Bible Commentary (1871–1879 Edition) (continued)
We miiat Avoia fdolatry, 1 CORINTHIANS X. and not Pollute the XorcTs TuMe.
order. Supply "lYaj/;") " But (I say) that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils" (demons). St. Paul here introduces a new fact. It is true that, as I said, an idol has no reality in the sense that the heathen regard it, but it has a reality in another sense; heathendom being under Satan's dominion as "prince of this world," he and his demons are in fact the powers worshipped by the heathen, whether they are orare not conscious of it (Deuteronomy 32. 17; Leviticus 17. 7; 2 Chronicles U. 15 ; Psalm 106. 37 ; Revelation 9. 20). " Devil " is in the Greek restricted to Satan, "demons" is the term applied to his subordinate evil spirits. Fear, rather than love, is the motive of heathen worship (cf. the English word " panic," from Pan, whose human form with horns and cloven hoofs gave rise to the vulgar representations of Satan which prevail now) ; just as fear is the spirit of Satan and his demons (James 2. 19). I would not that ye . . . have fellowship with devils—by partaking of idol feasts (ch. 8.
Supper Itself, in the figment of tra".y>K<tantlatlon. 15. Appeal to theirown powers of judgment lo weigh the force of the argument that follows: viz., ;'-«tas the partaking of the Lortrs Supper involves a partaking of the Lord himself, and the partaking of the Jewish sacrificial meats involved a partaking of the altar of God, and, as the heathens sacrifice to devils, to partake of an idol feast is to have fellowship with devils. We cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility of "judging" for ourselves. The weakness of private judgment is not an argument against its use. but its abuse. We should the more take pains in searching the iniallible word, with every aid within our reach, and above all with humble prayer for the Spirit's teaching (Acts 17. 11). If St. Paul, an inspired apostle, not only permits, but urges, men to judge his sayings by Scripture, much more should the fallible ministers of the present visible Church do so. " To wise men," refers with a mixture of irony to the Corinthian boast of "wisdom" (ch. 4. 40; 2 Corinthians 11. 19). Here you have an opportunity of exercising your "wisdom" in judging "what I sa.v." 16. Tlie cup of blessing—Answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26. 27
10). 31. I'e cannot, &c.—really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (1 Kings 18. 21). cup of devils—in contrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol, the Lord's table—The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (cf. Malachi 1. 7, "altar . . table of the Lord "), and the heathen idol feasts to theii idolatrous .sacrifices (Isaiah 65. 11). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jew's sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one saci-ifice of Christ la the only substantial reality; therefore, whilst the par taker of tlie Jew's sacrificial feast partook rather " of the altar "(v. 18) than of God manifested fully, and theheathet idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion
Luke 22.17,20). we I>less—"we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister " blesses" (t. e., consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is thecorporate act of the whole Church. The act of ^oin blessing by him and them (not " the cup" itself, which, as also " tlie bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, i. e., the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Cf. v. 18, "They who eat . . . are partakers" (joint communicants), &c. "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (Ephesiaiis of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity. 2^. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy 1—by dividing our fellowship between Him and idols (Ezekiel 20. 39). Is it onr wish to provoke Him toassert His power ? Deuteronomy
5. 30, 32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross
(cf. V. 18). In contrast to tliis is to have "fellowship with dev lis" {v. 20). Ai.FORD explains, "The cup ... is the fjoint] participation (i. e., that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (John 6. 53-57). It is not said, "The cup ... is the blood," or "the bread ... is the body," but "is the communion (joint-participation) of the blood . . . body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where Is the sign of the .sacrament ? Romanists eat Christ " in remembrance of Himself." Todrink literal blood would nave been an abomination to Jews, wliich the first Christians were (Leviticus 17. 11, 12). Breaking the bread was Dart of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (1 CorinthUins 11. 24). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of conconiilancy, and exclusion of the laity from tlie cup. IT. one brenci — rather, " loa,f." One loaf alone .seems to liave been used in eacli celebra-
32. 21, is before the apostle's mind [Alford] (Exodus20. 5). are we stronger I—that we can risk a contest with Him. 23. All things are lawfiU for me, &c.—Recurring to the Corinthian plea (ch. 6. 1'2), he repeats his qualification of it. The oldest MSS. omit both times " for me." edify not —tend not to build up the spiritual temple, the Church, In faith and love. St. Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decision (Acts 15.), which seems to have been not so, much regarded outside of Palestine, but rather to the broad principle of true Christian fieedom, which does not allow us to be governed by external things, as though, because we can use them, we must use them (ch. 6. 12). Their use ot non-use is to be regulated by regard to edification. 24. (Ver 33; ch. 13. 5; Romans 15. 1,2.) 25. shambles—butchers stalls; the flesh-market, asking no question—whether tion, artci one bo«ly—Omit "and ;"" one loaf (that is), one body." " Wc, the many {viz., believers assembled ; so the Greek), are one bread (by our partaking of the same loaf, whlcli becomes assimilated to tlie substance of all our bodies; and so we become), one body" (with Christ, and so with one anotlicr). we . . . all— Greek, " tlie whole of us."
