Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
1 Corinthians 11:25

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

The Lord’s Supper (11:17-34)

God’s purpose was that the Lord’s Supper should demonstrate and strengthen the unity of his people in one body (see 10:16-17), but the way the church in Corinth practised it, it produced the opposite effect. It caused Christians to break into opposing groups. The only advantage in this, Paul ironically points out, is that it enables a person to see how many good Christians there really are (17-19).
The practice in those days was that when Christians met for the Lord’s Supper, all who could afford to brought along food and drink to share with the poor in a common meal. At the end they ate the Lord’s Supper. The common meal was called a love feast, but at Corinth it showed little sign of love. The ceremonial meal was called the Lord’s Supper, but at Corinth it was very much their own supper. The rich greedily ate their own food without sharing it with others and without even waiting for everyone to arrive. So the poor went hungry, while the rich feasted and became drunk. Paul says that those who shame themselves and the church in this way would do better to eat at home (20-22).
Paul then gives them the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper, as the Lord had revealed it to him. The eating of bread and drinking of wine together is a communion with Christ, a spiritual sharing together in his body and blood (cf. 10:16). It is a fresh enjoyment of and proclamation of the benefits of his death. It is also a reminder that through his death the old era has passed and the full blessings of the new covenant have become the possession of all Christ’s people (23-26).
Nobody should join in this act of communion thoughtlessly. All should examine themselves to make sure their conduct and attitude are in keeping with the Supper’s meaning (27-28). If they join in it thoughtlessly, as if it were just an ordinary meal, they bring God’s judgment upon themselves. Indeed, some in the church have, because of their wrong behaviour, suffered such judgment in sickness and death (29-30). Christians should examine themselves honestly to see what they are really like. If not, God may send them difficulties to bring them back from the wrong way and save them from the judgment that awaits sinners (31-32).
Therefore, Paul concludes, the Corinthians should cease their shameful rush and greed at the Lord’s Supper and remember what it is for. It is not just a feast (33-34).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lords' death until he come.

After supper … This phrase is invaluable in that it shows why two cups were mentioned, one before the bread and the other afterward, in Luke 22:17-20. The first cup Luke mentioned was the fourth cup of the simulated Passover meal, which Paul here called "supper" with the strongest implications that it was in no sense the Passover itself (except by accommodation), the same being called the "cup of joy." Both the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper were given "after supper," and in that order, the bread first, the cup afterward. See my Commentary on Luke pp. 467,468.

This cup is the new covenant in my blood … This means the same thing as "This is my blood of the covenant" (Matthew 26:26); and in Paul's statement here, it is absolutely clear that the meaning in Matthew in no sense favors the crass literalism of such doctrines as transubstantiation or consubstantiation, no semblance of any such thing being suggested here. The student should consult the sacred text and the comments in the other three New Testament reports of this event: my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 429ff; my Commentary on Mark, pp. 306ff; and my Commentary on Luke, pp. 467ff.

Regarding the superstition that the emblems of the Lord's Supper are, in their consecration, literally changed to the body or flesh and blood of Christ, Hodge gave this pertinent comment:

It is only by denying all distinctions between, matter and spirit, and confounding all our ideas of substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is blood, or bread flesh. Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 225.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup … Regarding the proper time of observance for the Lord's Supper, the New Testament teaches that it was observed upon the first day of the week, the first day of EVERY week, and "not upon any other days of the week." This passage is therefore no permit to take it any time we please. See my Commentary on Acts, pp. 385,386, and 517.

Eat this bread and drink this cup … Apostolic practice makes it certain that communion under one kind, that is, taking EITHER the bread or the wine without the other, was never encouraged or allowed in the New Testament. Furthermore, Paul's use of "or drink this cup" in 1 Corinthians 11:27 is not a denial of this. As Farrar said, "What he meant there was that it was possible to partake in a wrong spirit either of the bread or of the cup." F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 365.

Ye proclaim the Lord's death until he come … As Dummelow said, the Lord's Supper is "a living sermon." J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 912. Thus the instructive nature of this solemn rite is stressed. See Nature of the Lord's Supper, below. The word for "proclaim" here is [@katangello]. Morris gave the meaning as "announce" or "proclaim," saying that "It means that the solemn observance of the service of Holy Communion is a vivid proclamation of the Lord's death." Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 162.

Till he come … The Lord's Supper faces in two directions, back to Calvary and forward to the Second Advent, being retrospective in regard to one and prospective with regard to the latter. The Second Advent is a major doctrine of Christianity; and it is fitting that it should be honored in this pivotal ordinance.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

After the same manner - In like manner; likewise. With the same circumstances, and ceremonies, and designs. The purpose was the same.

