Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 11

Verses 2-16

XXII

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

1 Corinthians 7:1-40; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 14:33-40.

It will be recalled that we have been treating 1 Corinthians topically, and hence when we take hold of a subject we take in everything bearing on that subject and pass over some things. Heretofore we have left untouched 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Corinthians 14:34-40. So that the scope of the present discussion is the three passages – all of 1 Corinthians 7; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and 1 Corinthians 14:33-40. The general topics embraced in these parts of the first letter are Marriage, Divorce, and the Position of Women in the Public Assemblies, all exceedingly delicate questions, and therefore my reserve in treating the matter. I don’t suppose there is much help in studying this letter in the commentaries. I myself had never reached a very satisfactory conclusion on some points involved until recently.

Before we take up the serious matter of marriage, divorce, and the whole question of sexual relation, there are certain antecedent matters to consider, and the first is, that whatever is here said by the apostle Paul is an answer to a letter that the Corinthian church wrote him. He commences 1 Corinthians 7 with a reference to that letter. He says, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote." So we see that he answers questions propounded to him. The next antecedent thing is that we must never forget the mixed, ethnic composition of this church. "Ethnic" means of many nationalities. The mixed, ethnic composition of this church and the particular distressed conditions existing at the time that he wrote, are matters of great importance. This church was composed of Greeks, Romans, and other Orientals, besides Jews.

Upon the subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, the Jews, Romans, and Greeks widely differed. Each nation had its own fixed custom or customs upon all of these points, and they were all converted in this big meeting, some from all these peoples. And they naturally wanted to know what was the bearing of the new religion upon this subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, slavery, and things of that kind.

Among the Jews divorce was granted for a very slight cause. Moses did permit divorce in this form, viz.: that no man could put away his wife without giving her a bill of divorcement; he could not put her away and leave her as goods and chattels that he was not responsible for. He must give her a bill showing that he claimed nothing from her in the future. Christ explained, that on account of the hardness of their hearts, divorce was allowed by Moses, who did ameliorate it, but didn’t give the highest law on divorce, because they were not in condition to hear it. Following that custom, Josephus tells us frankly that he put away his wife because she didn’t please him, and he assigned no other reason, and went before no court. It would be very hard to please some men, even some of the time, and very hard to please them all the time; and it wouldn’t be best to please them all the time, for much of the time they would be wrong. Among the Greeks and Romans divorce could be had for almost any reason. Moreover, the Orientals believed in the seclusion of women. They kept them in harems guarded by a eunuch; but the Romans had much broader views than the Greeks, and the Greeks were much in advance of the Orientals. A lady at Rome had great liberty without being subjected to invidious criticisms. This is the mixed ethnic condition of this church.

But another thing must be considered which is expressed in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul says, "I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us." There was a particular distress bearing upon the people at that time that modified the answers that he gave to some of their questions, and we can’t understand this 1 Corinthians 7 and the other paragraphs in 1 Corinthians 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 without keeping in mind that broad statement – "the distress that is upon us." That refers to the condition of the church at that time when all Christians were persecuted. No Christian knew one day what would be his financial status the next, for everything of his might be confiscated. He could not know one day whether he would be out of prison the next; he couldn’t know one day whether he would be banished the next. Day by day they were practically taking their lives in their own hands. If a man is living in a prosperous time ’it wouldn’t be proper to answer him on the question of marriage as if he were living in unsettled conditions. In other words, what would be expedient in prosperous times, would be inexpedient in unprosperous times.

The third important antecedent thought in the understanding of those passages is the people’s misconception of the results of regeneration. Paul had said to them, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new." They did not know how far to carry this thought. For instance, if a married man was not converted yesterday, but became a convert today, did his marriage pass away? I will show how that this is a very practical question before we get through with this discussion. A man was a slave yesterday and unconverted; he hears the gospel of freedom preached to him, that is, that if the Son makes him free he is free indeed. He hears that in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, therefore today he, being a new creature, what conclusion shall he draw from this new relation as to his slavery?

Again, the gospel was preached to them as individuals, without regard to age, sex or previous condition of servitude, and it was distinctly stated that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, Jew, nor Gentiles. If that be true, has not every Christian precisely the same privileges in the public assembly, whether man or woman? If there be neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, may not a woman preach as well as a man? If they stand on the same footing when they join the church, what effect does it have on the old commandment that a child should obey his parents, or that the wife is subject to her husband? It may seem that this is all a little overstrained, but the history of the world shows that these are intensely important questions.

Take the case of the "mad men of Munster," who argued from the fact that Jesus had come to establish a kingdom upon the earth, and that that kingdom was to overcome all other kingdoms of the earth. They said, "Therefore, if I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus, that absolves me from my allegiance to any kingdom of this earth." There were no subordinates in the land where they lived, as they were free from the law of the nation. They reasoned that if they had the liberty of a Christian, might they not take two or three wives? Hence the leader of the Munsterites did not stop until he got fourteen, but that was not quite so far as Brigham Young went. They went on, "Do we, being the children of Jesus Christ, have to pay tribute or taxes? If I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus Christ that absolves me from any kingdom of this earth, why not set up a purely religious kingdom?" One of these men was made king, and the whole power of the German Empire had to be invoked to put down this movement. Yet a great many people were converted people – enthusiasts misconstruing the teaching of God upon the results that would follow our becoming new creatures.

