls in briefest suggestiveness the origin of the simple acts. Every stroke tells: The Lord Jesus; In the same night that He was betrayed. Jesus is in the foreground of the picture; but Judas is also there in the gloom of the background. Took up a loaf, and afterwards a cup. We can see His uplifted eyes; His as yet unpierced hands; we can hear His voice, giving thanks, even then, and the betrayal so nigh! In the same night, when selfishness touched the lowest depth it ever reached, and treachery sold the Lord of heaven for a slaves paltry price, in that night and no other, did unselfish, atoning, redeeming Love solemnly devote itself to death for the lost objects of its benevolence. On that night, when death was so nigh, and the toils of the hunters were every moment being drawn closer round the Object of human and devilish hatred, was His heart at leisure from itself, not only to speak words of comfort and instruction to a sorrowing company in an upper room in Jerusalem, but also to take care for a Church in all ages and places and peoples, and to institute His tenderest, simplest memorial to the understanding and the heart, of Himself. Good uplifting itself in undimmed, immaculate, undefilable beauty in the midst of Evil. Light shining in the very midnight of black, defiling darkness. We who read will at least give thanks in remembrance of Him and of His Supper table and its grace and love.
SEPARATE HOMILIES
1Co. 11:20. The Lords supper.
I. Supper.
1. The proper, Scriptural name of the ordinance. Jewish Christians familiar with the idea. Judaism had its supper. The birthday supper of their nation and Church. The Supper, the Sabbath, the Holy Place, the Circumcision-rite [with exactly the same continuity of development which obtains between successive stages of Gods creative workneither less nor more close], have been brought forward into Christianity, but modifiedpreserving the basal principle, their raison dtreand stamped with the seal of Christ, the Lord. In these days of the Son of Man everything has become the Lords, implicitly or expressly. We have the Lords Day; Church is [etymologically (see Skeat, Dict.) and in fact] the Lords House; Baptism is (at least closely connected with) the Circumcision of Christ (Col. 2:11); in our chapter occur the Lords Table, Cup, and Supper. He had taken one of the many cups drunk at the Passover supper; and of it, with a simple loaf from the table, had made His own new Supper, belonging to a new order of things in which the Lord Christ is all, and in all.
2. Not a sacrifice.
(1) A very large, historically important section of the Church affirms it is. Body and blood, soul and divinity, of the Lord Jesus Christ, bread and wine no longer remaining. (Conc. Trid., Can., 13, 1.) A transformation the more marvellous because not cognisable or verifiable by any of the senses. Men who alone can effect it are of a special orderpriests; the service they conduct is a sacrifice of this body, etc.,a real sacrifice, making expiation for the sins of the living, and (if they please) of the dead; in connection with it and with auricular confession of sins, they claim the power to remit (and, by consequence, to withhold) the temporal penalty of sin.
(2) Basis of all this is, This is My body. But cf. This cupnot even the wine in itis the New Testament in My blood (Luk. 22:20). Rigid literalism of interpretation carried consistently through ends in absurdity of interpretation.
(3) The Epistle to the Hebrews negatives all this. In it Christianity knows only one altar (1Co. 13:10), one sacrifice for sins (1Co. 10:12), one Priest to offer it (1Co. 10:21). Many priests, repeated sacrifices, belonged only to the imperfection of the type. But even the type was right in this: one only place for offering this atoning sacrifice. Synagogues (in later days) were everywhere; but in Damascus, or Tarsus, or Rome, or (the later) Babylon, for an altar and a priest and an atoning sacrifice, a devout Jew must look toward, or visit, Jerusalem. On that one spot only might such a sacrifice be found. So in every place the Christian worshipper must turn to the Heavenly Sanctuary only, trusting that there the One High Priest, long ago entered within the veil, is presenting His one perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for sins. No priest, then, at an altar, but a fellow-guest,representing, perhaps, the great Host Himself,at a supper table:the minister.
II. Three words gather up the teaching of the New Testament as to the ordinance:
1. Commemoration;
2. Communion;
3. Covenant.
1. Commemoration.
(1) Luk. 22:19 : This do, in remembrance (spoken when distributing the bread); revealed to Paul, Do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance (as He gave the cup). Paul adds the inspired comment: As often as ye eat ye do show the Lords death until He come. The act looks backward to Calvary [as well as forward to the Second Coming. In the face of denials of the resurrectionand of His resurrectionor the scoffer who asks, Where is the promise of His coming? the Church at the Table proclaims, We look for Him to appear the second time, etc. (Heb. 9:28); and we purpose to proclaim our hope and confident expectation until He come]. The Church at the Supper says: We believe in Jesus Christ, Who suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried, rose again, ascended, sitteth. The Creed, with its facts of History, is implied in the celebration of the Supper.
(2) The very fact of the observance of such a Supper does something to prove our faith reasonable. [And, given the past facts, the hope for the future is reasonable too.] Impossible, travelling backward, to find an age when the Church did not meet to break bread together, and that as a token of faith in the Cross and its Atonement; all but impossible to account for their doing itabove all with this meaningunless on the supposition that the events commemorated are really historical. These are reasons of no slight force on which may rest the faith of the heart of the Church of Christ.
(3) The heart; for this no mere commemoration of a fact of history. Conceivable that an annual public reading of the narratives, perhaps with some suitable ceremonial accompaniment, might have sufficed for that. The Lord made the commemoration one for the heart, as well as for the understanding, when He made the celebration itself symbolise the truths to be kept in view and enshrined in the history. The broken bread, the poured-out wine, lift the hearts eyes to the body broken with scourge, thorn, nail, spear; to the blood poured forth to secure remission of sins. The Lords death is not merely the crucifying of one Jesus of Nazareth at a particular date, outside the walls of Jerusalem, but God setting forth Christ Jesus a propitiation, etc. (Rom. 3:25-26); setting Him forth in full view of three worldsangelic, infernal, human; in full view of the heart of the guest at the Supper. So from age to age the Church hands on the deposit of testimonyto the history and to the meaning of itwhich each generation receives from its preceding one; [each generation receives the torch of Hope from its predecessor, and in turn hands it on to the waiting next one; only to be quenched when He comes].
2. Communion.
(1) Pauls comment in 1Co. 10:16. Significant in the East, and not without meaning in the colder, prosaic West, to eat food together; it very early meant to establish a compact of peace, friendship, mutual defence. The persecuted Church of early ages felt vividly how sitting side by side at a common meal was an avowal of their unity in the face of heathen neighbours and kindred, and a pledging of themselves to love and fidelity each to other. The little Christian host, warring in an enemys country, at the Supper table join hands, and go forth again to fight [strengthened as with bread of life], to stand shoulder to shoulder, back to back, foursquare to the assault of the world and sin. The club-feast of the Christian society (Ecce Homo); this, though more. A periodical reunion of all believers in Christ, which may remind them of their separateness from the world, and of their close-drawn brotherhood and association for common aims, work, help, and in a common hope. [Here the close resemblance to the Love-feast, which was the club-feast and no more. Hence their conjoint, confluent celebration in early times; especially remembering how the first Lords Supper was the emphasising of a particular point in the course of a prolonged meal.]
(2) This satisfies, lawfully, the craving for some continuous linking with the Early Church, and for some visible linking with the world-wide Church of to-day, or of any one century. The gulf of nearly nineteen centuries is bridged over by an unbroken succession of little companies, whokneeling, sitting, with gorgeous ritual, or with none at allhave broken bread and drunk wine together in memory of their common Lord and Founder. At the Supper table the humblest Christian joins hands with apostles and martyrs; with the living, fighting, working Church, in all Churches and lands to-day; with the living, resting, glorified Church of those who have departed this life in His faith and fear. The front ranks of Gods great sacramental hostone in every time and placehave long ago, or recently, passed into the skies; rear ranks are not yet come into view; midway at the Supper the Christian of to-day vindicates and confesses his place in the host. [No rank, or social distinction, known at the Table. Master, servant, children, all there.] Ye being many, etc. (1Co. 10:17).
(3) Partakers of that one body. This to be noted. Not only association, brotherhood, fellowship, but all these resting upon, rooted in, a communion, a common sharing in the One Lord. He called the personal appropriation of Himself, so as to make Him the strength and sustenance of our spiritual life, eating His flesh, drinking His blood (John 6), living by eating Him. The same Holy Ghostthe Life of the Body, Who dwelt in a Corinthian Christian, dwells in a Christian in a foreign land to-day, dwells in the English Christian who sits at the Communion Supper.
3. Covenant.
(1) The Covenant significance, announced in Christs words of institution, and in Pauls report upon the matter, makes the Supper a Sacrament. [In old Church Latin, a symbol of some hidden truth.] Conceivably, as matter of expedient ceremonial and teaching, a man might have instituted a custom of a united supper as a memorial and communion ordinance. But only Christ could say Luk. 22:20, or Mat. 26:28.
(2) The writer of the Hebrews (1Co. 9:19-20) carries back exegesis and thought to Exo. 24:6-8. Under shadow of Sinai, newly given law read in hearing of Israel; that done, the book, with its precepts inwritten, the altar, the people, were sprinkled with the blood of their [own provision of] peace offerings. Moses cried, The blood of the covenant. etc. The blood of the Old Testament; the blood of the New Testament. The people provided the offerings; Moses, on behalf of God, ordained, accepted, used, the shed blood. God and Israel entered into covenant. They were pledged to obedience; God was pledged to faithfulness in blessing. As it means the Creed; so the Supper involves on mans side the Commandments; and, on Gods side their preface, I am the Lord thy God, interpreted as in Luk. 20:38.
(3) So, though we provide the materials for the meal, it is the Lords Supper. We procure,He directs that we shall, and accepts and uses,the bread and the wine; and He, as really as we are, is covenanted. Hence 1Co. 11:28 : So let him eat; i.e. having examined himself; having renounced the sin he finds; purposing to avoid it by the covenanted help of Christ.
(4) No special appropriateness then for this Supper to a dying hour or a sick-chamber. Certainly no passport thence to a surer heaven; the bread is no heathenish obolus on the tongue, to fee some other-world ferryman or doorkeeper. Also, no special privilege of good people as such. All living in covenant communion with God in Christ, or seeking to do so; all sincere penitents trying to cast themselves with all reliance upon Christ; may come, guests welcome to the Supper, and may there learn to know, or to know better, the Lord Whose guests they are.
1Co. 11:31. Self-judgment.
I. If we would.Why do we not?
1. We are too indolent.It is troublesome to go thoroughly into an incessant analysis of motives and inclinations and desires. These are often not single and undivided, but exceedingly complex. A motive is the resultant of the interaction of a whole set of motives. It is easier, it disturbs our comfortable adjustment of ourselves to our social environment less, it involves no inconvenient, ungentlemanly necessity of condemning what our good sort of neighbours are and do, to accept some ready-made, external, customary standard of character and behaviour, and to be content, in our own case at all events, with a tolerably close approximation to even thisso close that we pass muster with, it may be, not a little credit amongst our fellows. Yet such a standard must needs be concerned only with the outside of the man; the judgments of which it is the instrument must needs be somewhat rough estimates. It convicts only the few specially prominent points which it touches. All the detail of the outer life, and all the inner life, it ignores. So long as we are content to live outside our true self, and to be only on terms of acquaintance and not intimacy with ourself, the average or minimum character which passes muster in our set, whether Christian or worldly, may satisfy us. But we do not know the man whom that other Judge knows.
2. We are too proud.Such experiment as men do sometimes make, under the constraint of that moral honesty which is really part of the Holy Spirits preliminary work in the human soul, so constantly ends in very uncomfortable, disquieting, unsatisfactory discoveries, that they will go no further. Now and then some unusually marked incident of moral failure forces upon them what is to them an amazing revelation; for a moment there yawns within them, and they must look down into, a moral abyss of darkness and defiling sin, such as they never suspected or believed was possible. Their new discovery may issue in a penitent, self-loathing prostration of the man at the feet of Him who can create a clean heart within; or it may be followed by a refusal to look any longer, or to learn any more; by a resolute endeavour to forget what has been seen and to avert the minds glance altogether from the direction in which such unwelcome discoveries may again by possibility lie. The natural heart rebels against the accusation, and still more against the conviction, of sin. Pride will not let men judge themselves.
3. Moral inability.Not any original inability. If we would assumes that, normally, men may. There is, as a matter of fact, no total blindness, no total ignorance of Gods moral standard, no utter want of spiritual power; the grace of a Redeemer has secured some measure of these for every manenough to begin upon. And this restored, gracious power of perception and judgment may grow by exercise; it will be increased on every act of obedience to its decisions; but it may also be disregarded and disobeyed until it is lost. The inner standards of right and wrong may be depraved, and the power to apply them be lost altogether. Blind man could not have given himself again an eye to see, or light to see by; but these given, he can create darkness for himself and renew his blindness. Too many cannot judge themselves, because the standard is lost and the faculty for applying it gone. But, short of that, there are, in varying degrees, the obscuration, the deadening, the blunting of the moral sensibility or sensitiveness, till, even with the objective standard in the Word of God still clearly legible, and comparison with it inevitable and constant, many men are, in popular phrase, no judges of themselves. They are in Davids case, who for more than nine months after the murder of Uriah the Hittite seems to have lived in happy enjoyment of his shameful possession of the murdered mans wife, and to have occupied himself with the ordinary round of royal duty and pleasure, without any sense of remorse or of sin at all; conscience silent [or forcibly silenced: cf. Psa. 32:3-5, which usually are connected with this episode in Davids career]; fear of Gods wrath hardly, if at all, felt. Such sensuality as that of Corinth, if even only allowed to enter and contaminate the imagination, thus dulls the moral sensibility and weakens the moral judgment, with fearfully cumulative effect. If we would means living with such a guard upon ourselves, that nothing is tolerated, encouraged, cultivated, which will interfere with the instant readiness of conscience to judge, with a growing fineness of perception, our actions, and our whole position before God.
II. What if we will not?Then we come before another Judge, Whose decision goes a stage further than our own would do. Ours is the judgment of the jurythe verdict; His is the judgment both of the jury and of the judgeverdict and sentence and penalty. At Corinth it came as physical evilsickness, and even death in many cases. But His penalties on this side the grave are not irrevocable nor merely penal; they may be corrective, reformatory, if with them a man will seek to have and to use the grace of God; the chastenings of a Father, not the punishments of a King, condemning the world. Three stages are marked out:
(1) Come into condemnation at your own court of first instance within, and then it may be you will not need to come into Gods condemnation.
(2) Come under the temporal, reformatory chastisements of a Divine Father. If these are tried and fail, if neither He nor your heart is suffered to rebuke, convict, reform, then
(3) You come into condemnation, to a judgment which knows no issue but the doom of the world. (Cf. the obscure passage, 1Co. 5:5.)
HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS
1Co. 11:30. The connection between moral and physical evil is:
I. Clearly revealed.
II. Daily exemplified.
III. In accordance with true philosophy.
IV. Should be an incentive to holiness.[J. L.]
1Co. 11:30-32. Temporal judgments are:
I. Usually occasioned by sin; yet the absence of them is no proof of innocence (Luk. 13:1-5).
II. Mercifully designed to save us from final condemnation.
III. May possibly be averted by faithful dealing with ourselves.[J. L.]
APPENDED NOTE
Note the suggestion of some upon 1Co. 10:31, that the Lords Supper is [only] the highest instance of the sanctification of even the lowliest, most material, most nearly animal, part of our common life. Note also how at Emmaus the ordinary supper which is in progress is in a moment glorified into, at any rate, a suggestion of the Last Supper. Note how, similarly, in 1Co. 11:25, the express statement of time makes the blessing, etc., of the bread to have taken place during supper, and the differentiating of the meal from the sacrament to have only become patent in connection with the sanctification of the cup to its new use. Well illustrated by the incident told of Fletcher of Madeley by James Rogers, the husband of the well-known Hester Ann Rogers: I had long desired to converse with Mr. Fletcher, and now an opportunity offered itself. Stopping at Bristol for a few days to rest myself and horse, I heard of his being at Mr. Irelands, about three miles off, in a poor state of health, and, with two of my brethren, took a ride to see him. When we came there, he was returning from a ride. Dismounting from his horse, he came towards us with arms spread open and eyes lifted up to heaven, His apostolic appearance, with the whole of his deportment, amazingly affected us. [Then, after a brief conversation, all in keeping with his habitual spirituality of mind], We were about to take our leave, when Mr. Ireland sent his footman into the yard with a bottle of red wine and some slices of bread upon a waiter; we all uncovered our heads, whilst Mr. Fletcher craved a blessing upon the same; which he had no sooner done, than he handed first the bread to each, and then, lifting up his eyes to heaven, pronounced these words: The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Afterwards, handing the wine, he repeated in like manner, The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. But such a sacrament I never had before. A sense of the Divine presence rested upon us all; and we were melted into floods of tears. His worthy friend, Mr. Ireland, grieved to see him exhaust his little strength by so much speaking, took him by the arm, and almost forced him into the house; while he kept looking wishfully, and speaking to us, as long as we could see him. We then mounted our horses and rode away.Early Methodist Preachers, iv. 301303.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Butlers Comments
SECTION 2
Oneness, a Requirement for Godly Worship (1Co. 11:17-34)
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you meet together, it is not the Lords supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lords death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another34if any one is hungry, let him eat at homelest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
1Co. 11:17-19 Cliques Stated: The church at Corinth was especially troubled by problems of worship. This was in part due to the variety of religious backgrounds among its members. The Jews in the Corinthian church would be accustomed to the simple, subdued, but dignified services of the synagogue. The synagogue would have been male-oriented. The women would have kept silent. Scriptures would be read, a scholarly dissertation of the scriptures would be given, prayers said, and, as the worshipers departed, offerings would be placed in the alms boxes. Most of the Gentiles in the Corinthian church, however, would be accustomed to the idolatrous services associated with Dionysus, god of intoxication and revelrywild orgiastic feasts where food and wine were consumed in great quantities. The cult of Mithras, which was so popular with the Roman troops, initiated its converts in the tauroboliuma pit in the ground over which a bull was slaughtered. As the blood poured over him, the new devotee eagerly let it immerse his eyes, nose, and tongue. This makes it clear there would be difficulty in the Corinthian church about how the worship services should be conducted.
A serious problem had arisen about the observance of the Lords Supper. Paul was very distressed over the reports of their conduct. Apparently there were cliques (small, exclusive groups) forming according to social and economic levels and separating from one another. It is clear that the worship service of first century Gentile churches was preceded by a communal meal (a fellowship supper). Paul says in this very chapter that the worship service in Corinth observed such a meal before worship (1Co. 11:20-22). By having this fellowship supper they may have thought they were making progress in their Christian commitment. But Paul says they were coming together not for the better but for the worse! They would have been better off not even to have come together to behave as they were.
Division is abhorred by the Lord whether it is over church leaders, over opinions, or over social and economic status. Paul does not say here (1Co. 11:18-19) that divisions (Gr. Schismata) and factions (Gr. haireseis, or heresies) are necessary in the church in order to prove who belongs to God. He certainly would not advocate that Christians should form denominations and sects and cliques so the world would be able to find the true God. Jesus prayed just the opposite (see Joh. 17:1 ff.). He is pointing out, however, that when people form cliques within the church, those who refuse to join them and refuse to approve of them, are themselves recognized as genuine in their faith. A Christian who is a genuine brother to all Christians will not only refuse to join cliques and factions, but he will resist them with loving admonition.
1Co. 11:20-22 Communal Supper: William Barclay in his commentary writes about the communal meal in the first century church:
The ancient world was in many ways a much more social world than ours. It was the regular custom for groups of people to meet together for common meals. There was, in particular, a certain kind of feast called an eranos in Greek language, to which each participant brought his own share of the food, and in which all the contributions were pooled to make a common feast. The early church had such a custom; they had a feast called the Agape or Love Feast. To it all the Christians came, bringing what they could, and when the resources of all were pooled, they sat down to a common meal. It was a lovely custom; and it is to our loss that the custom vanished.
This meal probably grew out of the fact that when Jesus first instituted the Lords Supper it was in connection with the Passover meal he and his disciples had just eaten. It was a way of producing and nourishing real Christian fellowship (Gr. koinonia, sharing, participating). It offered the well-to-do a regular opportunity to share their material blessings with the poor. After this meal, all the Christians would partake of the bread and wine of the Lords Supper, to memorialize his atoning death for the sins of all men.
But in the church at Corinth things had gone sadly wrong with the Love feast (and as a consequence, it had defiled their act of partaking of the Lords Supper). Paul treats this problem with one of the angriest outbursts in the whole epistle. He begins with sarcasm, When you meet together, it is not the Lords Supper that you eat. William Barclay again:
In this church there were rich and poor; there were those who could bring much of the finest of foods to the Love Feast and there were slaves and poor who could bring little or nothing. For many a poor slave the Love Feast must have been the only decent meal in the whole week. . . . The rich did not share their food but ate in little exclusive groups by themselves, hurrying through it in case they had to share. The meal or gathering at which the social differences between members of the church should have been obliterated only succeeded in aggravating these same differences.
Some in the Corinthian church began to eat before the others arrived, gorging themselves, consuming most of the provisions, and letting the others go hungry. The drunken are the wealthy who had the leisure to come early. They fed themselves full, and drank until they became inebriated. How shameful! The hungry were the slaves, common laborers, foundry workers, tired dock hands, and sick and disabled who were poverty stricken. Most of these would of necessity arrive late for the communal meal in the evening because they had to work until the sun set; these needed the most and received the least. It is scandalous to become drunken at the worship service; it is even worse to be drunk with a false sense of superiority and an indifference to the needs of the brethren.
What started as a love feast turned out to be an orgy of squabbling, hurt feelings and even drunkenness. This, of course, destroyed all possibility of properly commemorating the Lords sacrifice in the Lords Supper. Paul insists that this prostitution of Christian fellowship destroys the true meaning and purpose of the Lords Supper. They go through the ritual of the Lords Supper all right, but it does not glorify Christ. They have hardly turned away from showing their contempt for Christ in their factious gluttony before they are pretending to join their snubbed brethren in communing with the Lord.
Paul is not prohibiting Christians from having fellowship suppers in the church-building in 1Co. 11:22. In the first place, so far as we know historically and archaeologically, there were no buildings built specifically as church-buildings before 200 A.D. The Christians at Corinth were meeting in peoples private homes (see 1Co. 16:19). Furthermore, it is clear that what Paul condemned was the manner in which they were conducting themselves, not the place of the supper. Pauls suggestion is that if they are going to continue with their insensitive arrogance and gluttony to humiliate their brethren, they should stop the love feast and eat in their own homes. The place had nothing to do with their despising the church of Godit was their carnality.
Once again we behold actions so carnal and shameful in Christians we wonder how Paul could call them brethren. But with only a little soul-searching we all should acknowledge we are ignorant and obstinate brethrenin differing areas of behavior.
1Co. 11:23-26 Covenant Shared: This parenthetical sectiona review from Paul concerning the establishment of the Lords Supperserves as a reminder of the spiritual purpose of the Lords Supper. Paul had not been an eyewitness to the initial institution of the Supper. But that did not matter since the Lord Himself revealed to Paul the historical and spiritual details of itand Paul had taught that to these Christians at Corinth.
In this text the apostle is emphasizing covenant, not ritual. Some would make the ritual the Christians covenant. The Lords Supper is not our covenantit commemorates our covenant. Isaiah predicted at least twice that God would make the Servant (the Messiah) himself our covenant (Isa. 42:6 and Isa. 49:8). Isaiahs statement Isa. 42:6, I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, is unquestionably messianic (see Isa. 42:1-4 and Mat. 12:18-21) in its context. Jesus Christ, himself, is our covenant. When we observe the Lords Supper we are remembering that through faith we have appropriated him (Jesus) as our covenant. Of course, observance of the Supper is an act of faith on our part, but neither our faith nor the ritual is our covenant. It is through faith that we have been made partakers of the divine nature (see 2Pe. 1:3-4). Jesus, himself, dying and atoning for our sins and rising from the dead to supply the new creation of his Spirit within us, is our covenant. How does one partake of a person as a covenant? Through assimilating his word (his Spirit, his will). We eat his flesh and drink his blood by believing and obeying his word (see Joh. 6:63). It would be of no profit to us even if we could engage in some ritual where we ate the actual, literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus. It is his will, his personality, his mind, and his actions he wants us to assimilate (to partake of, to have koinonia with).
Our communion (participation) is in his person, his nature, and must not be confined merely to rituals. Participation in the life of Christ may involve observance of clearly revealed ceremonies or actions specified by Christ or the apostles, but the ceremonies are not the covenant. A covenant is an oath. Gods oath in the new dispensation was the Messiah himself (see Heb. 6:17, where it should be translated, . . . he interposed himself with an oath; see 2Co. 1:20, where Jesus is said to be Gods oath of confirmation to all his promises). A covenant is a reconciliation. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (2Co. 5:19). The ceremony of the Lords Supper is the weekly reminder that we share in a Divine Personnot a system of rituals.
Do this in remembrance of me, involves more than remembering the crucifixion scene. It involves remembering that . . . one died, therefore all died. It involves remembering that from now on . . . we regard no one from a human point of view . . . (see 2Co. 5:14-21). It involves remembering that we participate in the very life of Jesus Christ, or that he controls, directs, orders our lives. When Jesus died, we diedif we accept his death for us. I no longer direct meJesus does.
Had this been the case in Corinth, the brethren would not have arrogantly and greedily disregarded their brethren. They would have waited at the love feast for the poor, lower-class, late-comers and would have counted them better than themselves for this is the mind of Christ in which Christians are to participate (see Php. 2:3-8). This is the life we are to have in us, being lived out through us. This is being in covenant with Jesus. The Corinthians were faithfully gathering to observe the ritual, but they were not partaking of the covenant!
Twice in this context the Greek adverb, hosakis, as often as is used to qualify the imperative verb, poieite, Do. There really is no distinct, categorical commandment from the Lord or the apostles as to when the Lords Supper must be commemorated. No particular day is commanded and no commandment is made as to frequency. Since no explicit directive is given in the New Testament, our next best guide about time and frequency of observance would be some precedent set by the apostolic (first century) church. We would certainly be on safer ground by seeking apostolic precedent than by trying to guess about the matter some twenty centuries removed from the beginning of the church.
From Act. 20:7 and 1Co. 16:2 we observe that the first century church met every first day of every week to do two things: break bread (Act. 20:7) and put something aside (take up an offering) (1Co. 16:2). Even if we assume the phrase break bread in Act. 20:7 refers to the love feast, we are still compelled to acknowledge (from our text here in 1Co. 11:23-26) that the love feast was followed by the observance of the Lords Supper. However, we may just as well assume the phrase break bread refers specifically to the Lords Supper rather than the love feast. Whatever the case may be, we must admit the church at Troas, in the first century, observed the Lords Supper at least every first day of the week.
Since the church at Troas was undoubtedly established and taught by the apostle Paul, we must assume they met every first day of the week to break bread in accordance with apostolic instruction. Alexander Campbell wrote in The Christian System, pp. 274275:
The Apostles taught the churches to do all the Lord commanded. Whatever, then, the churches did by the appointment or concurrence of the apostles, they did by the commandment of Jesus Christ. Whatever acts of religious worship the apostles taught and sanctioned in one Christian congregation, they taught and sanctioned in all Christian congregations because all are under the same government of the same king. But the church in Troas met upon the first day of the week for religious purposes.
Among the acts of worship, or the institutions of the Lord, to which the disciples attended in these meetings, the breaking of the loaf was so conspicuous and important, that the churches are said to meet on the first day of the week for this purpose. We are expressly told that the disciples at Troas met for this purpose; and what one church did by the authority of the Lord, as a part of his instituted worship, they all did.
Many of the early church fathers (Christian leaders of the church in the second century) testify in their writings that the Lords Supper was observed on every first day of the week. Justin Martyr, who wrote about 140 A.D., says:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place . . . when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
In the compilation of writings called The Teaching of The Twelve, written about 120 A.D. Christians were exhorted to gather every Lords Day to break bread and give thanks. The Ante-Nicene fathers confirm this practice of observing the Lords Supper every Sunday.
So, while we have no categorical command from the Lord about the frequency of its observance, we surely have clear apostolic precedent for observing it every first day of the week.
There may be a number of reasons we have no distinct and dogmatic order about the frequency of observing the Lords Supper. First, if the Lord has to spell out in minute detail every spiritual action we are to take, he leaves no room for spiritual growth and character-building. It is in accepting the responsibility for discovering some truths, rather than in having them spelled out in detail, that we come to spiritual maturity. Perhaps that is why the Lord left the matter of frequency merely implied in the New Testament. Further, knowing the tendency of man to be legalistic, the Lord undoubtedly decided not to legislate the Suppers frequency. He would not want men to use a command about frequency of observance to attack, condemn and destroy ignorant and immature babes in Christ. Jesus would want this very significant and intimate act of worship to be done from love not from legalism. And if the Lord places in his word a veiled hint (or precedent) about its frequency, love will find it!
Observance of the Lords Supper is not merely a remembrance of the past redemptive deeds of Christit is also a telling-forth (Gr. katangellete, a proclamation, a declaration) of the future redemptive deed of Christ in his Second Coming. The Christian, by observing the Lords Supper every week, is declaring to the world around him that he believes the death of Jesus Christ to be efficacious for the forgiveness of sin and participation in the Spirit of God by grace. In observing the Lords Supper the Christian is telling the world there is salvation in no other name under heaven than that of Jesus Christ. This testimony will go on, and on, and on, and on, in the world, as often as it is done, until Christ returns. The Lords Supper is also a declaration to the world that Christians believe Christ is alive, risen from the dead, ascended to the right hand of God the Father, there making intercession on behalf of those who love him. It is a proclamation that Christians believe Jesus Christ to be living and communing in the Spirit with the church every time the Supper is observed (see Mat. 18:20). If this be the case, let us not argue about frequency of observance. Let us rather rejoice that we have apostolic precedent for observance at least every first day of the week when the church gathers for corporate worship. Consider the possibilities of intensifying the Christian proclamation with more frequent observance. Why not observe the Lords Supper on other corporate gatherings of a congregation? Why not on Wednesday night at midweek service? Why not at ladies meetings, mens meetings, youth meetings? The spiritual oneness, and moral constancy that would permeate a congregation meeting early every morning of every week, before scattering to different places of employment, would soon result in an evangelistic harvest.
1Co. 11:27-29 Criticism of Self: A primary purpose of the Lords Supper is, on the basis of Christs loving atonement, to stimulate the participant into an examination of himself and his relationship to the whole body of Christ. This was what Jesus used it for on the very night he instituted it. There, he challenged the apostles to examine their own hearts about betraying him. And each one did, asking, Lord, is it I? All the disciples, at that first Communion, were prodded into thinking of themselves in relation to Jesus and to one another. The Greek word dokimazeto is translated examine himself. It is the same Greek word used in 2Co. 13:5 where the KJV translates the word, prove. To examine is to test or prove. It means, literally, we are to put ourselves on trial.