When he had supped - That is, all this occurred after the observance of the usual paschal supper. It could not, therefore, be a part of it, nor could it have been designed to be a festival or feast merely. The apostle introduces this evidently in order to show them that it could not be, as they seemed to have supposed, an occasion of feasting. It was after the supper, and was therefore to be observed in a distinct manner.

Saying, This cup ... - See the note at Matthew 26:27-28.

Is the New Testament - The new covenant which God is about to establish with people. The word “testament” with us properly denotes a “will” - an instrument by which a man disposes of his property after his death. This is also the proper classic meaning of the Greek word used here, διαθήκη (diathēkē). But this is evidently not the sense in which the word is designed to be used in the New Testament. The idea of a “will” or “testament,” strictly so called, is not that which the sacred writers intend to convey by the word. The idea is evidently that of a compact, agreement, covenant, to which there is so frequent reference in the Old Testament, and which is expressed by the word בּרית b^erı̂yth (Berith), a compact, a covenant, Of that word the proper translation in Greek would have been συνθηκη sunthēkē a covenant, agreement. But it is remarkable that that word never is used by the Septuagint to denote the covenant made between God and man.

That translation uniformly employs for this purpose the word διαθήκη diathēkē, a will, or a testament, as a translation of the Hebrew word, where there is a reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with people. The word συνθηκη sunthēkē is used by them but three times Isaiah 28:15; Isaiah 30:1; Daniel 11:6, and in neither instance with any reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with man. The word διαθήκη diathēkē, as the translation of בּרית b^erı̂yth (Berith), occurs more than two hundred times. (See Trommius’ Concord.) Now this must have evidently been of design. What the reason was which induced them to adopt this can only be conjectured. It may have been that as the translation was to be seen by the Gentiles as well as by the Jews (if it were not expressly made, as has been affirmed by Josephus and others, for the use of Ptolemy), they were unwilling to represent the eternal and infinite Yahweh as entering into a “compact, an agreement” with his creature man. They, therefore, adopted a word which would represent him as expressing “his will” to them in a book of revelation. The version by the Septuagint was evidently in use by the apostles, and by the Jews everywhere. The writers of the New Testament, therefore, adopted the word as they found it; and spoke of the new dispensation as a new “testament” which God made with man. The meaning is, that this was the new compact or covenant which God was to make with man in contradistinction from that made through Moses.

In my blood - Through my blood; that is, this new compact is to be sealed with my blood, in illusion to the ancient custom of sealing an agreement by a sacrifice; see the note at Matthew 26:28.

This do ye - Partake of this bread and wine; that is, celebrate this ordinance.

As oft as ye drink it - Not prescribing any time; and not even specifying the frequency with which it was to be done; but leaving it to themselves to determine how often they would partake of it. The time of the Passover had been fixed by positive statute; the more mild and gentle system of Christianity left it to the followers of the Redeemer themselves to determine how often they would celebrate his death. It was commanded them to do it; it was presumed that their love to him would be so strong as to secure a frequent observance; it was permitted to them, as in prayer, to celebrate it on any occasion of affliction, trial, or deep interest when they would feel their need of it, and when they would suppose that its observance would be for the edification of the Church.

In remembrance of me - This expresses the whole design of the ordinance. It is a simple memorial, or remembrancer; designed to recall in a striking and impressive manner the memory of the Redeemer. It does this by a tender appeal to the senses - by the exhibition of the broken bread, and by the wine. The Saviour knew how prone people would be to forget him, and he, therefore, appointed this ordinance as a means by which his memory should be kept up in the world. The ordinance is rightly observed when it recalls the memory of the Saviour; and when its observance is the means of producing a deep, and lively, and vivid impression on the mind, of his death for sin. This expression, at the institution of the supper, is used by Luke Luke 22:19; though it does not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John.

Living By Faith: Commentary on Romans & 1st Corinthians

11:25c: this do, as often as ye drink (it), in remembrance of me.

When Christians observe the Lord’s Supper they are to “remember” (anamnesis) Jesus. Remembrance is found only here, verse 24, Luke 22:19 and Hebrews 10:3 and it may be defined as “memory.” In Classical Greek remembrance was “used to signify past events that may have been forgotten or pushed to the back of one’s mind and are now brought to the memory by a particular event” (CBL, GED, 1:234). This word tells us heaven does not want us to forget about Jesus’ sacrifice or remember it on an infrequent basis.