Yet again, this gospel taught that the citizenship of a Christian is up yonder, not down here, and that up yonder neither marrying nor giving in marriage takes place. Upon this they reasoned thus: "Does not that obligate me to lay down the work of this world? Why talk about farming, merchandising, and the dull, heavy round of earthly occupations?" Just so the Thessalonians went wild, because they expected Christ to come "day-after-tomorrow," and therefore there could be nothing for them to do except prepare their ascension robes. In other words, "Up there they don’t marry, and what effect does that have on me, since I am married? I have become a citizen of heaven, where they do not marry. Ought I not to abjure this marriage? Ought I not to go and live in a monastery and leave my wife and children on the care of the world? If I have never married, should I not become a sister, and enter into the nunnery?" Such were their reasonings.

The last great things that we are to consider in chapter 7 is the point that we have just presented: "If I contracted marriage before I was converted, was it dissolved when I became a new creature, and old things passed away? If I have not contracted a marriage, shall I avoid it?" The apostle answers it, first, from the viewpoint of the present distress that he refers to, i.e., in view of the present condition, when their property might be swept away in a day, when they must be silent or be in banishment. He takes the position that in this particular stress and under these conditions it was well not to marry. But we must not forget the old-time law that God instituted marriage as the only way to carry out the commandment of God to multiply and replenish the earth. Therefore, Paul says, "My advice to you is to let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband." It was impossible for him to take a position against the necessity of marriage, but he said that in view of that distress it might be best not to marry, but if they did marry notwithstanding the distress, they committed no sin, and if governed by the distress not to marry this was no sin, but as long as we are in this world and the sexual distinction exists, we cannot get away from that primeval law of God that marriage is honorable in all.

We know that another question was presented because of the answer given. Suppose one is already married when converted? In the middle ages this question became one of the biggest that ever occupied man’s mind. It was a common thing for a man at his conversion to say, "In view of the fact that I am now under a higher law of God, I will give up my wife and children, go from home and shut myself up in a monastery." Hundreds and thousands of men and women took the vow never to marry. There are many cases where the men took the vows of celibacy, trying to live a life like the angels. That is the most seductive form of temptation that ever came to men, and it led to the building of monasteries and nunneries all over Europe and a greater part of Asia and North Africa, where women would seclude themselves and vow not to marry, and even married men would abandon wives and children and shut themselves up in monasteries. Paul says, "If a man is married let him not put away his wife, and let not the woman put away her husband. Your being converted does not change the law of God in regard to marriage." So the question comes in another and different form. Under the old law of the Jews, a Jew could not marry a heathen, unless a proselyte, without the penalty of excommunication, and the ground was, that to marry a heathen puts him in danger of becoming an idolater. In Nehemiah we learn that when some of the Jews had violated that law, he put before them the alternative of either keeping the Jewish law or being excluded from the Jewish communion. Knowing what the law was on that subject, they put the question, "Here is a man who is converted and his wife is a heathen; shall the Christian put away his heathen wife?" That is very different from the original question, "Ought a Christian to marry a heathen?" which law holds now that it is best for believers to marry believers, but Paul answers that question emphatically, "No; the marriage relation is a divine institution and there is nothing in such a case to justify that man to put away his wife."

Then the question comes in another form: "Suppose when a woman joins the church that the heathen husband makes it a ground of disfellowship and refuses to live with her, what then?" Paul said, "In such a case, if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. You have done nothing wrong and are willing to stand by your marriage contract." But what does he mean by saying, "The husband or wife is not in bondage in such a case?" Does it mean that a voluntary separation totally abrogates the marriage tie so that the one left is at liberty to marry somebody else? That question comes up in our own civil law. Blackstone comments on it, saying, "You may grant divorce ’Amensa et toro,’ " which means, "Divorce from bed and board." In other words, people can separate; the man doesn’t have to live with that woman, and the woman doesn’t have to live with that man. But the law is emphatic that such separation is not breaking the marriage bond. It permits a possible separation. That is intensely practicable.

When I was a young preacher I was called into a council. A preacher’s wife had left him. She refused to live with him, left him, and went back to her father, and he afterwards married again, and his plea was that abandonment justified remarriage. He quoted that passage, "A husband and wife are not in bondage in such cases." The question for that council to decide was, "Would it be a wise thing to put a man into the ministry who lived under a cloud of that kind?" One of the oldest and most distinguished Baptists that ever lived took the position that such a one was free to marry again, but I, a young preacher, dissented from him, and do still. It does not break the marriage tie so as to permit one to marry again. I quoted the declaration of Paul where he says, "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives," and he certainly couldn’t contradict himself in the same chapter. Then he says, "If her husband be dead, she shall be permitted to marry again." That settles that question.

Paul does not discuss the only cause that does thoroughly break the marriage bond, if one is disposed to plead it, which is the case of infidelity to the marriage vow discussed by our Lord. Hence my contention is that what is here said does not discuss all of the law on the subject of marriage and divorce.

Let us take up the question, "Ought widowers and widows to remarry?" There he states that a widower under the law of Christ may marry again, though it is not mandatory. There was at one time the question raised of putting a special tax on bachelors. The Greeks and Romans had a law to that effect. It is nothing to smile at; it comes from the idea that the state is more important than the individual. They carried that law further, and forbade a bachelor to Inherit; if he remained unmarried he must turn over his property to the state.