It has been offered to an Idol or not. for conscience' sake —If on asking you should hear it had been ofl'ered to idols, a scruple would arise in your con.sclence which was needless, and never would have arisen had you asked noquestions. 26. The ground on which such eating without questioning is justified is, tlie earth and all its contents ("the fulness thereof," Psalm 20.1; 50.12), including all meats, belong to the Lord, and are appointed for our use; and where conscience suggests no scruple, all are to ba eaten (Romans 14. 14, 20; 1 Timothy 4. 4, 5; cf. Acts 10. 15). 27. ye be disposed to go—tacitly implying, they would be as well not to go, but .vet not forbidding them to go
18. Israel after the flesh— the literal, as distinguished from the spiritual, Israel (Romans 2. 29; 4. 1 ; 9. 3; Oalatians
4. 29). partakers of the altar—and so of God, whose is the altar ; they have fellowship in God and Ills worship, of which the altar Is the symbol. 19,^0. What say I then 1 -The Inference tnight be drawn from the analogies of the Lord's Supper and Jewish sacrifices, that an idol is really what the heathen thought it to be, a god, and that in eating
9). [Gkotius.] The feast is not an Idol feast, but a general entertainment, at which, however, there might be meat that had been offered to an idol, for conscience' sake—See Note, v. 25. 28. if any man—a wealc Christian at table, wishing to warn his brother. ofl Tered In saerifloc-nnto Idols—The oldest MSS. omit "unto idols." At a heathen s taole the expression, od'euslve to him.
idol meats tlioy had fellowship with the god. This verse guards against such an inference: " Wliat would I say then ? that a tiling sacrificed to an idol is any real thing
(in the sense ihiit the heathen regard it), or that an idol i» any real thing 7" (The oldest HHfi. read the words in tins 28£
Censure of Disorders in the 1 COKINXniANS XI, Public Assemblies and Love-Feast!,.
ten word alone can be proved to be such. 3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without tiie customary headcovering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, whilst on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Galatians 8.
naturally be avoided, for consclonce' sake—not to cause a sluuibling-block to the conscience of thy weak brotlicr (ch. 8. 10-12). for the enrtli Is the Lord's, &c —Not in the oldest MSS. 39. Conscience ... of the other—tlie weak brother introduced in v. 28. for why Is my liberty judged of another man's conscience!—St. Paul passes to the first person, to teach his converts by putting himself as it were In their position. Tlie Greek terms for " the other " and " another " are distinct. " The
28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliother" is the one with whom St. Paul's and his Corinthian ness, is to be maintained. St. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in ch. 14. 34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation, the head—an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headconverts' concern is; "another" is any other with ivhom he and they have no concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat whilst I know it not, I have "liberty" to eat without being condemned by his "conscience." [Grotius.] Thus tlie " for," &c., is an argument for v. 27, " Eat, asking no questions." Or, " Why should I give occasion by the dress in public, of every man . . . Chrl.st—(Ephesians 5.