Jesus said our remembrance is to occur “as often as” we eat the bread and drink the cup (26a). As often as implies the Lord’s Supper is to be observed on a regular basis. As shown in the introductory commentary on 10:16, the commentary on 10:16a and the commentary on11:20b, first century Christians observed the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. Here Paul again describes this on-going remembrance by using two present tense verbs: “do” (“keep doing”) and “drink” (“keep drinking”). We meet every Sunday to worship and this time includes observing the Lord’s Supper.

Our remembrance of Jesus includes many things: Who He is, what He did, how He did it, why He did it, etc. Remembering Him is right because without Him and His sacrifice, there would be no hope. If Jesus had not come into the world as a man, He would not have died and we would not have the forgiveness of sins. If He had not lived a sinless life, He would not be a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world (John 1:29). If He had not been raised from the dead, we would have no hope because we need a living and resurrected savior (Romans 1:4). Every week the Lord’s Supper reminds Christians that God loved them while they were yet sinners (Romans 5:8) and God has made salvation available to all who will obey the terms of his covenant (Hebrews 5:9).

Under the Old Testament system worshippers remembered their sins year after year (Hebrews 10:3). With the New Testament, every Sunday Communion reminds Christians of how their sins are continually removed by obeying Christ (1 John 1:7) and that all people now have access to the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), the New Testament. When we realize what the Lord’s Supper is and of what it reminds people, even if we had no other information about the frequency of its observance, common sense would tell us to engage in this practice every Sunday.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

25.The cup, when he had supped The Apostle seems to intimate, that there was some interval of time between the distribution of the bread and that of the cup, and it does not quite appear from the Evangelists whether the whole of the transaction was continuous. ⁽⁶⁹⁴⁾ This, however, is of no great moment, for it may be that the Lord delivered in the meantime some address, after distributing the bread, and before giving the cup. As, however, he did or said nothing that was not in harmony with the sacrament, we need not say that the administration of it was disturbed or interrupted. I would not, however, render it as Erasmus does — supper, being ended, for, in a matter of so great importance, ambiguity ought to be avoided.

This cup is the New Testament What is affirmed as to the cup, is applicable also to the bread; and thus, by this form of expression, he intimates what he had before stated more briefly — that the bread is the body. For it is so to us, that it may be a testament in his body, that is, a covenant, which has been once confirmed by the offering up of his body, and is now confirmed by eating, when believers feast upon that sacrifice. Accordingly, while Paul and Luke use the words — testament in the blood, Matthew and Mark employ the expression — blood of the testament, which amounts to the same thing. For the blood was poured out to reconcile us to God, and now we drink of it in a spiritual sense, that we may be partakers of reconciliation. Hence, in the Supper, we have both a covenant, and a confirmatory pledge of the covenant.

I shall speak in the Epistle to the Hebrews, if the Lord shall allow me opportunity, as to the wordtestament It is well known, however, that sacraments receive that name, from being testimonies to us of the divine will, to confirm ⁽⁶⁹⁵⁾ it in our minds. For as a covenant is entered into among men with solemn rites, so it is in the same manner that the Lord deals with us. Nor is it without strict propriety that this term is employed; for in consequence of the connection between the word and the sign, the covenant of the Lord is really included in the sacraments, and the term covenant has a reference or relation to us. This will be of no small importance for understanding the nature of the sacraments; for if they are covenants, then they contain promises, by which consciences may be roused up to an assurance of salvation. Hence it follows, that they are not merely outward signs of profession before men, but are inwardly, too, helps to faith.

This do, as often as ye drink Christ, then, has appointed a two-fold sign in the Supper.

What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.
(Matthew 19:6.)

To distribute, therefore, the bread without the cup, is to man Christ’s institution. ⁽⁶⁹⁶⁾ For we hear Christ’s words. As he commands us to eat of the bread, so he commands us to drink of the cup To obey the one half of the command and neglect the other half — what is this but to make sport of his commandment? And to keep back the people from that cup, which Christ sets before all, after first drinking of it, as is done under the tyranny of the Pope — who can deny that this is diabolical presumption? As to the cavil that they bring forward — that Christ spoke merely to the Apostles, and not to the common people — it is exceedingly childish, and is easily refuted from this passage — for Paul here addresses himself to men and women indiscriminately, and to the whole body of the Church. He declares that he

had delivered this to them agreeably to the commandment
of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:23.)