When I was a little boy we had a kangaroo court, and a candidate for the legislature was telling what he would do if he were elected. He said, "I would change the pronoun ’them’ for the word ’um,’ so all the common people could say grammatically, ’I love um,’ and I would have a law passed that would draw a tooth from an old bachelor’s head for every year he remained unmarried."

But how does Paul answer that question? He says, "If you take this present distress into consideration, it is not favorable for contracting marriage. If you want to marry, do so, but you will have trouble in view of this distress." But he says that it is lawful for a widow to marry again, and in the case of young widows, as in the letter to Timothy, he makes it a very urgent recommendation.

Let us take the next question: Does regeneration change the natural subordination of woman to the man, and the sphere in which each moves? The gospel preached was that in Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female. So in chapter II he answers, "I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. . . . Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head; it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven [that was a sign of an infamous life]. . .. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." The angels of God were hovering round watching over the assemblies of God’s people, and it grieved them to see the law of God violated. Paul goes on; he ’is not only arguing from that old law, but he is arguing from nature: "Is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" I once knew a young fellow who was really pretty. He had great long curls that he spent a long time each day in combing and twisting and anointing with oil, and brushing. And I took the New Testament, marked this passage, and sent it to him. It made him very indignant.

Paul’s answer is that becoming a new creature, so that "old things are passed away and all things become new," does not mean that all old things, viz.: that God’s law of order has passed away. When we get to heaven we will live as the angels live, but while we live on earth the laws of order instituted in paradise must stand.

That question comes up in a little different form in 1 Corinthians 14:33: "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also sayeth the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." Now they are meeting that by saying that the word of God had come to women. And it is unquestionable that the spirit of prophecy did come to women. But Paul teaches that that spirit of prophecy was subject to the person that had it; that it was not given him to violate order; and that if the spirit of prophecy did come to them, let them remember that it came to other people also.

North of the Mason and Dixon’s line we occasionally come upon a church with a woman for a pastor – a Baptist church at that. I was both cheered and hissed for a statement I made when I preached in Chicago. I don’t know which was the louder, the cheering or the hissing. I started out expounding this passage of Scripture,. 1 Timothy 2:8: "I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Adam saw Eve and said, "Issha," woman; it means that woman is derived from man; that she got her soul and her body from Adam. She is as much a descendant of Adam as we are. I read the scripture, and took the position that there are two distinct spheres, the man’s sphere and the woman’s sphere; that the man’s is more public; that the woman shall live in her children. When a worldly woman came to visit Cornelia and paraded her fine jewels that blazed on her head and arms and her ankles before her, Cornelia, drawing forward her two sons, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus (the Gracchi), said, "These are my jewels, and I am going to live in these. My sphere is my home and my boys."

There is one other question – that of the slave. They said, "If I am a freedman of Christ, shall I be a slave to man?" But Paul answers that Christianity does not propose to unsettle the established order of things. Its object is to develop the inner life: "Let each one of you abide in the law you were in when God called you." In other words, if he was circumcised, let him not try to efface his circumcision. If he was a slave when God called him, let him be satisfied with being Christ’s freedman, and with knowing that his master if Christ’s servant, and let him in his position of slavery illustrate that the truth and the power of the Christian religion is in serving, not with eye service, but showing that Christianity can come to any form of life and glorify ’it. In yet other words, being converted and becoming a new creature, we should not disregard the established order of things which God has appointed for this world. When we get up into the other world we can adapt ourselves to conditions there.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the scope of this chapter, and what are the several topics?

2. What is the first important antecedent matter in 1 Corinthians 7?

3. What is the second antecedent matter, and of whom was the church at Corinth composed?

4. What is the position of Jews, Romans, and Greeks, respectively, on marriage and divorce, and the woman question in general?

5. What is the difference between the Orientals, on the one hand, and the Greeks and Romans, on the other hand, with respect to this question?

6. What condition at the time Paul wrote this letter greatly modified his answers to some of their questions?

7. What is the third antecedent thought essential to an understanding of these scriptures?

8. How did their application of this thought affect their earthly relations? Illustrate fully.

9. What was Paul’s answer to their inquiry as to whether one who was not married should marry, and what its bearing on the primal law of marriage?

10. What question arose about those who were converted after marriage, what Paul’s answer to it, and what the results of this misconception of the Corinthians as practiced in the Middle Ages?

11. Ought a Christian to marry an unbeliever?

12. What is the Christian wife or husband to do in case the unregenerated husband or wife makes it a ground of disfellowship, and refuses to live ill the marriage relation?

13. What does Paul mean by saying, "The husband or wife is not is bondage in such a case"?

14. What illustration of the author’s interpretation from his own experience?

15. What is the only cause which breaks the marriage bond, and where do we find the statement of it?

16. What is the law of marriage in the case of widowers and widows, and what legislation against bachelors?

17. What is the bearing of this subject on the relation between man and woman in the sphere in which each moves, what Paul’s teaching on this, and what his arguments for it?

18. What is the form of this question as treated in 1 Corinthians 14, how do some people meet Paul’s argument here, and what does Paul teach that settles the question beyond all dispute?