rash use of my liberty that another should condemn it
23.) of . . . woman . . . man—
[ESTius], or that my liberty should cause the destruction
V. 8 ; Genesis 3. IB ; 1 Timothy 2. 11, 12; 1 Peter 3. 1, 5, 6.) head of Christ Is God— of my weak brother?" [Menochius.] Or, the words are
(Ch. 3. 23 ; 15. 27, 28 ; Luke 3. 2*2, 38 ; John 14. 28 ; 20. 17 ; Ephesians 3. 9.) " Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God : for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body,and God those of the Corinthian objector (perhaps used in their letter, and so quoted by St. Paul), " Wliy is iny liberty judged by another's conscience?" why should not I be judged only by ray own, and have liberty to do whatever is the head of the Son, It follows the Son Is of the same essence as the Father." [S. Chrysostom.] "The woman it sanctions? St. Paul replies in v.il. Your doing so ought always to be limited by regard to what most tends " to the glory of God." [Vatablus, Conybeake and Howis of the essence of the man, and not made by the man so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father." [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171.] 4. praying—in public (v. 17). prophesying—preaching in tlie Spirit (ch. 12. 10). having—t. e., if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the Impropriety in thewoman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered ; whereas the Jews woi'e the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on him (Isaiah 6.2); however, Maimonides (Mishna) excepts cases where [as iu Greece] the custom of the place was different, dislionoureth his head—not as Alford, "Christ" (d. 3): but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. Ue dislionoureth his head (tlie principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears It In token of her subjection to man? " Because Christ is not seen : the man is seen ; so tlie covering of him who is under Christ is not seen ; of her who
60N.] The first explanation is simplest; the "for," &c., in
It refers to " not thine own " (t. e., " not my own," in St.
Paul's change to the first person) ; I am to abstain only in the case of liability to offend another's conscience ; in cases where my otvn has no scruple, I am not bound, in God's Judgment, by any other conscience than my own. 30. For
—The oldest MSS. omit "for." by grace—rather, thankfully." [Alford.] I ... be partaker-1 partake of the food set before me. evil spoken of—by him who does not use his liberty, but will eat nothing without scrupulosity and questioning whence the meat comes, give thanks which consecrates all the Christian's acts (Romans 14. 6;
1 Timothy 4. 3, 4). 31. Contrast Zeehariah 7. 6; the picture of worldly men. The godly may "eat and drink," and it shall be well with him (Jeremiah 22. 15, 16). to the glory of God—(Colossiaiis 3. 17 ; 1 Peter 4. 11)—which involves our having regard to the edification of our neighbour. 3iJ. Give none offence—in things indifferent (ch. 8. 13; Romans 14. 13 ; 2 Corinthians 6. 3) ; for in all essential things affecting Christian doctrine and practice, even in the smallest detail, we must not swerve from principle, whatever offence may be the result (ch. 1. 23). Giving offence is unnecessary, if our own spirit cause it ; necessary, is under the man, is seen." [Bengel.] (Cf. v.7 ) 5; woman . . . prayeth . . . prophesleth— This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Acts 2.
If It be caused by the truth. 33. I please—I try to please
(ch. 9. 19, 22; Romans 15. 2). not seeking mine own {v.
24). many—rather as Greek, "the many."
CHAPTER XI.
18). The ordinary rule to them is, silence in public (ch.