By what spirit will those pretend to be actuated, who have dared to set aside this ordinance? Yet even at this day this gross abuse is obstinately defended; and what occasion is there for wonder, if they endeavor impudently to excuse, by words and writings, what they so cruelly maintain by fire and sword?

(694) “Continuel et sans interualle;” — “Continuous, and without an interval.”

(695) “Confermer et seeller;” — “Confirm and seal.”

(696) “L’institution du Fils de Dieu;” — “The institution of the Son of God.”

Smith's Bible Commentary

Shall we turn in our Bibles now to I Corinthians 11 .

Paul here in the first verse said,

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 11:1 ).

In the previous verse he spoke about how he was not seeking his own profit, his own glory, but the profit of the whole body of Christ. And then he said, "Be followers of me." The word followers in the Greek is mimetes, in which we get our word mimic. Be mimickers, or be imitators of me. Follow the example that I have set. That is, don't seek for your own profit, but seek for the profit of the whole body. Don't just be looking out for yourself, but look out for one another. Be sensitive to one another's needs, and be looking out for each other.

Now [he said] I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and you keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you ( 1 Corinthians 11:2 ).

So Paul is giving them praise for the fact that they did remember him, that they were keeping ordinances that he had established among them.

But I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head ( 1 Corinthians 11:3-4 ).

Now, Paul is establishing here sort of a chain of command. The word head here being the idea of authority. And so the husband the authority over the wife. Christ is the authority over the husband. And God is the authority over Christ. This, of course, gets into issues which are being debated today in our society as we find all of these E.R.A. type of movements.

I do not believe that the Bible has ever taught that God favors the man over the woman. The Bible does teach that God made man first, and then from man formed the woman. When God looked at man and said, "It is not good that man should live alone," and so He made the woman from man that she might be a helpmeet for him.

Now, some people misinterpret that. The helpmeet, the word meet is an old English word fit, a help that is fit for him, created for him. No way does it signify a subservient position. God saw that man by himself could never make it, and thus, the woman created, as God said, "for the man."

Now, the woman is weaker than the man, in a physical sense. I had a mental picture of these women and, of course, I guess it has become quite a thing for women to get involved now in bodybuilding programs. I personally think that men involved in bodybuilding programs get to the place where they look grotesque; those bulges and all, they get grotesque. But for a woman to be bulging in the wrong areas is also grotesque. I think it is rather sad that to develop an identity of sorts to try and show that they are capable and all that they get involved in this bodybuilding kind of a thing. That isn't really, to me, the best use of a person's time.

He is establishing the chain of command. However, I do think that there is something worth noting here. The authority over the man is Christ, even as the authority over the woman is the man. And I feel that if the man, the husband, is not under the authority of Christ, then the woman has to jump the missing link. I do not believe that God intends that a godly woman be under the authority of an ungodly man. Under the authority of man only as he is under the authority of Jesus Christ. God never meant marriage to be a slavery kind of a situation, or a tyranny kind of a situation, where some big oaf rules over his wife with force, or whatever. And I am totally opposed to that kind of an interpretation or understanding of the scripture that a woman thinks, "Well, he is my husband. I have got to be in submission to him." Yes, as he is in submission to Christ.

Now, we are dealing with an Eastern culture. In this Eastern culture the women wore veils, and the veils, many times, were across the bridge of their nose tied in the back and went all the way to the ground. Now, in some of the Eastern areas it was even more than that. The veils covered their head and they had just slits for their eyes. And of course, they wore these bulky clothes, and how can you know you were really in love when all you can see is just the eyes? When you got married it was really an interesting thing, I suppose. However, this veil was a protection to the woman. It was a covering for her, which was a covering of protection, and no man would approach a woman, accost a woman, or flirt with a woman who was covered with a veil. It was almost death for the man to touch a woman or to approach her in an overt way when she was covered with her veil. For a woman to go out without a veil was an open invitation for the men. It was sort of a declaration, "I am available." But for a veiled woman, no man would dare to approach her. Thus, it was a covering.

Today it is still this way in Eastern cultures, especially in the Moslem world. Of course, the women in Iran, the more liberalized women are really chasing under Khomeini, because he went back to the old veils. You see, these orthodox Moslem women now with the black covers, and all you can see are the eyes again. Many times on our tours to the Middle East, the liberated ladies from America, not understanding the mindset of the Oriental, would go over there with sleeveless dresses or things of this nature, and they don't know what it does to some of these men who are used to not seeing a woman except she be totally veiled. Many times they have been accosted by these men, because it is just a part of their whole cultural background and thinking.