But what is eating the Lords Supper in an unworthy manner? The Greek word from which we get the English word unworthy is anaxios. Axios is the Greek word from which we get axiom, axiology, and axiomatic. The word in both Greek and English means, value, proper, good, right, and worth. It is, therefore, possible to observe the Eucharist in an improper way. To do so makes a person guilty (Gr. enochos, liable to judgment of law) of the body and blood of the Lord (guilty as if the participant had crucified the Lord). Paul clearly says, For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
To discern the body during observance of the Lords Supper is not to be confined simply to a mental image of the crucifixion. To discern the body in this context refers specifically to brotherhood. It means to refresh ones memory about Jesus dying for all believers, rich or poor, famous or unknown, strong or weak. It means Christians, prompted by the Lords Supper, are to discern the body in its membership, in its koinonia (fellowship). Too often, we focus too much on ourselves, even at the Lords Supper. It is in keeping with the intent of Pauls discussion of the Supper here to have the burdens and needs of other members of the church upon our minds and hearts as we observe it. The less we think of ourselves during the Supper, the more likely we are to observe it as Paul wanted the Corinthians to observe it. The one way to drink it in an unworthy manner is to isolate oneself from the rest of the body in attitude and action. No man is unworthy in and of himself to partake. The Supper should be observed by sinners who are repenting. Sin should not keep us away from the Communionit should drive us to it so we may get the right attitude. But the person who, like some of these Corinthians were doing, observes the Lords Supper and is insensitive toward any other member of the body, drinks judgment upon himself.
The Lords Supper was ordained by Christ to prompt people to love him and his body, the church. It is a love feast. It must be observed in unity. No one should dare observe it if he is not in harmony with his brethren. To observe the Lords Supper and at the same time be slandering a brother, or disregarding a brothers needs, or agitating division within the body, is to profane and make a mockery of it. Such would be to blaspheme the very life he hypocritically professes to be sharingthe Life of Jesus!
1Co. 11:30-34 Consequences of Such a Sham: Having the wrong attitude and still trying to play the role of a worshiper of God can have dire consequences. A separatist, schismatic attitude about the body of Christ while trying to pretend oneness and unity causes spiritual sickness, and, eventually, spiritual death. This is precisely the reason for so much spiritual sickness among Christians today. Too many Christians are going through the motions as they gather about the Lords Table, but they havent really surrendered to the mind and will of Jesus Christ as he revealed it once for all in the Scriptures. Too many, even Christians, want to judge the scriptures by their feelings and selfish desires rather than judging their feelings by the scriptures. This is the very point Paul is making here in Corinthians. He reminds these Christians at Corinth they must not judge their fellow church members by their feelings, but by the objective work of Christ documented in the New Testament. That is, all sinners are equally lost; all believers are equally redeemed. All Christians are equally members of Christs body, the church. There may be different places of service within the kingdom of God, but every citizen is a servant. There is only one Master, and he is Jesus. Of course, there are specific hierarchical orders God has ordained within human society (even in the church), but still, there are no kings, only servants.
Paul told the Corinthians their spiritual sickness (Gr. arrostoi, feebleness) was directly due (Gr. dia touto, on account of this, therefore) to their profanation of the Lords Supper by misdiscerning the body. The Bible speaks of spiritual sickness often (see Isa. 1:5; Isa. 33:24; Hos. 5:13; Psa. 30:2; Isa. 53:5; Jer. 6:14; Jer. 8:11; etc.). Spiritual sickness, and eventually, death, results from at least two causes: (a) improper ingestion of spiritual foodeither not enough or the wrong food (see Joh. 6:35-65 and Luk. 12:1; Heb. 5:11-14; 1Co. 3:1-4, etc.); (b) exposure to the infectiousness of sin (Eph. 5:3-14; 2Pe. 3:17). Sin, if not treated by the spiritual healing of faith in Christ, invades our minds and infects them much like viral micro-organisms that cause physical illness and death. Sin, allowed to incubate, grows and develops and when it is fullgrown brings death (Jas. 1:14-15).
Unworthy observance of the Lords Supper brings condemnation to the whole body of Christians (1Co. 11:34) when worship is profaned by play-acting. It is contagious. Hypocrisy and division will soon infect an entire congregation so that swift, radical, spiritual-surgery is sometimes called for (cf. 1Co. 5:1-13; Rom. 16:17-18; 2Th. 3:6-15; Tit. 3:10).
The only worthy way to observe the Lords Supper is to discern the body. Thus, from now on regard no one from a human point of view, but be consistently controlled by the love of Christ. At the Lords Table concentrate on the fact that because one has died for allall must die to self and live no longer for self but for him who for your sake died and was raised (see 2Co. 5:14-17; Gal. 2:20). Concentrate on viewing every Christian, every member of Christs church, as an equal member of the body, a new creature in Christ. If all who meet at his Table will do this, every week, the church will be healthy and alive. Churches may appear to be alive and be dead (Rev. 3:1). Churches may appear to be healthy and be sick (Rev. 3:15-17). The Lord wants the church to be healthy at the very core of its being. This will be true only when the church partakes of the Lords Supper in a worthy manner.
Appleburys Comments
Text
1Co. 11:17-34. But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lords supper: 21 for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not. 23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said. This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also 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. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lords death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment upon himself, if he discern not the body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. 34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest I will set in order whensoever I come.
Observing the Lords Supper (1734)
Commentary
I praise you not.Paul had praised them for remembering him and for holding fast the traditions he had delivered to them. But there were some things connected with their worship for which he did not praise them. Some may not have been observing his advice about the use of the veil when praying or prophesying. In the matter of eating the Lords supper, he could not praise them because of the conditions that prevailed in their assembly for which they were entirely responsible. He severely rebuked them because their coming together was not for the better but for the worse.
when ye come together in the church.We tend to identify the building where the church people meet with the church, but church refers to the people who are called out from the general group to be the people of God. It also strongly suggests assembly since the church is to come together for worship. They were not to neglect the assembling of themselves together (Heb. 10:25). The thing that was happening in their assembly was the object of Pauls criticism.
divisions exist among you.Perhaps at no place did the sectarian spirit of the Corinthians show up in all its sinful nature more clearly than at the assembly when the Lords supper was to be eaten. Leaders got together with their own supporters around their own food while others were allowed to go hungry. Paul certainly could not praise them for this.
Neither the splits nor the factions had reached the proportions to which they later developed, but there were cliques in the local congregations. The sin of division is just as real on the local level as it is when it reaches the stage of separate organizations. Paul indicates that he believed this condition was true with part of the church at Corinth.
I partly believe it.This does not indicate doubt as to the situation, but rather as to the extent to which it had gone. There were those who were not mixed up in it.
there must be factions among you.Some were choosing sides over loyalty to a leader or over some other rallying point. Groups were formed that excluded all others who did not support the particular issue of the group. Such splits were accompanied by the factions that caused them.
they that are approved.The apostle is not saying that factions are necessary in order that those who are approved of God may be manifested. Surely Gods people need no such sinful background for them to be known. But cliques in the church do result in the manifestation of the approved who refuse to join the clique.
when ye come together.One of the things for which they came together was eating the Lords supper. This was by no means the only reason for the assembly nor does the Bible indicate that it was the primary reason. It is true that Act. 20:7 states that they came to break bread, but the expression primary reason does not occur in the text. It would seem that Pauls preaching was equally important since he was acting under the commission of Christ to preach the word. Collections were made on a weekly basisevidently when they came togetherto obviate the necessity of making the collection at the time of the apostles visit (1Co. 16:1-2).
The practice of eating the common meal had defeated this other important matter, eating the Lords supper. Cliques that had plenty ate their own food while others who had nothing went hungry. How could the Lords supper which taught the lessons of remission of sins and the unity of the body of Christ be eaten in such an atmosphere?
have ye not houses to eat and drink in?Since the common meal was the occasion for the cliques to form, it was to be discontinued. This is not to say that churches where such conditions do not exist are forbidden the privilege of coming together in the church buildings to eat. But if Corinth could get into trouble over this matter it might be well for elders to watch the flock lest similar situations develop in congregations today. Sitting at the table with brethren in Christ can be a heavenly experience and it can also lead to things that disgrace the church and her Lord.
In this I praise you not.Paul was generous with his praise whenever possible. But he made sure that they understood that he did not praise them for practicing things that made it impossible to eat the Lords supper
I received of the Lord.The sacredness of the Lords supper is indicated in a number of ways. The instruction for its observance came from the Lord Himself. It was delivered to the church by His inspired apostle. It was to be in memory of the Lords death. It speaks of His coming again. Since it was a memorial to the fact that the blood of Christ was poured out for the remission of sins, the sins of which the Corinthians were guilty could not be tolerated where the Lords supper was to be eaten.
the new covenant in my blood.The old covenant was the ten commandments. See. Exo. 34:28; Deu. 4:13. Although it was unilaterally promulgated it was, nevertheless, a covenant because the people agreed to its terms and promised to keep them. See Exo. 24:3-4. But the people broke the covenant, and the Lord declared that He would make a new covenant that would be written, not on tables of stone, but on the hearts of the people. See Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-13. God also dictated the terms of this covenant. But what about the pledge of the people to keep it? This is done when one makes the good confession which is an acknowledgement that Jesus is our prophet, priest, and king. Eating the Lords supper should remind the worshipper of his covenant with Christ.
till he come.One thing that must always be remembered by the Christian is the death of Christ through which he is delivered from the guilt and power of sin. An equally important thing to remember is that He is coming again for those who wait for Him unto salvation (Heb. 9:27). At the time of His ascension, angels said to the apostles that this Jesus who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven (Act. 1:11). See also 1Th. 4:13-18 and 2Th. 1:8-10. Behold he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him. Even so, Amen. (Rev. 1:7) He who testifies these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus (Rev. 22:20).
Evidently the Corinthians had forgotten this great hope of the Christian. But are we doing any better than they?
unworthy manner.Perhaps no one is really worthy to take the Lords supper. People who refrain from eating the Lords supper because of a sense of guilt that makes them feel unworthy often use this verse as the basis of their views. But Paul was speaking of the unworthy manner in which the church at Corinth conducted itself that made it impossible to eat the Lords supper. The guilt that accompanies the violation of Gods will can be overcome by repentance and confession of the sin to the Lord. See Act. 9:22-24; 1Jn. 1:6-10; 1Jn. 2:1-2.
But God has never tolerated careless handling of sacred things. To treat the Lords supper as something less than a common meal, as the Corinthians were doing, is to be guilty of mishandling the body and blood of the Lord. The penalty for this was clear: many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.
But let a man prove himself.This suggests the process of testing by which the assayer finds the pure gold in the ore. It should be done in the light of the meaning of the loaf and the cup. One should ask himself, Is my life in harmony with the principles of unity of the body of Christ, and the remission of sins which Christ has provided, and of the fact that He is coming again? This makes the Lords supper a serious experience for the true worshipper. To do otherwise is to eat and drink judgment to oneself. It is to be involved in the same condemnation that came upon these who crucified the Lord.
discern the body.In eating the Lords supper, it is necessary to decide correctly the issues involved. It is necessary to distinguish between the splits and factions and the true body of Christ. It is necessary to distinguish between the loaf and the bread of a common meal.
discerned ourselves.If the Corinthians had decided correctly the issue of belonging to the Lord as opposed to becoming members of the parties that followed men, they would not have been judged guilty of mishandling the body and blood of the Lord.
weak, sickly.It is possible to view this as spiritual sickness and death. But it may be physical, for they were eating and drinking to excess. Some of them had died from the effects of this kind of abuse.
chastened of the Lord.God punishes His people as a good parent punishes his child. See. Heb. 12:3-13. The object is to avoid condemnation with the world. Pauls advice was to eliminate the custom of eating together since this was the thing that had gotten them into trouble. They could eat at home; then, when they came together, they could eat the Lords supper.
And the rest.There were other problems that demanded his personal attention. These he would attend to when he visited them the next time. But the great principles set forth in this letter corrected the major ills of the Corinthian church and will, if applied, do so for the church today. First Corinthians is the most up-to-date treatise on church problems available today. The Corinthians church could make use of Pauls advice while waiting for his personal visit; the church of today must use the same inspired advice while waiting for the coming of the Lord. Dare we pray, Come, Lord Jesus?
Summary
The Corinthians had written to Paul about the perplexing problem of the use of the veil while praying or prophesying in public. Praying is speaking to God; prophesying is speaking for God. In the early church it was done under the immediate direction and power of the Holy Spirit. The ancients had various customs of worship, depending on their backgrounds, some Jewish, some Roman, and some Grecian.
To settle the problem, Paul called attention to this basic principle: the head of every man is Christ; the head of woman is man; and the head of Christ is God. A woman dishonored her head by praying or prophesying without a veil. It was the same thing as having the head shaved or the hair cut. These were distinguishing marks of man, not woman. It was a shame for a woman to attempt to be a man; therefore, Paul said, Let a woman wear the veil. She was to dress in a manner that would enable her to be recognized as a woman. Man, on the other hand, is not to have his head covered because he is the image and glory of God. Woman was to wear the veil as a symbol of her womanly right and dignity because of the angels.
Neither man nor woman is complete apart from the other. The facts of creation and of birth prove the point. All things are from God, that is, God determined the distinctions between man and woman. They were not to be disregarded in the church. Nature and good judgment support the views of the apostle. By nature, womans hair grows long, but mans short. It was good sense for a woman to dress as a woman and a man as a man. There is no time when this is more appropriate than when praying or prophesying. The apostle reminds anyone who would oppose this view that the churches of God had no other custom.
Paul had commended them for keeping the oral instructions which he had transmitted to them, but he could not commend them for their conduct in connection with the Lords supper. Division and faction existed among them when they met in the assembly. Not all of them were guilty, but the conduct of the guilty ones resulted in the approved of God being manifested by their refusal to be parties to such conduct. The practice of eating a meal at the assembly was to be discontinued because it resulted in the church being disgraced and these who had nothing being humiliated.
Paul faithfully declared to them what the Lord had revealed to him. The Lord said, This is my body. How could men use the assembly of God as a place to practice division and faction? The Lord said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. He was faithful to His part of the agreement providing remission of sins to the believer. But how could they drink the cup and still practice the sin of division? If they had remembered Him and not their own selfish desires for prominence and power, they would not have split into factions to the disgrace of the body of Christ. Christ died to save man from sin. As often as we eat the bread and drink the cup we proclaim the Lords death until He comes.
His coming suggests a time of reckoning. Paul warned the Corinthians about the unworthy manner in which they were approaching the Lords supper. They were guilty of mishandling the body and blood of the Lord. A man should test himself to see that his life is in accord with the principles taught by the loaf and the cup. If it isnt, he eats and drinks judgment to himself by failing to decide correctly concerning the body and blood of Christ. Some of the Corinthians did fail and as a result were weak and sick and some of them had died. But if we decide correctly the members of the body of Christ as distinguishing from members of a party or faction, we shall not be condemned. The Lord judges His people for the purpose of chastening them that they may not be condemned with the world.
Other things were to be cared for when Paul arrived.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(17) Now in this that I declare unto you . . .Better, Now I give you this command, while not praising you that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. These words lead from the subject which has gone before to another and different abuse of liberty in public assemblies, of which the Apostle is now about to speak. There were evidently three great abuses which had crept into the Church:1. The discarding by the women of the covering for their heads. This only concerned one sex, and has been treated of in the earlier part of this chapter. The other two affect both sexes. 2. The disorders at the Lords Supper. 3. The misuse of spiritual gifts. The former of these occupies the remainder of this chapter, while the latter is discussed in 1Co. 12:1-30. To render the Greek word I declare, as in the Authorised version, and so make it refer to what is about to follow, gives a more logical completeness to the passage, but it is scarcely allowable, as the Greek word elsewhere always means a distinct command (1Co. 7:10; 1Th. 4:11; 2Th. 3:6; 2Th. 3:10; 2Th. 3:12, et al.). Others have suggested that St. Paul anticipates in thought the practical direction which occurs in 1Co. 11:34, and alludes to it here in the words, This I command you. This view is open to the objections (1) that it completely isolates 1Co. 11:17 from 1Co. 11:16, while the Greek evidently intimates a connection between them; (2) that it is unnatural to separate the statement so far from the command to which it refers. It is better to regard these words as given aboveforming a sort of intellectual isthmus connecting the two wide fields of thought which the earlier and later portions of the chapter embrace.
I praise you not.This carries the thought back to 1Co. 11:2, and shows that the commendation expressed there is still the writers starting-point, or rather the point of departure from which he proceeds to censure.
That ye come together.Although in the English version the word you is inserted (I praise you not), it does not occur in the Greek. The passage is not, I do not praise you because, &c., but, I do not praise your coming together not for the better, but for the worse. These words introduce the new topic which follows.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
PAUL’S SEVENTH RESPONSE: AS TO DISORDERS AT THE LORD’S SUPPER, 1Co 11:17-34.
The supper of our Lord the night of his betrayal was divisible into three parts: First, the proper passover service, according to the law of Moses; second, an ordinary meal for the natural satiation of hunger, according to custom; and, third, the eucharistic bread and wine which he then first established as a memorial of his death. Of course the first of the three disappeared at the commencement of Christianity, leaving the other two. Of these two the first became the agape, or love-feast; the last remained, forever, the Lord’s supper.
In Corinth the agape seems to have been slightly modified by two Grecian customs. One of these customs was the eranos, or symposium; a banquet to which the guests each brought a portion of the food and drink as in our modern picnic. A master of the feast was elected. Of course the most generous way was, for those best able to bring the most liberal amount, and then spread the whole on a common table for all. The second custom was the Grecian sacrificial feasts, in which an ample supply was furnished, and so moderately eaten that a rich remainder was left for the poor. While Paul remained at Corinth the best qualities of both these pagan customs were exhibited in the love-feasts of the Christians, with some Christian improvements.
Under the presiding presbyter the feast was opened with the washing of hands, and prayer; after which, the Scriptures were read and discussed.
Then fraternal intelligence was received and discussed from brother Churches, maintaining the mutual sympathy of the Christian republic. Hereby wants were learned and aid supplied for distressed Churches and individuals. Money was collected for widows, orphans, and the poor. The eucharist was probably performed at the last, closing with the kiss of charity.
After Paul left, a more heathenish spirit gained ascendency. The meals were divided into different sets, resulting in quarrelsome cliques; the rich, with their plentiful furnishings, arrogated the lion’s share, became gluttonous, and left nothing for the poor; so that an institution intended to promote union, equality, and charity, was perverted into a means of division, caste, and insult.
Paul’s rebuke upon the Church is divisible into three paragraphs. In 1Co 11:17-22 he states the report of their misconduct in regard to the Lord’s supper; in 1Co 11:23-27 he reproduces to their recollection the historic foundation and nature of the supper; and in 1Co 11:28-34 he recalls them to the true reformation of their dealings with so sacred an institution.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. The Corinthian abuses of the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 11:17-22.
17. This Refers, we think, not to what precedes, (as Alford,) but to the paragraph now commencing.
Declare Rather, enjoin. Alford says, that no injunction or command immediately follows; which is true: but all preceding 1Co 11:23-27, which is injunction, does but state the case upon which the injunction is based.
I praise you not As he did in 1Co 11:2.
Come together Assemble in congregation.
Worse Result. Your assemblages do you more harm than good.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But in giving you this charge, I do not praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse.’
Having deliberately praised them in 1Co 11:2 he now points out that he cannot praise them with regard to their attitude towards each other in Christian gatherings. For they come together, not for the better, but for the worse. They lose rather than gain by their presence at worship because of their behaviour and attitudes. Instead of gathering as one in true Christian love, with concern for each others edification, they are gathering for dissension and to display individuality and selfishness, both in the way they behave towards each other (1Co 11:18-34) and in the ways in which they worship (1Co 14:1-40). It is a sad day when a church is informed that its meetings are not for the better but for the worse, especially when it is by such a man as Paul.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Criticisms and Instructions With Regard to The Lord’s Supper in Church Worship (11:17-33).
But Paul’s dissatisfaction goes beyond just the covering of the hair and lack of restraint while praying and prophesying. He is also concerned for their general behaviour and lack of restraint when the churches gather together.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Abuse of the Lord’s Supper – In this section Paul will explain how they are abusing this ordinance (1Co 11:17-22). He will then explain the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:23-26), and finally tell them the consequences of abusing it (1Co 11:27-34).
Paul accuses the Corinthians of being divided during this supper, rather than united, turning the Lord’s Supper into a regular festival, rather than a testimony in honor of Jesus’ death, resurrection and Second Coming. We can imagine a slave eating next to his master, something which did not happen in the domestic home or workplace. Yet, in the congregation, these divisions were to be laid aside, and unity was to bring a strong bond of peace and love among the church members. Instead, this event was causing divisions rather than unity.
1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
1Co 11:17
Word Study on “declare” Strong says the Greek word “declare” ( ) (G3853) means, “to transmit a message,” and it means by implication, “to enjoin, to charge, to command, to declare.” The Enhanced Strong says this Greek word is used 31 times in the New Testament, being translated in the KJV as, “command 20, charge 6, give commandment 1, give charge 1, declare 1, give in charge 1, command 1.” John Calvin translates it as “warn.” [139] John Gill tells us that t he ancient Syriac version reads, “this is what I command.” [140]
[139] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 364.
[140] John Gill, 1 Corinthians, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on 1 Corinthians 11:17.
Comments – Paul first gives praise before he gives correction. This is a wise procedure for managing anyone, in church or in business. Often, I have sat down with an employee and told him the good things that he is doing. Then, I go into some areas that need correcting.
Paul had opened his Epistle to them with a word of praise to God “in every thing they were enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge” (1Co 1:5). He then praises them on keeping his ordinances regarding public worship in the preceding passage of Scripture (1Co 11:2-16). Now, he will begin his next topic on the abuse of the Lord’s Supper in 1Co 11:7 by saying, “I praise you not,” because they needed correction.
1Co 11:17 “that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse” Comments – Paul accuses them of coming together, not for their benefit, but for their detriment. In other words, the benefit of coming together for this meal was to instill unity among the members. But, what actually took place was an occasion to sow discourse and division among them. Thus, this meal was doing harm rather than good. The unworthy manner in which the Corinthians participated in the Lord’s Supper brought judgment upon them and not blessings. Paul will explain this in verse 30.
1Co 11:30, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.”
Therefore, they were worse off for participating in this meal than if they had not participated at all. Paul tells them that they were literally eating and drinking damnation upon themselves. Note:
1Co 11:29, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
1Co 11:17 Comments – Paul praised the Corinthians in 1Co 11:2 because they had been following his ordinances regarding dress and submission during public worship well, but he needed to give them some specific instructions, which he laid down in the previous passage (1Co 11:2-16). Now, Paul deals with deliberate violations of Paul’s instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper. The previous passage deals with violations out of ignorance, where they had an excuse for any inappropriate behavior. Now, Paul deals with violations that proceed from an insensitive heart. Thus, he has no praise to give them before he lays down correction. He feels that they have no excuse for their behaviour is division that dishonored some members of the congregation.
1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:18
1Co 11:18 “when ye come together in the church” – Comments – When Paul later wrote to the church in Rome from Corinth, they were meeting in the house of Gaius (Rom 16:23). We can find other Scriptures that testify how these early congregations met in the homes of certain members. JFB notes that since the churches during the time of the apostles had no designated building to call their church, as we do today, it meant that the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was even more important as a way of bonding these believers together in one accord. This practice of eating together was one outward testimony that they were members of the body of Christ, since they had not church building to provide such a testimony of their unity. [141]
[141] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, First Corinthians, in Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on 1 Corinthians 11:18.
Rom 16:23, “ Gaius mine host, and of the whole church , saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.”
1Co 11:18 “I hear” – Comments – While in Ephesus, perhaps towards the middle or end of his three-year ministry there, a report came from the household of Chloe regarding divisions within the church (1Co 1:11). Another common report mentioned a case of incest (1Co 5:1) as well as abuses of the Lord’s supper (1Co 11:18). With the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus from the church at Corinth to meet Paul at Ephesus (1Co 16:17), a number of additional issues were presented to him. These two communications were the source of this report of division.
1Co 1:11, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.”
1Co 16:17, “I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.”
1Co 11:18 “that there be divisions among you” Word Study on “divisions” Strong says the Greek word “schisma” ( ) (G4978) literally means, “a split, gap.” BDAG says it literally means, “tear, crack,” and figuratively, “division, dissension, schism.” The Enhanced Strong says this Greek word is used 8 times in the New Testament, being translated in the KJV as, “division 5, rent 2, schism 1.”
Comments In this ancient world where everyone was labeled a slave or a free man, a Jew or a Gentile, a Greek or a barbarian, a Roman citizen or one under tribute, divisions were hard to overcome. But in the Church, we all become one. Paul is about to tell them this in the next chapter. Note:
1Co 12:13, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
1Co 11:18 “and I partly believe it” – Comments Paul had the wisdom to learn not to believe everything that he heard, in the same way parents learn not to take everything their children tell them seriously. Yet, he understood how easily strife enters into a congregation, so he knew there was a problem that he must address. He may have first heard it by Chloe (1Co 1:11) and had it confirmed by the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1Co 16:17). Chances are he had heard it from only one source. Otherwise, Paul would not have been so hesitant as to say that he believes it partially. If he had heard it from several sources, he would have fully believed the report.
1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
1Co 11:19
Comments Albert Barnes explains this statement to mean that such is human nature and the corrupt passions of men, not that they are necessary, but rather unavoidable. [142]
[142] Albert Barnes, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, in Barnes’ Notes, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on 1 Corinthians 11:19.
There are two different Greek words used in 1Co 11:18-18, one translated “divisions” and the other “heresies.” Many scholars suggest that word “divisions” simply describes disagreements over issues and doctrines, while “heresies” describes a more developed and organized form of division in which the congregation has divided itself into identifiable groups. John Calvin gives his view as to why Paul words these verses so:
“I take schism and heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret grudges – when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among the pious – when inclinations at variance with each other are at work – when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately divide themselves into opposite parties.” [143]
[143] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 366-367.
1Co 11:19 Comments Any time a group gathers in Jesus’ name, the unbelievers will be manifest as being different. These types of divisions will happen for the reason give in this verse, so that the genuine believers will be made manifest. Thus, God has a way of bringing out a good end to something that is inherently bad.
The second epistle of Peter and the epistle of Jude refer to these unapproved people feasting with the truly sincere believers:
2Pe 2:13, “And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;”
Jud 1:12, “These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;”
1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
1Co 11:20
Paul is saying that this is not the Lord’s Supper which the Lord Jesus Christ had ordained, because it was causing divisions rather than unity. This meal was to be different than the pagan rituals of eating foods in honor of and offered unto idols. It was supposed to testify of Jesus’ Crucifixion, Resurrection and Second Coming rather than to feed fleshly appetites. But as Barnes states, the Corinthians had converted this event into an ordinary festival.
1Co 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1Co 11:21
1Ti 5:23, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.”
1Co 11:21 Comments 1Co 11:21 shows us that there were various classes of people making up the Corinthian church. There were rich and poor, masters and slaves.
1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
1Co 11:22
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper In 1Co 11:17-34 Paul deals with the issue of abuses of the Lord’s Supper. Such abuse was probably the result of divisions within the church. It became the custom at Corinth for members to bring their own food and drink and join some congenial group to share it with, leaving the poorer members without. Again, Paul deals with this issue immediately after his discussion on heathen forms of worship that involve fornication and foods offered to idols. In this section Paul will explain how they are abusing this ordinance (1Co 11:17-22), then explain the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:23-26), and finally tell them the consequences of abusing it (1Co 11:27-34).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Abuse of the Lord’s Supper 1Co 11:17-22
2. The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper 1Co 11:23-26
3. The Consequences of Abusing the Lord’s Supper 1Co 11:27-34
Paul’s Rebuke Over the Practice of the Lord’s Supper – The book of Acts gives us an indication that the Lord Supper was practiced frequently in the early Church.
Act 2:42-46, “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread , and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart ,”
Act 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread , Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”
As they gathered weekly to break bread, the Lord’s Supper took up a portion of the mealtime. These meals were known as “love feasts.”
2Pe 2:13, “And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you ;”
Jud 1:12, “These are spots in your feasts of charity , when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;”
While cultural and ethnic divisions are a normal occurrence in any society, they do not belong within the local church body. In Uganda, East Africa, there is a small group of about one hundred Filipinos, with this cultural group being divided into the rich and the poor. But when they come together for cultural events, there is no division. In contrast, there is a much larger population of Indians in this nation, again falling into two groups, the rich and the poor. In this case, the rich do not invite the poor when having cultural events, but segregate themselves from the poor.
In societies, such segregation is normal. In this passage (1Co 11:17-34), Paul condemns such behavior as unworthy of a Christian. He then emphasizes the need for unity in the local church. The only segregation that Paul allows is for genuine believers to separate themselves from false Christians (1Co 11:19). Paul then warns them of God’s judgment for those who persist in such disunity.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Unseemly behavior in public worship:
v. 17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
v. 18. For, first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
v. 19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
v. 20. When ye come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.
v. 21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
v. 22. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. The matter which the apostle now broaches is not one of mere custom or usage which proper Christian judgment may adjust to suit the needs of the situation, but a rule to which he demands assent: But in giving you this command I do not praise you, in that not for the better, but for the worse you come together. The charge concerns the proper form of public worship, especially if connected with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He does not praise them, he cannot withhold his displeasure, his censure: Because not for the better, but for the worse you come together. Instead of being edified, aided in their spiritual growth, they were harmed in their faith; their meetings were held in a spirit of frivolousness that took no account of the sanctity of the occasion. The reason for this was, in the first place: Whenever you come together in assembly, it is continually reaching my ears that schisms, dissensions, have their place among you; and in part I credit the stories. The service that Paul is speaking of is that which was connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, which was held often, at least every Sunday. This service was entirely within the congregation, no outsider being admitted, no unbeliever or Gentile being present. A common meal was first eaten (the so-called love-feast), after which followed the Holy Communion. In Corinth the congregation had split up into cliques, separated from one another partly by social distinctions, partly by the feeling due to the divisions in their midst. Instead of holding a common meal, each clique chose a corner for itself, leaving the other strictly alone. As Paul says, he could very well believe this to be true, since that seemed to be a necessity of the case: For indeed also heresies, parties, must exist among you, in order that the really approved might become evident in their midst. This was in accordance with the divine administration by which evil, far from hindering, is made a servant of good. God will finally give up the persistent wranglers, that delight in wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, to their evil mind, the result being that the true Christians, that are approved of God, are made manifest in the congregation. Augustine very properly says: Heresies are the grindstone of the Church. Their sin serves to reveal them and thus to purge and purify the Christian congregation of an unpleasant discordant element.
The apostle now makes a specific charge: When, then, you assemble at the same place, it is not an eating of the Lord’s Supper. It appears that the Corinthian congregation, even at this early day, had a definite place for meeting, since Paul is evidently not speaking of house congregations. Their purpose undoubtedly was to celebrate the Eucharist, and the earthly elements, bread and wine, were not lacking, but the manner in which they came together rendered the celebration a farce and a blasphemy. For in eating, as the hour for the meal came, every one took out, brought forward hastily, his own supper, seeking out and sitting down with his own particular friends. The custom formerly had been for the members to bring what they wished, what they could afford for the purpose, the food then being divided equally among all. But now that the new selfish custom became prevalent, the poor people had little or nothing, and therefore went hungry, while the wealthier members had more than sufficient for their needs and became intoxicated. “The scene of sensual greed and pride might well culminate in drunkenness. ” Surely a disgraceful spectacle for a Christian congregation to present!