14. 34, 35; 1 Timothy 2.11,12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, a« most accordant with the destiny of woman. This pas sage does not necessarily sanction women spei Uiing in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till
Ver. 1-34. Censure on Disorders in their Assemblies : Their Women not beinq Veiled, and Abuses AT THE Love-Feasts, l. Rather belonging to the end of cb. 10, than to this chapter, followers—GreeA, " imitators." of Chrlstwho did not please Himself (Romans
15.3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His Divine glory, and dying as man, for us (Ephesians 5. 2; Phllipplans 2. 4, 5). We are to follow Christ first, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ, a. Here the chapter ought to begin, ye remember me In all things—In your general practice, though in the parcli. 14. 34, .3.5. Even those women endowed wltli prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation, difthouonreth. . . head—in that she acts against the Divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: In putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which Is her true "honour;" for through him it connects her with Christ, the head, of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Genesis 24. 65), and conjugal chastity (Genesis 20. 16); so, to vneover: the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, wlieuce a suspected wife had her headi uncovered by the priest (Numbers 5. 18). Alford tak<?s "her liead" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it Is literal In the former clause, It nuistb? so In 'th» latter one. hU 288 ficutor instances which follow ye fail, ordinancesOj-ee*, " traditions," <. e., apostolic directions given byword of month or in writing (u. 23; ch. 15. 3; 2 Thessalonlans 2. 15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies : for in v. 23, as to the Lord's Supper, which is not a mere ceremony, he Bays, not merely " I delivered unto you," but also, " I reoelved of the Lord:" here he says only "I delivered to yon." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition Intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be Buch ought to be observed ; any that cannot, ought to l)e rected (Revelation 22. 18) Those preserved In the wrlt65
for Divine Worship. 1 CORI>"TriIANS XI. Women's Veilinij in Ihe'Cont/reffation, oiic as if . . . shaven—As woman's hair Is given '^kt by naturo, as her covering {v. In), to cut it oil" !il;e a man, all admit, woukl be indecorous: therefore, to put a\va» the liead-covering, too, like a man, would be .similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair lor her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show, that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, the more careful not to of Tend them." 11. Yet neithej sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life. [Alford.] The oneneeds tlie other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Clirist (" in tlie Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed witli) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church. X-i. As the woman was tormed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by means of woman ; but all things (including both man aud v/oman) are from Gcxl as their source (Romans 11. 36; 2Corinthians 5. IS). They depend mutually each on the other, and both on him. 13. Appeal to tlieir own sense of decorum, a woman . . . unto G<mI—By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and nngeU in token of her subjection to man. 6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven :" but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, i. e., "shorn." a shame—an unbecoming thing (cf. u. l:i-15). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame.'' 7-9, Argument, also, from man s more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man. man . . . image . . . glory of God—being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subse-
14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazaquently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" (this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psalm rite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Numbers 6. 5). Cf. as to Absalom, 2 Samuel 14. '26, and Acts 18. 18. 15. her hair . . . for a covering—Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, lier long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. Tlie will ought to accord with nature. [Bengel.1 16. A summary close to the .irgument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches. If any . . seem—the Greek also means " tltinks" (tit) (cf. Matthew 3.
8.4,5; cf. 2 Corinthians 8. 23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the " image," and in the " likeness," of God (cf. James 3.9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Colossians 1. 15; cf. Hebrews 1. 3). "Express image," Greek, the impress. The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Ckeed.] woman . . . glory of . . . man—He does not sa.v, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of Gorf, as well as the man (Genesis 1.26, 27). But as the moon in relation to the Bun (Genesis 37.9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man,
9). If any man chooses {atMl after all mj' arguments) to bo contentions. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (c'n. 1. 20). we—apostles: or we of tlie Jewish nation, from whom ye have received tlie Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to TertuUian. [EsTius.] The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred toin the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow-apostles, by the expression, " we—us" (ch. 4. 9, 10; 5, 6). no such custom—as that of women praying uncovered. Not as ChuysOSTOM, <Sic., "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a icsage, rather than a mental ?tabit (John 18.39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Konie uses i. e., in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into riireci communion witli God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent. 8. is of . . . of—takes his being from ("out of") . . .from: referring to woman's original creation, "taken out of man"
(cf. Genesis 2. 23). The woman was made by God mediately through the man, who was, as it were, a veil or medium placed between her and God, and therefore, should wear the veil or head-covering in public worship, in acknowledgment of this subordination to man in the order it, 'the Church," as an abstract entity; but 'the chure/ien, as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, e.g.. Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but In questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [SCLATEUj (ch. 7. 17 ; 14. 33). neiilier—nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of Irnth, but a general test of creation. The man being made immediately by God as his glory, has no veil between himself and God. [FaBER Stapulensis in Bengel.] 9. Neither—rather "For vdso;" Another argament: The immediate object of woman' creation. "The man wa.s not created for the .sake of the woman ; but the woman for the sake of l\ie man" (Genesis 2. 18, 21, 22). Just as the Church, the bride, is made for Christ; and yet in both the natural and the spiritual creations, the bride, whilst made for the bridegroom, in fulci decency. 17. in this—which follows. I declare—rather, "I enjoin:" as the Greek Is always so used. The oldest MSS. read "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)". tltatr—inasmnch as: in that you, &c. Here lie qualities his praise (w. 2). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give Injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not, viz., as to the Lord's Supper (r. 23; ch. 14.