19. What is the author’s experience on this line in Chicago, and what is his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15? Illustrate.

20, How did this subject affect the relation, of the slave and his master, and what Paul’s answer to their reasoning on the subject?

Verses 17-34

XVIII

THE PERVERSION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

1 Corinthians 10:1-22; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

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 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; 1 Corinthians 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 is 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 2:1. The subject is resumed in 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 11:30?

Verses 23-26

XXIII

THE LORD’S SUPPER

Harmony, pages 178-179 and Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

The Passover furnishes the Old Testament analogue of this ordinance. As the Passover commemorated the temporal redemption of the Old Covenant, so this ordinance commemorates the spiritual redemption of the New Covenant. The proof is as follows:

Christ the antitype of the paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7).

Christ crucified at the Passover feast (Matthew 26:2; John 18:28).

This supper instituted at the Passover supper and of its materials.

The analogy discussed by Paul (1 Corinthians 5:6-13; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22;.

The preliminary study essential to a full understanding of this institution is the Old Testament teaching concerning the Passover. The principal classes of New Testament scripture to be studied are:

Those which tell of its institution.

Those which tell of its later observance.

Those which discuss its import, correct errors in its observance, and apply its moral and spiritual lessons.

The historians of its institution and observance are: (1) Paul, who derived his knowledge by direct revelation from the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23); (2) Luke, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Paul, and others who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2); (3) Mark, who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Peter, an eyewitness; (4) Matthew, an inspired eyewitness and participator (Matthew 26:20 f).

The record of its institution is found in (1) Matthew 26:26-29; (2) Mark 14:22-25; (3) Luke 22:19-20; (4) 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The three historic observances are recorded in Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; and the case at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. We find the discussions of its import and the application of its teachings in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8; 1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

Jesus instituted the ordinance on the night before his death, at the last Passover, in an upper room in Jerusalem. All the apostles, except Judas, were present and participating. Judas was not present because he was sent out by our Lord before its institution (see Matthew 26:25; John 13:23-26). The apostles receive it as representing the church. The elements used were unleavened bread and unfermented wine, or grape juice, (1) "bread" meaning one loaf not yet broken; (2) "cup" meaning one vessel of wine not yet poured out. The proof of this rendering is found in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, the exposition of which is as follows:

The one loaf of unleavened bread represents the one mortal but sinless body of Christ yet living, but appointed and prepared as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:4-9). It also represents the mystical (body of Christ, the church) (1 Corinthians 10:17).

So the one vessel of wine represents the body of Christ yet living, the blood of which is the life and yet in the body. The first scene of the drama displayed in this ordinance then, is what we behold first of all, in each of two succeeding symbols, the loaf and the cup, the appointed and accepted Lamb of sacrifice. Whether we look at the loaf or the cup, we see the same thing, as in the doubling of Pharaoh’s dream (Genesis 41:23; Genesis 41:32).

In the second scene we behold the appointed sacrifice "blessed," or eulogized, and thus consecrated by the benediction, or set apart for the sacrifice (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22), with thanksgiving (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), that an acceptable sacrifice has been found. This second scene is repeated in both "blessing" and "thanksgiving" in the case of the "cup" (Matthew 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 20:22; 1 Corinthians 11:25). The import is one, but the scene is double, to show that "God hath established it."

In the third scene: (1) The consecrated loaf is broken to show the vicarious death, i.e., for them, of the substitutionary Lamb (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24). (2) The wine is poured out from the cup into the distributing vessels (Luke 22:20) to show the vicarious death of the sacrificial Lamb by the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. The scene is one, but doubled.

In the fourth scene: (1) The distribution of the broken loaf to all the communicants present and their participation, each by eating a fragment, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the vicarious body given for them. (2) The distribution of the outpoured wine to all the communicants present and their participation, each by drinking a sip, signifying their appropriation by faith, of the expiating, sin-remitting blood. The scene is one, but doubled.

This ordinance is pictorial) showing forth by pictures, or scenes, earth’s greatest tragedy. To make the "showing forth" complete, four double scenes must be exhibited, or made visible to the eye: (1) The appointed spotless Lamb; (2) The consecration to sacrifice with thanksgiving; (3) The sacrifice itself of vicarious death – "broken" – "poured out"; (4) Participation of the beneficiaries, by faith, in the benefits of the sacrifice. The order of the scenes must be observed. The visible consecration and thanksgiving must follow a view of the appointed and suitable substitutionary victim; the visible sacrifice must follow the view of consecration with thanksgiving; the visible participation must follow a view of the sacrifice.

The modern provision of many tiny glasses for sanitary reasons does not violate scriptural order or symbolism: (1) Certainly not in the number of distributing cups. Those cups, like the plates, are for distribution. Whether one plate, two, or a dozen; whether one cup, two, or a hundred are used for distribution is immaterial, a matter of convenience, provided only that there has been one vessel of wine "blessed," or eulogized, before the outpouring into the distributing vessel or cups. (2) It is against the symbolism if the outpouring into the distributing vessels is private and not visible to the congregation, since the outpouring does not come in its order, the blessing and the thanksgiving coming after the outpouring and not before.

Perhaps this construction of the symbolism is too rigid, yet it is true that the order in the record of the institution best shows forth the successive scenes of the tragedy.