So, Paul is dealing with a cultural situation when he addresses the subject here of head coverings, or of veils.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head ( 1 Corinthians 11:4 ).

The idea here is that man was made in the glory of God and it would be dishonoring to God for him to cover his head while he prayed or prophesied. Now that is interesting coming from Paul considering that in Orthodox Jewry today, they all wear their little hats whenever they come into any sacred place of prayer. You can wear any kind of a hat, but they won't let the men into the Western Wall, or those areas, unless you do have your head covered. Coming from Paul, it is an interesting thing that he would speak of the men with their heads uncovered and it would be a dishonoring thing to pray with his head covered.

But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even as one if she were shaven ( 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 ).

So Paul, then, speaking of the woman is saying it is dishonoring in a sense to her husband, her head, if she would go unveiled.

Now evidently, the women in Corinth were feeling that liberty that was theirs in Christ. "We are no longer under a yoke of bondage, for in Christ we are all one, neither male nor female, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free." So they were beginning to come without veils and it, no doubt, created some problems. Paul said that it was dishonoring to your husbands, because living there in Corinth they were living in the center of pagan licentiousness. The temple of Aphrodite was on the Acropolis above Corinth. The priestesses within the temple of Aphrodite, some one thousand of them, would nightly come down into the city of Corinth. They were prostitutes, and the temple was supported by their prostitution. And they could be recognized in that they didn't wear veils. So the women in Corinth who were then beginning to feel liberty in Christ, not wanting to wear their veils, not being understood by the world, were opening themselves to be misidentified as a prostitute, and thus, dishonoring their husbands. So Paul is encouraging them to continue with the customs of wearing the veils there in Corinth.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man ( 1 Corinthians 11:7 ).

That is, God created man in His own image, and from the man He took the woman.

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power [or the authority, the veil] upon her head [then he said] because of the angels ( 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 ).

Now, I wish he hadn't of said that, because I was able to follow him pretty well up to this point. But what he meant by "because of the angels" is something that theologians have discussed through the years. One suggestion . . . now, we know that when we gather together, the angels of the Lord gather with us. And it has been suggested that the angels, being creatures of rank and order, respect the order of God, and they like to see the orders and the rankings of God followed.

The second suggestion is that there are also evil angels present and a woman without a veil is attractive to them. I sort of reject the second idea, because nowhere in the New Testament where angels are mentioned in this sense are they fallen angels. I would prefer the former, but I am not satisfied with it. I don't really know what he is referring to, to tell you the truth.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord ( 1 Corinthians 11:11 ).

In other words, as far as the Lord is concerned we are all on an equal par. And the woman is not without the man and the man is not without the woman. We are both necessary for each other.

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God ( 1 Corinthians 11:12 ).

I was born by my mother is what Paul is saying. My mother was necessary for my existence being here. The woman was taken out of the man, but yet, it is reversed now. God has established them male and female and they are all a part of God's divine order.

Now judging yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? ( 1 Corinthians 11:13 )

Is it proper? Is it the right thing to do?

One thing that we should definitely note here in light of I Corinthians 14 , where Paul said, "Let the women keep silent in the church, and if they would learn, let them ask their husbands when they get home," Paul evidently is not at all assigning her to total silence in the church. Here she is recognized as having a right to pray. Here she is recognized as having a right to exercise the gift of prophecy within the church. He is not saying anything contrary or against her praying and prophesying, only should she be doing it without a veil in the church of Corinth.

So he said,

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? ( 1 Corinthians 11:14 )

Now, during the hippie movement when a lot of the fellows decided to let their hair grow, this was a scripture that was brought up quite a bit by the Bible thumpers down in the south who were so opposed to these young men having long hair.

I, in traveling around the country, was a guest on some of the radio talk shows, and some of these irate people would call in. And the thing that was really bothering them were these young people with long hair, because they had pictures of our baptisms and a lot of young men with long hair and all were being baptized, and it really bothered these people for these young men to have long hair. They would call in and they would make their crude remarks and then quote this verse of scripture.

So, the Lord did a very interesting thing. He called me to defend these young men, their right to have long hair. I always figured the Lord had a sense of humor. And I would point out to these irate callers that, first of all, Paul said, "Does not nature itself." It doesn't say that God is teaching this. It said that nature is teaching it. "Does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame?" It doesn't teach you that it is a sin. They were trying to make a sin out of this thing. But it doesn't say God says it is a sin. It says nature says it is a shame.