filling that end, attains her own true " glory," and brings "shame" and "dishonour" on herself by any departqre fioin it(v. 4, 6). 10. power on her head — the kerchief: Fl'ench " cou vre-chef," head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head:" the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. St. Paul liad before his mind the root-connection between the He-
37). not for the better-not so as to progress to what Is better, for the worse—so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming togetlier'' must be "condemnation" (t;.34). 18. first of all—In the first place. The "divisions" {Greek, schisms) meant, are not merely those of opinion (ch. 1. 10), but In outward acts at the lovehretv terms for "veil" (Hadid), and subjection (Radad). because of the angels—who are present at our Christian assemblies (cf. Psalm 138. 1, "gods," i. e., angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanour and dress of the latter being indicative of feasts (AgapiB) (v. 21). He does not follow up the expression, " In the first place," by " in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was In his mijid when he said, " In the first place," viz., the abuse of SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also Created disorder in their assemtliat inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (ch.4. 9; Kphesians 3. 10; Eccleslastes 5. 0). HAMMOND quotes Chrysostom, "Thou etandest with angels; thou singest with them; thou liymnest with them ; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" Benoei. explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, Ko the woman is In relation to man. God's face is uncovered ; angels in his presence are veiled (Isaiah 6.2). Man's lace is uncovered ; woman in his presence is to be veiled. For her not to be sq, would, oy its Indecorousness, oll'end the angels (Matt hew 18.10, 31). She. by her weakness, esblies [Al.FOHD] (ch. 12. 1, Ac. ; 14. 23, 2fi, Sit, 40). in the Church—not the place of worship; for Isidore of Peluslum denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times (Epistle 246.2\ But, " In the assembly" or "congregation:" in convocation for worship, wliere especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance Instituted for uniting together believers in one bodj', was made an lociiilly needs tholr luiaaliitry ; she ought, therefore, to be 284
1 CORINTHIANS XI.
Mode of Celebrating the Lord's Supper.
iiU Inslrueleth the Corinthians as to the
Ing before other his own supper." my body . . . broken for you—"Given" (Luke 2*2. 19) for you (Greek, in your beoccasion of "divisions" (schismx). par«ly — He hereby excepts the Innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I half), and "broken," so as to be distributed among jou The oldest MSS. omit " broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal " liody" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensiljly present among his disciples when he said, "Tliis is my body." Tiiey could only have understood Him symljol Ically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so my body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest MSS. 25. when he had supped Greek, " alhear, but some I cannot help believing" [Alpord]: whilst my love is unaffected by it. [Bknoei..] 19. heresles—Not merely " schisms" or "divisions" (v. IS), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [Augustine, Con. Crescoii. Don.
2. 7, quoted by French Sjnonyms, New Testiiment], but also " heresies," I. e., "schisms whicli have now become inveterate:" "Sects" [Campbell, vol. 2, p. 126, 127]: so Acts 5. 17; 15. 5, translate the same Greek. .\t present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but St. Paul, remembering .lesus' words (Mattliew 18. 7; 2). 10, 12; Luke ter the eating of supper," viz., the Passover supper whicli preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper. [Bengel.] the new testament—or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which my new covenant, or last win is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter. Jn my blood—rat i fled by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (Hebrews 9. 12).—as oft as— Greek, as many times soever : implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of. In remembrance of me—St. Luke expresses this, which is understood by St. Matthew and St. Mark. St. Paul twice records it as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sin-s continually to remembrance (Hebrews 10. 1,
17. 1). foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separalion.1, and establi-.^hed parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of l)olh tlie godly and the ung<>dly,and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had notyet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms.