The name of the institution is "The Lord’s Supper"; proof is found in 1 Corinthians 11:20. This title is further shown by the expression, "The cup of the Lord . . . The table of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 10:21). It follows from this title that if it be The Lord’s Supper, the Table of the Lord, the Cup of the Lord, then he alone has the right to put the table where he will, to prescribe its elements, to impose the order of its observance, to define its import, and to prescribe who shall be invited to its participation, and indeed to fix authoritatively all its rules and conditions.

The import of the word "communion," in 1 Corinthians 10:16, is as follows: (1) It means participation rather than communion; (2) it is a partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and not communion of the partakers with each other. They do not partake of each other, but of Christ. The design is: (1) To show forth pictorially or to proclaim the Lord’s death for the remission of the sins of his people; (2) to show forth our participation by faith, in the benefits of that death; (3) to show that our spiritual nutrition is in him alone, since he is the meat and the drink of his people; (4) to show our hope of spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; (5) to show our faith in his return to take us to that heavenly home; (6) to show that the communicants constitute one mystical body of Christ.

The nature of the ordinance: (1) It represents a new covenant between Jehovah and a new spiritual Israel (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). (2) It is a memorial ordinance: "This do in remembrance of me. . . . This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:24-25). (3) It is an emblematic ordinance, representing both spiritual nutrition here, and a heavenly feast with Christ (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25). (4) It is a mystical ordinance showing that communicants, though many, constitute one body. (5) It is a church ordinance to be observed by a church assembled and not by an individual (1 Corinthians 10:17; 1 Corinthians 11:17-22; Acts 20:17). (6) It is an exclusive ordinance: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons."

The faculties employed in the observance of this ordinance are – memory, faith, hope. We remember (1) Jesus only; (2) Jesus dying on the cross; (3) Jesus dying on the cross for the remission of our sins; (4) Samuel Rogers, an English poet, wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Memory." Faith apprehends and appropriates Christ in the purposes of his expiatory and vicarious death, and finds in his sacrifice the meat and drink which constitute the nutrition of our spiritual life. Hope anticipates his return for his people, and the spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; the poet, Thomas Campbell, an Englishman, wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Hope."

The appointed duration of the ordinance is "Till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). But will we not eat the bread and drink the wine anew in the kingdom of heaven? If not, what is the meaning of Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25? Is it not, "I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom," but "when I drink it new." Here we drink the material wine; there it will be a new thing – spiritual wine. The feasting on earth, in its meat and drink, represents the everlasting joy, love, and peace of our heavenly participation of our Lord, as he himself foretold: "Many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." See the account of angels carrying the earth-starved Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16) and the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9).

How often must we observe this ordinance the record does not say. Its analogue, the Passover was once every year, but that was strictly prescribed in the law. There is no such prescription in the New Testament law of this ordinance. "But," says one, "does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?" There is no such requirement. At Troas, indeed, the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7), but even in that case the ordinance was not observed until the next day (Acts 20:7-11). The other record of observance (Acts 2:42) seems to imply that in this great Pentecostal meeting it was observed every day. Some things are not prescribed, but left to sound judgment and common sense. In a great meeting like that following Pentecost, when thousands of new converts were added every day, and all of every day was devoted to religious service, there was a propriety in and sufficient time for a daily observance of this ordinance. Under ordinary conditions the observance every Sunday, if administered with due solemnity, would shut off much needed instruction on other important matters, at the only hour at which older Christians can attend public worship, and the only hour at which many others do attend.

The main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance are: (1) They call it the sacrifice of the mass. (2) That when the priest pronounces the words, "This is my body . . . this cup is the New Testament in my blood," the bread and the wine (though not to sight, taste, or touch) do really become the actual body and blood of Jesus, yea, Jesus in body, soul, and deity; this miraculous and creative change, not only of one material substance into another; not only of inert into living matter, but of matter into both spirit and deity, they call transubstantiation. (3) Being now God, the priest kneels to it in adoration. (4) It is then lifted up that the congregation may adore it as God; this is called "The Elevation of the Host." (5) That so changed to God it may be carried in procession, and so carried, the people must prostrate themselves before it as God; this is called the "Procession of the Host." (6) That the communicant does literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. (7) That the efficacy of the sacrifice is complete in each kind, and so in the exercise of its heaven-granted authority the church may and does withhold the cup from the laity. (8) That eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus is essential to eternal life. (9) That the words "eat ye" and "drink ye" are a divine appointment of the priesthood, widely distinguishing them from the laity, and making their ministration of the ordinance exclusive and essential to the ordinance itself. (10) That this is, whensoever, wheresoever, and how oftensoever performed, a real sacrifice of our Lord, who as a High Priest forever must offer continual sacrifice. (11) That it is a sacrifice for both the living and the dead, available at least for the dead who are in purgatory, hence in application, their "masses for the dead." (12) That in another sacrament called "Extreme Unction," this consecrated "wafer" is put on the tongue of the dying as a means to remission of sin. (13) That the church has authority to prescribe all the accompaniments of order, dress, language, or other circumstances prescribed in their ritual of observance. (14) That the belief of this teaching in whole and in every part is essential to salvation, and whoever does not so believe let him be accursed.