The reproof of Paul, therefore, did not lack sharpness: Have you no houses to eat and drink in? Surely they could not have been in such straits as to make the satisfying of their appetites in public worship necessary. Or, on the other hand, do you despise the congregation of God and put those that are without means to shame? If that was their deliberate intention, to heap scorn upon the Church of God and to make the poor members feel their poverty, their inability to keep up their end of such profligate behavior, then their action was all the more reprehensible. What could and should the apostle say to them under the circumstances? Was it possible for him to praise them for such behavior? He frankly told them that this was out of the question. How could he have excused such inexcusable frivolousness, especially since it occurred in connection with the celebration of the Eucharist!
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 11:17. We may observe from several passages in this epistle, that many Judaical customs had crept into the Corinthian church: this church being of St. Paul’s own planting, who spent two years at Corinth in forming it, it is evident that these abuses had their rise from some other teacher, who came to them after St. Paul’s leaving them, which was about five years before he wrote this epistle. These disorders therefore may, with reason, be ascribed to the head of the faction which opposed St. Paul, and who, as has been remarked, was a Jew, and probably judaized; and this, it is likely, was the foundation of the great opposition between him and St. Paul, and the reason why St. Paul laboured so earnestly to destroy his credit among the Corinthians; this sort of men being very busy, very troublesome, and very dangerous to the Gospel, as may be seen in other of St. Paul’s Epistles, particularly that to the Galatians.The celebrating the passover among the Jews, was plainly the eating of a meal distinguished from other ordinary meals by several peculiar ceremonies. Two of these ceremonies were, eating of bread solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine, called “the cup of blessing.” These two our Saviour transferred into the Christian church, to be used in their assemblies, for a commemoration of his death and sufferings.In celebrating this institution of our Saviour, the judaizing Corinthians followed the Jewish custom of eating their passover. They ate the Lord’s supper as a part of their meal, bringing their provisions into the assembly, where they ate, divided into distinct companies, some feasting to excess, whilst others, ill provided, were in want. Their eating thus in the public assembly, and mixing the Lord’s supper with their ordinary meal, as a part of it, with other disorders and indecencies accompanying it, is the subject matter of what remains in this chapter. The Apostle tells them, that he blames them for these innovations as much, as in the beginning of the chapter he commends them for keeping to his directions in other particular
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 11:17 . Transition to the censure which follows. Now this (what I have written up to this point about the veiling of the women) I enjoin , [1810] while I do not praise ( i.e. while I join with my injunction the censure), that ye , etc. The “litotes” glances back upon 1Co 11:2 . Lachmann’s view, according to which the new section begins at 1Co 11:16 , so that would relate to the in 1Co 11:18 , has this against it, that always means praecipio in the N. T. (1Co 7:10 ; 1Th 4:11 ; 2Th 3:4 ; 2Th 3:6 ; 2Th 3:10 ; 2Th 3:12 , al [1811] ), not I announce , and that no injunction is expressed in 1Co 11:16 . Moreover, we should desiderate some conclusion to the foregoing section, and, as such, considering especially that the matter in question was such a purely external one, 1Co 11:16 comes in with peculiar appropriateness. Other expositors, such as Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, Hammond, Bengel, Rckert, also Ewald and Hofmann (comp his Schriftbeweis , II. 2, p. 235 f.), refer , after the example of the Greek Fathers, to what follows , inasmuch, namely, as the exposition now to begin ends in a command , and shows the reason why the church deserves no praise in this aspect of its church-life. Paul has already in his mind, according to these interpreters, the directions which he is about to give, but lays a foundation for them first of all by censuring the disorders which had crept in. Upon that view, however, the . would come in much too soon; and we must suppose the apostle, at the very beginning of an important section, so little master of his own course of thought, as himself to throw his readers into confusion by leaving them without anything at all answering to the .
. . [1813] ] does not give the reason of his not praising, but seeing there is no with ., as in 1Co 11:2 states what it is that he cannot praise. Your coming together is of such a kind that not the melius but the pejus arises out of it as its result; that it becomes worse instead of better with you (with your Christian condition). Theophylact and Billroth make . and refer to the assemblies themselves : “that you hold your assemblies in such a way that they become worse instead of better.” A tame idea!
[1810] Hofmann irrelevantly objects to our making refer to the preceding passage, that Paul has previously enjoined nothing. He has, in fact, very categorically enjoined that the women should be veiled (comp. esp. vv. 5, 6, 10), and not simply expressed his opinion upon a custom that displeased him.
[1811] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1813] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
B. On the contrast between the rich and poor at church-feasts, as inconsistent with the idea of the Lords Supper, and provocative of the Divine judgments
1Co 11:17-34
17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not [But this I command you, not praising you, ],11 that ye come together not for thebetter, but for the worse. 18For first of all, when ye come together in the church [a public assembly, ]12 I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly19[in some degree, ] believe it. For there must be also heresies [sects, ] among you, that they13 which are approved may be made manifest among you.20When ye come together therefore into one place, this [it] is not to eat the Lords supper. 21For in eating every one taketh before other14 his own [private, ] supper:22and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What! [For, ] have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that havenot? What shall I say to you? shall I praise15 you in this?16 I praise you not. 23For I have [om. have, ] received of the Lord that which also I [have, ] delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed,took bread: 24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat17 [om. Take eat]; this is my body, which is broken18 [om. broken] for you: this do in remem-brance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament [covenant, ] in my blood: this do ye, asoft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this [the]19 cup, ye do shew [proclaim, ] the Lords death till hecome. 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,20 and [or, ] drink this cup of theLord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and [the]21 blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine [make trial of, ] himself, and so let him eat of that [the] bread, and drink of that [the, ] cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, [om. unworthily]22 aateth and drinketh damnation [judgment, ] to him-30self, not discerning the Lords [if he does not discern the, ] body. For31this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For [But, ]23 if we would judge [had judged, ] ourselves, we should not be [have beenjudged, ] judged. 32But when we are judged [now that we are judged, ], we are chastened of the Lord,24 that we should not be condemned with theworld. 33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And [om. And]25 if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not34together unto condemnation [judgment, ]. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[In order to the right understanding of this section it must be premised: 1. That it was the primitive custom to celebrate the Lords Supper in private houses (Act 2:46); although there is reason to believe, as will soon be seen, that the Corinthians had already a specific place for public worship. Yet, supposing this to have been the case, it would be natural to infer that the habits and sentiments attaching to the observance at the private house, would be transferred to what might be called the church. 2. That the Lords Supper was held daily (Act 2:46), and was usually connected with an ordinary meal; although even in this respect the language of the text seems to imply a change to a less frequent observance; perhaps the first day of the week, as was afterwards the custom (Act 20:7). 3. That this meal was often made up of contributions brought by the communicants, to be enjoyed in common, and which came to be called an Agape () or love-feast, where the fellowship of the Christian community was exhibited and cultivated in a social festival. 4. That the custom of enjoying such social repasts existed also among the Greeks. With them these repasts were termed , club feasts, which were associated with plans of mutual relief or charity toward the poor, where the practice was for each guest to eat that which he brought with him in his own basket. And what an influence this heathen observance, so often attended with disorder and rioting, would have upon the minds of recent converts present at a similar Christian festival, can be readily imagined. Bearing these four facts in mind, we shall be able the more readily to appreciate the nature of the difficulties which had arisen in the church, and the occasion of the Apostolic rebuke and injunction. And in all this we shall see an illustration of the old proverb, that evil customs give rise to good laws. See these facts more fully brought out in Stanleys valuable note, and also in articles under Lords Supper, in Kittos Biblical Cyclopdia, Alexanders Ed.; and Smiths Dictionary of the Bible; Riddles Christian Antiquities, p. 600; Neander, Plant. and Train. of the Christian Church, pp. 23, 163; Schaff, Hist. of the Apostolic Church, p. 185 ff.].
1Co 11:17. Now this I command.He here refers to the foregoing precept; and through a participial clause expressing a contrast with what he says in 1Co 11:2, he connects with it a rebuke of further evils in their church assembliesNot praising (you).We should have expected to see the sentence here differently constructed, having the main verb in the form of a participle, and the participle in the form of the main verb; since it is on the latter that the emphasis evidently lies. Hence the ordinary reading, which for this very reason is not to be maintained. If, however, with Lachmann [and Stanley], we include 1Co 11:16 in this paragraph, then the words would point to what follows, and be rendered: Now this I declare unto you [as the E. V.], which rendering would be contrary to the New Testament usage. And to this we may add that the previous paragraph requires just such a conclusion as is found in 1Co 11:16. There is no need whatever of supposing that the strifes and schisms alluded to in 1Co 11:18 refer to the contentiousness spoken of in 1Co 11:16. Besides, the reference of , this, to what follows is inadmissible, since no directions do follow immediately; and in order to find any, we must look onward to 1Co 11:33 ff., which would be too remote. Still further, there is no need of looking for them here, since the close connection with the precepts immediately preceding by means of the participial clause, is sufficiently motived by that which is common to the two paragraphs, viz., disorders in the church assembly; and to this we may add the contrast between the not praising and the I praise of 1Co 11:22, q. d. But this precept I give not praising you, as in the former instance, in that, etc.26that (, not, because, as Alf., Words.] ye come together.Hitherto he has been speaking only of the ambitious few; but now he feels obliged to rebuke the whole church for a prevailing evil. Neander.Not for the better, but for the worse.These phrases do not indicate the way and manner of their assembling, but rather its result or fruit, implying that by means of it they were injured rather than improved; and so the issue was not edification, which it was incumbent on all to aim at, but the opposite; instead of furthering, it hindered their communion with their Lord and with each other.27
1Co 11:18-19. For first of all. followed by no , just as is the case in Rom 1:8; Rom 3:2. Accordingly the second matter of rebuke many think they find in 1Co 11:20, introduced by , therefore, because this is to be regarded as a result of the schism spoken of in the next clause. What, then, does he mean by these schisms? Is it what he more fully discussed in chapter 1Co 1:11 ff.? Were this so, could he have alluded to them here in so incidental a manner? This is hardly possible; for he must then have had in mind certain reports of their schismatic ways in their church assemblies different from that particularly specified in 1Co 11:20, and which ought to have been more fully detailed. The correct view, therefore, undoubtedly is that the second disorder which he rebukes is not to be found in 1Co 11:20 ff., and that in the word schisms he only indicates generally what he there more fully defines, and to which the words when ye come together and the therefore which resumes the argument, refer; and that there, for the first time, the proper rebuke follows (1Co 11:22). The schisms, then, denote ruptures, disorders in fellowship of love as they appeared in the church feasts, and which he speaks of more fully in 1Co 11:21. The second matter, then, which he has to rebuke, we are to look for in chap. 12, viz., the disorders arising in their church assemblies from an unbecoming use of gifts. But the connection is loosely indicated, and is to be understood along the more extended exposition which intervenes.When ye come together in the Church. shows the form of their coming together, i.e., in a church assembly. To suppose a pregnant construction for is unnecessary; still less is the word , church, to be regarded as denoting the place of assembling; which use of the term did not spring up until later times. Yet perhaps we might say, with Meyer and de Wette, that the congregation is here regarded in the light of a locality.I hear.He thus vividly presentiates the whole circumstance, as though what had been communicated to him were still sounding in his ears.that there are schisms among you.[These, as intimated above, are specifically those occurring at the love-feasts; but on the mention of them he breaks off to show that such divisions were to be no matters of surprise, but were ordained to test them. The original term is , whence our schisms; but here it designates simply cliques, separated from each other by social distinctions and petty alienations of feeling. Those who were thus divided were outwardly still one body].and I partly believe it.The word partly has a softening effect, q. d., I think too well of you to believe all that has been reported to me.
He next proceeds to assign a higher reason for the partial belief which he was constrained to give to what he heard, viz., a Divinely ordained necessity in the circumstances alluded to, as instrumental to a Divine result, according to that law of Divine administration by which evil, so far from hindering, is made tributary to good. Burger (Mat 18:7; Mat 26:54).For there must be also heresies among you. In explaining this passage the chief question is, what did Paul mean by , lit., heresies? The word occurs elsewhere with Paul only in Gal 5:20, specifying one of the works of the flesh, and is one of the expressions denoting hostility and division. It occurs besides in Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 24:5; Act 24:14; Act 28:22, of religious parties or sects; and in Tit 3:10, denotes one who occasions divisions in the church by turning aside from sound doctrine (comp. , 2Pe 2:1). Originally in classic usage signifies nothing bad. It implies choice, hence an opinion, then a party, which arises through choice, especially in the schools. It came to possess a bad significance, first in Christian usage; and this is in consequence of our Christian modes of thinking and viewing things. On the stand-point of worldly wisdom, diversity of views and tendencies in regard to religious things is allowable; but on the Christian stand-point it is required that every thing within us be subjected to one Divine principle of life, and be brought into one fellowship of faith and love.28 Neander. In our text the current exposition wavers between the identification of the word with so as to make it imply only the divisions alluded to in the following context, and the later ecclesiastical signification of the word, viz., heresya departure from the fundamental truth of the Gospel, and the divisions arising in consequence; thus distinguishing it from schism, which implies a division simply in the matter of discipline. Between these extremes we give the explanation, ecclesiastical divisions, in the broader sense of the word [that is, divisions without any formal separation]. And this explanation is the only correct one, and suited to the character of the clause wherein the word occurs, which is only a digression by way of confirmation (Meyer). In this case the before will mean not even, but also, i. e., among other evils it is necessary that there should be also heresies. The main emphasis lies upon must (), rather than upon heresies, as required by the logical relation of this to the preceding verse.29The objective clause, in order that those who are approved may be made manifest among you, involves the idea of a sifting process performed on the Church. The approved () are the rightly disposed, who devote themselves without reserve to the whole body of Christian truth, and hence to the Spirit of the Lord; and it was necessary that such should be made manifest, inasmuch as the impurity and weakness of the Christian life, the yet remaining power of a carnal and selfish nature, often unfolds itself in such a way that many cleave one-sidedly to particular individuals, and to peculiar kinds of talents, and to certain specific tendencies and opinions, without, however, becoming distinctly heretical; although in the Judaistic and anti-judaistic modes of thought, and in the denial of the resurrection of the dead (chap. 15), significant germs and leanings toward heresy might have been formed. The sifting accordingly leads, and was intended to lead, to a higher development of the life of faith and love in the Church, which had been thus obstructed and disturbed. The Apostles view of history thus brought out stands opposed as much to a pantheistic conception of necessity as to an atomistic view of freedom. It recognizes in history room for the play of freedom, yet at the same time asserts the guidance of a higher law. Neander. [The Church has been constrained by the rise of heresies to search Scripture more carefully; and thus heresies have served as occasions for bringing forth more fully the articles of faith in her creeds. Wordsworth. But the advantage here spoken of we ought not to ascribe to heresies, which, being evil, can produce nothing but what is evil, but to God, who, by His infinite goodness, changes the nature of things, so that those things are salutary to the elect, which Satan had contrived for their ruin. The cause here implied is the secret counsel of God, by which things that are evil are overruled in such a manner as to have a good issue. Calvin].Vv. 20,21. In these verses Paul intimates that what transpired in their Church assemblies rendered the celebration of the Lords Supper impossible; and then he states more definitely wherein the inconsistency was to be found; so that this appears as explaining and confirming what is before asserted.When then ye come together.[1Co 11:19 being an interruption, the connection with 1Co 11:18 is resumed by the particle then.]into one place. is to be construed locally (Act 7:15; Act 2:1), and denotes the place where the Church assembled. [From this some have inferred that the Corinthians had already come to have a room or building particularly set apart for religious services].(it) is not.Some translate this is not; [referring to what they did on coming together, and which he goes on to specify]; but then should have been expressly given as the subject. Lit.: there is no such thing as your eating, i.e., it is impracticable, impossible; not, however, from lack of bread and wine (Bengel), but because there was a lack of the requisite disposition. An accusative before the infinitive is here not necessary. [Bloomfield detects a sarcastic point in this sentence, q. d. To eat the Lords Supper surely is not, cannot be the purpose of your meeting (since that you do not eat): for your meal is not common, but separate; every one eats his own Supper].to eat the Lords supper., a feast appertaining to the Lord, or as Osiander says, one consecrated to the Lord and instituted by Him. (Comp. Rev 1:10). By this the Apostle designates neither the agapae (Judges 12), the so called church feasts, [as Romanists interpret who would thus elude the argument furnished by this passage against their sacrificial theory of the Eucharist]; nor yet, the Holy Supper (1Co 11:23) by itself; but the combination of the two30 as it was to be found in Christian Churches, according to the original Apostolic custom, and in accordance with the first institution of the Supper, which, as we know, followed upon a regular meal. The Supper spoken of in the text was a festival, to which each one contributed a portion, and which concluded with the Lords Supper proper. That, however, which was brought by individuals, was to have been enjoyed in common, so that the fellowship of love, unbroken by social distinctions, might be the more clearly exhibited. Thus was the agape, or love-feast, a suitable preparation for the Lords Supper, in its more restricted sense, where all ate of one bread, and drank of one cup. But in Corinth such a meal as this, where all appeared as one family living on a common property, could not take place; since by reason of the cooling of their love, each one kept and enjoyed for himself the portion which he had brought [according to the heathen custom of the see above]; so that the distinction between the rich and the poor, which ought to have melted away in Church communion, re-appearedand this to such a degree that while one class suffered from a sense of want, others were satiated to a degree which, in some cases, amounted even to drunkenness.For in eating is not to be taken as defining more fully the preceding verb, ; but it is simply a note of time, q. d., while eating.every oneviz., who has brought something with him.takes before other, a suitable expression for the selfish and hasty appropriation of what had been brought without waiting to put all together and divide it for the common good.his own supper. [In contrast with the Lords Supper, and this in the Lords House, and not in his own private house. The abuse seems to have grown out of the primitive practice of sometimes annexing the love-feast to the Holy Communion. And here, in this case the former seems to have crowded the latter almost entirely aside, and the natural want was gratified to the overlooking of the spiritual need].and one hungers and another is drunken.. [The use of this word in Joh 2:10 shows that it need not be always taken to denote intoxication; but this is its natural meaning in most passages, and there is no need of softening it here.31 As Meyer says, Paul draws the picture in strong colors and who can say that the reality was less strong? It is wonderful and well nigh portentous that Satan could have accomplished so much in so short a time. Calvin].
1Co 11:22. The blame just indicated is here sustained.For, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?q. d., if this is what you have to do, viz., to hold your private meals, why, you have your own houses for this object. To use the assembly of the Church for such a purpose is needless.Or despise ye the church of God and shame those who have not?A second reason for the blameworthiness of their conductthe disparaging of the Church of God, whose meetings were abused to festivities derogatory to its holy character by the introduction of secular distinctions there, and by the contemptuous treatment of the poorer members of the Churcha course of conduct which involved a disparagement of the Church in its members; inasmuch as these were shamefully thrust into the back-ground by reason of a difference which ought to have led only to an equalizing distribution of the good things in the fellowship of a holy love. These two reasons are closely connected.The term Church is not to be interpreted locally,32 as is plain from the adjunct of God. It stands first, because of the emphasis (the Church of God, His sanctuary, His temple); on the contrary, in the second clause the stress lies on the verb, despise ye. [ those not having. There is a question as to what is the real object of the participle here which must be supplied. Alford, and others, say, houses to eat and to drink in, and suppose that in this fact we have the reason for their coming to the love-feast to be fed. But Meyer, Stanley, Hodge, and others, construe the phrase more generally. Those not having are those who have nothing, and are the poor in contrast with the rich. This is both consistent with Greek usage and gives a better sense].What am I to say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.The rebuke here is couched in mild expressions, and its interrogatory form is calculated to awaken reflection. There is, however, a sharp rap in the concluding words, which is, in fact, very severe. In saying I praise you not, he refers back to 1Co 11:17 (comp. Osiander).
1Co 11:23. The concluding question of the previous verse implies an answer in the negative, and this is now confirmed by a reference to the original institution of the Supper, wherein its character and worth are clearly set forth, even as he himself had received it by reliable tradition, coming directly from the Lord, and had so transmitted it to them.For I received from the Lord.. The sense in which these words are to be taken, is very questionable. Are we to understand them as implying a direct, special revelation to Paul of the circumstances of the institution (for the text says nothing of a mere confirmation of testimony otherwise received, or of any special illumination respecting the significance of the circumstances)? if so, was it by means of a vision (as Tholuck, Olshausen, Osiander suppose)? or, as a tradition starting from the Lord, and transmitted to the Apostles? The first supposition is supported, not indeed by the force of the verb , I received, but by the force of the prep. , from, which implies [a remote source,] an indirect derivation; [instead of which would have been more likely to be used, had he intended a direct communication (Winer, P. ., 47)]; as well as by the internal probabilities of the case, since he could have resorted to an accurate tradition of the whole circumstance. The second supposition is opposed by the force of the pronoun I, standing out prominently; since indeed, according to this supposition, Paul would only have placed himself on an equality with all others who had, in like manner, received the Apostolic tradition; [whereas he here brings himself specially into view, as one who had derived his knowledge from original sources, and had the right to speak authoritatively in the premises]. We might suppose with Meyer, Ed. 2, that this important circumstance had been accurately communicated to him through Ananias, or some other person, in obedience to a special commission of the Lord, and that this communication was made to him with the understanding that the Lord had given a special commission for him in this particular by means of a vision. This might have been connected in some way with his baptism, or with those special disclosures which he had received in relation to his future calling. Or we may suppose (according to Meyer, Ed. 3), that since, in consequence of its essential connection with the Gospel, and indeed with the fundamental doctrine of Paul concerning the work of atonement, the whole subject excluded human intervention according to Gal 1:12; Gal 1:16, the communication was made in some indefinable manner, either through the inspiration of the Spirit, or through the manifestation of angels, or in ecstatic vision. [Hodge argues with great force in favor of a direct derivation, and shows conclusively that this is invalidated neither by the use of , nor by the supposition that no special revelation was necessary, on the ground that the facts connected with the institution were generally known; nor yet by the assumption that not historical facts, but only ideas and truths, may be communicated by visions and inward influences; but that, on the contrary, it is required by the context, and is in harmony with what Paul elsewhere claims for himself. He concludes: It was not only of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole Church, to be assured that this account of the Lords Supper was communicated immediately by Christ to the Apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes to this ordinance].what I also delivered unto you,[i.e., during his ministry among them; so that he is here only reminding them of precious instructions.On the following words Stanley well remarks: They form probably the earliest record of the institution of the Eucharist, and they contain also the earliest recorded speech of our Lord. To explain them at any length, or to adjust their relation to the other three verses in St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke, would be to encroach upon questions belonging only to the Gospel narrative; yet those who are familiar with those questions, will observe: 1. That their almost exact coincidence with the account in St. Luke, is important, as confirming the tradition of the author of that Gospel being the same as the companion of St. Paul. 2. That in this, the most ancient record, of certainly one of the most important speeches of our Lord, it is possible to discern elements of the discourses in St. Johns Gospel, viz., Joh 6:35-58; Joh 15:1 to Joh 6:3. That even in the four extant versions of this short passage, there are yet verbal variations of such an extent as to show that it was the substance, rather than the exact words, which the Apostle and the Evangelists aimed at producing. 4. That there is all the appearance of a familiar and fixed formula, especially in the opening words. 5. That it implies on the part of his hearers a full acquaintance with the history of the Betrayal and Passion.].What he had received by means of such a revelation, and had also imparted to them, isthat the Lord Jesus(a solemn expression intimating His supreme dignity, and His character as Saviour)in the same night in which He was being betrayed., Imp., indicating that the scheme of betrayal was still in progress, and not yet fulfilled when He performed this act. By this circumstance the touching and affecting nature of the transaction is more prominently brought to view in contrast with the trifling character exhibited by the Corinthians at their love-feasts. It was the last transaction of our Lord just before encountering death, by means of which He intended to set forth what immediately awaited Him, and also establish a solemn memorial of the sacrifice which He was about to make. [There is, says Stanley, an appearance of fixed order, especially in these opening words, which indicates that this had already become a familiar formula].Took bread a loafthe last of the passover meal yet remaining. [It was the thin passover bread of the Jews. But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the kind of bread used, as there is no precept on the subject, and as the apostles, subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance used ordinary bread, it is evidently a matter of indifference what kind of bread is used. It was, however, for a long time a subject of bitter controversy. Hodge],And having given thanks.That this included praise for divine grace manifested in the work of redemption, is to be assumed from the nature of the transaction; and it was naturally suggested by the preceding Passover meal which commemorated the deliverance of Israel. [In Matt, and Mark the expression is, having blessed it; but in Luke the same word is used as here. Both expressions mean the same thing, and declare the act of consecration by a grateful acknowledgment of Gods mercy, and invocation of His blessingas the two are united in the grace said before meals]. He brake it.[This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of Matt., Mark, and Luke, as well as in Pauls. This is one of the significant parts of the service, and ought not to be omitted as is done by Romanists, by the Greek Church, and by Lutherans. Hodge].And said[The words uttered by our blessed Lord are differently reported. The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered; but as the ideas which they express were sufficiently indicated by the gesture of reaching the bread to His disciples, they were omitted by some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, however expressed, is of importance. The bread was to be taken and eaten; there must be a distribution of the elements to those participating in the service. Otherwise it is not a communion, as it is not in the Romish Mass where the priest alone eats the consecrated wafer.Hodge].This is my body that for you.With these words he signifies the act of breaking that had just taken place. This, which has just been broken, is my body; and the object of this He at once defines sc . .,which is or suffices for your salvation, namely, by reason of this, that in it is fulfilled what the breaking of the bread indicates, to wit: violent dissolution and breaking up. This thought is expressed in the apparently well-attested, yet undoubtedly interpolated expression broken, instead of which some authorities have given, borrowed from Luke. Meyer in 3d Edition speaks of it, as the calm utterance of deep earnest feeling excited by the occasion. The symbolic character of the words is almost unmistakable, although we are not at liberty to translate signifies, or yet the token of my body. He means to say this bread is my body, intended for your salvation, inasmuch as the breaking of it exhibits the slaying of my body which redounds to your salvation. That it is not, however, a mere memorial, but a token which offers, imparts, and therefore carries the fact in itself, and so is a means of communicating, and a conveyance of the same cannot be proven from the words of the institution itself. This thought is first obtained through the authentic apostolic exposition in 1Co 10:16. We recognize in this the interpretation given by the spirit of Christ, which perpetually works in the unfolding thoughts of Christendom, and which has obtained in the substance of the Lutheran article of doctrine an essentially correct expressionwhile the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation carries the appearance of fancy; and the exposition of the Reformed Church in its various modifications, in part, presses a dry exegesis too far, and, in part, stops with a rationalizing separation of the matters involved, and does not attain to a truly Christianlike intuitive union of them, inasmuch as it produces nothing more than the conception of an ideal or symbolic means of communication, to wit: that the bread presentiates the body of Christ to the believers, and is the pledge of a redemption achieved for them, and so mediates the operation of the Holy Spirit which contemporaneously with their physical participation effects a union with the heavenly life of Christ.33Do this in remembrance of me.This injunction, on the one hand, exhibits to us the subjective side of the ordinance, to wit, that believers should do this which He was now doing, i, e., should break the bread with thanksgiving and divide it, in order to realize more vividly the sacrifice which He in His own person was about to make for them; on the other hand, it gives us to understand that our Lord wished to have this ordinance continually observed to all future time. That this is the import of the injunction is shown more clearly in 1Co 11:25, where, in presenting the cup, He says, this do, as oft as ye drink of it, i.e., as often as ye hold communion with one another through the cup (Meyer), [showing plainly the perpetuity of the rite]. Others, however, make the words do this mean the simple receiving of the elements at the time; which, indeed, both in itself and in relation to what follows, would be suitable enough, but here, where the words take, eat, are not to be retained, it is hardly to be supposed. [The import of the command, then, is nothing less than the imposing of a solemn duty upon the church, to be performed until it should meet to drink anew with our Lord in His Fathers kingdom; and the prime object of the observance is remembrancea remembrance, however, which implies the real representation to their minds and hearts of their risen yet omnipresent Lord. The bread is His body because it assuredly testifies, that the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord, by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time His own body; for He is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty presentations. Calvin.]. Less simple are the words employed in the distribution of the cup which was passed around after the Passover had been concluded. In like manner the cup after He had supped.[An intimation that the cup ought to be separated from the common meal. (Bengel.)]. Saying, this cup is the new Covenant in my blood.He does not say merely this is my blood. That which in Matthew and Mark is added to the words my blood byway of further qualification, viz: of the new Covenant, is here joined directly with this cup as a predicatethis cup is the new Covenant; and as a further qualification there is added in my blood, in accordance with Lukes narrative which almost literally agrees with that of Paul, and was no doubt derived from it. The words in my blood are related either to the new Covenant, so that the clause shall mean the Covenant which is established in my blooda construction which conflicts with the absence of the article which is here indispensable, especially since intervenes: or it may be connected with the whole clause, q. d., this cup is the New Covenant in virtue of my blood. In other words, His blood is that whereby the New Covenant was established, in so far as this Covenant, in distinction from the Old Covenant of the law (the institution of which is described in Exo 24:8 in the very same terms), is the Covenant of grace, i.e., of sin-forgiving love. And this forgiveness was mediated through the shedding of His blood, through His holy self-sacrifice which is at once the sacrifice of the Covenant and of expiation (comp. Osiander, and in reference to the New Covenant Mat 26:28; Heb 8:8; Jer 31:31 ff.). properly denotes an ordinance or institution in general, then an agreement, a covenant, an institution which establishes a mutual relation between God and men.34 Neander.The cup then, with the wine it contains, symbolizes the New Covenant, and this Covenant is established in the blood of Christ, which the wine, poured into the cup and poured out of it for their participation, sets forth as shed for the expiation of sinful men and to be appropriated by those who drink of the cup. According to a very common metonymy the cup here stands for the winethe thing containing for the thing contained. Steudel. The wine, as the symbol of the blood of Christ, is the symbol of the New Covenant, and of our participation in it. But this is the more significant as it is a real symbol, i.e., the wine of blessing (1Co 10:16) is the communion of the blood of Christ, as the channel or means by which it is communicated. Kurtz.The thing treated of here is a covenanta relation between God and man resting upon promise, and not simply a fellowship among guests at a table united as brethren in Christ, whose union is symbolized by the wine contained in one cup (Schultheiss); although such a fellowship does indeed result from the Covenant.The Covenant is called new, not merely to indicate a relation of time, but of character also, it being different in kind from the old (Jer 31:31 ff.).The various accounts given by the Evangelists and Paul agree essentially, and supplement each other. It is also conceivable that during the presentation of the bread and distribution of the cup, the Lord in various ways expressed the significance of the act, or the fundamental ideas embodied in the institution.
1Co 11:26.Here follow the words not of Jesus, but of Paul, explanatory of the injunction: do this in remembrance of me, by a reference to the actual practice of the church which confirmed it.For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do proclaim the Lords death.In place of the word remembrance we have here the word proclaim () representing the Supper as a solemn liturgical exhibition of the fact that the Lord suffered a sacrificial death in behalf of His church, and thereby achieved their redemptionjust as there was a proclamation or showing forth of the deliverance of Israel at the Passover. [These words are emphatically introduced in order to introduce the continuance and identity of the original meal through its subsequent celebrations. Stanley.].We have here, however, no injunction; hence the verb is not Imperative but Indicative. The proclamation is that confession with thanksgiving which is connected with the rite itself, and being made in its very terms and forms, whether it proceed, in individual cases, from a heart penetrated by the love of God or not. The repetition of the words as often as ye drinkthus echoing the language of our Lord (1Co 11:25)is quite in Pauls manner. ( in 1Co 11:25-26, which is the reading best sustained, is an incidental form of used by the later inspired writers).Until He come, .The omission of the here shows the time to be definitely fixed; and this time is the second advent of the Lord, until when this Supper shall continue to be observed as the compensation for His absence and the pledge of His return. [This remembrance is of the closest and most vivid kind, like the remembrance by children of parents, by a wife of her husband, by a brother of brother, united with faith, love, desire, hope, joy, obedience, and summing up the Christian condition. This relation is in force from the close of the last feast with His disciples till His coming (Mat 26:29). Thus this mystery unites the extremes of the two periods or dispensations. Bengel.]