St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in ail things, cliarity." that, . . approve*! maybe made manifest—through the (feapproved (reproliates) l)ecoming manifested (Luke 2. 35;
1 .John 2. 19). ao. When . . . therefore—Resuming the thread of discourse from t'. 18. this U not to — rather, "there is no such thing as eating the Lord's Supper;" it
3). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins. 3G. For—In proof that the Lord's Supper is " in remembrance" of Him. show — announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but " ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died for me." [Wahl.J This word, as " is" in Christ's institution {v. 24, i» tiot possil/le v!l\ete each is greedily intent only on devouring " HIS ows supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (v. 33 1, where some are "drunken," whilst others are " hungry" (v. 21). The lovefeast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before tlie Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after It, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the ques-
2.)), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, hy faith, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as a living persor not a mere abstract dogma, " bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesli" (Ephesians 5. 30; cf. Genesis 2. 23); and ourselves "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," " our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood." [Church of England Prayer Jiook.] "Show," or "announce," is an expression applicable to ncM) things; cf. "show" as to the Passover, Exodus 13. 8. So the Lord's death ought always to be fresh in our memory; cf. in heaven. Revelations. 6. That the Lord's Supper is in re?rteTO&rance of Him, implies that he is bodily absent, tiiough spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord's death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benetion. 21. one taketh before otiier—Tlie ricli "Ijefore" the poor, wlio had no supper of their own. Instead of " tarrying for one another" (v. 33); hence the precept (ch. 12. 21,
2a). M» own supper—" His own" belly is his God (Philippians 3. 19); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast never enters his thouglits. drunken—The one has more than isgood forhim, theotherless. [Bengel.] aa.AVhat! —Oi-eek, For. houses— (cf. v. 34)—" at home." That is the place to satiate tiie appetite, not the assembly of the brethren. [Alkord.] desptse ye the Church of God—Wte congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (James
2. 5); cf. "of God" here, marking tlie true I'.onour of the Church, shame them that have not viz., houses to eat and drink in, and who, tlierefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier bretliren. I praise you not—resuming the words (t). 17).
fils of that death, till he come—when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainty of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, "till He come" corporally; a contradiction in terms. The shewbread, lit., bread of the presence, was i n the sanctuary, lint not in the Holiest place (Hebrews 9. 1-8); so the Lord's Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest place, sliall be superseded by Christ's own bodily presence; then the winesliall be drunk "anew" in the Father's kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord's Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (Matthew 26. 29). Meantime, as the sliewbread was placed anetv, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Leviticus "21. 5-8); so the Lord's death was shoivn, or announced afresh at the Lord's table the first day of every week in tlie primitive Church. We are now "priests unto God" In the dispensation of Christ's spiritual presence, antitypical to the Holy Place: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ's coming. Is antitypical to the Holiest Place, wlilcjbi Christ our Higli Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (Hebrews 9. 6, 7); but which, at his coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Revelation 7.15; 2^.22). 285
)83. His object is to sliow tlie unworthiness of sucli con Aact from the dignity of tlie holy supper. I—Emphatic In me Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's Institution, received of the Lord—by immediate revelation (Galatians 1. 12; cf. Acts 22. 17, l.S; 2 Corinthians 12.
1-4). The renewal of the institution of tlie Lord's Supper by special revelation to St. Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between St. Luke's and St. Paul's account of the institution, favours the supposition tliat the former drew his Information from the apostle, whose companion in ti"avel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness. nl;i;ht—the time f1xe<i for llie Passover(Exodus 12.0): though the time for liie Lord's Supper
1m not fixed, betrayed—With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes. He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though kbout lo recelvt auch on injury from man, He gave this pledge of His r.maz'.ng love to man. !44. braketlie breakinf/of the bread Involves Its distriliution, and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one tak-