This Romanist teaching is the most sweeping, blasphemous, heretical perversion of New Testament teaching known to history. As a whole, and in all its parts, it subverts the faith of the New Testament and substitutes therefore the traditions of men.

1. The Lord’s Supper is not a real, but a pictorial sacrifice: (a) The sacrifice of our Lord was once for all, because real, and not often repeated, as the typical sacrifices were. (b) This error gives the officiating priest creative power to transubstantiate inert matter into living matter, both soul and deity, though not even God in creation formed man’s soul from matter, (c) The alleged transubstantiation is contrary to the senses, for the bread and wine are still bread and wine to sight, touch, and taste, unlike when Christ transmitted water into wine, for it then looked like wine, tasted like wine, and had the effect of wine. (d) Christ said, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in yourself," and is careful thus to explain, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not," and thus he shows that to believe on him is what is meant by the figurative language "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood." (e) This error controverts philosophy, in that the body of Jesus cannot be in more places than one at the same time. (f) It controverts many scriptures that explicitly teach that the body of Jesus ascended to heaven, and must there remain until the final advent and the times of the restoration of all things. (g) It is idolatry, in that mere matter is worshiped and adored as God.

2. It violates the New Testament teaching of the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ, who does not continually repeat his sacrifice, but continually pleads the efficacy of the sacrifice offered once for all, and continually intercedes on the ground of the one offering. As a high priest he does indeed continue to present the spiritual sacrifices of his people, such as prayer, praise, and contribution.

3. It subverts the New Testament teaching of the mission and office of the Holy Spirit, who was sent as Christ’s vicar because he was absent, and whose office continues until Christ returns.

4. It re-establishes the Old Testament typical order of priests, abrogated by the cross, and separates by a greater distance than in the Old Covenant the priest from the laity, and thereby nullifies the New Testament teaching that all believers are priests unto God. It thus sews together again the veil of the old Temple which at Christ’s death God rent in twain from top to bottom.

5. It makes the Pope at Rome Christ’s vicar instead of the Holy Spirit.

6. It makes the church a savior instead of the Lord himself, and confers on it legislative powers instead of limiting it to judicial and executive powers. Yea, it may change or set aside Christ’s own legislation.

7. It substitutes a sacerdotal salvation, and a salvation by ordinances for the New Testament salvation.

8. It destroys the church character of the ordinance by the administration of it to individuals.

9. It withholds the cup from the people, though Christ said, "All ye drink of it."

10. It destroys the unity of the ordinance by affirming that the bread alone is sufficient, though Christ used both symbols to express his meaning.

11. It makes the ordinance for the dead as well as the giving, thus not only extending probation after death, but giving its supposed benefits to those who did neither eat nor drink, thus contradicting their own previous teaching, as well as the words of our Lord which they misapply and pervert.

12. It bases its defense more on ecclesiastical history and tradition, than on the Word of God, and limits that Word to a Latin translation, and to the church interpretation of that translation, rather than its text.

13. It makes belief in the whole and in all parts of this complex, self-contradictory, crude mass of human teaching essential to salvation instead of simple faith in Christ.

While Luther rejected the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation, he advocated a doctrine which he called consubstantiation, by which he meant that while the bread and wine were not the real body and blood of Christ, yet there was a real presence of Christ in these elements. His illustration was this: Put a bar Of iron into the fire until it is red hot, then there is heat with that iron, though the iron itself is not heat. The trouble about Luther’s consubstantiation is, that according to his illustration, there must be some change of the elements that could be discerned by the senses. A man can see with his eye the difference between a cold iron and a red hot iron. And he can tell the difference by touching it, none of which phenomena appeared in the elements of the bread and wine.

The Genevan doctrine was that the Lord’s Supper was a memorial ordinance, this being the principal idea in it; that it exhibited or showed pictorally, not really, certain great doctrines; that the bread and wine remained bread and wine, so that they neither were the real body and blood of Jesus, nor held the presence of Jesus, as iron put into the fire contained heat.

There is a thrilling story of the vain effort by Philip of Hesse to bring Luther and the advocates of the Genevan doctrine into harmony on the Lord’s Supper. When the question came up in the Reformation as to whether Christ’s presence was really in the bread and wine, Philip of Hesse, who loved Luther, and who also loved the Genevan reformers, invited two of the strongest of each to meet at his castle and have a friendly debate. Luther contended for consubstantiation, or the presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and the Genevan reformers insisted that it was simply a memorial ordinance. So for the debate were chosen Luther and Melanchthon on one side and Zwingli and Cecolampadius, on the other side. Luther was the fire on the one side and Zwingli was the fire on the other side. Philip placed Luther against Cecolampadius, and Zwingli against Melanchthon. But after they had debated a while, Cecolampadius and Melanchthon dropped out, and the two fiery men came face to face. In the course of the discussion Luther wrote on the wall a verse from his Latin Bible: "Hoc meum est corpus," "This is my body," and Zwingli said, "I oppose it by this statement," and he wrote under it, "Ascendit in coelum," "He ascended into heaven." "The heavens must retain him; therefore," said he, "Christ cannot be in his body in heaven and on earth at the same time."