1Co 11:27-29.From the fact that the Supper was a proclamation of Christs death, He at once deduces an inference (v. 27), followed by an exhortation (v. 29) which is enforced by means of a threat in case of unsuitable deportment.Wherefore,since at every celebration of the Supper ye proclaim the death of our Lord.whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup.The particle , or, here connecting the two verbs (which is critically well supported, since and, has only few authorities in its favor), has been the theme of no little controversy. The Romanists use it as a sanction for the separation of the elements, and for withholding the cup from the laity; as though the propriety of using the cup alone might not just as well be deduced from it. In order to rebut their inference, however, there is no need of taking the or as equivalent to and. The two things are thus disjoined for the purpose of setting forth the guilt involved by unworthy conduct, whether it be in eating or drinking; and from this it would seem that in the primitive celebration of the Supper the distribution of the elements did not follow immediately upon each other (comp. Meyer and Osiander).Unworthily. admits of various interpretationsimpenitently, unbelievingly, unlovingly. He partakes unworthily, says Neander, who does not keep in view the holy purport and aim of the solemnity; but treats it as an ordinary meal which, in its observance, does not show forth the death of the Lord. At all events, the unworthiness lies in a lack of living active faith in the atonement which has been achieved by the death of Christ; and this is the source of the various moral disqualifications by which the celebration of the Supper may be dishonored (Meyer Ed. 3). Among these we may mention a selfish, unloving conduct as one of the chiefsuch conduct as the rich at Corinth manifested towards the poor, and which exhibited a striking contrast with the love of Christ shown in the sacrifice of Himself for all, and set forth in the Holy Supper wherein the benefits of it are extended to every one.35Shall be guilty,especially in the judicial sense. Elsewhere is connected with the dative of the words expressing punishment prescribed by the law, and the complaint made, and also the crime committed. But the latter stand at times also in the genitive, and this construction is in the New Testament the prevailing one. Here as in Jam 2:10, the object against which sin is committed is put in the genitive. Crimini et pn corporis et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit: shall be liable to the crime and punishment of having violated the body and blood of Christ. But the idea is not that the unworthy participant is as guilty as if he had taken part in the death of Christ, and is to be regarded as one of His crucifiers. The connection points only to the body and blood of Christ as exhibited in the elements of the Supper, towards these he will stand in guilty relation from the very moment he partakes unworthily. Meyer.This declaration holds good whether we suppose a symbolical or a real presence of the body and blood of the Lord. Irreverent or contemptuous conduct towards the symbol is in fact a desecration of the object symbolized. The guilt, however, appears in a stronger light when that which is unworthily partaken of is regarded as the very vehicle of the body and blood of Christ. The same remark is true of 1Co 11:29. [All that is necessary here to observe is, that the warning is directly against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting. It is not the consciousness of unworthiness that makes a person unworthy, nor yet is it any misgiving in regard to a suitable preparation; for although this may be an evidence of weak faith it certainly indicates a better state of mind than indifference or false security. Hodge].In 1Co 11:28 Paul indicates a way in which this sin and danger are to be guarded against.But, shows the advance in discourse, and turns it into a contrast, q. d., but in order not to incur this guiltlet a man examine himself, as in iv. 1, [a general term suited for both sexes]. The expression cannot mean to make ones self fit; for it nowhere occurs in this sense not even, in 2Co 13:5; Gal 6:4; 1Th 2:4; but it means to examine ones self, and here, as to whether he is morally and religiously qualified for the ordinance. Where such examination is not sincerely made, and is not accompanied with an earnest desire to be in a suitable frame of mind, there a proper self-knowledge will not be likely to exist, nor will a person be likely to avoid that selfish, haughty, unloving temper which is so disturbing to a worthy communion.and so,i.e., after having examined himself and discovered some reason humbly to hope that he may partake worthily.let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.[The case in which the self-examination ends in an unfavorable verdict does not come under consideration, because it is assumed that such a verdict will lead to repentance and amendment. Alford].The above exhortation he enforces by referring to the penalty incurred by unworthy communion.For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself,That participation which ought to be to the communicant the means for appropriating salvation, he converts into the opposite, he makes it a means of destruction, and draws down condemnation therewith upon himself. The word does not denote an absolute damnation, but points primarily to those impending Divine judgments which are spoken of in 1Co 11:26 f.According to the ordinary text [which inserts the word unworthily] he asserts this of unworthy communicants; and then adds as a yet further reason explaining the unworthiness predicated,not discerning the body.The verb is translated either, to distinguishin this case from ordinary food and drink, or, in order to escape the necessity of adopting a different signification from that in 1Co 11:31, to judge., i. e., in regard to the body of Christ, whose symbol he receives;in other words, to make a careful estimate of its sanctity and importance (Meyer). But it may be asked whether the legitimate signification of the word is not here transcended; and whether both the judging of the body of Christ and the judging of ones self, is not to be explained analogously. In the most important MSS. (A. B. C. [Cod. Sin.)], we find neither , unworthily, nor the Lords. But the latter words are at all events implied, and to be derived from the connection; the former, however, cannot be so readily understood. If we do not choose to suppose(with Meyer) that any abuse is intended in the clause, he that eateth and drinketh, and regard the expression as merely designating one who partook of the sacrament simply as an act of eating and drinking (comp. 1Co 11:22; 1Co 11:34), then must we translate the participle , if he does not discern (de Wette), which is better and more expressive than that emphasis put upon the clause, he that eateth and drinketh, and it does not suffer from meaningless expansion; rather it is made as terse as possible, since we understand by it eating of the bread and drinking of the cup. Not to discern the body, is to fail of the very thing which should be aimed at in examining ourselves, viz., that we possess that frame of mind which belongs to him who has qualified himself, not to partake of ordinary bread, but of that which is the body of the Lord. In this case also we are not compelled to connect, as Osiander does, the words condemnation to himself, with the clause, he that eateth and drinketh, as if it read, he that eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself; in which case we should have to translate , without discerning, i. e., he that eats and drinks judgment to himself, eats and drinks without discerning the body. Such a rendering would not only be harsh, but also incorrect, for the sense requires that condemnation be joined with the predicate.
1Co 11:30-31. He here applies what has just been said directly to the Corinthians.Therefore,i.e., on account of such unworthy communion, or in consequence of the judgments superinduced by it.many are weak and sickly among you, and many Sleep.To suppose that the natural results of intemperance are here alluded to, is both absurd and contrary to the immediate context. Neither can we understand him to mean by the word sleep, the decay and extinction of the spiritual life, since this word every where denotes natural death; and still less can we suppose him to mean a union of the spiritual and temporal death (as Olsh.). Rather, the Apostle here alludes to some extraordinary wide-spread weakness and disease prevailing at that time in the Church, and often proving fatal, which he regarded as a divinely inflicted punishment on their desecration of the Lords Supper (so Calvin, Neander and many others). The word . may be rendered, they sleep, i. e., dying as a continual process. But whether this intended a euphonism to denote their entrance into rest with a hope of resurrection to life (Osiander), is at least very doubtful; although from what is said in 1Co 11:32, we are not obliged to suppose the cutting off of all hope. [Wordsworth says: He does not say , the term which is used to describe the peace of the saints who have fallen asleep in Jesus (see 1Co 15:20; 1Th 4:13) but , a tense which is less expressive of a permanent condition of rest than the other]. The words , weak and sickly, may be distinguished either by taking the former to denote mere indisposition, and the latter severe disease; or the former a chronic, and the latter an acute disease; or, which is indeed more correct, the former denotes those whose very powers fail, i.e., confirmed invalids; and the latter those in whom they are only weakened. Something analogous to these judgments is presented to us in 1Co 5:5; Jam 5:15; and also in the O. T. examples mentioned in 1Co 10:6 ff.In what follows he next gives them to understand how such judgments might be avoided.But if we would judge ourselves.The , for, of the received text implies another view of the connection, q. d., therefore, in consequence of the Divine judgment, there are many sickly among you; for if we only judged ourselves, then would such judgment not befall us. The , judge, refers back to , prove. It denotes the thorough-going self-condemnation which springs from earnest self-examinationa self-condemnation which involves self-punishment, and a thorough severance of the carnal from the spiritual within us (comp. Osiander). Self-judgment is in fact a diagnosis of ones own moral state according to the Divine standard of what it should be (Burger).The transition to the first person serves to soften the exhortation, and is not to be explained (Grotius) on the supposition that the Apostle had church discipline in mind, of which the context gives no hint.But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord.The judgment spoken of in 1Co 11:30 ho here represents in the light of chastisement, i. e., the infliction of pains for the benefit of the individual, so that it shall appear as an exercise of paternal love, and not of exscinding wrath (comp. Heb 12:6-11). The words by the Lord are not to be interpreted of God, but of Christ, the Lord and Educator of the church, and they are better connected with chastened than with judged, which, as in 1Co 11:31, is used without further qualification as being self-evident. The cheering and encouraging tendency of this view of the matter appears yet more definitely in the final clause,that we should not be condemned with the world.Through such discipline, aiming at improvement, we are said to be guarded from relapsing into a worldly state whereby we, together with the world, i.e., the mass of humanity, remaining outside of the fellowship of salvation, and abiding in hostility to Christ and God, would incur damnation, i.e., utter exclusion from the kingdom of God. The words , , present a significant paranomasia (Osiander. Meyer says an Oxymoron 36). In a friendly, winning manner he next follows up his rebuke with a positive exhortation.
1Co 11:33-34. Wherefore. draws an inference from what precedes.my brethren, when ye come together.He here goes back to the point he started from in 1Co 11:20, to eat, i.e., at the church-feastthe agape,tarry one for another. as the opposite of the reprehended (1Co 11:21) means, wait, suitably to the N. T. usage elsewhere. [Wordsworth translates it receive, entertain one another, a rendering which is forbidden by the contrast which it forms with , and is not found in any of the versions].Finally he points to the fact that this Supper was not intended for the satisfaction of bodily wants, and that these ought to be attended to at home. This would serve to guard them against that greedy haste which destroyed the fellowship of the Supper and counteracted its sacred intent.And if any man hunger, let him eat at home.This exhortation he strengthens by referring once more to the judgment to which they would expose themselves by an unseemly gathering.that ye come not together unto condemnation.Having thus given the necessary directions in reference to the matter most urgent, he postpones all further instructions concerning Divine worship and church usage, to his personal arrival. And the rest will I set in order when I come.From this passage the Romish theology has sought to find a support for its tradition. All permanent instructions which are destined to have the character of Divine appointments are always referred back even by the Apostles themselves to the Lord and His Word (1Co 7:10; 1Co 9:14); and hence we justify the rule that nothing can stand as a Divine ordinance in the church which is in opposition to the recognized and definite expressions of the Lord and His Apostles. Burger.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
[1. The Lords Supper. 1. Its authenticity. In Paul we have a separate and an independent witness to the genuineness of this institution. It was revealed to him as a part of that Gospel of which he certified that he neither received it of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. And the essential harmony of his account with the narratives found in the synoptical gospels, while it is prior to either of them in the order of composition, puts both the fact and all its particulars beyond reasonable doubt. The mythical theory here finds most effectual refutation. 2. Its distinctive character. It is the Lords Supper, and is therefore to be separated from ordinary meals as designed not for the nourishment of the body, but for the soul. It is, therefore, a suitable observance for the Lords house, and should there be celebrated with all the solemnity which the great event it commemorates ought to inspire in devout minds. 3. Its import, a. It is a memorial of our Lords death. This it exhibits to us as a sacrifice for our sins. The bread betokens the body that was broken in our behalf; the wine calls to mind the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of our sins, and by which the covenant, ensuring to us eternal life, was sealed. These elements are a significant witness, therefore, of the atoning character of our Lords sufferings and death, and they can be rightly received only by those who so interpret that wonderful transaction, b. But while it is a memorial, the Lords Supper is at the same time a feast to the soul. Our Lord therein presents Himself to the church as the true bread from heaven which giveth life unto the world, and by means of which we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so that He shall dwell in us and we in Him. It is, therefore, no empty form, but one filled with richest substancea substance which is nothing less than the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which it becometh the believer to discern and appropriate by a living faith to the strengthening of his own spiritual life, and that he may be raised up at the last day. c. Besides, it is a festival of social union and communion where, in fellowship with their Head, believers knit the bonds of their common membership. d. It is, moreover, a proclamation of our Lords death, a significant exhibition to the world of what He has done and is still ready to do in behalf of all perishing sinners. In celebrating it the church sends forth its invitation to the world bidding every one that hungers and thirsts to come and eat without money and without price. e. It is a pledge of the Lords return. As it points backward to His death, so does it also point forward to that Marriage Supper where He, the returning Bridegroom, will entertain His Bride clothed in white array without spot or blemish or any such thing, and destined to go no more out from His presence forever and ever].
2. The Lords Supper. The proper method of its observance. The words given for you,shed for the remission of sins,are associated with the act of eating and drinking the elements as expressing the chief thing in this sacrament; and he who truly believes in these words is a right-worthy and well-qualified communicant. But he who does not accept their truth or doubts them is unworthy and disqualified; for all that the words for you require is a sincere believing heart.Again, where this faith is fervent there the new command of our Lord, Joh 13:34, is observed by all the members of the New Covenant. The fire of this love, which in Christ devoted itself even unto death in behalf of all mankind, melts down human pride and selfishness. If this love of Christ truly possesses our hearts so that we can appropriate to ourselves the sacrifice it has made as offered for us, then will our natural self and all we have of this worlds advantages and goods become as nothing. Christ and his love will be our all, and in Him will the entire worth of life be included for us. We shall seem to possess worth so far as we are in Him; and everything will possess worth for us so far as it belongs to Him, proceeds from Him, is His work, partakes of His nature, bears His impress, and has Him for its end.Still further, in my associates I behold One who is in them, even as He is in me, who imparts Himself to them as He does to me, who loves them as He does me, and who is beloved by them as He is beloved by me. Thus, all sense of estrangedness is removed, and a feeling of true brotherhood is awakened, and a communion established wherein we freely share with each other what we have received from Christ. When believers celebrate the Lords Supper in such a state of mind, then may they be said to partake worthily; then are they in condition to receive through the bread and wine the all-atoning grace of Christ, and together with this, the might of a pure love which gladly forgives; which shrinks at no self-mortification; which embraces all who are in Christ with a pure benevolence and sinks all distinctions of weak and strong, of poor and rich, of little and great, in the one life of Christ which is freely imparted to all, and alone has and gives absolute worth; which accepts with pleasure the little from the little, and rejoices also to give without stint and without selfish intent, in perfect simplicity of heart, so that we receive from our brethren what they have in Christ and what is precious and costly, however small it may appear, and give to them in turn, what we too have derived from Christ, both great and small, counting it a favor if we may but be made the instruments of His love.When on the contrary the heart is closed against the brotherhood in selfishness and disgust, and cleaves to earthly things of whatever kind, and exalts itself by reason of their possession and looks contemptuously on the rest keeping aloof from them, then faith in the declarations, given for youshed for you is utterly impossible; there the person is disqualified for a living union with the Lord in His Supper; then does he eat and drink in an unworthy manner. Here then is the point which every one must carefully look at who wishes to commune at the Supper; and he must examine himself honestly in presence of the great Heart-Searcher in reference to it.And only after thorough self-examination under the instruction and guidance of Christs Spirit must he approach the Holy Supper where the Lord imparts His own offered life to Him being vitally present through the visible symbols.Holding communion thus he will be greatly strengthened in the participation of Christs salvation and be merged more completely in the river of eternal life flowing from Jesus, and his whole nature will be quickened, refreshed and nourished for the more complete development of its spiritual powers.But when these conditions are wanting and when persons approach the Supper in an unhallowed frame of mind, faithless and loveless, then will the life so freely offered to them, instead of proving a blessing and a nourishment work out for them a greater condemnation. The Holy Sacrament being violated and desecrated by an unworthy handling proves a stumbling-block to the communicant; his life pines away and perishesan effect which not only took place in the apostolic churches, but which stretches on through all time to come extending even to the body itself, (comp. Calvin in loco).Such judgment, however, is to be regarded primarily as a chastisement of the Lord by which He intends to bring back the unworthy communicants to suitable reflection and to guard them against sinking back into the world and incurring a greater damnation. From all this it will seem that an unworthy communication can only take place where through the operation of the Divine Spirit a worthy communication has been rendered possible, where a believing disposition has already existed so that the unworthiness proceeds from unfaithfulness to the divine influences and from a mind perversely resisting the grace of Christ. But the oftener such unworthy communication is repeated, the more closed does a man become against rebukes of the Spirit and the more disqualified from proper self-reflection and personal examination and purifying self-judgment, the nearer also does he approach that state of complete apostasy which brings with it damnation.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Luther.
1Co 11:20-21. No sin is so contrary and hostile to this sacrament as disunion and discord. Starke:
1Co 11:17. The ministers commands ought to be Gods commands. Woe to the minister who commands otherwise, and woe to the hearers who do not obey! Hed.:
1Co 11:19. God turns all things for good: the juice must ferment if wine is to be produced; so must the church be agitated by false opinions and abuses in order that what is evil may foam up and pass off. By this means we learn ourselves, and the hypocrite is separated from the true Christian (1Jn 2:18 f.).
1Co 11:20. Oh, what multitudes approach the table of the Lord, not as they should, but as they would; by so doing they celebrate, not the feast of the Lord, but the feast of their own condemnation.
1Co 11:21 (Hed.). The Lords Supper, not an ordinary meal, but a true Supper, where not the stomach, but the soul, is to be satisfied. Dost thou hunger and thirst after Jesus? Then it will be easy to fast while preparing to approach the table of the Lord for the sake of better devotion. But if thou art weak, and must needs partake of food, still this will not hinder the worthy reception of the Holy Supper.
1Co 11:22. In the Church of Christ, and in the distribution of the Supper, one is of as much consequence as another; and the rich and the noble must not take umbrage if the poor and the lowly partake first.
1Co 11:23. Abuses can best be remedied by going back to the primitive institution of a thing (Mat 19:4).If our Lord has instituted an ordinance, it is not allowed us, or the whole Church even, to change aught therein; for He is the Lord of the whole Church.
1Co 11:24. He says not: offer it, honor it, guard it, carry it about, worship it. Spener: If the veritable body of the Lord has been offered for us, then must the same also be received and enjoyed by us in the Holy Supper. In the inward remembrance of the Saviour there is an actual seeking, desiring and apprehending of all His grace; and such recollection transpires in the inmost depths of the soul. The more thou thinkest upon Jesus the happier art thou: the oftener, the better! (Spener)
1Co 11:25. It is real blood that Christ has shed for us, and indeed the sacrificial blood which he has offered up in our behalf, the blood of atonement whereby we are reconciled, and hence the very thing whereby he has sealed the New Testament. Where the cup is wanting, there the supper is mutilated; for Christ did not bequeath his blood with the bread, but with the cup. As after having been born, we need food, not only once, but daily for the strengthening of our nature, so must this sacrament, which is designed to strengthen our new nature, be frequently repeated. And to this we should be urged not only by the command of the Lord, but also by a sense of our own needbecause we crave the forgiveness of sins and spiritual invigoration. Besides we should be moved to it by the preeminent worth of the good things presented to us.
1Co 11:27. Judged according to our merits we are all too unworthy of food and drink, such as no angel has been honored with. Yet the super-abounding grace of our Lord Jesus Christ renders the lowest of us worthy of it. Those who approach the table of the Lord without repentance and faith, without reverence and holy resolves, without love and reconciliation, in short, without the perfect renunciation of all deliberate and presumptuous sins, offend as grievously against the body and blood of the Lord as did the godless Jews and heathen, who crucified the one and shed the other. (Heb 6:6).
1Co 11:28. Luther: To examine oneself means to consider whether we are fit: hence, it requires that we should not trust at once to our own thoughts, nor to the opinions of others, but keep these in abeyance until the matter has been well investigated before God and in the light of his word. And for this a person should be duly qualified. Hence, no unconverted man can properly examine himself, unless he first begins to yield to the prevenient and convicting grace of God, and thus a spark of divine light is kindled in him.Examine thyself according to the law, as to whether thou dost realize thine own sin, and the well-merited wrath of God; also, according to the gospel, as to whether thou dost in faith comfort thyself solely with the all-availing merits of Jesus and whether this faith in thee is strengthened through a hearty love of God and of thy neighborthrough a profound hatred of all sin and evilthrough a holy zeal for true godliness, through a high minded contempt of that which is seen and temporal and through a burning desire for that which is unseen and eternal. If this examination be sustained, be assured that this Holy Supper presents you that which heaven and earth cannot give. (Arndt): Prove thyself according to the language of the institution wherein the great mystery contained is set forth to be, that it exhibits to us the true body and blood of Jesusthat He, as an offered body and as atoning blood, yea as a testament with all well earned treasures and gifts is truly presented, to some for a blessing, to others for a condemnation. And remember also, that to be a worthy guest thou must be prepared by repentance and faith to be capable of spiritual communion with Christ and his spiritual body. Such are the blessed intents, fruits, operations of this mysterious testamentary feast of love and reconciliation.
1Co 11:29. It happens sometimes, that the children of God approach the table of the Lord without suitable reflection and proper preparation. These invite upon themselves severe temporal chastisements; while the utterly godless, provoke a greater damnation.
1Co 11:30. Hed.: Why are many sick? Why do many die? Why do many fall? Some reply; it was a raging pestilencethe physician failedwe cannot avoid ill luck.I reply, it is because they partake unworthily of the Lords Supper. Gods judgments yet endure. But who sees them? who suspects them?
1Co 11:31. If thou wilt judge thyself salutarily, keep from dissipating vanities; refrain from treacherous self-love; and think not to magnify the good and diminish the evil that is in thee. Pray God to enlighten thee; and take Gods word to counsel and reform thee in all particulars wherein thou canst and ought to be reformed. He who does not daily stand in judgment upon himself, cannot stand well in a state of grace. Amid many kinds of wordly avocations this may not be readily done; yet the spiritual and eternal welfare of our souls is of sufficient importance to demand and obtain some time for this purpose from every one; and time may be easily found for it if we will.
1Co 11:32. Behold the compassion of God towards the unworthy communicants at Christs table. He does not send them at once to hell; but searches them by means of temporal punishments, with paternal intent of leading them to repentance, and keeping them from being condemned with an impenitent world.
1Co 11:33. O happy fellowship, where in holy communion, one deems himself no higher than another, but rather each one thinks other better than himself! (Php 2:3).
Berlenb. Bibel: 1Co 11:16. It is always the duty of Christians to meet together, but it should be for edification. The tendency is ever to backslide. Steadfastness in the truth already known costs effort. By the grace of God only can we grow.1Co 11:18-19. Were we to look into mans condition and also to comprehend ourselves better, it would not astonish us to find so little perfect union among pious people. And were our hearts more simple and thoroughly freed from falsehood, how would we learn to look with others eyes at everything which now awakens, at first sight doubt, disgust and jealousy! We readily acquiesce in the most singular ways of Providence when we have learned how to bring good out of evil, and under all things to recognize Gods wisdom, truth, and blamelessness. Of many a church-communion at the present day Paul might well say, How can ye, being unholy, have a holy table of the Lord? The world is full of hypocrites and mouth-Christians.
1Co 11:23. We must first receive the mystery of faith from the Lord, if we would so transmit it to others as to awaken their reverence. Those who profess to be the servants of Christ ought first to have tasted of the goodness of the Lord, and have derived strength from His love, in order that they may be the holy instruments of God in bearing witness of His gospel to others, and nourishing them with spiritual food. What is to be imparted to souls ought not to be taken at second-hand, or delivered without being first experienced in the soul.
1Co 11:24 ff. Through the apostasy, mankind have been betrayed into a frightful hatred of God, and into a slavish fear and distrust of Him. Hence they very reluctantly come to commemorate Him whom they regard only as their Judge, and not also as their Saviour and Helper.In order to furnish weak and wretched souls with the guidance like that of a hand, Christ establishes the outward observance of the Holy Scriptures as His memorialnot as though He Himself were ever absent, since He has promised to be with us always, yea, to dwell in His own,but because our ever forgetful disposition requires such constant reminding. Yet at the same time He aims to make such a powerful impression by means of it as shall deeply stamp on the heart His whole character and workboth what He has done and what He has suffered in our behalf.And this memorial is intended also to effect an actual reunion and communion with the Lord; for when a poor, weary soul, in its great need, seeks anxiously for Christ, then does He knock at the heart, not only inwardly, by His attracting Spirit, but externally also, through the means of grace. And if the person opens to Him his whole heart, then does He at once become one with him forevermore; and if he is of one mind with Christ, then is he also a partaker of Him.Through the envy and wrath of Satan, have mankind fallen into a condition of mutual hostility and passionate strife.The hellish abyss of bitterness and falsehood lies deeply concealed in every one, and the fire of self-love and self-will burns by nature in us all. Thence arises wrath, strife, hatred, envying, and all the other hellish attributes and works of Satan, by which Gods wrath is kindled in the human heart. In this hellish torment would man be doomed to burn evermore, had not Mercy found a perfect means of deliverance in its great wisdom.The Son of God, as the manifestation of Gods heart and love, has incorporated Himself with humanity, and thus have Divine love and grace been-again revealed and brought near to man. Those now who unite with Christ through faith become partakers of Gods life and love.The new covenant is at the same time a Testament of the Divine promises which the Son of God has sealed for us with His death and blood. With him, who has enjoyed this blood in its purifying power, is this covenant ratified. If thou wilt then have a share in this covenant with God, thou must open thine heart to Him in order to receive His perfect will, together with all His grace and strength. For this is the power of the new covenant that God proposes to give to His saints His Spirit, whose work it is to draw us to Christ, glorify him in our eyes, and make us strong to obtain all things in Him.He who has an earnest longing to know Christ, and to partake of Him, will find but little pleasure in transitory things, and be little disposed to think of and cleave to them. For the one must give place to the other, even in thought.
1Co 11:26. The first observance of the Supper is apt to be attended with the most earnest devotion. With time, devotion lessens. Constant reflection will, however, guard us against this evil. Our devotion ought to be ever increasing, and this will be the case if we so eat of the bread as not to forget the Lord, and devote ourselves entirely to each other, as the Lord has done for us, and thus allow the blood of Christ to kindle in us a holy zeal to be true to Him even unto death, and to stand by each other even unto blood, in the actual and active communion of the heart, and life and goods, as becometh members of one body. As we eat and drink with the mouth, so with the mouth do we also confess the Crucified, and incite each other to the fervent imitation of Him. This proclamation of His death involves our living as those who have been crucified, and are dead to the world with Christ; so that we can show that we have a perfect Saviour actually in us, who, as our High Priest has atoned for us, as our
Prophet, has instructed us, and as our Ruler, has strongly controlled us.His death slays our death. His life quickens our life. And this we ought also to impress on each other: that as Christ died for us out of sheer love, so also ought we, out of the love which He has given as food for our souls, to die gladly unto iniquity, and to live no more unto ourselves, but unto God through Christ, who has suffered Himself to be slain in our behalf.As the sacraments derive their power and active operation from the death of Christ, so is their most important end conformity to the death of Christ. (Php 3:10). Just in proportion as a person brings to mind the death of our Lord, holds Him in constant recollection, and thinks merely of His future glory, will he become dead to all evil lusts and desires from day to day. Then, when Christ comes, will He take the sovereignty, and liberate the creature from the curse, and from every evil which it has incurred in consequence of the fall. Until then we must hold fast to the memorials of His death.He who abuses the creature in lust and vanity, and thus excites and nourishes lust and strengthens sin, poorly prepares himself for the coming of the Lord.
1Co 11:27. He who eats and drinks without true penitence and spiritual hunger, or renders himself unworthy by sorry pursuits, so far from being absolved from guilt, only doubles it.
1Co 11:28. Self-examination should be carried on by a sharp introspection and constant observance of what transpires within usof our thoughts, aims and desires; by watching what proceeds from us in word and deed; and by reflecting on what the issue of all these things will be before God. At the same time there must shine in us the light of the Holy Spirit, who shall discover to us our secret faults, and disclose the evil we might otherwise overlook. New strength must also be invoked from Him for the overcoming of our selfishness. If we could only suffer ourselves to be examined by Him, then would questions such as these arise: How is it with thee in respect to the love of God? Art not thou loving and serving the creature more than the Creator? Whereupon rests thy confidenceupon the living God, or upon thyself? Art not thou still constantly abusing the holy Name and will of God for hypocritical ends? Is there nothing false in thine act and on thy tongue? Dost thou not indeed represent thyself as more pious than thou art, and still performest in secret thine own will? Dost thou let God rest in thy heart, or art thou hindering Him with thine evil desires? How art thou dealing with Gods Word? Art thou employing the best of thy time for the true inward service of God? How does thy heart stand related to thy neighbor? Hast thou not injured or oppressed any one, so as to cause him to sigh because of thee? Is thy heart free from hatred, and envy, and wrath, even in the nicest particulars? Art thou disciplining and chastening thyself? Art thou practising nothing, even under cover of marriage, which stains thee before God? How art thou dealing with others goods? Art thou acting in all things honestly and truly before God?Under such searching inquiry, what a depth of impurity is opened up within? The discovery of it cannot but bow the heart mightily before God. This self-examination, accordingly, includes in itself the whole work of repentance which is demanded before the communion.
1Co 11:29. A person eats unworthily1, when he fails to recognize his own need, and proves not himself; 2, when he hungers not after Christ, nor discerns His most holy and glorified Body. Such base contempt of Christ justly incurs upon itself the severest punishments. Plagues of every kind then ensuethe cause of which is not often seenand we wonder why this or that person is so severely chastised.
1Co 11:30. The first inflictions are somewhat temporary, and they can be ameliorated by earnest repentance, so that the man shall not fall a prey to death. Under the prostration of the body, many a soul may be rescued. That there are, even among well meaning persons, so many sick and dead in faith, happens for this reason: were persons always helped, so as to go on successfully in their appointed conflicts, and to remain looking to Jesus, and to receive from Him grace and victory, they would at once give scope to their fancy, pride themselves on the gifts which they have received, and which were given to them for the purpose of being industriously improved, towards making their calling sure, and advancing in humility. But instead of this, they gradually abandon their humility, and exalt themselves. In this way their field is sown with thorns by the enemy; yet they deem it all good fruit, eat thereof, and fill full their pride and self-love.Much evil arises when those who are weak separate themselves from such as are able to furnish them good guidance.
1Co 11:31. He who comes squarely up to the righteousness of God, and freely acknowledges himself as guilty before it, and subjects himself to its avenging sword by condemning himself, acts discreetly, and according to the mind and counsel of the Holy Spirit. For it is far more tolerable to manage our owe case with God secretly, and to take to shame ourselves, and bow before him here, than to be exposed to shame yonder in presence of the angels and of all the elect, and there incur His condemnation. A converted Christian judge himself alone, and trusts none less than himself. Such self-judgment also works in us the death of Christ, in that we judge ourselves as those who have deserved like death, yet for whom the Lord has died, in order that we, through His death, may die unto sin and live unto righteousness. How many a one would lie already in hell, if God, out of sheer mercy, had not taught him through great tribulations!