Now, long hair is a relative term. My barber this morning signaled me in service . . . I do go to the barber. And it's coming over my collar in the back and it is time. But long is a relative term.

If you look at some of the presidents of the United States, they had long hair compared to the forties and fifties looks where the guys had the crew cuts and all. So long is a relative term.

I have seen some fellows whose hair I would say was indeed a shame with flowing hair down to their waist. Nature tells you what a shame. I see them with their long locks and I just sort of say, "What a shame." But in reality, when I try to comb what I have, I also say, "What a shame!" So, nature teaches you to not have long hair, and if you don't have any hair, it is all a shame. That is all it is.

But if a woman have long hair ( 1 Corinthians 11:15 ),

Hey, that is another matter.

it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for her covering. But if any man seems to be contentious ( 1 Corinthians 11:15-16 ),

Now, if you got a big deal over this, Paul says,

we don't have any such custom, in all of the churches ( 1 Corinthians 11:16 ).

Thus, it was not intended to be a universal rule for the church as some of the churches sought to make it a universal rule. For years the women have had to wear hats and all when they went to church. But Paul said that we don't have any such custom in all the churches. If you want to argue about it and all, there is no such custom in all the churches. It was something that did relate more to the church in Corinth.

I praise you that you kept my ordinances and all, but there is something I don't praise you for, what I am going to talk to you about now.

For when you gather together sometimes it is for the worse, not for the better. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I really partly believe this. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one takes before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken ( 1 Corinthians 11:17-21 ).

Now, in the early church they had a beautiful fellowship that seemed that it happened every week. And in this beautiful fellowship they had what they called the agape feast. Today, we call it a potluck. We have got a crude name for it. They had a beautiful name, an agape feast. Our various fellowship groups in the church that have their potlucks, it would probably be a good idea to start calling them agape feasts. That is much better, a love feast.

In these love feasts, which were like a potluck, everybody would bring their dishes and they'd pool it all together and all would eat. But there were some piggish fellows who would make their way to the front of the line and they would just take more than their share. So oftentimes there would not be enough food to go around. And so some people were left hungry, while others had more than they could handle. It seemed that the wealthier people were those that were just sort of pushing their way ahead. And the poor people who really were needing it . . . actually, you see, the church in those days had many slaves, and a lot to them never did have a decent meal, except for the agape feast. That is the only time they really had a decent meal. And yet, these people were not really sensitive to the needs of the poor and they were going in and filling their plates and the poor were being left hungry. So Paul said, "That is not good."

Don't you have your own house to feast in and to drink in? Do you despise the church of God, and do you shame those [that are poor] that have not? ( 1 Corinthians 11:22 )

Actually became embarrassed and ashamed. And these people were sort of making it that way.

I do remember when we used to have our church picnic and we had our houses where a lot of the young people were living. You remember those days of the Mansion Messiah and the Lord's House and the House of Psalms and these various houses that we had. This one time at our picnic out at Orange County Park, one of the houses brought to the picnic a large pan of beans. You know, put it in the potluck. And then the kids headed for the steaks. That's good that we ate beans that year, because a lot of them hadn't had a steak in a long time.

Paul said, "Look, a lot of you have your own homes. You can eat and drink in your own homes. You shouldn't really make these people feel embarrassed or ashamed because of their financial plights."

What shall I say to you? I don't praise you in this matter ( 1 Corinthians 11:22 ).

He is actually rebuking them for this.

Now, in talking about the Lord's supper, this agape feast, they would always end the agape feast with the Lord's supper, or taking together of the bread and the cup. And so Paul said,

As I received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ( 1 Corinthians 11:23 ):

This phrase, "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you," this should be a phrase that every minister of Jesus Christ should be able to use every time he stands up to talk to the church. "I have received of the Lord that which I have delivered unto you." That should always be the origin of the message that we bring. God having spoken to our hearts and now we impart that which God has spoken to us.

As we mentioned this morning, the first work of the Spirit in our lives is subjective. The second is objective. God works in me that He might work through me. I must partake in order that I might impart. That which I have received from the Lord I also delivered. That is always the true order in which God works. And that should always be the concern of every man of God who stands before the people of God as he talks to them of the things of God. That which I received of the Lord I also delivered unto you.

That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 ).

There are those who interpret the bread to be transubstantiated into the actual body of Christ by some miracle. However, it is important to note that when Jesus said this He was still in His body. And thus, it had to be a spiritualization, so that the bread becomes representative of the body of Christ. To me it represents the body of Christ. But it is not changed by some miracle into the actual physical body of Jesus. And the same is true of the cup. That is, it becomes to me a very poignant reminder of the body of Jesus broken for me and the blood of Jesus shed for my sins. I am to do it in remembrance of Him.