A theological seminary, a district association, a state, national, or international convention, cannot set out the Lord’s Table and observe this ordinance, because it is strictly a church ordinance. The spiritual qualifications of the participants are: (1) On the divine side, regeneration. (2) On the human side, repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The legal qualifications are justification, redemption and adoption, while the ceremonial qualifications are: A public, formal profession of faith in Christ, or, in other words, the relating of one’s Christian experience before a competent official authority; baptism by that authority in the name of the Trinity; formal reception into a particular church, which is the authority to pass upon the credibility of the profession of faith, to administer the baptism, to judge of the Christian life, and the only body that may lawfully set the Lord’s Table. Certain passages show that though one has all the qualifications enumerated above, whether spiritual, legal, or ceremonial, and yet is living an unworthy Christian life, the church of which he is a member may judge him and bar him from participation in this Supper, viz.: 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 1 Corinthians 10:21. These qualifications may all be condensed into one brief statement, thus: A baptized child of God, holding membership in a particular church and walking orderly in Christian life.

The officers of the church cannot carry the elements of this Supper to a member who, for any cause, was absent at the assembly observance, and administer them to him privately. Here are two well-known historic cases:

First case. – A member of a church, who had been living far from God, attending church seldom and never remaining when the Supper was observed, was now penitent, and in his last illness, knowing death to be at hand, dictates a penitential letter to the church, avowing the faith originally professed, but confessing all the irregularities of his life, claiming to have received the divine forgiveness, and asks forgiveness of the church. The letter expressed deep regret that the writer had never once obeyed his Lord in observing this ordinance and an intense desire to obey him one time in this matter before death, carefully assuring the church that he attributed no magical value to the ordinance, being himself already at peace with God, but longing to have God’s people with him one more time, to hear them sing and pray and to partake of this Supper, so that when he passed to the heavenly feast, he could say, "Lord, though unworthy, I did obey your solemn commandment one time on earth." Whereupon the church voted forgiveness to the penitent brother, adjourned the conference to meet in the sick man’s house that night, and there convened pursuant to adjournment, and did there observe the Lord’s Supper as the assembled church, and allowed -the sick man to participate. The members had come for miles in buggies, wagons, and on horse-back. The conference was unusually large. The house seemed to be filled with the glory of God. Others confessed their sins; alienated members were reconciled. A marvelous revival prevailed, and the dying brother passed from the earthly feast to drink the wine at the heavenly feast. I was present and officiated as pastor.

Second case. – A wife, professing to be a Christian, though not a church member, appealed to a Baptist preacher to come and administer the Lord’s Supper to her dying husband, himself not a member of any church, but who desired to partake of the Lord’s Supper before death. This preacher, of his own motion and alone, carried bread and wine to the house and there administered to the dying man the elements of the Lord’s Supper. I knew this pastor and wag instrumental in his confession and recantation of his error.

If the church, according to Christ’s law, must judge as to a participant’s qualification, what then the apostle’s meaning of "Let a man examine himself and so let him eat?" The man who is commanded to examine himself is not an outsider, but a member of the church, already qualified according to church judgment, yet on whom rests the personal responsibility to determine whether by faith he now discerns the Lord’s body.

What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27? This passage does not say, "Whosoever is unworthy," but who partakes "unworthily," i.e., whose manner of partaking, like these Corinthians, was disorderly. They ate and drank to satisfy physical hunger and thirst. They feasted separately without waiting for the assembly.

What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:30: "For this cause many are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep"? This has no reference to physical weakness, sickness and sleep, as if a judgment in this form had come on them for a disorderly manner in partaking of the Supper. The meaning must be sought in the purpose of the ordinance. We have houses in which to eat ordinary’ food when we seek physical nutrition and from that, bodily strength and health. The taste of bread and the sip of wine in this ordinance cannot serve such a purpose. These represent a different kind of nutriment for the saved soul, which we appropriate and assimilate by faith. If we do not by faith discern the Lord’s body, then missing the spiritual nutrition, the soul becomes weak, or sick, or sleepy: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee."

I here expound the Old Testament analogue in Exodus 24:9-11. This is the passage: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: and they beheld God and did eat and drink." This is the ratifying feast of the Old Covenant, as the Lord’s Supper is the feast of the New Covenant. In Exodus 19 God proposes a covenant which they agree to accept and prepare themselves for it. God himself then states the three great stipulations of the covenant binding upon Israel: (1) The Decalogue, or God and the normal man (Exodus 20:1-17); (2) the law of the Altar, or the way of a sinner’s approach to God; in other words, God and the sinner (Exodus 20:24-26), with all its developments in Exodus 25-31; 35-40, and almost the whole of Leviticus; (3) the judgments, or God, the state and the citizen (Exodus. 21-23), with all developments therefrom in the Pentateuch.