Rieger: 1Co 11:17 ff. In a church of Christ there ought to be manifest advance from year to year. In the present constitution of Christs kingdom, in which power is still left to the arch enemy to , and in which carnal security, levity and temerity are still peculiar to men, factions and class distinctions, those fruits of self-formed opinions, are unavoidable. Where the distinction between rich and poor is still maintained in the church, there it appears no more as it did in the upper chamber of the first Lords Supper.
1Co 11:23 ff. The observance of the Lords Supper falls in between two terminion the one side, the night when our Lords ordinary intercourse with the world was broken off, and on the other His second coming, when we shall begin to eat and drink anew with him in his kingdom. It is therefore a special provision for those who, not having seen him yet believe.
1Co 11:31. To judge oneself, to be judged by the Lord, to be condemned with the world constitute three stages, just as in Mark 9to be salted with the salt of heavenly discipline, or to be salted with fire, or to be cast into the fire which shall not be quenched.
Heubner: 1Co 11:17. Out from our worshiping congregations there ever depart those persons who are worse than when they camepersons who have been hardened and embittered against the word of Go.
Ver 19. Gods government in this world aims at disclosing evil in its true form, but this is ever connected with the glorification of that which is good
1Co 11:21. The holiest things are precisely those which are most exposed to desecration
1Co 11:22. The presence of God and the sanctity of His temple ought to impress every one with a sense of his own nothingness and of the vanity of earthly things
1Co 11:23. In that place where the friendship of Jesus was so bitterly requited He set up the memorial of His love; in that place where He suffered His fearful passion did He establish that ordinance through which He imparted Himself most intimately to others.
1Co 11:26. The Lords Supper should also refresh the sure expectation of His future coming, and be a foretaste of the heavenly Supper.
1Co 11:28. This Supper demands the most earnest preparation of mind, wherefore it becometh every Christian to experience some anxiety respecting himself as to whether he is honoring his Lord as he ought. 1Co 11:29. A deterioration of the heart is one result of unworthy communication.
1Co 11:30. the physical weakness which often gets the upper hand of us, is in various ways a sad token of moral degeneracy.
1Co 11:31. The more severe a man is upon himself, the more sparing is God toward him. To be sparing of self is to incur harm.
W. F. Besser; 1Co 11:17. Where the fountains of grace and of life are flowing, and where the guests of the Lord are to be nourished and strengthened with His body and blood, in order that they may grow in love toward each other even as Christ has loved them, these people can never assemble only to remain as they were before; they are either better or worse after it.
1Co 11:26. How can the death of our Lord move the hearts of those who habituate themselves only to carnal contentions and fleshly enjoyments?
1Co 11:29. He eats and drinks judgment to himself, who does not eat and drink blessing to himself. Therefore let every one see to it, that he does not eat and drink the judgment of the impenitent and the unbelieving.
[Calvin. 1Co 11:30. If in Pauls times an ordinary abuse of the Supper could kindle Gods wrath against the Corinthians, so that He punished them thus severely, what ought we to think of the state of things now? We see throughout the whole extent of Popery, not merely horrid profanations of the Supper, but even sacrilegious abominations set up in its room. 1. It is prostituted to filthy lucre (1Ti 3:8) and merchandise. 2. It is maimed by taking away the cup. 3. It is changed into another aspect by the custom of partaking separately, communion being thus done away. 4. No explanation is given of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles than with the Lords Supper. 5. It is associated with an endless number of ceremonies, partly trivial, and partly superstitioustherefore polluting. 6. There is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy on the death of Christ. 7. It is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think to drive off every thing hurtful by this charm, and that too without faith and repentance. 8. An idol is there adored in place of Christ. In short, it is filled with all kinds of abominations].
Footnotes:
[11]1Co 11:17.The Rec. has . The authorities are about equally balanced, but the internal probabilities are in favor of . , the more difficult reading. [Lachmann, Tischendorf and Alford adopt this reading, from A. C.F.G., 10 cursives, the Syr. (both), Arm., Ital., th., Vulg., Ambrst., Aug., Pelag., Bede. The Rec. has in its favor, D. (3d hand) E. K. L. Sinait., several cursives, the Copt., Slav., Chrys., Theodt., and is defended by Reiche and Bloomfield.D. (1st hand), 137, and Sahid., have , and B. with a Lambeth cursive has . The Rec. was probably a correction to suit 1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:22.C. P. W.].
[12]1Co 11:18.The Rec., which has before , is feebly sustained: [with cum., Theophyl. and a few unimportant cursives, from an idea that by . was meant the church proper. Theodoret has instead of . the words: , from 1Co 11:20.C. P. W.].
[13]1Co 11:19.The after is rather doubtful. Many very good MSS. are without it. [They are: A. C. D. (2d and 3d hand) E. F. G. K. L., Sinait., Syr. (later) Copt., Orig., Epiph., Chrys., Theodt., Damasc., Cypr.C. P. W.].
[14][1Co 11:21.For , a considerable number of cursives and Zonaras (Tisch.) have ., probably from an attempt to explain and make less difficult the fact here stated.C. P. W.].
[15]1Co 11:22.Lachmann has for , but not with sufficient authorities. It was probably a conformation to the preceding and following presents. [It is sustained only by B. F. G., the Italic, Vulg. and the Latin fathers.C. P. W.].
[16][1Co 11:22.Stephens (the Elz.), Griesb., Scholz, and Tisch., Sinait. and B. (1st cor.), the Vulg., Goth. and Syr. (later) punctuate so that is taken not with , but with the following C. P. W.].
[17]1Co 11:24.After the Rec. has , ; but the words are not genuine in this place, and are taken from Mat 26:25, etc. [The reading of the Rec. is sustained only by C. (3d hand) K. L., a few cursives, one copy of the Syr. (both), Chrys., Theodt., Damasc, cum., Theophyl. The Vulg., Arm., Slav. and Ambrst. also add after . But A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Sinait. omit both words as well as .C. P. W.].
[18]1Co 11:24.The additions (Rec.), , and are attempts which have been made to complete our Lords expression. The best MSS. have simply . [ is omitted in A. B. C., Sinait., 17, 67 (2d hand). Athan., Cyr. and Vulg., but it is given by the second hands of C. D. and Sinait., and in F. K. L., the Syr. (both), Goth., Theodt., Damasc., cum., Theophyl. In D. (first hand) is , and in the Copt., and Arm. is . The Vulgate has: quod pro vobis tradetur. Very properly the three words are thrown out by Lachm., Tisch., Bloomfield and Alford.C. P. W.].
[19]1Co 11:26.After the Rec. has , but in opposition to the best authorities. The same may be said of the instead of after .
[20]1Co 11:27.After the Rec. inserts , but it is feebly sustained. [The Eng. A.V. has and instead of or in this verse. Alford, in his work on How to use the Epistles (Sund. Mag., April, 1867), severely censures this misrendering. It is not impossible that our Translators were influenced by their hostility to the Romish construction. And yet their rendering is sustained by A., 4 cursives, one MS. of the Vulgate, the Syr. (both), Copt., Sahid., Clem., Pseudo-Athan, Orig., and some Latin writers. Some of these authorities, however, were not known to them. The is found in B. C. D. F. K. L., Sinait., Ital., Syr. (Philox.), Chrys., Theodt., Damasc., Cypr.C. P. W.].
[21]1Co 11:27.The Rec. omits before . The best MSS. insert it.
[22]1Co 11:29.The words after , and after , are not to be found in the best MSS. See the Exegetical notes. [The former word is wanting in A. B. C. Sinait., 17, Sahid. and th., and the latter in the same MSS. with 67, and some copies of the Vulgate. They are thrown out by Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford and Stanley, but they are defended by Osiander, Bloomfield, Wordsworth and Hodge. They seem to be a gloss from 1Co 11:27, to complete what is certainly a difficult sense without them.C. P. W.].
[23]1Co 11:31.The Rec. has but is sustained by better authorities.
[24][1Co 11:32Before , Tischendorf (7th ed.) and Wordsworth insert a after B. C. Sinait. et al.; Alford brackets it; but Lachm., Bloomfield and Stanley cancel it, as more likely to be added than removetC. P. W.].
[25]1Co 11:34.The Rec. after has . but in opposition to decisive authorities. [It is omitted in A. B. C. D. E. E. G. Sin. the Lat., Vulg. and Copt, versions, Chrys. (in comm.) and the Lat. Fathers.C. P. W.].
[26][The unnaturalness of the construction here advocated by Kling furnishes a strong argument in favor of the interpretation given by Chrys., Grot., Bengel, Lachmann and others, which makes refer to what follows according to the well-known classic usage (Jelf, Grammar. 657, 2), and takes in its original meaning, announce,or, as translated by Tindal, Cranmer, in the Geneva Bible, warn you of; we should then have a fitting introduction to his new theme: This moreover I declare unto you, or warn you of, not praising you, as in the former case, where in many particulars you did merit approval].
[27][May there not be also an allusion here to the punitive consequences more fully set forth in 1Co 11:29-30, that in coming together and eating unworthily they ate and drank condemnation to themselves, and exposed themselves to bodily disorders and death? So understanding this clause, do we not here find a reason for his using the word , which conveys the idea of a solemn announcement or proclamation, rather than the ordinary , I say or declare? For in thus interpreting to them the tokens of the Divine displeasure, Paul was in fact acting the part of a Divine herald ()].
[28][Illustrations of the early use of this word may be seen in Gieselers Ch. Hist, Vol. I., p. 149 ff., and note 3].
[29][But one would suppose from the that there was also a stress to be laid upon , as indicating something worse than , and pointing to what would continue to happen in the future, q. d., for it is necessary that there must arise even heresies among you, as an ordeal to test and exhibit those who are approveda truth which the whole history of the Church has signally illustrated, as may be seen in the instances of such men as Athanasius and Augustine, and Luther, and Calvin, and Edwards, and a host of others, who have made themselves illustrious in their conflicts with heresy (M. Stuart)].
[30][Such an extension of the meaning of the term is altogether unwarranted and wholly needless. The Lords Supper properly can only mean that particular ordinance which was instituted by our Lord, viz., the solemn participation of the bread and the wine, as the memorials of His death. This was ever kept distinct from the agape, although connected with it, until at a later period they were entirely separated. Wordsworth says, that the non-insertion of the definite article to before Lords Supper, shows that by habitual use in the Church this term had now attained the force of a proper name].
[31][Is not this a valid argument in proof of the fact that the wine used at the Lords Supper in the primitive church, was such as could intoxicate? See Bib. Sac. for 1843, p. 507 f.].
[32][Wordsworth, however, takes this test as a proof of the setting apart of places for Gods worship in primitive times, and of the reverence due to them as such. And he refers to Joseph Meades Essay on this text, for evidence collected on this matter, and also to Hooker V. 12, 5. And certainly the contrast here drawn between the private house and the place of church meeting, seems naturally to suggest the local interpretation of the word church ].
[33][The flesh profiteth nothing; it is the Spirit that quicke neth, saith our blessed Lord. And herein we have a key to the interpretation of the sacrament before us. Whatever benefit we derive from the bread and wine, must then be by virtue of the Spirit, who being then present, does, in and through the symbols that set forth to our senses the great sacrifice of our redemption, take of the things of Christ, and so show them to our spirits that we, through those faculties and powers of the soul, which alone can deal with the spirit, do feed on Christdo come into veritable communion with our risen Lorddo have our whole beingbody, soul, and spiritquickened and sanctified, and eventually glorified by that Eternal Life which in Him clothed itself in our nature for the sake of effecting this very objectso that we are grafted into His mystical body, become partakers of His Divine nature in its entireness, and are prepared to unite with Him in glory at the resurrection. We are joined to Christs body and assimilated to it, not by the mere process of eating and drinking the elements, which are either transubstantiated into, or consubstantiated with, His flesh and blood; but by the faith which receives through the Spirit the life-giving power of that sacrifice which is represented and sealed to us through them. As Calvin says: Christs body is not received as dead or even inactive, disjoined from the grace and power of His Spirit. A great mistake is made when body is confounded with flesh and blood,elements which Christ no longer possesses, and of which it is said that they shall never inherit the kingdom of God. We partake of the bread and wine, first, as the symbols of a sacrifice made once for all, and which is not to be repeated continually (as the Romish theory would have it); and then, as the condition of uniting with and becoming conformed to Christs glorified body, which is now in Heaven, where He is, the Head and Representative of the Whole Church, transforming, sustaining and gathering unto Himself all who truly believe on His name, and receive His Spirit.On this whole subject consult Hooker, B. V, Chap. 67; Edw. Irving, Coll.Writt.,Vol. 2; Calvins Institutes, B. 3, Chap. 17,18; Kittos Exerc. Art. Lords Supper; Smiths Dict of the Bible, ditto; Herzog, Real. Enc. Art. Abend-Mahl; Bib. Sac. for 1843, p. 584 f.; also for 1844, pp. 111, 225].
[34][It is to be regretted that the translators of the English version have followed the vulgate in uniformly translating by testament (testamentum), a meaning it nowhere has, save in Heb 9:15 ff. (and that it acquires by a subtle turn of the thought, without, howrever, altogether surrendering its original signification), and which greatly obscures the sense of the passages when it occurs. On the import and use of this word see Fairbairns. Hermeneuticul Manual, pp. 338351.]
[35][But here it may be asked, If Christ is really present in the sacrament, of what does the unworthy communicant partake? Does he actually partake of Christ himself? Certainly not. He shares only in that which he is capable of sharing in. As Calvin says: receives nothing but the sign. Or as Augustine: he eats the bread of the Lord, but not the true bread who is the Lord. Since Christs presence in the Supper is through His Spirit, only the spiritually-minded can there hold real communion with Him. But the unworthiness of the communicant does not destroy the supernatural character of the institution itself. It remains the same whether the communicant believes or not. So far as the administration is concerned Christs body, as Calvin says. is present to the wicked no less than to the good: for God does not there represent in a delusive manner, to the wicked, the body of His Son, but He presents it in reality. As to their rejection of it, that does not impair or alter any thing as to the nature of the sacrament, On the contrary, their guilt is enhanced by the sacred character of what they offend against.]
[36]A figure in which an epithet of a quite contrary signification is added to a word.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
(17) Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (18) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. (19) For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. (21) For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (23) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: (24) And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. (25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. (27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (31) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. (32) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (33) Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. (34) And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
We can never be sufficiently thankful to our gracious God, for this portion of his holy word, on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. The improper administration of the sacred Supper, among the Corinthians, gave occasion to the Apostle, to state the order of it at large, as he hath here done: and God the Spirit, I say, be praised, for this invaluable record concerning it. The first thing of importance concerning the holy Supper, which we here learn, is, that the thing itself is of Christ’s express institution. This I conceive to be a matter of high moment. For, although the Lord Jesus appointed the service to his disciples, (who were the representatives of the Church,) as a standing memorial, to be observed by his followers, and without any further record, had nothing more been said concerning it, than the Lord’s appointment upon that memorable occasion; this would have been enough, it ought indeed, to have been enough to endear it, and recommend it forever, to the faithful: yet had not the Lord again taught his servant Paul what is here related, and God the Holy Ghost caused it to be handed down in the Church by those written records, we should not have known how highly Jesus prized it, and how many and various the blessings the Lord intended to communicate, in the faithful observance of it to his people. I pray the Reader not to lose sight of this, in his view of the Lord’s Supper.
Secondly. It is worthy the Reader’s observation, that though it is not said when it was that the Lord Jesus so directed the Apostle Paul, concerning the holy Supper; yet very certain it is, that what he delivered to the Church on the subject, he had immediately from Jesus himself. So it is written. For (saith Paul) I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. And then he describes the order of the solemn service. Nay, there is somewhat very highly important to observe in what the Apostle saith, not only as it relates to the service itself, but as to the manner of celebrating it. For though the Lord Jesus, when at the supper with his disciples, instituted it, and superseded the Jewish Passover, and commanded its perpetual observance; yet the Lord gave no form, neither prescribed any order, or method, how they should celebrate it. Hence this relation of Paul becomes doubly blessed, because the Lord who gave it to his servant, gave him at the same time, those directions how it should he observed by the faithful. Some have been curious to enquire, When it was, that the Lord Jesus so taught Paul concerning it. But the Holy Ghost is silent on the subject. It is not likely to have been at his conversion, for the Lord then sent him to Ananias to be baptized. But it might have been when he was in a trance, Act 18:9 or Act 22:17 , or when in the prison : Act 23:11 , or at sea: Act 27:23 , or when caught up to the third Heaven: 2Co 12:1-4 . But it is not so material to enquire when it was, as to be convinced of the certainty of it, that it really is; and this Paul certifies with strong expressions, when he saith : For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. From this account of the Apostle, I venture to conclude, that that form of administration, which approacheth nearest to this standard, is most Scriptural.
Thirdly. From the very sweet and affectionate statement in the Lord’s name, by his servant Paul, (and as it should seem, purposely given that he might inform the Church of it,) that as oft as his people in a sacramental service eat the bread, and drink the cup, they do shew forth the Lord’s death till he come; nothing can be more plain, than that it is the Lord’s pleasure, that his people should often meet in his name, for this holy purpose. And that the Church of God, from the first descent of the Holy Ghost, considered it so, is also evident, for we are told, that they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house: by which we understand, celebrating the holy Supper of the Lord, Act 2:46 . Flow little apprehensions must those persons have, either of the solemn service itself; or of the design of its institution, who receive it but seldom, lest they should lose their reverence for it; and thereby manifest their total ignorance both of the Lord of the Supper, and as a communion in the benefits of it by faith? Reader! what saith your knowledge of the Lord, and the enjoyment of the Lord, at his Supper? The Church of old cried out: While the King sitteth at his table, my spikenard sended forth the smell thereof. Son 1:12 . It is very blessed, when at the Lord’s table, or in the Lord’s house, or in our own, the graces of the Holy Spirit which the Lord hath planted in the soul, are going forth in lively actings of faith, upon the Person, work, blood-shedding, and righteousness, of the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh! who shall calculate, the incomings of Christ’s love, and the out-goings of praise, in such hallowed seasons? Who shall tell what passeth between Christ and his spouse; the Lord and his people, when Jesus comes in to see the guests at his table; and they are found waiting their Lord’s approach, in the wedding garment of his righteousness? Who shall describe the feelings of those redeemed souls, who, while Jesus sheweth his hands, and his side, breaks to them the bread, and gives to them the cup of salvation; opens their hearts, warms their affections, cheers their spirits, and makes them sensible of a gracious welcome; when by faith they hear the Lord say : Eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, 0 beloved! Son 5:1 . Could any child of God, whose soul is truly regenerated, and hath felt the sweetness of the ordinance at the Supper, ever keep from the table, or use it sparingly? Blessed Lord! I praise thy holy Name, for so precious a love-token of thy favor. May it be my portion, to be often crying out with the Church: Tell me, 0 thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flocks to rest at noon; for why should I he as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions, Son 1:7 .
I must not take leave of this interesting subject, without first noticing what the Apostle hath said, respecting the irreverent manner in which the Corinthians observed the Lord’s Supper.
It appears, from the statement given by the Apostle, that the Corinthians had somewhat of a feast, before they celebrated the Lord’s Supper. For he speaks of it, and saith: When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper . For in eating, everyone taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken. Now this could not be the Supper of the Lord. Some have thought, and perhaps the idea is well founded, that those who did this, were persons who had been converted to Christianity, but like the Church of Galatea, were much attached to Jewish customs, and therefore kept up also the observance of the Passover. And from not having been savingly converted to the faith by regeneration, had made too free with the good things of the feast, and were in an awful state of drunkenness , when they attended the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, which followed. Others have supposed, that this feast of the Corinthians, was a love feast, instituted to bring together into the bands of mutual love, and affection, the several members of Christ’s body; that so by partaking in one common feast, they might be reminded of their equality : notwithstanding their different ranks, of poor and rich, that they all alike stood in need of one common salvation; and as such, ate and drank together, in one common meal, and from thence went hand in hand to present themselves before the table of the Lord, In either case, it presents us with a melancholy picture of the fallen, and corrupt state of our poor nature. Probably this feast was provided for according to the circumstances of the people. The rich sent in plenty. The poor who had nothing of consequence, provided nothing. And therefore, while the former, assuming on their right, ate and drank to the full; the latter, in modesty kept back and the effect was as the Apostle states, while one was hungry, another was drunken.
And, what tended to heighten yet more the enormity of the offence, was, that it was done in the house of God. This is evident, from the Apostle’s reproof. What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in: or despise ye the church of God? Reader! think what an awful perversion of all sacred things, when, even under the cover of religion, such abuses prevailed!
It will be highly proper to consider, what the Apostle hath said in relation to the unworthy participation of the Lord’s Supper; and more especially, as many of God’s children, from a misconception of the subject have taken the words of the Apostle in a very different light from what, as is evidently the case, the Apostle meant them. For the better apprehension of the whole of what Paul hath said upon this most interesting subject, I would beg to state the Apostle’s words under each particular. Paul saith, that whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And again: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation, (or, as the margin of the Bible renders it, judgment,) to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. These are very strong expressions. And the question is to what extent, according to the general sense of Scripture do they refer?
An unworthy participation in the Supper of the Lord cannot, in the nature of the thing, imply such guilt in the body and blood of the Lord, as those who imbrued their hands, in the death of Christ; for that is impossible. Neither is it to be supposed, that by the unworthy receiving in the Corinthian Church, the Apostle considered any there, who either had once acknowledged the faith of Christ, and now denied him; for then it is to be supposed, that in this case, they would not have shewn themselves to the table of the Lord. Neither can we imagine, that any of those Corinthians were of that class of persons, whom the same Apostle speaks of in his Epistle to the Hebrews, who despised the blood of the Covenant, and thought highly of it; for neither in this sense can we suppose such characters to be found at the Lord’s Supper, Heb 10:29 . We must look for some other marks of distinction; which may be supposed to have reference to the receiving the Lord’s Supper unworthily, so as to be considered guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
And I think it very possible, that the Apostle had in view among the Corinthians, such as made light of the holy Supper, reduced it to a mere form, had no eye to Christ, no discernment of the Lord’s body in the sacramental service; went to it with an indifferency, to a common meal; and from the state of drunkenness and fulness by which many of those Corinthians were distinguished, at the Lord’s table, plainly testified, that they knew no reverence for the Lord us this holy service.
And I am the more inclined to conclude, that it was to such characters the Apostle referred, from what he declared to be the consequence of such unholy behavior. The Apostle saith, that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Not eternal damnation, for it is to the Church Paul is writing, and the Church is a body of truly regenerated persons who cannot come into condemnation, having passed from death unto life, Rom 8:1 . But, judgment, that is, as he saith in a following verse, many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. And they are expressly said to be judged and chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world; that is, as the carnal, unawakened, unregenerate in the world. This distinction, with the causes of chastisement, most plainly and decidedly shew, that eternal damnation was never meant by the Apostle, neither, indeed, could be; for, as a Church, though fallen into a backsliding state of receiving the supper of the Lord unworthily; they were chastened to prove that they were still God’s children, and not liable to he condemned with the ungodly world. Those among them that slept, means no more, than that the sicknesses which followed, had in their nature produced death; but, neither doth this mean eternal death, no more than the other eternal damnation. Both the sickness and the sleep here spoken of by the Apostle, with which the Corinthians were visited, are expressly said to have been in chastisement, not destruction. And the very reason wherefore thus judged and chastened of the Lord, is said to have been, because they should not be condemned with the world.
But, while I am led to conclude that this is the real sense and meaning of the Apostle’s Words, and as such, they are very gracious, and full of instruction to the Lord’s people on this interesting subject; I am willing to admit for argument sake, that supposing the words of the Apostle extend to a much greater degree of guilt, and even to eternal damnation, yet all this hath nothing to do with the Church of God in the present hour; neither, in this sense, can the Church of God receive, as the Corinthians did, the Supper of the Lord unworthily.
We have no Passover, no love feast, no eating and drinking in the Church of God, preparatory to the Lord’s Supper. There is not the possibility of doing, as Paul charged the Corinthians with, that, while one was hungry, another was drunken. The bread and wine at the table, are no more than what is barely sufficient to answer the purposes of celebration. And these provided not by general contributions from the persons receiving, but from the Church. Hence, in the sense in which Paul condemned the Corinthians for their improper behavior at this ordinance, it is impossible for believers of the present hour to receive the Lord’s Supper.
But is there not, it may he questioned, a possibility of eating of the bread, and drinking of the cup of the Lord unworthily? The answer need not be long paused over before it be given. Beyond a doubt there may. everyone is, more or less, an unworthy receiver, who hath not an eye to Christ in the sacred service. The ordinance of the Supper is a spiritual feast. And he who is not spiritual, cannot, in truth, partake of it. None who are in the original state of unregeneracy, can be said to be worthy receivers. They may, indeed, with the body partake of the bread, and of the wine; but the soul of the unregenerate being still dead in trespasses and sins, can perform no act of spiritual life, and, consequently, cannot receive the Lord’s Supper worthily. They discern not the Lord’s body.
Moreover, the Supper of the Lord is designed for the family of the Lord. It is, indeed, a family meal. Christ invites none but his family to partake of it. And everyone of these are expected by constant invitation, and by birthright in the new birth, to take their seats at the table. Jesus will have none missing at supper time. All others are without invitation, and have no right there. And they are easily known. They have been regenerated, brought thereby into spiritual life, they cry Abba, Father. The Spirit witnesseth to their spirits, that they are children of God. They have a spiritual hungering and thirsting after Christ. They know Jesus to be the living bread which came down from heaven, and of him they desire to eat, and to live forever. In short, every act of faith, and the exercise of grace in the new life, manifests what constitutes a worthy receiver. But to attend the ordinance of the Supper, without a spiritual appetite for the Supper; is as unsuited and unworthy as for the body, when diseased and unable to relish food, to set down to the ordinary table, or for the dead to be called upon to some act of animal life. To receive the Lord’s Supper, to qualify for man’s bread, to go there for the sake of form, or because arrived at a certain age, or because others do; all these, unquestionably, fall under the characters of receiving unworthily, though unattended with the sin of being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
And, it should be a matter of consolation to weak and timid souls, that after the Apostle had been saying such harsh things to call up the attention of the Corinthians to a jealousy over their own hearts on this interesting subject, he still calls them brethren, Wherefore, my brethren. By which is plainly proved, that though offending and meriting reproof, still they were regenerate believers. And, he tells them, that if they would judge themselves, they should not be judged of the Lord. All which manifests, that amidst all their weakness and infirmities, they were the Lord’s own people, and all he had said to them was for their comfort, and not their condemnation. Reader! It will be our mercy, it we derive from this beautiful relation of the Lord’s Supper, the many sweet instructions, the Lord by his servant, hath here sent to the Church. And, oh! for grace often to be found in our place at the Lord’s table, and there to set forth the Lord’s death till he come.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
XVIII
THE PERVERSION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER
1Co 10:1-22
The next great ecclesiastical disorder, resulting from these other two, is the Perversion of the Lord’s Supper, and all that there is about it is in 1Co 10:1-22 ; 1Co 11:17-34 . The first perversion was open communion. They had been living among the heathen, and had been keeping the heathen festivals as a religious act. When one member of the family was converted and joined the church, perchance his wife, who was a heathen, says, “Let us be liberal. You come and commune with me at my festival, and I will commune with you at your festival.” But Paul says, “You cannot eat at the table of the Lord and the table of the devil; you cannot drink from the cup of the Lord and from the cup of the devil.”
I had a woman once to say, “Yes, but that is a different sort of communion.” I will admit that it is the greater extreme, but the principle is precisely the same, that is, that it perverts the foundation principle of the Christian religion; that the form of religious act should be the result of individual conviction; that one should not do a thing on account of his wife. It is his own case; it isn’t her case.
I was sitting in the Old Methodist Church in Waco one time and a very handsome, cultured lady at the very top of the social world, leaned over and whispered to me,
“I am going to join your church next Sunday.”
I said, “What for?” and she said,
“Well, my husband is a Baptist, and will never be anything else.”
I said, “What are you?”
“I am a Presbyterian.”
“Well,” I said, “if you come to my church Sunday to join I will vote against you. You should not take a step of that kind for that reason. Suppose your husband were a Presbyterian, would you come to the Baptist Church?”
“Never!”
“Then stay where you are forever,” I said.
Notice the fact that it is the Lord’s table, the Lord’s cup. A man comes and says,
“May I come to your table? I am perfectly willing for you to come to mine.”
I say, “Yes, come on in.”
He says, “Not that table; I am referring to the Lord’s table.”
“It was not to the Lord’s table that I invited you.”
We cannot put the Lord’s table out in the woods. He tells who shall come.
“Well, won’t you take a sup with me?”
“Certainly! Come over to my well and I will let you have cool, delicious, clear water.”
“I mean drink with me out of the same communion cup.”
“Ah, that is Christ’s cup; I have no jurisdiction over that.”
There is not a more convincing argument against open communion of any kind. No open communion argument can stand before the declaration, “It is the Lord’s table.” That was the first perversion.
No matter what anybody says, we should stick to the doctrine that Christ placed that table in his church, not for them to say who shall come, but for God to say who shall come. One has to be inside the church before he ‘is entitled to sit at the Lord’s table.
This first perversion was open communion, not with another Christian denomination, but with the heathen. The paragraph of that matter 1Co 10:1-23 : “For I would not, Brethren, have you ignorant that our father were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Howbeit, with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play [the word “play” means to participate in the licentious orgies of their feasts]…. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth [especially in that way] take heed lest he fall. . . . All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.”
Upon that paragraph I make several important comments. First of all, as that particular paragraph has been made much use of in the baptismal controversy, I wish to expound its signification as bearing upon that subject, and then show its relevancy to the Lord’s Supper.
When I was a young preacher there came to Waco an old gray-bearded brother Methodist, Dr. Fisher, who took the position that immersion was not only not baptism, but that it was a sin. He said so many things about it that our church courteously challenged him to debate with their pastor, and two debates followed one in Waco and one in Davalla, in Milan County. He, in both Waco and Davalla, took the Position that “our fathers,” men, women and children, were baptized, and inasmuch as they were baptized in the cloud it was not immersion, and quoted the passage in Psalm referring to this event, where it is said that the clouds poured out water. He said this baptism was a baptism of pouring.
When I came to reply I stated that these people were baptized in the cloud, not clouds; and that it meant that pillar of cloud was a pillar of fire, and symbolic of the presence of the Lord, and not a rankled at all; second, that the record stated that they passed through dry shod neither men, women nor children had a drop of water on them but the record did state that after they passed through, the clouds did burst into a terrific storm upon Pharaoh and his hosts, and he was welcome to that pouring for any use he could make of it. In the next place the baptism was strictly a burial in light. The water, according to the song of Miriam, not only opened, but stood up as walls and congealed. That means they froze. They stood there like walls of ice. When they went down into that ice gorge, the pillar of cloud that always led in front, came back and got in the rear, and toward Pharaoh it was as black as the night of Egypt, and toward the children of Israel it was light. Now, they were down there in that ice coffin. All that the coffin needed was a lid, and since it was under the cloud, the cloud formed the lid of light, and as that light shone on those walls they acted as mirrors and flashed it back so that it was a glorious burial in light, with the sea on two sides and the cloud on top. They were thus “baptized under the cloud and in the sea.” The book of Revelation refers to it when it talks about the redeemed after their redemption: “I saw them stand by the sea of glass mingled with fire,” referring back to this incident where the pillar of cloud the cloud of light shining on the congealed walls of water made it look like a sea of glass mingled with fire. I said that it was one of the strongest arguments for immersion, and there was nothing in it that could in any way substantiate his position. With that explanation we will see how Paul brings this in.