After the same manner also he took the cup, after their supper, and he said, This cup is a new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death till he comes ( 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 ).

Notice he did not tell us how often we were to do it. In the early church, it seems that in some of them they did it once a week. These agape feasts were usually a weekly affair. Some churches today observe it once a week. It doesn't really matter how often you do it. It just does matter that every time you do it, that you do it in remembrance of Him, showing the Lord's death until He comes.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord ( 1 Corinthians 11:27 ).

Now, he is talking about their coming together and they were getting drunk at these feasts. They were gorging themselves at the agape feasts and getting drunk, and then going right in and partaking of the body and the blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of communion.

A person when he is drunk oftentimes loses a lot of his inhibitions. He is not fully aware of what is going on. And to partake of the Holy Communion in this condition would be to do it in an unworthy fashion. This is what Paul is warning against.

When I was a child they interpreted this as saying that you have to be worthy to partake of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and if you are taking it unworthily, you are drinking damnation to your own soul. There was more than once that I let the cup go by. I was really afraid to drink, because I thought, "Man, I'm not worthy." The problem was they usually served it Sunday morning and I didn't get saved till Sunday night...again, every Sunday night. I really did well for the statistics of those pastors. I was always concerned about my unworthiness. And when I really stopped to think about it, I would think, "Man, I am not worthy to partake of the body and blood of Jesus." So many times I would pass on communion. But my worthiness is not something that is predicated upon my goodness, my works or my efforts, but it is on the grace of God and my believing in Jesus Christ. Thus, I partake freely today, because I believe in Him and I rest in His grace. You talk about truly being worthy, in that sense, I never have been, but by the grace of God I stand through faith in Jesus Christ.

What Paul is referring to here is the manner in which they were eating and drinking. It was disgraceful. Paul is rebuking them for it.

Therefore whosoever shall eat the bread, and drink the cup of the Lord, in an unworthily fashion [or an unworthy way], shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. So let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and some have even died ( 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 ).

There is another possible interpretation for this that I have heard suggested, and it does have merit. That is, partaking of the Lord's body without discerning the Lord's body. Because people partake of it not discerning the Lord's body, many are weak and sickly and some have even died. The suggestion has been made, what does the broken bread truly symbolize? Jesus said, "This is My body broken for you." What was meant by that? When was the body of Christ broken?

We read that because it was the preparation for the Sabbath the Jews came to Pilate that they might have permission to break the legs of the prisoners that their bodies would not be hanging on the Sabbath day, and so Pilate gave them permission. They broke the legs of both of the thieves on either side of Jesus, but when they came to Jesus, they saw that He was already dead. So they did not break His legs, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled that says, "Not a bone of Him shall be broken." You see, under the law you could not offer to God a lamb for a sacrifice that had any broken bones. So in keeping with the type of the Lamb of God for the sin of the world, He could not have broken bones. So one of the soldiers took his spear and thrust it in His side, into His heart, to make sure that He was dead. And when he pulled the spear out there came out blood and water.

If they did not break His legs so the scriptures might be fulfilled that not a bone of Him was broken, then what did He mean, "This is my body broken for you"? When was the body of Jesus broken? And how was it broken? There is one event related to the cross that the scripture in the New Testament only refers to in the gospels, "And Pilate took Him and scourged Him."

The scourging was a method of interrogation by the Roman government, and those who were to be crucified were usually scourged before their crucifixion. They were tied to a post, leaning over so that their back was exposed and stretched out. A Roman soldier would take a whip in which were embedded little bits of glass and lead, and he would lay the whip across the back of the prisoner. The idea in interrogation was that the prisoner would then call out a crime that he had committed. And every time they would lay a stripe on his back, if he would cry out a crime, they would lay it a little softer and a little softer. But if he would not confess to a crime, then each time they would lay the whip across his back, they would lay it on harder and harder until the back was completely ripped to shreds. It looked like hamburger. By this method of interrogation the Roman government was able to solve a lot of their unsolved crimes. It was a common practice.