These three make the covenant with national Israel. Then in Exodus 24:3-8, this covenant, so far only uttered, is reduced to writing, read to the people and solemnly ratified. Following the ratification, comes this passage, which is the Feast of the Covenant (Exodus 24:9-11). Here Moses records the institution of this feast of the ratified Old Covenant as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul record the institution of the feast of the New Covenant, in which Jesus says, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood." It is noteworthy that in the institution of both feasts (not in subsequent observances) the partakers are few, acting in a representative capacity. Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Aaron’s two sons, seventy elders, seventy-five in all, in the first case; Jesus and the eleven apostles in the other case. In both cases the communion, or participation, is with God, who is present: "They saw God and did eat and drink." But they saw no similitude. They saw symbols. They saw him by faith. They saw the symbols of God’s presence with a natural eye, and tasted of the symbol, i.e., the Lamb of sacrifice, with the natural tongue. The symbol was not God; it represented him; nor was it changed into God. God was neither the symbol, nor in the symbol, nor with, by or under the symbol. He was there himself and with his covenant people. They saw him as propitiated through the sacrifice. Hence they saw him in the holy of holies, the paved work like sapphire stones under his feet (Exodus 24:10), which is the sign that they saw him on his throne of grace and mercy, as appears from a comparison of kindred passages (see Ezekiel 1:26; Rev. 4). Hence it is said (Exodus 24:11), "And on the elders of the children of Israel he laid not his hands," i.e., to smite them. Seeing God out of the covenant the men would have died. But in the covenant they were safe, because he was propitiated.

The Lord’s Supper is not the holy of holies, but in faithful observance of the Covenant feast, we by faith approach and commune with him in the holy of holies. That is, the blood of the everlasting Covenant propitiates God, so that we may approach him and commune with him, and by faith see him and yet not die, for the blood turns away his wrath.

To further illustrate this thought, the tabernacle was God’s house, or dwelling place, whose innermost chamber was the holy of holies. There, over the mercy seat between the Cherubim, the symbol of the Divine presence appeared as a Shechinah, the sword flame (Genesis 3:24), or pillar of cloud, or fire, and was the oracle to reveal and to answer questions; hence the most holy place is many times called the oracle, i.e., the house of the oracle. So in the Temple. But the tabernacle and the Temple fulfilled their temporary mission, and the veil was rent when Christ died. So a new house or Temple succeeded, namely, the church, a spiritual building (1 Corinthians 3:9; 1 Corinthians 3:17; Ephesians 2:21, American Standard Version, 1 Peter 2:5), and this new temple was anointed with the Holy Spirit (Daniel 9:24; Acts 2:1-4), as the first was (Exodus 30:25-26), with the holy oil which symbolized the Spirit. Now, in this new temple, the church, is a most holy place, the place of the real Divine presence, in the person of the Holy Spirit, and in the Supper as a covenant feast, when faith is exercised, we approach and commune with a propitiated God. We see him and eat and drink in his presence. The hiding veil in this case was Christ’s flesh. When he died, whose death is commemorated in the Supper, the veil was removed, and the way into the most holy place is wide open to the believing communicant. But in the church in glory, which is an eternal temple, hieron, there is no naos or symbolic shrine, most holy place, or isolated, inner chamber (Revelation 21:22), for God and the Lamb constitute the naos, and the tabernacle (Revelation 21:3) with all the inhabitants of the Holy City, who see God directly, face to face – not by faith. The days of propitiation are ended then, and the glorified ones need no intercession of the High Priest. Their salvation in body, soul, and spirit is consummated forever. But they feast with God forever. They sing indeed, but they do not "sing a hymn and go out."

QUESTIONS
1. What is the Old Testament analogue of the Lord’s Supper?

2. What is the proof?

3. What preliminary study essential to an understanding of its institution?

4. What are the principal classes of New Testament scriptures to be studied?

5. Who were the historians of its institution and observance?

6. Where and what record of its institution?

7. What are the three historic observances?

8. Where do we find the discussion of its import and the application of its teachings?

9. Who instituted the ordinance and when and where?

10. Who were present and participating?

11. Why was Judas not present?

12. In what capacity did the apostles receive it?

13. What elements used?

14. What is the meaning of "bread" and "cup"?

15. What is the proof of this rendering and what the exposition?

16. What then was the first scene of the drama of this ordinance?

17. What was the second scene?

18. What was the third scene?

19. What was the fourth scene?

20. What kind of an ordinance then is this, and what is necessary to convey its full meaning?

21. Is the order of the scenes important?

22. What of the modern provision of many tiny glasses?

23. What is the name of this ordinance and what the proof?

24. How is this title further shown?

25. What follows from this title?

26. What is the import of the word "communion" in 1 Corinthians 10:16?

27. What is the design of this ordinance?

28. What is the nature of the ordinance?

29. What faculties do we employ in the observance of this ordinance?

30. Whom do we remember, where and why, and who wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Memory"?

31. Faith does what?

32. Hope does what, and who wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Hope"?

33. What was the appointed duration of the ordinance?

34. What was the meaning of Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25?

35. How often must we observe this ordinance?

36. Does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord’s Day?

37, What were the main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance?

38. What was the reply to this Romanist teaching?

39. What is Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation?

40. What is the Genevan doctrine?

41. Recite the story of Philip of Hesse?

42. May any religious organization except a church celebrate the Supper?

43. What are the spiritual qualification of the participants?

44. What are the legal qualifications?

45. What are the ceremonial qualifications?

46. What scriptures show that a man with all these qualifications may be barred from the Supper by the church?

47. Condense these qualifications into one brief statement.

48. May the officers of the church administer this ordinance to an individual in private?

49. State the two cases cited and show which was right and why?

50. What is the meaning of "Let a man examine himself, etc."?

51. What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27?

52. What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:30?

53. Expound the Old Testament analogue in Exodus 24:9-11.

54. Is the Lord’s Supper the holy of holies?

55. How further illustrate the thought?