He takes the Old Testament analogy, and says that the children of Israel were baptized unto Moses, as we are baptized unto Christ; that they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea; they were baptized under the cloud of light in the sea congealed, and not only did they have that symbolic baptism, but they had the spiritual meat and drink. They did all eat of the spiritual meat the manna, the bread from heaven which typified Christ. “I am the true bread, which came down from heaven,” said Christ, commenting on the giving of the manna and they had a spiritual drink, that is, it came by no natural means, but by the power of God when Moses smote the rock near Sinai, and it sent out that water that saved them from perishing with thirst. The rock at Kadesh-Barnea presented a different thought. It was not to be smitten, but invoked. It is sin for Christ to be crucified twice. They had that drink, obtained by supernatural means, so that in a sense they had ordinances. But his point is that ordinances do not save men. Though they had that spiritual manna, and that spiritual drink the water from the rock yet their idolatrous, licentious lives showed that at heart they were not right in the sight of God, and that God overthrew them and they perished, and the record of that transaction was made for our admonition, as well as everything else in the Old Testament. All those records were made for us in our time. Abraham’s faith was reckoned unto him for righteousness, which was not written for his sake alone, but ours also.
When we look back at these examples we are to be admonished. Though I have been baptized, though I have partaken of the Lord’s Supper, to me, if life does not bear the fruits of regeneration, these ordinances are empty, and “therefore let him that thinketh he standeth [and on such a basis as that] take heed lest he fall.”
Whoever relies on the bread and wine or water, is sure to lose in the great day.
He says that these people, though they had the divine ordinances, exercising open communion with the idolatrous nations around them, would sit down and eat and then rise up and play. Following that comes the immoral debaucheries. That is Paul’s use of it.
There is one other word that calls for explanation. He says, “They drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ.” My old family physician took the position that when Moses smote the rock at Sinai, the stream of water issuing from that rock followed them always, whether they went up hill or down hill. I told him that he was zealous for a good cause, but incorrect in the position that he took. Paul means to say that what followed them what was behind them was symbolical only, and that what took place, took place entirely by the power of the symbol, so if any man had looked through the symbol at the thing signified he would have taken hold of the thing as Abraham did, and many others of the old saints, particularly Moses. That symbol of his presence was with them all the time, sometimes leading, sometimes following, depending upon where the danger was.
His first point is that symbolical ordinances do not save people. His second point is set forth in 1Co 2:1 . The subject is resumed in 1Co 11:19 . From this we get at the next perversion of the Lord’s Supper. I have grouped them so that we might get one topic together. In that chapter he discusses the true relation of the Lord’s Supper, and its true lesson, so that the next perversion of the Lord’s Supper is that they partook of it individually, or in groups. One little selfish crowd would come in, and they would partake, and another group would come in, and here some poor people would come in, and no provision had been made for them, and they could not partake. What does this mean?
It means that there cannot be a real celebration of this ordinance unless the church be gathered together. It is a church act.
He closed his discussion by saying this: “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another.” In other words, assembling is essential to the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. They would come in groups; would not wait and let the whole church partake together to indicate its unity. “You being many are one loaf, one body.”
The next perversion was that they would partake of what they called the Lord’s Supper in order to satisfy their hunger and thirst, and would even drink until they were drunk. He says, “What? Have you not houses to eat and to drink In; or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?” This fact was intended to symbolize spiritual truth, and was not intended that this unleavened bread and this small quantity of wine should satisfy hunger and thirst. I saw some Negroes celebrate the Lord’s Supper. They had pies for bread and cheap whiskey for wine, and they all caroused and got drunk. Such a thing as this took place in this Corinthian church. He says, “That isn’t proper.” This is the third idea. He said, “Here is a crowd full, and yonder is a group of poor people who haven’t anything. That violates fellowship.”
Then touching again on the subject of open communion, he gives us a clear meaning of the word “communion.” Rev. Tiberias Grachus Jones, pastor of First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, says the word is a great misnomer. He calls it the Lord’s Supper. Some think it means communion of A, B, C, D, and E, but the word indicates a communion of each one of us with Christ. “The cup, is it not the communion, or participation of Christ?” And “is not the eating of the bread a communion of the body of Christ?” It is not a communion with your wife, neighbor, brother, or sister, but the communion is with Christ, and on that account Dr. Jones rightfully took the position that it was a great misnomer. On that subject of the communion with Christ we may bring out the thought that whoever communes not with Christ, but with his wife, whoever partakes of the Lord’s Supper in order to show his fellowship with his wife, or his mother, or his sister, or his aunt, or with any denomination, or any human being, perverts the Lord’s Supper. The participation should be a vision, but the vision should be of Jesus Christ.
Before I pass that point I will recite two incidents of Texas Baptist history. Both of them attracted a great deal of attention. Many years ago the Baptist pastor of the church of Houston was not very sound in doctrine, but was zealous about works, and would be over persuaded to do things that he ought not to do. A woman came to him crying and told him that her husband was dying and wanted to partake of the Lord’s Supper. He took the emblems, the bread and the wine, and administered the Supper to that dying brother. The Baptists of the state criticized him severely, and harassed him until he made a public apology. The other case is this: When I was pastor of my first church, we had in our membership a very brilliant lawyer who before my day had joined the church at old Baylor University at Independence. He afterwards went to a dance, and some of the brethren thought that it was improper, and he got mad and stayed away and finally the church withdrew fellowship from him. This man was dying, and he sent for me and said, “Brother Carroll, I want you to tell all young people that no spiritual good can come to them by participating in worldly amusements that are far from grace, and that they alienate them from God. My life has been unfruitful, yet I am a true child of God, and now I am conscious that I am dying. I know Jesus said do one thing that I never did, that is, he commanded that all partake of the Lord’s Supper. I never did, and before I pass away I would like to obey him one time if it can be done scripturally. Now can you tell me how it can be done scripturally?” I said, “What importance do you attach to this? Do you think that this will save you.” He said, “O no, I am not so foolish as that. I just want to obey him this one time.” I said, “I can manage that for you, and do it scripturally.” And on Sunday as the church met in conference I said, “Brethren, I suggest that we adjourn to the house of this dying lawyer.” The church can adjourn to meet at any place it may desire and as a church can there set forth the Lord’s table; and so we went there horseback and in buggies, and the minutes of the conference were read showing that we were there by adjournment, and we heard this man’s confession of his sins and he asked the church to take him back, Then they set the Lord’s Supper, and his face was illumined when he was able to obey the Lord’s command.
Those two incidents attracted a great deal of attention in Texas. I knew that in my case I had managed it just right, and had conformed to the scripture and made the lesson 100 times more important. Those two cases illustrate the point I am on now.
The apostle Paul, in order to correct the perversion, sets forth the doctrine of the Supper, and this is what he says: “I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper [that is, the Passover supper], 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 this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come.” Paul shows that he did not get this revelation of Christ’s institution from the original apostles. It was a special revelation made to him. Christ himself told Paul what he had done, why he had done it, and what it suggested.
I am now going to give a five-minute sermon on the Lord’s Supper: First, let all the church assemble together for the observance of this Supper. Then exercise three faculties memory, faith, hope. This do in remembrance. What does memory do? Memory looks back. Whom remember? Not father, not mother, not sister, not wife, not any human being. Simply Jesus. “This do in remembrance of me.” Remember Jesus, not in the manger, not raising the dead, no; remember Jesus on the cross, dying. Remember his dying for what? Dying for the remission of our sins. This is memory. “This do in remembrance of me,” on the cross dying for remission of sins. Next we take up faith. What does faith do? It discerns the Lord’s body, and the Lord’s blood represented by the eating or the drinking. They are external symbols that represent the acts of faith. Faith sees through that ordinance as a symbol Christ dying for the remission of our sins. That is faith’s part. Now there is hope. Hope does not look backward, like memory; it looks forward. “As oft as ye drink this ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come.” There is a stretch into the future in the Lord’s Supper. Faith present discerns Christ dying for the remission of sins; memory looks back to Christ dying on the cross for the remission of sins; hope looks forward to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, his final advent. That isn’t a hard sermon to remember.
Now another five-minute sermon, for it is exceedingly important to remember these things. Suppose then, as in the Lord’s Supper, we “show forth his death till he come.” That makes a drama. What do the actors do on the stage? They, in their costumes and in their position, show forth something. Look at the Lord’s Supper as a drama, and you will see it is a twofold drama. What is the first thing presented? Unleavened bread. What does that unleavened bread represent? The sinless Christ. No leaven in him. That shows forth Christ alive. What the second act in that drama? The eulogy. He blessed it. “Eulogy” means he blessed the bread, or gave thanks, and the signification of that is that the sinless Christ is set apart for a certain object. That is the second scene. What is the third scene? The bread broken. There Christ dies. What the fourth? The participation with Christ, the eating of the bread by every one of them. Faith is always present in the eating of the bread. Let us take the other side of it, and we will see from another viewpoint another drama. Take a vessel of wine. There the vessel, and wine ‘in it as Christ’s blood, show that he is alive; then comes the eulogy, or setting apart; then comes the pouring out, that is, Christ dying; then comes the drinking or participating. Now the drama is doubled both sides presented, just as Pharaoh had a dream and saw seven full ears and seven poor ears, and seven fat cows and seven lean cows, and the poor cars ate up the seven full ears and the lean cows ate up’ the fat cows. In interpreting it the dream is doubled to show that it was from God. Then he goes on to show the significance of the dream. Seven full ears and seven fat kine are (there the verb “to be” is used as “represent,” i.e., they represented) seven years of plenty. It is double, and the seven wilted ears of corn and the seven lean cows are (in a sense of representation) seven years of famine. Now precisely in the same way he says, “this represents my body; this cup represents the new covenant in my blood.” That use of the verb “to be” is a common one in all languages. In that sense the verb “to be” is used, and it annihilates the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation, i.e., that it actually becomes Christ’s body and actually becomes his blood.
Having presented the true doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, there remains to be considered these other statements: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily [mark that “unworthily” is an adverb], eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself.” That passage has scared a great many people. I have heard them say, “I am not worthy! I am not worthy!” I would say, “No, nor am I.” “Well,” they say, “what about that scripture ‘Whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself “? The sense is not unworthy, but unworthily, referring to the manner, being an adverb of manner. An illustration has just been given. These Corinthians did not assemble; they did not eat as spiritual food or drink, but to satisfy their hunger and thirst; they violated fellowship; they wouldn’t wait for one another.
The next scriptural sentence is, “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat.” That has been quoted to me as meaning that the individual should be the judge. I said, “Now why don’t you get the connection where Paul says, ‘If any of you that is named a brother be an adulterer, or an idolater, or covetous, with such a one, no, not to eat.’ ” That part of it, i.e., this examination, does not apply to the whole world, as if to say, “Let every man in the world examine himself,” but when church members come to church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, then let them put the examination to themselves. Not, “Am I good enough?” but “Can I, a sinner saved by grace, discern Christ not my wife? can I see him dying for me? do I discern his body?”
I never participated in this ordinance in my life that I did not have that self-examination: “O Lord, am I thinking of anyone else but thee? Am I thinking of thee in any other place than on the cross? Am I thinking of any other purpose than that thou hast died for the remission of my sins?”
Here he shows its importance when he says, “On this account some are sick, and many of you are asleep.” That does not mean that there is any magical power attached to the elements of the Lord’s Supper, so that if a man take it unworthily it will make him sick, or that it will kill him. They used to think that. They used to play on the superstitious fears of the people and say, “If while making a covenant you are true to the covenant, this poison will not hurt you, but if you are planning to be treacherous, then you have swallowed something that will give you the smallpox.” What then does it mean? It refers to those marvelous displays of power that the apostles had a right to exercise. A man would be at the Lord’s Supper; maybe he was a blasphemer, and judgment would come upon him, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira; he would go to sleep right there.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the fifth ecclesiastical disorder, what its relation to the two preceding ones, and where do we find an account of it?
2. What is the first perversion, and what does Paul say about it?
3. What is the principle underlying this discussion of Paul, and what the author’s illustration, of it?
4. What important fact relative to the Lord’s Supper bearing on the so-called communion question, and how?
5. What special use has been made of 1Co 10:1-22 , what the author’s controversy over it, and what his interpretation of the baptismal idea in it?
6. What reference to this in Revelation?
7. What else did the children of Israel have besides that symbolic baptism and what is the meaning of “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” in 1Co 10:3-4 ?
8. What is the difference in the thought of the rock at Rephidim, and the rock at Kadesh-Barnea?
9. What Paul’s point here, and what its relation to the Corinthians and us?
10. What is the meaning of, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play,” and what its bearing on the question under consideration?
11. What is the meaning of, “They drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ?”
12. What the second perversion of the Lord’s Supper, and what its bearing as an essential to the partaking of the Lord’s Supper?
13. What is the third perversion, and how does it violate the principles of fellowship?
14. What is the meaning of “communion” as it is used in 1Co 10:16 , is it really communion at all, and, if so, in what sense, and with whom?
15. What two incidents in Texas Baptist history, one illustrative of the perversion of the Lord’s Supper, and the other, of its correct observance?
16. How did Paul correct the perversion of the Supper, and how did Paul get his information as to the institution of the Supper?
17. What three faculties are exercised in a proper observance of the Lord’s Supper, and what function does each perform?
18. Show forth in a double drama the death of Christ as it is portrayed in the Supper.
19. Why was the drama doubled, and what illustration from the Old Testament?
20. What is the meaning of the verb “to be” in such expressions as, “This is my body, . . .?”
21. What is meaning expression, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily?”
22. What is the meaning and application of the expression, “Let a man examine himself and so let him eat?”
23. What is the meaning of 1Co 11:30 ?
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
Ver. 17. I praise you not ] q.d. I discommend and dispraise you. The Corinthians were in many things faulty and blameworthy. St Paul deals plainly and freely with them, and would not therefore take their offered kindness, 2Co 12:14-18 , lest he should be engaged to them, and by receiving a courtesy, sell his liberty.
17 34. ] Correction of abuses regarding the Agap and the partaking of the Supper of the Lord .
17. ] Refers back to what has been said since 1Co 11:2 , and forms a transition to what is yet to be said. But this (viz. what has gone before , respecting the veiling of women ; not, as Chrys., Theophyl, Grot., Bengel, al., that which follows: see below) I command you (not ‘ announce to you, ’ nor ‘ declare to you from report ,’ which are senses of . unknown to the N. T., where it only means ‘ to command ,’ ‘to deliver by way of precept :’ see reff., and ch. 1Co 7:10 ; 1Th 4:11 ; 2Th 3:4 ; 2Th 3:6 ; 2Th 3:10 ; 2Th 3:12 . This makes it hardly possible to refer to what follows ; for if so, some definite command should immediately succeed) not praising (refers to the of 1Co 11:2 , and excepts what has been said since from that category); because you come together not for the better (so that edification results) but for the worse (so that propriety is violated, and the result is to the hindering of the faith). These last words , are introduced with a manifest view to include more than the subject hitherto treated, and to prepare the way for other abuses of their assemblies to be noticed.
1Co 11:17-22 . 37. THE CHURCH MEETING FOR THE WORSE. The Cor [1665] Church had written self-complacently, expecting the Apostle’s commendation upon its report (1Co 11:2 ). In reply P. has just pointed out one serious irregularity, which might indeed be put down to ignorance (1Co 11:3 ; 1Co 11:16 ). No such excuse is possible in regard to the disorders he has now to speak of, which are reported to him on evidence that he cannot discredit (1Co 11:18 ) viz., the divisions apparent in the Church meetings (1Co 11:19 ), and the gross selfishness and sensuality displayed at the common meals (1Co 11:20 ff.). Such behaviour he certainly cannot praise (1Co 11:17 ; 1Co 11:22 ).
[1665] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
1Co 11:17 . If the T.R. be correct, (repeated in 1Co 11:22 b ) points to the instruction about to be given respecting the Lord’s Supper: “Moreover ( ), in giving you this charge I do not praise (you), seeing that, etc.”: so Cm [1666] and Gr [1667] Ff [1668] , Er [1669] , Est., Bg [1670] , Hf [1671] , Hn [1672] , Sm [1673] In 1Co 11:3 ff. P. rectified an error, now he must censure a glaring fault; “le ton devient celui du blme positif” (Gd [1674] ); 1Co 11:3 ; 1Co 11:17 both detract, in different degrees, from the “praise” of 1Co 11:2 . has to wait long for its explanation; P. lingers over his preliminary rehearsal of the founding of the Lord’s Supper, and the “charge” is held in suspense; its gist becomes evident in 1Co 11:20 f. Neither the feminine indecorum censured in the last (to which is referred by Mr [1675] , Bt [1676] , Gd [1677] , El [1678] , etc.), nor the contentiousness glanced at in 1Co 11:16 (by which Ev [1679] and Ed [1680] explain it), has been, strictly speaking, matter of a charge ; moreover, the backward ref [1681] of involves the awkwardness of associating and its introductory ptp [1682] with disconnected objects; these interpretations better fit the other reading, . With certain specific and solemn injunctions respecting the Eucharist in view, P. says, “I do not praise (you), in that not for the better but for the worse you come together”. , with the like broad sense as in 1Co 1:5 , 1Co 9:10 , gives at once the content and ground of dispraise. The general profitlessness of the Church assemblies reached its climax in the desecration of the Lord’s Supper, their hallowing bond (1Co 10:16 f.).
[1666] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).
[1667] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1668] [1669] Erasmus’ In N.T. Annotationes .
[1670] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1671] [1672] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1673] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).
[1674] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1675] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1676] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[1677] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1678] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1679] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .
[1680] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[1681] reference.
[1682] participle
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 11:17-22
17But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
1Co 11:17 Paul is starting a new subject, but the prideful attitudes of some Corinthian believers are still in focus. The subject changes, but the basic problem does not change.
1. their elitism
2. their emphasis on personal freedom
3. their assumption of wisdom
All of the subjects Paul addresses (cf. 1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:25; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 16:1), which were sent to him by letters, revolve around these same issues.
Even their collective love feast (cf. Jud 1:12) was turned into a “more for me” feast! Right, ability, and status superceded love, service, and the health of the Body.
“I do not praise you” Paul has affirmed them in 1Co 11:2, but in this area he can only scold them.
“come together” This is the Greek compound term sunerchomai. Paul is very fond of sun compounds. The preposition basically means “together with.” This term expresses the same idea as synagogue, which refers to the collective meeting of believers. Chapters 11-14 deal with gathered worship (cf. 1Co 11:17-18; 1Co 11:20; 1Co 11:33-34; 1Co 14:23; 1Co 14:26).
I wonder how this “coming together” worked. There apparently were several different house churches in Corinth, possibly the source of some of the factious groups. Does Paul imply here that all the house churches meet jointly for the Lord’s Supper?
1Co 11:18 “in the first place” This phrase can be understood in two ways.
1. of first importance (NKJV)
2. the first of two or more issues, however, there is no mention of a “second,” etc. in the context
3. the same grammatical feature is found in Rom 1:8
“divisions exist among you” These divisions are first mentioned in 1Co 1:10-17; 1Co 3:3-4, but their presence is assumed throughout the book. In this context the division is not over leaders, but is characterized by socio-economic factors. This may define the factions as representing social classes as well as theological emphases.
1Co 11:19
NASB, NKJV “For there must also be factions among you”
NRSV”Indeed there have to be factions among you”
TEV”(No doubt there must be divisions among you”
NJB”that there should be differing groups among you”
The term is “faction” (1Co 11:19, i.e., hairesis), from which we get the English word heresies. Its basic etymology is “to choose” or “select,” but with the added connotation of showing special favor, choosing one and rejecting other choices (cf. Act 24:14; 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20). It can be used to describe (1) a person who believes false teaching (cf. Tit 3:10) or (2) the false teaching itself (cf. 2Pe 2:1).
There is a different term used in 1Co 11:18, “divisions” (i.e., schisma), from which we get the English word schism. Its basic etymology is “to split” (cf. Mat 27:51). It was used of groups dividing over an issue (cf. Joh 7:43; Joh 9:16; Joh 10:19; Act 14:4; Act 23:7; 1Co 1:10; 1Co 11:18).
Paul mentions a theological purpose (i.e., hina) and necessity (i.e., dei) for the presence of these differing groups. They were necessary for the true spiritual leaders to be clearly revealed. Mature leaders will become evident in times of crisis.
The other option is that some groups and their leaders will show by their actions that they are not Christians at all (cf. 1Jn 2:19; Mar 4:16-19).
“that those who are approved” See Special Topic: Greek Terms Used for Testing at 1Co 3:13.
1Co 11:20 “it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper” These privileged socially elite faction(s) were acting in a manner totally alien to the communal, self-giving precedent of Jesus’ last meal with His disciples. The verses that follow clarify his point (cf. 1Co 11:22).
“the Lord’s Supper” This is the only occurrence of this phrase in the NT. This is another possible example of sarcasm. Nothing about their attitudes and actions compares with Jesus’ attitudes and actions in giving Himself for sinful mankind!
The worship event goes by several names.
1. the Lord’s Supper
2. “the table of the Lord” (1Co 10:21)
3. “breaking bread” (Act 2:42; Act 20:7; 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:24 [cf. Luk 24:30])
4. thanksgiving (i.e., eucharist) or blessing (i.e., eulogia, Mat 26:26-27; 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:24)
1Co 11:21 “each one takes his own supper first” The early church combined the Lord’s Supper and a fellowship meal called “the Agape” (cf. 2Pe 2:13; Jud 1:12, and possibly Act 20:7).
It is possible to understand this phrase in several ways.
1. The wealthy/educated/influential/high-born came early and ate their meal quickly so that when the poor arrived there was nothing, or hardly anything, left to eat.
2. Each person was to bring his own meal. The elite believers ate theirs quickly in the presence of the poor, or slave members of the church, who brought little or nothing.
The problem was selfishness and gluttony based on social distinctions instead of self-giving love, as Jesus’ actions and precedent clearly taught. The Corinthian church did not believe that they were one in Christ. There was a radical dichotomy between
1. social haves vs. have nots
2. wealthy vs. poor
3. men vs. women
4. freedmen vs. slaves
5. Romans vs. all others
6. spiritual elite vs. common believer
These distinctions are clearly spelled out in 1Co 11:21-22.
“one is hungry and another is drunk” Whether this was caused by Roman societal distinctions or selfishness, an unacceptable situation is clearly shown. The purpose of the memorial meal and the communal fellowship had been forgotten. This was a serious matter (cf. 1Co 11:23). This verse cannot be used to advocate total abstinence. It is obvious that wine was a part of this experience. It is the abuse that is condemned.
SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM
“Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink” Some legalists and literalists have tried to use this as a proof-text for not eating in the church. History and context are always crucial in the interpretation of ancient literature. By quoting small parts of Scripture one can make the Bible/God say almost anything! As Gordon Fee says, “A book that can mean anything, means nothing!”
There is a series of rhetorical questions which reveal the emotion with which Paul is writing. He is shocked at the actions of some of the church (cf. Jas 2:6).
in this, &c. = declaring this. Greek. parangello. See Act 1:4.
come together. Greek. sunerchomai. This was a voluntary assembling, not the authoritative “being gathered to His name” of Mat 18:20.
for = unto. App-104.
17-34.] Correction of abuses regarding the Agap and the partaking of the Supper of the Lord.
The members of the church at Corinth abounded in gifts, and therefore they thought it meet for each one to speak to edification. They had no pastoral oversight whatever; acting, in this respect, like certain brethren whom we know nowadays. The result, however, was very deplorable. They do not appear to have been able even to conduct the Lords supper without the most disorderly proceedings. Church discipline was utterly forgotten or neglected; and it seems as if the two Epistles to the Corinthians are given to us as beacons to warn us against that form of worship, seeing that it produces such mischievous and sad results.
1Co 11:17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
It is a very bad state of things when we meet for worship, and separate without any improvement, or, like these Corinthians, come together, not for the better, but for the worse.
1Co 11:18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
It was very gracious and kind on the apostles part to put it so mildly, and he sets us the example of not believing anything against our brethren too quickly: I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19-21. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
They seem to have regarded it as a common feast, to which they brought their own provisions; and, without waiting for each other, they disgraced the table of the Lord by their scandalous proceedings.
1Co 11:22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in these? I praise you not.
No doubt they hoped to be praised, and expected that they had done everything in the right way; perhaps, they even believed that they were acting under the inspiration of the Spirit, and therefore could not do anything wrong; but the apostle deals very faithfully with them, and tells them how the supper is to be celebrated. How much we have gained by the mistakes of others! As the inspired apostle is guided to inform us as to the right mode of observing this ordinance, we may almost be thankful that the Corinthians fell into error concerning it, much as we may regret their faults on their own account.
1Co 11:23-24. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
These are the words of the Lord Jesus himself, and therefore they come to us with all the weight of his infallible authority. Then Paul continues:
1Co 11:25-26. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come.
Show or proclaim. The latter is the better word: Ye do proclaim the Lords death till he come. That last phrase ought finally to settle the question of the perpetuity of the Lords supper, which is to be observed till he come.
1Co 11:27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Unworthily, that is, in a thoughtless, careless way; or with a view to worldly gain, as some used to take it in order to obtain office under government; and as some, doubtless, do take it, to obtain the alms of the church. Such an unworthy participation is a sin against the very body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
Paul does not say, Let a man examine himself, and then not eat or drink at the communion. The examination should lead him to repentance, and to faith, and should then bring him to the table of fellowship in the right state of mind and heart. The examination is not a door to shut him out from the ordinance, but a door at which he may pause awhile, to see whether he is in a right condition to enter; and if he is not, he should seek to be made so, and then enter.
1Co 11:29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, earth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body.
Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, for judgment is the word here used by the apostle.
1Co 11:30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
It appears that God visited this church at Corinth with sickness, and took away many of the members by death, because they had profaned the Lords table, and had walked in a disorderly manner before him. Paul did not mean to say that these persons were lost; but he intended to remind their fellow-members, and all who might read his Epistle, that God visits churches after this fashion with discipline and chastening because of the unseemly conduct which is always so offensive to him.
1Co 11:31-32. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
So, you see, that chastening process, which is going on in the church, is all in love: that we should not be condemned with the world; just as a father exercises discipline in his household, and uses chastisement that his children may never disobey the laws of the realm. They will never come before the police court, for they are kept under proper control at home, and are tutored and trained by their fathers wise government. So we come not under the judgment of the law, as the world itself comes; we come under the disciplinary treatment of the great Head of the Church, even the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 11:33-34. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.
Now let us read Lukes account of the institution of this supper; as we do so, it will be well for us to remember that Luke was a friend and intimate companion of Paul.
This exposition consisted of readings from 1Co 11:17-34; and Luk 22:14-24.
1Co 11:17. ) this, which follows.-, [Engl. Vers. I declare] I command) in the name of the Lord, 1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37.- , not praising) the opposite is, I praise, 1Co 11:2. The two parts into which this chapter is divided, are closely connected by this antithesis; in the one the Corinthians were regarded as well-disposed, in the other, as committing sin.- , for the better) An assembly of believers ought always to be progressing towards that, which is better.- , for the worse) and therefore for condemnation, 1Co 11:34. At first Paul speaks more gently. , , form a paranomasia.[96]
[96] See App. The two words by the similiarity of sound forming the more striking contrast.-ED.
1Co 11:17
1Co 11:17
But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse.-The object of the weekly meeting was to unite them more closely to the Lord, and in doing this, to draw them into closer union with each other; but their services were so perverted that they produced strife and separation instead of unity.
The Lords Supper
1Co 11:17-26
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 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. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lords death till he come. (vv. 17-26)
We have here perhaps the fullest instruction concerning the correct observance of the Lords Supper that is given us in Scripture. It is very evident that it was intended to occupy a very large place in the hearts and minds of Christians during the dispensation in which our blessed Lord is absent in body, sitting on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens. It was intended to call Him very vividly to mind in order that His people might be so occupied with Him that, as they went forth afterward in service, Christ Himself might be the joy of their hearts. Apparently at a very early day Christians began to misunderstand the Lords Supper.
It is rather a sad commentary upon our fallen human nature that everything God has given us has been abused by man. No physical appetites that He has given have not been abused, and there are very few privileges we have that have not often been misused. Under law, God gave Israel the Sabbath, and you would think that men would have recognized in that a part of His gracious provision for the comfort of His creatures when He said, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God (Exo 20:9-10). But the Sabbath became a loathing to many people because they connected with it all kinds of laws and prohibitions which God Himself had not put upon it, so that our Lord Jesus had to reprove the men of His day by saying, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (Mar 2:27). And so it is with other observances in Old Testament times.
The same is true in connection with the two ordinances of the Christian church, the Lords Supper and baptism. They were designed to continue in the church until the end of the present age, until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him. But people either go to the extreme of making these ordinances saving sacraments or are inclined to become very careless about them. The fact is that neither baptism nor the Lords Supper has anything to do with the salvation of our souls, except that they picture the way in which we are saved-through the death and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet they are of great importance because they help to draw our hearts out to Him and to give us a more vivid realization of our identification with Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.
In the early church the Lords Supper was observed very frequently; for a time at least it was observed every day. In the early chapters of Acts it is set forth that they daily participated in the breaking of bread. Afterward it was observed on the first day of the week, as Act 20:7 would seem to show. I am sure that the oftener we gather together to show the Lords death until he come, the greater blessing comes to us and the greater glory to the Lord Jesus Christ, and yet in the early church they fell into ways in which this ordinance was abused. The apostle, for instance, writing here says he cannot praise them for the way they attempted to celebrate the Lords Supper-I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. It is possible then even to assemble to celebrate the Lords Supper and go away not benefited but rather harmed. How was it that they were celebrating it for the worse rather than for the better? In the first place there was a spirit of faction working among them. Instead of recognizing that the Lords Supper speaks of the unity of the whole church of God, and that all alike participate in that one loaf and cup which set forth the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Corinthians were grouping together, in one place, it is true, but under various heads. Some said, as it were, I am of Paul, the teacher; I am of Apollos, the preacher; I am of Cephas, the exhorter, and some said, We do not recognize these gifts at all, we are only of Christ. It is just as bad to make Christs name the head of a party as any other name. Christ is the Head of all believers and not merely of some little group. 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 [of yourselves] may be made manifest among you. You are making a great deal of leaders instead of being taken up with Jesus Christ.
Then too they were linking the agape, the love feast of which Jude speaks, with the Lords Supper. Many of these early Christians were slaves and could not get away from their duties very often. Wlien they came together, they evidently put in just as many hours as they could, and so brought their food with them and between gatherings they would spread it out and partake together. They fell into the habit of linking the Lords Supper with this fellowship. Some had a great deal to partake of while others had nothing; some drank even to inebriation, and some were left without enough for their needs. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. WTiat? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? The rich spread feasts while the poor were left without anything, and so he says, It is far better to do your eating at home. He is not insisting that it is wrong for Christians to come together for love-feasts, for Jude speaks of these, but if it is a question of separating believer from believer, it is far better to eat at home. What shall I say to you? he asks; shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Having reproved them for their misbehavior at the Table, he lays down clearly the revelation that the risen Christ gave him from heaven concerning the proper observance of this service. First, For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. Paul never knew the Lord here on earth, he was not with the Twelve in the upper room when Jesus instituted this ordinance; therefore, he must have received this as a direct revelation from heaven. That is very significant, for there must be something extremely precious to our risen Savior about the frequent observance of the Lords Supper if He, the glorified One, gave to His apostle a special declaration from the glory regarding it. And this is what He told him: That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. Why does the apostle slip in the expression, In which he was betrayed, if not for us to realize that the Lords Supper was meant to appeal to the hearts of His people and so to remind them that in that very night when our blessed Savior was to know to the fullest the untrustworthiness, the wickedness, the treachery, the perfidy of the human heart, He gave this feast in order that His people might have before them the continual expression of His loving heart in giving Himself for them.
There is something very tender here. The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. Judas evidently was not present when He did this. There is a question as to that, but if you follow carefully through the accounts in the different Gospels, I think you will see that Judas was present at the Passover Feast, but when that was concluded, the Savior said, That thou doest, do quickly[And] hewent immediately out: and it was night (Joh 13:27, 30). Jesus had said before, The hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table (Luk 22:21). But Judas went out, and in his absence the Savior gave this memorial feast to His own. That is very suggestive, for it is only for those who have been redeemed by His precious blood that the Lords Supper is given. It is not for the unsaved, it is not for those who are hoping to be saved; it is for those who are in the joy of accomplished redemption, who know Christ as Savior. To them the Lord spake when He took that bread and gave thanks and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Some tell us that the Lord meant that the bread and the wine are changed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ when we give thanks to God for it. Others say this is not true, but that when you receive the bread in some special sense you are actually receiving the body of Christ. I do not think it necessary to go into these various views, for the Lord sat at that table in His complete human body and did not divide that among the disciples. When He took the loaf and said, This is my body, His own hands held that loaf, so it seems to me the simple and clear meaning is that it in the bread on the Lords table we have set forth in picture the precious, holy body of our Lord Jesus Christ. But it certainly is true that as we receive that bread with honest sincere hearts, with minds occupied with Christ, we do receive our blessed Lord in faith in a sense that is not true at other times. Thus far we are willing to go with the sacramentalists. It is a memorial, and it is one that makes Christ very real to us and gives a very definite sense of His presence.
A member of a great church in Christendom said to me at one time, We believe in the real presence of the Savior in the sacrament, and you believe in His real absence. Oh, no, I said, you are mistaken. We simply do not believe that the bread and the wine are actually changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, but we do believe in the real presence in Spirit of our blessed Lord, for He has said, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Mat 18:20). And there is no time when Christs presence is so definitely realized and so distinctly felt as when remembering Him in the breaking of bread. He said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. The Lords Supper is a continual reminder of the vicarious character of His death, and that is one reason why our blessed Lord is so desirous that it should be celebrated frequently.
Then we read, After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lords death till he come. On every table where there stands a glass of wine (I do not speak now of whether it be fermented or unfermented), the fruit of the vine, partaken of by the people of God, it is a standing testimony to the fact that redemption is alone through His precious atoning blood. If people deny the vicarious character of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, I cannot understand how with consistency they can participate in the celebration of the Lords Supper for, As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do [proclaim] (the word translated show, is elsewhere in the New Testament translated preach) the Lords death till he come. Wherever Christians eat this bread and drink this cup, participating in the Lords Supper, they are preaching a sermon. By their very actions they are declaring that His death was not merely that of a martyr for righteousness sake, but that it was death as a sacrifice, that He died for sinners, that He shed His blood for sinners.
A dear Japanese man who attended some of our meetings in Sacramento, California, was troubled about his soul, but it seemed impossible to bring him to Christ because of his love for money. He would say, If I accept this Jesus as my Savior, I do not see how I can make money.
So we told him he would have to make the choice of being rich on earth and poor in eternity, or poor on earth and rich in eternity. When I use the pronoun we, I refer to a Japanese evangelist who was associated with me at the time, and through whom I met this man. A year went by, I returned to the city of Sacramento for meetings, and one night was preaching the gospel on the street corner. In the audience I saw this little Japanese man. There was an expression of concern on his face that stirred my heart. At the close of the meeting he stepped up and shook my hand and said, I so glad to see you again.
I said, And so am I glad to see you. Have you accepted Christ as your Savior yet?
Tears filled his eyes and he said, No, I fight against Him. I cannot give up. If I accept Him, I cannot make money. Do you have some meetings here where you are speaking?
I said, Yes, and told him where the meetings were being held.
He said, Do you have a meeting on Sunday where you eat the bread and drink the wine showing how Jesus died?
I said, Yes, next Sunday morning.
I come, he said.
So on the Sunday morning we had gathered together to participate in the Lords Supper, and as the meeting commenced this Japanese man came in and sat close up in the front. I was praying that God might speak to him, and as the meeting went on it was evident that he was greatly perturbed. Finally the people of God partook of the bread and the fruit of the vine, and this heathen Japanese sat and looked on. Just as the elements were replaced on the table, he rose and said, I like to pray.
I thought, My! I wish I had told him that he would not be expected to take part in the meeting!
But he prayed like this: O God, I all broke up. For one whole year I fight You. I fight You hard. Your Spirit break me all to pieces. O God, today I see Your people eating the bread, drinking the wine, tell how Jesus died for sinners like me. O God, You love me so You give Your Son to die for me. I cannot fight You any more. I give up, I take Him as my Savior.
It did not spoil our meeting at all to have him take part with such a prayer. We realized that this simple ordinance had preached to him for, As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do [preach] the Lords death till he come. At the close of the meeting we gathered about him to rejoice with him, and then he turned to me and said, Jesus say before He go away, when you believe Him, you bury in water, show old life gone, new life begin. I like bury.
You want to be baptized? I asked. I will see you during the week and perhaps we can do it next Sunday.
Referring to the Japanese evangelist, he said, A year ago he tell me Jesus Christ coming back again, so?
Yes, I said, that is true.
He coming soon?
He may.
He not come before next Sunday?
Well, I couldnt say, He might come before then.
Then I no like to wait till next Sunday, I like show I no fight any more, I like be buried today.
I said, Forgive me for trying to put it off; we will go down to the river this afternoon.
And so in the afternoon he came dressed in his best with the Japanese mayor, as we called the richest man in the Japanese settlement, and forty other Japanese merchants behind him. We preached the Word and he gave his testimony, and then he was buried in the waters of baptism.
The Lords Supper, if given the place our Savior intended it to have, will constantly preach to the world, and will say more than any words of ours can say: As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do [preach] the Lords death till he come.
You may have known the Lord Jesus Christ for years, but I wonder whether this ordinance is precious to you. I am afraid to some it is just a legal thing, a feeling that one ought to come and take the Lords Supper because He has commanded it. Let me suggest that it is not so much a command as a request. When our Savior says, This do in remembrance of me, He does not mean, You must do this, but rather, I would like to have you do this. It is as though a loved one were dying and before slipping away should call the children around the bed and handing each one of them a photograph would say, Here are pictures of myself; I am going to leave you, you wont see me again for a little while, but I would like each of you to take one of these pictures. I wish you would cherish it and from time to time take it out and look at it, and as you do, remember me. Would it be a task to do that in response to the request of a loving mother or a precious father or possibly a darling child? Surely not. If you loved that one, you would be delighted again and again to take down that picture and as you looked at it, you would say, There is the one who loved me and is now gone from me, but I am so glad in this way I can call my dear one afresh to mind. That is the place the Lords Supper has in the church of God. There is nothing legal about it, you do not have to participate in the Lords Supper if you do not want to. You can go to heaven by trusting the Savior even if you have never once partaken of the cup that speaks of His suffering and death, but if your heart is filled with love for Him, you will be glad from time to time to gather with His people to remember Him. If you are unsaved, you may have thought of the Lords Supper as a means whereby you might obtain salvation. Perhaps you have come to the Communion Table and hoped that thereby you might obtain the evidence that your sins were forgiven. My dear friend, the message of the Lords Supper is this, Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; andwas buried, androse again (1Co 15:3). What you need is not an ordinance, for the sacrament cannot save you, but you need the blessed Savior Himself; you need to trust the One whose death is pictured in the Lords Supper, the Savior who gave Himself for you.
I praise: 1Co 11:2, 1Co 11:22, Lev 19:17, Pro 27:5, Rom 13:3, 1Pe 2:14
that ye: 1Co 11:20, 1Co 11:34, 1Co 14:23, 1Co 14:26, Isa 1:13, Isa 1:14, Isa 58:1-4, Jer 7:9, Jer 7:10, Heb 10:25
Reciprocal: Act 20:7 – the disciples
1Co 11:17. In verse 2 the apostle told the brethren there were some things for which he would praise (commend) them. In the present verse there were some things for which he would not praise them, one of which was that their coming together was not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:17. But in giving you this charge, I praise you not,[1] that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. The charge or command is not what went before (as most modern interpreters understand it), butas will appear on careful study, we thinkthe whole directory here following, as to the celebration of the Lords Supper.
[1] Such appears to be the true reading.
Our apostle here enters upon a new argument or subject-matter of discourse; namely, to reprove the abuses which were crept in amongst them, in their administration of the holy sacrament of the Lord’s supper.
And the first abuse which he blames them for, was, the divisions and factions which were found amongst them; I hear that there are schisms amongst you. Where we are to understand by schisms, not a separation from the unity of the catholic church, but of sects and divisions in the church; they did not separate from the church, but they ate the Lord’s supper separately in the church, and the whole congregation did not join together in the celebration of that ordinance. Though we do not separate from the communion of the catholic church, yet if we occasion division and dissension groundlessly in the church, we justly fall under the imputation and charge of schism.
Observe next, The apostle argues a minori ad majus; he did easily believe there were divisions, because there must be also heresies among them. Heresies were worse than schisms, false doctrines more dangerous than divisions. Heresy is an error in the fundamentals of religion, maintained with obstinacy. When the green wound of an error is let alone, it soon rankles, and quickly grows into the old sore of an heresy.
But how comes the apostle to say, there must be heresies? what necessity is there for them?
Ans. 1. Negatively; there is not an absolute necessity for them on God’s part, or a necessity of his making; but a conditional necessity, or a necessity ex. hypothesi, which must needs be, if such a thing be granted before: as supposing the sun be risen, it must be day.
Thus here, upon supposition of the pride, vain-glory, envyings, strife, and contentions, which are amongst the members of the church; upon supposition of the craft and subtilty, malice and malignity, of Satan, the church’s grand enemy; upon supposition of God’s permission, that Satan and wicked men should act according to their corrupt affections and inclinations; heresies must and will be.
Note farther, That the reason here assigned for the necessity of heresies is not causal, but eventual: not causal, as if the wisdom of God did design there should be heresies for this end, that they who are approved of him should be made manifest; but rather eventual; as if the apostle had said, “Hence it will come to pass, that they who are approved will be made manifest.”
Problems In Coming Together
Paul thought the very act of Christians coming together should encourage unity and spiritual development. Paul said the Corinthians were failing in that and reprimanded them. Reports of their conduct in the assemblies of the saints had already come to Paul before he wrote. Some of the reports may have been exaggerated, but Paul believed it when it was said they were dividing into factions when the congregation came together ( 1Co 11:17-18 ; Isa 10:13 ).
Divisions caused by carnal thinking tend to separate those who are striving to meet God’s standards ( 2Ti 2:15 ) from those who are not. The “approved” Paul mentioned would be those who, like metal, pass the test and prove to be genuine. The divisions in the Corinthian church and misuse of the supper made it no longer proper to call it the Lord’s. The Lord would have no part in their divison ( 1Co 11:19-20 ).
Perhaps because the Lord ate the passover feast with his disciples before instituting the Lord’s supper, the church at Corinth ate a feast, often called a love feast, before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians were each bringing their own meals and partaking of it in party groups. They did not wait on each other and while the poor went hungry, the rich drank to excess. Thus, the love feast was not a true communion at a common table where each could receive alike. The poor were shamed instead of being fed. Paul praised them ( 1Co 11:2 ) when they deserved it and rebuked them when they deserved it ( 1Co 11:21-22 ).
1Co 11:17-19. Now in this that I am about to declare unto you, I praise you not I cannot commend some, as I have done others, (1Co 11:2,) for other things; that ye come together Frequently, and even on the most solemn occasions; not for the better So as to gain any spiritual advantage by the increase of your faith and other graces; but for the worse To the prejudice of your souls, by fomenting strifes and animosities, which produce factions. For first of all Before I mention any other instance of your irregular and indecent conduct, I must observe, that when ye come together in the church , in the public assembly, though it is evident that nothing but reverence to God, and love to each other, should reign on such occasions; I hear that there be divisions , schisms; among you, and I partly believe it That is, I believe it of some of you. It is plain that by schisms is not meant any separation from the church, but uncharitable divisions in it. For the Corinthians continued to be one church, and notwithstanding all their strife and contention, there was no separation of any one party from the rest, with regard to external communion. And it is in the same sense that the word is used, 1Co 1:10, and 1Co 12:25, which are the only places in the New Testament, besides this, where church schisms are mentioned. Therefore, the indulging any temper contrary to this tender care of each other, is the true Scriptural schism. This is, therefore, a quite different thing from that orderly separation from corrupt churches which later ages have stigmatized as schism; and have made a pretence for the vilest cruelties, oppressions, and murders, that have troubled the Christian world. Both heresies and schisms are here mentioned in very near the same sense: unless by schisms be meant rather those inward animosities which occasion heresies; that is, outward divisions or parties: so that while one said, I am of Paul, another, I am of Apollos, this implied both schism and heresy. So wonderfully have later ages distorted the words heresy and schism from their Scriptural meaning. Heresy is not, in all the Bible, taken for an error in fundamentals, or in any thing else; nor schism, for any separation made from the outward communion of others. Therefore, both heresy and schism, in the modern sense of the words, are sins that the Scripture knows nothing of; but were invented merely to deprive mankind of the benefit of private judgment, and liberty of conscience. For there must also be heresies among you
Parties formed, as the word properly signifies. These, in the ordinary course of things, must take place, in consequence of your contentions, and the declension of your love to one another: and God permits these divisions, that they which are approved may be manifest That it may appear who among you are, and who are not, upright of heart.
VIII. Disorders in the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper. 11:17-34.
The disorder which Paul has just described and combated was a small matter in comparison with that to which he now passes. The style of his language, too, becomes more severe. The apostle begins by applying to the assemblies for worship what he said about the prevailing discussions at Corinth, in the first four chapters (1Co 11:17-19); then he passes to the principal ground of rebuke, that which refers to the celebration of the Holy Supper (1Co 11:20-34).
But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. [Their church services, which were intended for their development, had become so corrupted that they tended to retard and to dwarf their natural growth. Farrar makes the words “this charge” refer back to 1Co 11:2; but it is more natural and easy to refer them to what he is about to say.]
Verse 17
Not for the better; in such a manner that no good results.
SECTION 21 THE LORD’S SUPPER MUST BE RECEIVED IN A MANNER SUITABLE TO THE SOLEMN TRUTHS THEREIN SET FORTH CH. 11:17-34
But, while giving this charge, I do not praise you that not for the better but for the worse you come together. For, in the first place, when you come together in church-meeting, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in some part I believe it. For there must needs be even sects among you, in order that the proved ones may become evident among you. When then you come together to the same place, there is no eating the Lord’s Supper. For, his own supper each one takes beforehand in the eating; and one is hungry and another is drunken. Have you not (is this the reason?) houses for eating and drinking? Or, the church of God do you despise, and put to shame those that have not? What am I to say to you? Am I to praise you? In this matter I give no praise.
For, as to myself I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was being betrayed took bread, and, having given thanks, broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this for the remembering of me. In the same way also the cup, after having taken supper, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, for the remembering of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you announce the death of the Lord, till He come. So then, whoever may eat the bread or may drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Let a man prove himself, and thus let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks for himself judgment, if he do not recognize the body. Because of this, among you, are many sick and weak ones, and some sleep. But if we recognized ourselves we should not be judged. But being judged, by the Lord we are chastised, in order that we may not be condemned with the world.
So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait one for another; if any one is hungry, let him eat at home: in order that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters, whenever I come, I will set in order.
A second disorder at church-meetings, viz. improper conduct at the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 11:17-22 : the facts and purpose of the institution of the Supper, and the proper way of receiving it, 1Co 11:22-32 : exhortation to better conduct, 1Co 11:33-34.
1Co 11:17. This charge: probably the very strong charge implied in 20, viz. that women do not lay aside the veil. For 1Co 11:17 b contains no definite charge; and 1Co 11:22 is too distant. Paul prefaced his charge in 20 with words of praise. He now tells us that his praise does not extend to the matter of which he is going to speak, which he introduces by saying that their church gatherings tend to do them more harm than good.
1Co 11:18. Explains and justifies 1Co 11:17 b.
First: Without any second following it, as in Rom 1:8; Rom 3:2; implying that the misconduct mentioned is not the only one. In 1Co 11:34 we find other matters which need to be set in order, but which are allowed to remain till Paul’s arrival at Corinth; and in 1Co 14:23-35, other definite abuses when they come together, though perhaps not sufficiently great as was the matter of 1Co 11:20 ff, to justify the strong language of 1Co 11:17.
In church: simplest meaning of the word, viz. a formal gathering of the people of God; as in 1Co 14:19; 1Co 14:35. See note 1Co 1:9.
I hear: contrast 1Co 1:11. The news continues to come in from various sources.
Divisions: not necessarily organized parties, but whatever separates brother from brother. They are mentioned only for a moment, to open a way for 1Co 11:20 ff, where we find divisions at church-meetings based on different degrees of wealth. These divisions were, therefore, probably not coincident with those of 1Co 11:10.
In some part; suggests Paul’s hope that, though he cannot doubt that the report is true in the main, it may be exaggerated. Notice the courtesy, mingled with seriousness, of these words.
1Co 11:19. Paul’s reason for believing that there is some truth in the report.
Sects: organized parties, Act 5:17; Act 15:5; Act 26:5; Act 24:5; Act 24:14; Act 28:22; implying, but more (cp. Gal 5:20) than, divisions.
Must needs be: the defects of human nature render inevitable not only separations between brethren, but organized church-parties. But this necessity is no excuse for those who create divisions: for it rests upon their foreseen and inexcusable selfishness. Cp. Rom 16:17 f; Mat 18:7; Luk 17:1. These words do not necessarily imply that the sects already exist; nor do they suggest, as does Matthew 18., that they are still future, but says simply that there are, or will be, sects. Cp. Act 20:30. Notice that Paul does not mention the sects with express blame or warning, but merely as a reason for his belief that the report he has heard is in part true. He knows what human nature is, and is therefore not surprised at the existence of divisions.
Approved-ones: 2Co 10:18; 2Co 13:7; Jas 1:12 : they who have passed satisfactorily through the test and are thus proved to be genuine. In 1Co 11:19 b, we have a purpose of God. He uses the inevitable and foreseen tendency to church-parties as a means of showing to the church-members (evident among you) those who already to His eye are the approved-ones. This suggests that not all the church-members had thus approved themselves to God. There is no severer test of loyalty to Christ than the existence around us of church-parties. They who in such circumstances behave aright are evidently approved.
1Co 11:18-19 point out beforehand a serious consequence of the abuse in hand, viz. division in the church; and, even in that act of worship which is specially designed (1Co 10:17) to be a center of unity, divisions tending to the outward and formal separation of Christians. Nearly all sects have arisen from abuses within the church.
1Co 11:13-15. When then you come together; takes up the same words in 1Co 11:18, and continues the justification of 1Co 11:17.
To the same place; 1Co 14:23; adds definiteness to when you come together, as does in church-meeting in 1Co 11:18.
The Lord’s Supper: a meal provided by our Master, Christ; in contrast to his own supper. Cp. 1Co 10:21.
There is no etc.: i.e. it is impossible that that which they eat is a supper provided by Christ. Of this, 1Co 11:21 a is proof. It seems to imply that at Corinth the Lord’s Supper was kept by each one bringing bread, possibly also other food, and wine; and that each one, instead of putting his food into the common stock and thus sharing it with others, used to take back before the supper began the food he had brought.
Takes (not eats) beforehand. Perhaps, before service began each appropriated to himself the food he had brought; and then, after the blessing had been pronounced, all began at the same time to eat what each had previously taken.
Each one; implies that the practice was universal. And, if those who brought the best food took it for themselves, there would be nothing left for the poorer members but what they had themselves brought. This would cause the divisions of 1Co 11:18 : for it would create in the church-meetings a conspicuous distinction of richer and poorer members.
Is hungry, is drunken: extreme cases of this distinction. But we have no right to say that they never occurred. These words imply either that the Lord’s Supper was a real meal, capable of satisfying hunger, and at which it was possible to drink to excess, or that it was connected with such a meal. The hunger of some members in the midst of plenty, and the insobriety of others, were a gross and conspicuous abuse.
1Co 11:22. Question after question reveals the unseemliness of their conduct. Is your reason this, that you have no other place in which to satisfy hunger and thirst except that in which you unite to worship God? This implies that they did wrong in making the Lord’s Supper a meal for supplying bodily need. The next question exposes a special and more serious abuse in this their wrong mode of keeping the Supper.
Do you despise etc.: explained by put to shame. By taking back before the Supper began the richer food which they had themselves brought, and thus leaving for the poorer members nothing but their own poorer food, the rich made them feel their poverty even in the church assembly and thus put them to shame. And this was contempt for the church of God. For it betrayed ignorance of the essential and infinite grandeur of the position of every member of the family of God. To men guilty of such conduct Paul knows not what to say. He bids them judge for themselves whether they deserve praise.
I give no praise: his own solemn answer to his own question.
In this matter: a conspicuous exception to his praise of them in (1Co 11:2) other matters. It marks the completion of the matter begun in 1Co 11:17.
1Co 11:20-22 may be illustrated by Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates, book iii. 14.1: Whenever, of those who came together for supper some brought a small portion of food and others much, Socrates used to bid the attendant boy to put the small portion before the whole company, or to divide a part to each. They then who brought much could not for shame refuse to partake that which was set before the whole company, and in return to put their own food. They put therefore their own food before the whole company. And, since they had nothing more than they who brought little, they ceased bringing much food. Probably from this Greek custom arose the practice of church-members bringing their own food to the Lord’s Supper; and from this arose, even in a Christian church, the abuse which Socrates corrected. Paul condemns both (1Co 11:21 a) the custom, as a mode of keeping the Lord’s Supper, and (1Co 11:21 b) its abuse. Whether this custom prevailed in other churches, we have no means of judging. At Corinth both the custom and its abuse were fostered by the worldliness of the church.
1Co 11:23-34. After condemning this double abuse, Paul narrates the facts and words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 11:23-25; explains them, 1Co 11:26; draws from them a practical and general inference about the proper spirit and manner of partaking the Supper, 1Co 11:27-32; and a special inference about the above-mentioned abuses at Corinth, 1Co 11:33-34.
1Co 11:23-25. Reason why he cannot praise them. In contrast to their misconduct, Paul tells what he has learned from Christ.
I received: not we received. This implies that in some way peculiar to Paul, not by ordinary tradition, the risen Lord made known to him His own words at the Last Supper. Cp. Gal 1:11 f. The mode of this revelation, whether by angel, or direct voice of the Spirit, or a divinely-sent human messenger, is quite unknown to us. [Had the words come from the actual lips of Christ, another preposition would probably have been used, as in 1Th 4:1, etc.] But the fact is plainly asserted here. Nor need we wonder that words so important were specially communicated to the one prominent apostle who was not present at the Last Supper. The close verbal similarity of 1Co 11:24 f to Luk 22:19 f, by no means implies that Paul learned from Luke, or from the same source as he. That Luke learned from Paul, (cp. Luk 1:2,) is much more likely. Notice here an account of the Last Supper unquestionably apostolic, and which an apostle declares that he received from Christ.
I also delivered: (1Co 11:2; 1Co 15:3;) emphatically directs attention to the communication, as well as the reception, of these facts. That Paul found it needful to repeat what he had said before, suggests to the readers that the abuses arose from their forgetfulness.
In the night: graphic picture.
Bread: or a loaf.
Gave thanks: Mat 15:36; Joh 6:11. That this is mentioned in all four accounts of the Last Supper, suggests that there was something in our Lord’s demeanor while giving thanks which deeply impressed all present.
Which is for you: i.e. My body exists for your good. For you it was created: and for you the historic facts of my earthly life took place. But the broken bread was a silent and touching witness that Christ had specially in view the fact of His death.
Do this: break and distribute the bread: spoken probably while Christ was giving the bread to His disciples. Mat 26:26.
For the remembering of ME; by the disciples present and by His followers to the end of time. This was to Christ a definite object of thought; and was the aim of the Lord’s Supper. The word denotes both remembering and bringing to others’ remembrance, ideas closely associated.
In the same way: i.e. He took and gave thanks.
After having taken supper; Luk 22:20; directs attention to the fact that with the eating of the broken bread the Supper was finished.
The New Covenant: see under 2Co 3:6.
In my blood. Because Christ’s blood was shed, we have the Covenant with God of which the cup is a symbol and condition. The blood is the link between the cup and the Covenant.
As often as you drink it: only here. These words assume that the Supper will be repeated, and point out the spiritual purpose of it which must ever be kept in view.
The essential agreement of the four accounts (Mat 26:26 ff; Mar 14:22 ff; Luk 22:19 f* (* See Appendix B.)) of the institution of the Lord’s Supper is a complete proof, apart from the authority of Scripture, of their historic correctness. That in all four, otherwise varying, accounts we have the words This is my body and The New Covenant, proves indisputably that these very words or their Aramaic equivalents were actually spoken by Christ. But, that each account was altogether verbally exact, is hardly possible. For it would involve a repetition unsuited to the solemnity of the occasion. But this does not disprove that the New Testament is, as Paul held the Old Testament to be, (see my Romans, Dissertation iii. 4,} the word and voice of God. For we can well conceive that the Holy Spirit, who, if Paul’s view be correct, preserved the sacred writers from theological error and exerted upon them a directive influence which we cannot measure exactly, nevertheless forebore to save them from trivial verbal inaccuracies, and aided them only so far as His aid was needful for the ends He had in view. Indeed these trifling variations are a gain to us. For each supplements the others: and each is, if Paul’s view of the authority of the Bible be correct, God’s voice to us expounding the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. In view of this gain we can afford to be in doubt about the exact form and order of the words which fell on that memorable night from the lips of Christ.
We may perhaps reverently suggest that Paul’s account is the more likely to be verbally exact. For the variation This is my blood (Mt. Mk.) may be accounted for by the similar words preceding, This is my body. Whereas, the changed form This cup is the New Covenant (Paul and Luke) cannot be accounted for except as being genuine. And we shall see that this change guards from abuse the words This is my body. Therefore, among four accounts, all which have for us divine authority, we may give a preference to that which Paul says he received specially from the Risen Saviour.
How these words of Christ were likely to be understood by those who first heard them, we will now inquire. We place ourselves in thought among the assembled disciples. At the close of the supper the Saviour takes a loaf or cake of bread, breaks it, and gives the broken pieces to the disciples, saying, This is my body, which is for you. They could not possibly conceive Him to mean that the bread was actually His own body. Else He would have two bodies visible in the same room, each to be given for his disciples. And the body crucified the next day was then living and uninjured: whereas the bread was already broken. They could only understand His words to mean that the bread was symbolical, and the breaking and distribution of it prophetic, signifying and announcing that the body now living before their eyes was to die, for their spiritual nourishment. Cp. Isa 20:2 ff; Hos 1:4. Just as we point to a picture and say, without fear of being misunderstood, This is my father, or my house, so the disciples would naturally understand our Lord’s words. And their interpretation of them would be confirmed by the words following. For the cup was not even practically identical with the Covenant. A cup given and received denoted that the Covenant was ratified: whereas the New Covenant was not ratified till the actual blood of Christ was shed. But the poured out wine was a prophetic symbol of the blood soon to be shed. And, therefore, the cup given and received was a silent announcement of the Covenant of which that blood was the pledge. This interpretation, which would naturally suggest itself at once would be confirmed by the repeated words, For the remembrance of Me. For the symbol of the broken body and of the Covenant ratified in blood would recall forcibly to those who in after years broke the bread and drank the wine the memory of Him who died that they might live.
This exposition does not assume that the disciples as they gathered on that night round the Saviour understood the full import of His words and actions. How these were understood by Paul, we must gather from his own exposition of his own narrative, and from 1Co 10:16-21, etc. This will enable us to test, and will supplement, the exposition just given of the words spoken by Christ.
1Co 11:26. Explains and justifies 1Co 11:25 b, by showing how the Supper is a memorial of Christ.
You announce: either by the very act of breaking and eating, or by concurrent word of mouth. Probably the former. For the word announce, used elsewhere only for verbal announcement, is very appropriate to remind us that the silent rite of the broken bread and poured out wine has a voice, and declares in plainest language that Christ died for us. And this silent announcement makes the rite a memorial of Christ.
Till He come: for a memorial is needful only while the remembered one is absent. These words teach us to eat the Supper in faith and hope, knowing that He who died still lives, and will return; and imply plainly that the rite is to be kept up till the end of time.
1Co 11:27. Practical inference from the words of Christ in 1Co 11:24-25, as explained by Paul in 1Co 11:26.
Unworthily: without self-examination, 1Co 11:28; or contemplation of the crucified body of Christ, 1Co 11:29. Doubtless Paul refers specially to those who made his solemn rite an occasion of ostentation. All are unworthy. But they who receive the Supper as sinners for whom Christ died do not eat it unworthily.
Guilty of the body etc.: more fully, liable to penalty for sin against the body and blood of Christ. So Jas 2:10. This follows from 1Co 11:24 f as expounded in 1Co 11:26. In the Lord’s Supper we set before ourselves and others, in the most solemn manner, Christ crucified for us and for the world. And this setting forth of His death is a condition (see note below) on which, and therefore a channel through which, we personally receive the blessings which come through His death. Consequently, every misuse of the sacred symbols keeps back from us these blessings; and is thus an insult to, and a sin against, the body nailed to the cross and the shed blood. Similarly, an insult to the symbols of royalty is an insult to the king, and in its measure a revolt against his government. This is very conspicuous in countries under foreign rule. Notice the change from and in 1Co 11:26 to or in 1Co 11:27. Whoever treats unworthily either symbol, sins thereby against Christ, and therefore against both the pierced body and the shed blood of the Master. But from this we cannot infer, as Estius does, that they who receive the bread only (according to the custom for laymen in the Roman Church) receive both the body and blood of Christ. For, that he who breaks one commandment breaks all, does not imply that he who keeps one has thereby kept all.
1Co 11:28. Practical application of the foregoing solemn inference.
Prove himself: inquire into his own motives in coming to the Lord’s table and his disposition in relation to the death of Christ.
And thus: i.e. having discovered that his motives are pure, or, having laid aside any impure motives he may detect. This Paul assumes.
Eat and drink; teaches plainly that it was usual for all Christians to do this. Estius simply denies it without proof; and expounds 1Co 11:28 b to mean either eat or drink.
1Co 11:29. Supports 1Co 11:28 by a modified restatement of 1Co 11:27.
Eats and drinks for himself judgment: i.e. by the very acts of eating and drinking he causes sentence (evidently God’s sentence of condemnation) to be pronounced against himself. In other words, his unworthy reception will be followed by punishment. It is therefore, practically equivalent to guilty of the body etc. in 1Co 11:27.
Judgment: cp. Rom 2:27, and see notes.
The body: viz. that crucified for us. Further specification is needless.
Recognize: or discern or distinguish: perceive its real worth and thus distinguish it from others. Similarly we might say, pointing to a picture, This is my father: do you recognize him? Unless, when we receive the symbols we look through them to the great reality they represent, to the precious body nailed to the cross for us, and receive them in a fitting manner, by our very acts of eating and drinking we cause sentence to be pronounced upon ourselves. For we thus sin against (1Co 11:27) the body and blood of Christ. For the various readings here, see Appendix B (book comments).
1Co 11:30. Practical and actual outworking at Corinth of the foregoing general principle, supporting the warning therein implied.
Among you: emphatic. You can see the consequences in your own church.
Sleep: are dead, as in 1Co 7:39. These words refer probably to bodily sickness and death, inflicted by God as punishment for abuse of the Lord’s Supper. For, though they might be correctly used of spiritual weakness and loss of spiritual life (cp. Eph 5:14) as consequences of such abuse, yet we must not, without any hint or any reason in the nature of things, set aside their simplest meaning. In the apostolic church the power of God manifested itself before men’s eyes both in works of mercy and in punishment. Cp. Act 5:5; Act 13:11, with which this verse is a coincidence. The severity of the punishments proves how great was the sin. Whether before receiving this letter, the Corinthian Christians knew the spiritual cause of this sickness and death, we cannot now determine.
1Co 11:31-32. A double comment on the facts of 1Co 11:30. These penalties may be avoided; and are inflicted in mercy.
Recognized ourselves: same word as in 1Co 11:29, and cognate to judge and condemn.
Judged: the sentence which they who (1Co 11:29) eat and drink without recognizing the body bring upon themselves, and which was followed in some cases by the penalties of 1Co 11:30.
We: Paul puts himself by courtesy among the sick and weak ones. If we recognized our own true character as compared with others and with what we ought to be, (and thus pronounced sentence upon ourselves,) sentence would not be pronounced upon us by God. i.e. the condemnatory sentence implied in the punishments of 1Co 11:30.
Chastised: by the above mentioned punishments. This word is expounded in Heb 12:6-11.
Condemned with the world: final sentence of eternal death. Paul says that the penalties of 1Co 11:30 were inflicted by the Master, in order to lead the smitten ones to repentance, and thus save them from the severer condemnation which will fall upon the unsaved world; (cp. 1Co 5:5;) and that, if they had recognized the true nature and impropriety of their own conduct, they would have escaped even this lighter sentence. Thus Paul discovers a purpose of mercy in the severe punishments of 1Co 11:30. If the death of those who sleep was preceded by sickness which gave opportunity for repentance, even this (cp. 1Co 5:5) might be in mercy. And the tone of 1Co 11:31-32 suggests this. Otherwise, bodily death would be, as in Act 5:5, itself a final condemnation.
1Co 11:33-34. Practical inference from 1Co 11:23-32, in reference to the special abuse at Corinth.
Come-together (twice) marks the conclusion of the matter introduced in 1Co 11:17. That the words to eat are sufficient to specify what Paul refers to, suggest that they did not eat together except at the Lord’s Supper.
Wait one for another: let each refrain from appropriating food till all are ready to do so together, in contrast to take beforehand his own supper. The context implies that, when the united meal is ready, the whole food, by whomever brought, must be eaten by all in common. Paul thus corrects the second abuse mentioned with astonishment in 1Co 11:22.
Let him eat etc.: i.e. do not make the Lord’s Supper a meal to satisfy hunger. This corrects the first and broader abuse of 1Co 11:22.
That you may not etc.: belongs to both abuses.
For judgment: parallel with for the worse (1Co 11:17) in the form assumed in 1Co 11:29. Paul bids his readers, instead of taking before others are ready the food they have themselves brought, to wait for the united meal; and, again, not to make the sacred rite a means of satisfying hunger, which ought to be done at home; lest their meetings tend to bring upon them condemnation and punishment.
The remaining matters: perhaps those implied in the word first in 1Co 11:18. If so, these also pertained to church-meetings.
Whenever I come: 1Co 4:18 ff.
I-will-set-in-order; implies Paul’s apostolic authority as a ruler in the church. This purpose implies that in various churches he left unwritten directions, which would naturally assume the form of the apostolic traditions of 1Co 11:2. But we cannot now say with certainty that any particular direction or teaching, not found in his epistles, came from his lips.
REVIEW. Paul has heard, and has reason to believe, that at Corinth the Lord’s Supper has degenerated into a mere meal to satisfy hunger and thirst; and that the church-members take back for themselves the food they have brought, thus erecting barriers between brethren meeting together in one place. He rebukes these abuses by narrating and expounding the facts and words of the institution of the Supper as revealed to him by Christ. From this we learn that they who misuse the sacred symbols are guilty of sin against the body nailed to the cross and the shed blood; and that to them participation of the bread and wine brings condemnation and punishment. Indeed, upon some of their number bodily punishment of sickness and death has already fallen. This, the guilty ones would have avoided, had they understood the meaning of their own conduct. And it was inflicted in mercy, to save them from a more terrible condemnation.
Paul therefore urges each one to put to the test, when coming to the Lord’s Table, his own motives and disposition. And, in reference to the special abuses at Corinth, he bids them supply their bodily needs at home, and wait till all are ready to share together the sacred meal. The other matters which need attention may wait till his arrival at Corinth.
THE LORD’S SUPPER: its primitive mode of celebration, and its significance. That the excesses corrected in 21 occurred at the sacramental Supper, is quite certain. For, the Lord’s Supper in 1Co 11:20 can be no other than the bread and the cup of the Lord in 1Co 11:27. And Paul’s argument in 1Co 11:21, viz. that to take beforehand each his own supper made it impossible for the meal to be the Lord’s Supper, implies that the food thus taken was not merely eaten in connection with the sacred symbols, but was actually that food and drink which ought to be received by all together as a supper provided by Christ. This proof is confirmed by the solemn warning in 1Co 11:27, supporting the reproof in 1Co 11:22, that they who eat and drink unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. This warning Paul applies expressly in 1Co 11:33 to the abuses at Corinth.
We cannot therefore accept the opinion of Chrysostom, Estius, and others, that these abuses occurred at a semi-spiritual repast connected with the Lord’s Supper.
If these abuses occurred at the Lord’s Supper, Paul’s reference to them is our earliest and most valuable source of information about the primitive mode of its celebration. That private members were able to appropriate beforehand the food designed for the communion, implies that they were not in the habit of receiving the bread and wine from the officers of the church. That Paul did not reprove them for not receiving the elements thus, and did not even recommend it, although it would have effectually prevented the abuses in question, shows clearly that he did not look upon the reception of the elements from the hands of the church officers as essential to the validity of the sacrament. And the same is confirmed by the absence of any censure on the officers of the church, who, if the distribution of the sacred symbols had been committed to them only, would have been chiefly to blame. From this we infer with certainty that when Christ instituted the Supper, He did not direct, and that at the time when this Epistle was written the apostles had not directed, that it should be administered only by the officers of the church. Nor have we in the New Testament any hint that the apostles afterwards gave this direction.
That the sacred feast was looked upon as a means of satisfying hunger and that drinking to excess was possible, reveals how widely different was the mode of its celebration then from that of succeeding ages. Contrast Justin, 1st Apology 65: After the prayers we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the leader of the brethren [ ] a cup of water and mixed wine [] and he, having taken it, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of His Son and the Holy Spirit, and to some length makes thanksgiving for having been counted worthy of these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving all the people present confirm them by saying, Amen. The deacons, as we call them, give to each of those present to partake of the bread, wine, and water, over which thanks has been given; and for those not present we take them to their houses. Also Tertullian, On the soldier’s crown ch. iii.: The sacrament of the eucharist we receive from the hands of none but those who preside.
The force of the above arguments is felt, and put very clearly, by Estius. To evade it, he is compelled to suppose that the abuse in question occurred, not at the Lord’s Supper, but at a repast partaken in connection with it. This opinion I have already attempted to disprove.
The mode of celebrating the Lord’s Supper during the latter part of the apostolic age, we have no means of tracing. Consequently, the limitations of its administration to the officers of the church cannot claim undoubted apostolic authority. But it has been, as a matter of church order, the universal, or nearly universal, practice of the entire Church of Christ in all its sections and in all countries, from the second century to the present day. From so general a practice, as a matter of church order, few will have, without very special reasons hardihood to dissent.
The spiritual meaning and purpose and operation of the Lord’s Supper, now claim attention. Already, under 1Co 11:25, we have endeavored to expound the words of institution as they would be understood by those who first heard them. These words we will now study again in the light of the great doctrines of the Gospel assumed and taught in the Epistle to the Romans. And the results thus obtained we will compare with the references to the Lord’s Supper in this Epistle.
Paul taught (see my Romans, Dissertation i. 3) that God accepts as righteous, i.e. He pardons the sins of, all who believe the Gospel; that this pardon could not have been, had not Christ died; and that by the inward presence and activity of the Holy Spirit believers are so united to Christ that His purposes and life and love are reproduced in them. And this we accepted as the teaching of Christ.
These doctrines will explain Joh 6:33-59, which is a link connecting them with Christ’s words at the Supper. Christ could correctly call Himself in Joh 6:35 the bread of life: for just as bread nourishes (and without such nourishment we must die) only by its own destruction, so Christ (see Rom 3:26) could give us life only by His Own Death. And that, to give us life, His body must needs be bruised and His blood shed, justifies abundantly, and fully accounts for, the strong words of Joh 6:53 : Except you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God, you have no life in you. How His hearers were to eat and drink etc., i.e. how they were to appropriate the results of His death, Christ tells them plainly in Joh 6:35; Joh 6:40; Joh 6:47, viz. by coming to Him and believing Him. And He tells them in Joh 6:56 that the spiritual results of this will be an inward, spiritual, mutually interpenetrating contact of themselves and Christ. We see then that in Joh 6:33-59 Christ does but assert the great doctrines of the Epistle to the Romans, and asserts one of them, No. 2, under the most forceful image possible. And in no other sense but this can I conceive men to eat and drink practically the body and blood of Christ.
We come now, prepared by our study of Joh 6:33-59, and of the Gospel as taught by Paul, to listen again to the words of Christ as recorded in 1Co 11:24 f. In 1Co 11:26 Paul tells us that (just as the Gospel is a verbal announcement that through the shedding of Christ’s blood God covenants to pardon sin and to give eternal life to all who believe so) the Lord’s Supper is an announcement of Christ’s death by visible emblematic action. And this is given as an explanation of the words of Christ. We infer then that the remembrance of Me is chiefly a memory that Christ by dying gave, and now gives, us life; and that Christ ordained the Supper in order to keep this great doctrine before the mind and in the heart of His people. And for this end no more effective means could be devised. For this doctrine is the only conceivable explanation of the prominence given to Christ’s death both by the institution of the Supper and by the words of institution. We therefore cannot doubt that it was instituted in order to be an abiding monument in the Church of the truth and importance of this doctrine.
Again, the proclamation of this truth is the divinely chosen means of conveying, to those who believe it, the life which results from Christ’s death. And, to those within sound of the Gospel, the Truth is the only channel through which this life flows. Now the preached word gives life only through the presence and agency of the Spirit of Christ, who breathes life and power into what would otherwise be empty sound. Cp. 1Co 2:10 ff. The universality of this principle compels us to apply it also to the Truth as set forth visibly in the sacred emblems. Therefore, just as in the preached word, in some sense to all who hear it and in the fullest possible sense to those who receive it by faith, we have the real, living, active, objective presence of the Crucified and Living Saviour, so we need not hesitate to say that in the same sense we have His presence in the Lord’s Supper.
Again, Christ has bidden us expressly, at the most solemn period of His life and in the most solemn manner possible, to keep the sacred feast; and Paul’s exposition in 1Co 11:26 makes this command binding to the end of time. This command of Christ makes participation in the Supper an essential condition of salvation. For, not to eat and drink would be direct disobedience to Christ; and, therefore, a renunciation of the covenant of which the cup is an emblem. Consequently, with exceptions noted below, only by eating and drinking the bread and wine can we share the results of Christ’s pierced body and shed blood. Now, practically, in our thought, we cannot distinguish between a condition performed in order to obtain that which depends upon it and an instrument with which we lay hold of something we desire. Consequently, we cannot but look upon both faith and the Lord’s Supper (both being simply conditions of salvation) as instruments by which we lay hold of Christ. We may therefore say correctly, as in 1Co 10:16, that by receiving the material elements we become sharers of the body and blood of Christ; and that our entire spiritual life, (cp. 1Co 10:17 a,) each moment received from Christ, is a result of our reception at intervals of the bread and wine.
Yet the Lord’s Supper is not another condition of salvation beside faith. Rather, Christ’s command has made intelligent faith impossible without participation in the Supper; just as it is impossible to exercise faith without repentance or to retain it without confession. Cp. Luk 13:3; Rom 10:9. For we cannot believe that we enjoy Christ’s favor while we deliberately disobey His word. Moreover, circumstances may prevent us from partaking the Supper: and our reception of it is at intervals. Under all circumstances and each moment we live by faith.
The suitability of the Lord’s Supper as a condition of salvation, and the relation of this condition to faith, the one inward condition are not difficult to trace. The Lord’s Supper is the most searching test of our faith that Christ is actually and supernaturally present and active in the hearts of His people. And, that Christ is thus objectively present in us, is an essential truth, and the great characteristic truth, of Christianity. Little faith is required to believe that a preached word may do good: for the connection between the means and end is evident. But, to expect spiritual good from material bread and wine, implies reliance upon the presence and infinite power of Him who fed the five thousand and made water into wine, and who has promised to be in His people as their life to the end of time and through eternity. Thus the sacramental feast tests, develops, and testifies, our faith in the supernatural presence and activity of Christ in His Church.
Another purpose of the Lord’s Supper is suggested in 1Co 10:17; viz. to give formal and visible unity to the followers of Christ. Such visible unity was of infinite importance for the continued existence of Christianity in the face of the hostile and powerful influences which beset its early course. And we cannot conceive any means so likely to secure visible unity as this simple rite. To perpetuate the rite and thus to give corporate form to His followers, Christ instituted it at the most solemn period of His life, and, by bidding us observe it in remembrance of Himself, made it practically a condition of salvation.
Again, that Christ commands, as a condition of salvation, a bodily reception of material bread and wine, gives to these elements a mysterious and unique dignity. (Similarly, God’s choice of a spoken word as the channel of salvation gives to the human voice an incomparable dignity.) Since the eating and drinking which Christ requires are real, we may say that His command makes our reception of the spiritual, and ultimately material, benefits purchased by the death of His body and the shedding of His blood conditional, with exceptions marked below, on our reception into our own bodies of the material bread and wine. Christ has thus placed these elements of food in a unique relation to Himself. Remembering this, as we look at them we may almost forget the material food produced by nature and by human manipulation, and think only of the pierced body and shed blood, without which there had been no bread and wine on the sacramental table and of the spiritual nourishment we derive therefrom. To the eye of faith the symbols disappear, and the infinite and amazing reality alone remains.
We shall understand now all that Paul says about the Lord’s Supper. Well might Christ say this is my body. For, had not the Eternal Son assumed a human body to be pierced for our life, there had been no broken bread in His hands then. Had not that body died, there would be no bread upon our sacramental table now. And, but for the pouring out of His blood, and but for the New Covenant between God and us (virtual in that night, ratified now) through His blood, there would be no poured out wine. Therefore, as setting forth and implying the most amazing event of all time, and as a solemnly appointed condition of sharing its eternal results, the broken bread is the body of Christ, and the full wine-cup is the New Covenant in His blood. And, as setting forth and implying and bringing about (as an essential condition and in some sense an instrument) a participation in the results of His death, the bread and the cup are (1Co 10:16) fellowship in the body and blood of Christ. In the same way all manifestations of the Christian life are results of the sacred feast. Therefore, the outward and visible unity of believers (1Co 10:17) is a result of their joint reception of the same symbolic food. Since the Supper was ordained by Christ, it is, with all its consequent blessings, (1Co 10:21) a table of the Lord. Since it is a visible symbol of Christ crucified and a solemnly ordained means of consolidating and extending His kingdom, any indignity done to the feast is done to Christ, and specially to the body and blood bruised and shed for us. Such indignity arises from oversight of the awful reality, even the crucified body of Christ, which the sacred symbols are designed to bring to mind. On this indignity sentence was already pronounced by Christ: and at Corinth upon many persons penalty was already inflicted. Consequently, they who receive the elements without a spiritual view and apprehension of Christ Crucified, receive thereby judgment. Thus Paul’s entire teaching about the Lord’s Supper (and to his teaching the New Testament adds nothing) is but a development of the words of institution in the light of the great principles asserted and expounded in the Epistle to the Romans.
I cannot overlook the fact that some godly men, I refer chiefly to the Society of Friends, set aside altogether the outward and visible celebration of the Lord’s Supper. How they reconcile this with Christ’s words, Do this, and with Paul’s explanation of them in 1Co 11:26, I do not know. That they lose much by refusing, even in ignorance, to obey the express and solemn command of Christ, I cannot doubt. But, if their refusal arises from sincere, even though mistaken, loyalty to Christ, God will not refuse them a part in that New Covenant of which they refuse the visible pledge and condition. And for the loss they sustain by absence from the Lord’s table, no small part of the blame rests upon those who by their misrepresentation and misuse have brought it into contempt. But, were I to absent myself as they do, I should thereby exclude myself from the Covenant. For I should refuse to do what I believe Christ has expressly and solemnly bidden. It is worthy of notice, in view of 1Co 10:17, that the united influence upon the world of the Society of Friends bears no proportion to the personal excellence of its members.
In the New Testament the Lord’s Supper is never said to be a sacrifice. But its connection with the Jewish Passover reminds us that it is in some sense a sacrificial act. The analogy of the Jewish rites and the Christian rite is very close. The Jewish sacrifices set forth in symbol the truth that man’s salvation comes through the death of the innocent: and, as solemnly ordained by God at (Exo 24:8) the ratification of the Old Covenant, they were a condition on which its benefits were obtained. Consequently, after disuse in times of spiritual declension, the sacrifices were restored (2Ch 29:7 ff; 2Ch 29:20 ff) in times of revival. Now the Lord’s Supper is the one recurring rite of the New Covenant. Of this Covenant, the most conspicuous benefit is forgiveness of sins: Mat 26:28; Heb 8:12. Therefore, while receiving the Supper in faith, we claim from God the benefits of the Covenant, and especially the forgiveness of our sins. We thus present to God, for our own sins, in our hearts and by faith, the pierced body and shed blood of Christ: for we hide us beneath His cross from the penalty of our sins. And, while we do so, the blood of Christ saves us from the anger of God: for (Rom 3:25) in His own blood Christ becomes through our faith a propitiation for our sins. Thus, in the Lord’s Supper we do a spiritual act analogous to the sprinkling of the blood by the High Priest once a year in the Most Holy Place. But, since we do but present to God as a propitiation for our own sins the blood already once for all shed on Calvary, it is better to speak of the Sacrament as a sacrificial act rather than as a sacrifice.
We conclude then that Christ ordained the Supper in order to give great prominence, in the eyes of even the humblest believer, to the great truth that our life comes through His death; also as a means of testing, developing, and confessing to the world, our belief that salvation is an outworking of a power which cannot be explained by, and is altogether above, the laws of mind and morals; and as a means of giving to His people corporate and visible unity in face of the world. In order to secure, to the end of time, the observance of the rite by all His followers, and thus to secure the aims just mentioned, Christ made the Supper, by expressly commanding it, an indispensable condition of salvation. And, since in the kingdom of God there are no useless conditions. He determined to make it a channel through which, by His own presence and activity, He would pour the spiritual benefits therein set forth. We infer that, as in the preached so in the symbolic word, the designed benefits are received only by those who believe. And, since unbelief in those who partake the Supper implies resistance to the truths therein conspicuously and forcefully portrayed, and great dishonor to Him who died even for those who reject Him, we infer that in a very terrible sense the sacred rite is, to those who misuse it for their own base ends, an thus betray their ignorance of its true significance, an odor (2Co 2:16) from death tending to death.
About the Lord’s Supper the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches, (Council of Trent, Session xiii. canon 1,) together with much important gospel truth, that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist is contained, truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and accordingly the entire Christ; that (Session vii. canon 7) Grace is conferred by sacraments of this kind always and to all, so far as God is concerned, if they receive them with correct ritual; and that (Session xiii. ch. 4) By consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ and of the entire substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is conveniently and appropriately called Transubstantiation. The Roman Church guards (Session xxi. ch. 3) this doctrine by teaching that the entire Christ is present both in the consecrated bread and in the wine.
The LUTHERAN CHURCH is fairly represented in the following extract from the Lutherische Dogmatik of Kahnis, 21. 6. Luther’s teaching is this. When Christ said, Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you, He said, in the form of syndoke, That which I give you to eat is my body which is given for you, i.e. is here imparted to you, for the forgiveness of sins, i.e. as sign, warrant, and medium, of the forgiveness of sins for believing receivers. According to the conception of a sacrament, which is a visible word, the chief matter in the Lord’s Supper is the word of the forgiveness of sins. Thereby the promise of the Lord’s supper is suspended on the condition of faith. But independent of faith is the reception of the body of Christ, which in, with, and under, the bread and wine is distributed. Also the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg declares: We defend the opinion received in the entire church that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly offered with those things that appear, viz. with the bread and wine. Luther rejected Transubstantiation. But he and the Lutheran Church assert strongly that Christ is locally present in the bread and wine; and is thus received, as Saviour or as Judge, by all who receive the sacred symbols.
But no hint is given, in the words either of Christ or of Paul, of any change in the substance of the consecrated elements. Indeed, even after the blessing we read in 1Co 11:26 eat this bread. The words This cup is the New Covenant warn us not to infer such change from the words This is my body: and we have seen that Paul’s argument is complete without it.
As proof that in the Lord’s Supper Christ is actually received (to their condemnation) even by unbelievers, Lutherans appeal to the arguments of 1Co 10:16 ff, and 1Co 11:27 ff. But it is always perilous to assume an important doctrine not expressly taught in Scripture because it seems to be implied in a Scripture argument. That Paul’s argument does not imply this doctrine, and that 1Co 10:21 directly contradicts it, I have in my notes endeavored to show. And we notice that in the New Testament Christ is never said to be spiritually present except to bless. We have also seen that, although the words of Christ imply a real and special presence of Christ in the sacred ordinances, they do not imply His local presence in the bread and wine and in the stomachs of those who receive them. Thus, in my view, the Lutheran doctrine falls to the ground. For, its advocates appeal in support of it only to Scripture: and Scripture does not teach it. But Roman Catholics appeal not only to Scripture but to the authoritative teaching of the Church; and thus introduce into the question before us an important and far-reaching element which cannot be discussed here. All that can be required from me as a commentator is, to show that the doctrines in question are not taught in the Bible.
In absolute opposition to both the Roman and the Lutheran churches, ZWINGLI taught (Confession to Charles V. Art. 7) I believe, indeed I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even distribute it; and that the Lord’s Supper was nothing but a mode of recalling the death of Christ and of confessing faith in Him. How far this teaching falls below the great and solemn significance of the rite, my exposition has already shown. Yet we need not wonder that to this extreme and rationalistic view Zwingli was driven by the assumptions of the papacy.
CALVIN asserted (Institutes bk. iv. 17. 10, etc.) in opposition to Zwingli the supernatural and life-giving presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, making the ordinance to be a special channel of spiritual blessing; and, in opposition to Luther, denied His local presence in the bread and wine, and asserted that only those who receive the elements with faith thereby receive Christ. His teaching has been accepted, to speak generally, by the Reformed Churches of the Continent, and in the articles of the Anglican Church. And it agrees in the main with the above exposition of the words of Christ and of Paul. I notice, however, that Calvin and many Anglican writers cling to the teaching that in some sense believers actually though spiritually receive in the Supper the body and blood of Christ. But to these words I can give no meaning except that believers receive the spiritual benefits which result from His incarnation and crucifixion: and, to express this by the words receive the body of Christ seems to be very inappropriate.
The teaching of the Lutheran, and of the Reformed, Churches is ably set forth in the Lutherische Dogmatik of Kahnis and the Christliche Dogmatik of Ebrard, each of which writers has given special attention to this matter. The Roman Catholic doctrine is defended with great ability, candor, and devoutness, in the Symbolik of Moehler. This last work I strongly commend to Protestant theologians. Only by a study of the best writings of those who differ from us can we understand their opinions and correctly estimate our own.
After all, the differences between the Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed teaching, as discussed above, are not so great as at first sight they appear; and are indeed rather verbal than real. Each doctrine contains important elements of truth. Many godly Roman Catholics cling to transubstantiation as being the strongest protest they can make against prevalent materialism. And even Zwingli, in his strong rebound from papal assumptions, still upheld the divine institution and perpetual obligation of the sacred feast. Luther and the Roman Church assert that, though all who receive the Lord’s Supper therein receive Christ, it nevertheless depends upon themselves whether Christ comes into them to save or to condemn. And Calvin taught that, even to those who receive it unworthily, the Lord’s Supper has terrible reality, a reality of condemnation. So far then the differences are not serious.
But I am compelled sorrowfully to believe that around and in close connection with the Lord’s Supper are taught doctrines not only false but exceedingly hurtful. The Roman Church (Council of Trent, session xxii.) lays great, and not altogether improper stress, upon the sacrificial aspect of the Supper. Now sacrifice implies priesthood: and the universal priesthood of believers is plainly taught in 1Pe 2:5. But, for this priesthood, the Roman Church practically substitutes a priesthood in the Christian Church similar to that of Aaron in Israel. In other words, it claims for its ministers the sole right of distributing the symbols which Christ commands His people to receive. And it requires, before the distribution of the bread, which only it gives to the laity, confession to a priest, and such confession as shall satisfy the priest. So Council of Trent, session xii. ch. 7; session xiv. 3, 6. By this claim the Roman Church places itself practically between the sinner and Christ; and claims virtually, for the support of its authority, the very solemn words of Christ and of Paul about the sacred Supper. I am compelled to say, in spite of my sincere affection for our brethren of the Roman Church I hope to spend eternity in the One Universal Church above, and while acknowledging our deep obligation to that Church for preserving the light of Christianity, often obscured but still burning, during the long night of the dark ages-I am compelled to believe that the claim of the Roman hierarchy to be the sole ordinary depositary of the benefits conveyed by Christ to His people through the Supper, has produced, directly and indirectly, terrible and wide-spread injury.
So far as the New Testament teaches, this claim is met by the proof given above (p. 199) that neither Christ nor His apostles claimed for the officers of the church the exclusive distribution of the elements. They preferred the risk of the abuses mentioned in 1Co 11:21 f; and even when these abuses actually existed, refrained from limiting the distribution of the elements to the church officers, rather than permit sacerdotal assumptions to have the smallest foothold in Scripture. It is right to say that the priestly monopoly of the right to administer the Lord’s Supper is utterly rejected by both Luther and Calvin. This places an infinite distance between the otherwise similar teaching of Luther and of the Roman Church.
It must not be thought that I look upon the foregoing arguments as sufficient to overturn the Roman claims. For these claims rest ultimately upon the authority of the Church, an authority resolutely maintained with increasing clearness and boldness by a succession of the greatest fathers of the Church and by a general consensus of the Church during many centuries. I have merely endeavored to show that these claims have no basis whatever in Scripture. The question whether we are bound to concede to the Catholic Church the authority which Cyprian and Augustine and others claimed for it, and the immense issues involved in this question, lie beyond the scope of the present work.
The priestly monopoly of the administration of the Lord’s Supper, which Luther resisted, is claimed for the ministry of the Anglican Church by Anglo-Catholics. Their views are set forth with ability and fairness in Sadler’s Church-Doctrine. With almost all he says in the long chapter on Holy Communion, I heartily agree. Indeed this chapter is little more than an able defense of Calvin’s teaching. But in his chapter on the Christian Priesthood, an element is introduced which changes completely the aspect of the Lord’s Supper. He reminds us that the commission to celebrate the Lord’s Supper was not given to the whole church gathered together, but to the twelve alone. But from this we might infer as easily that the Supper was designed for the apostles only as that its administration was limited to them. Mr. Sadler then says that the apostles must have committed to others the power to administer the Supper; because, otherwise, apart from the apostles themselves the Supper could not have been held at all. But this takes for granted the chief point, viz. that the supper cannot be duly received except from the hands of a church-officer. And of this he gives no proof. Christ must have given, either verbally or through the guidance of His Spirit, directions about the details of the Supper fuller than His recorded words. What these directions were, we can learn only from the writings of the apostles and from the practice of the primitive church as portrayed in the New Testament. But here not one word is said limiting the administration of the Supper to church-officers. And we have found (1Co 11:21 f) church-members actually receiving the Lord’s Supper without official administration, and doing so without a word of reproof from Paul, even when reproving them for other irregularities in the same matter. Thus the claim to the sole right to administer the Lord’s supper in this country, a claim made by Anglo-Catholics for the ministers of the Anglican Church, and involving most serious consequences, finds in Scripture no support whatever and finds there a clearly implied contradiction.
See further, from myself and various others, in a volume containing a Symposium on the Lord’s Supper. (Hodder and Stoughton.)
11:17 {14} Now in this that I declare [unto you] I praise [you] not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
(14) He passes now to the next treatise concerning the right administration of the Lord’s supper. And the apostle uses this harsher preface, that the Corinthians might understand that whereas they generally observed the apostle’s commandments, yet they badly neglected them in a matter of greatest importance.
D. The Lord’s Supper 11:17-34
Most of the Corinthians had been following Paul’s instructions regarding women’s head-coverings so he commended them (1Co 11:2), but he could not approve their practice at the Lord’s Supper. They needed to make some major changes there. What they were doing cut at the heart of both the gospel and the church. This is the one certain situation in the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in chapters 7-16 that the Corinthians themselves had not asked him about. He wrote that he had heard about it (1Co 11:18).
By way of background, we need to remember that in antiquity meals typically accompanied public worship in the early church, in Judaism, and in the pagan world. The early Christians observed the Lord’s Supper as part of such a meal, often called the love feast. Paul’s concern was that the love feast had become an occasion, not of love for fellow believers, but of selfishness.
1. The abuses 11:17-26
The first abuse reflects a problem on the horizontal level, between believers in the church. The second more serious abuse was vertical, involving the church and its Lord.
Abuse of the poor 11:17-22
This aspect of the problem involved showing disregard for the poorer members of the church.
"Because there was no landed aristocracy in the new Corinth, there arose an aristocracy of wealth." [Note: Carson and Moo, p. 420.]
The Corinthians’ behavior at the Lord’s Supper was so bad that Paul could say they were worse off for observing it as they did rather than better off. Their failure was not that they failed to observe the Lord’s Supper. It was that when they gathered they did not behave as the church, in which there is no distinction between "Jews or Greeks," "slaves or free" (1Co 12:13). In the unsaved Gentile culture of Paul’s day it was typical for hosts to give preferential treatment to persons of status. [Note: Keener, p. 98.]
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)