You remember when Paul the apostle was caught in the temple by the Jews and they were trying to kill him when the captain of the guard, Lysias, came down with a bunch of Roman soldiers and rescued Paul. When they got back up to the steps of the Antonio Fortress, Paul said, "Can I speak to these guys?" He said, "You speak Greek?" And Paul said, "Of course." He said, "Aren't you that Egyptian?" He said, "No," and gave his background, and started speaking to the people in Hebrew, which the captain could not understand. As Paul was talking to the people, suddenly they went into a rage. They started throwing dirt in the air. They started calling out. They started ripping off their clothes. And Lysias said to the soldiers, "Get him inside quickly." And then sort of turning in a matter-of-fact way said, "Scourge him to find out what he said," interrogate him with the scourging process. So as the guy started to tie Paul to scourge him, Paul said, "Is it lawful to scourge a Roman citizen who has not been condemned?" The guy said, "Are you a Roman citizen?" Paul said, "Yes." So he ran and told the captain, Lysias, and said, "That guy is a Roman citizen." So he came to Paul and said, "Are you a Roman citizen?" And Paul said, "You bet I am." He said, "I bought my citizenship. It cost me quite a bit of money. How much did you have to pay?" Paul said, "I was free born." So he was fearful and untied Paul and did not scourge him because there was a law that no Roman citizen could be scourged without charges first having been filled against him. But it was the third degree, the Roman method of interrogation.

Now Jesus, according to Isaiah, "As a lamb before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth" ( Isaiah 53:7 ). Pilate scourged Him. He had laid upon Him thirty-nine lashes or stripes. This was no accident. This was something that was prophesied in the book of Isaiah, when Isaiah prophesied of His death. He said, "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquity. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed" ( Isaiah 53:5 ).

So through the broken body of Christ we were healed. He suffered for us. So that he who eats of the body of Christ not discerning the Lord's body does not take and receive that healing provided for through the suffering of Jesus. And for this cause a lot of people are sick, a lot of people are weak; some have even died. You could have been healed if you had only appropriated the work of Jesus Christ. But they have not discerned the Lord's body when they took the broken bread.

I think that there is a lot of validity to this position. There are those that object to it, but I really feel that an honest evaluation of the scriptures does lend a lot of validity to that position. I personally take it. I believe that there are a lot of people who could be healed if they would just appropriate that work of Jesus Christ.

Now Paul told us to examine ourselves when we eat the bread. Take a look at yourself.

For if we would judge ourselves, [he said] we would not be judged of God ( 1 Corinthians 11:31 ).

It is a very serious thing the partaking of the body of Jesus Christ and of the blood of Jesus Christ. We should really examine our hearts before we do so and always do it in a very reverent and worshipful manner.

But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord ( 1 Corinthians 11:32 ),

So Paul is probably talking about some of the sicknesses and the weaknesses that people have as they have eaten and drunk in an unworthy manner. So when we are judged, God chastens us for what purpose?

that we would not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait one for another ( 1 Corinthians 11:32-33 ).

Don't rush to the head of the table to fill your plate and disregard others that are there. Wait for each other.

And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that you come not together unto condemnation [to just gorge yourselves]. And the rest I will take care of when I get there ( 1 Corinthians 11:34 ). "

Contending for the Faith

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup: The phrase "After the same manner" (hosautos) means "in the same way" (Strong #5615) or "likewise" (Thayer 682-2-5615). Jesus’ fifth step was that just as He took the one unleavened bread (loaf), He also "took the cup." The word "cup" (poterion) literally means "a drinking vessel" (Thayer 533-1-4221). The word cup, as it is used here, is a "metonomy of the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk" (Thayer 682-2-5615). The container was not empty--it contained something that was consumed, indicating a participation (Jesus’ sixth step), that is, there was something to be drunk--a liquid. The cup in the communion contains the fruit of the vine. Jesus says,

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:27-28).

An everyday example of this type of metonomy is: "The kettle is boiling." Such a statement includes, first, one kettle and, second, a boiling liquid. Likewise, when using the word "cup," two things must be included: one cup and the liquid that is drunk. The absence of either does away with the figure called metonomy. In the example "the kettle is boiling," there is no metonomy if there is no kettle, or if there is a kettle but no liquid--both must be present.

It should also be noted that Paul says Jesus took "the cup." The article "the" is singular, indicating that He took only one cup (drinking vessel) containing the fruit of the vine. If multiple cups (drinking vessels) had been used, Jesus would have had to say, "he took the cups; but instead, Jesus "took the cup." Matthew records, "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it" (Matthew 26:26). Jesus took one cup (containing the fruit of the vine), gave thanks for this one cup (containing the fruit of the vine), and gave the one cup (containing the fruit of the vine) to His disciples, and then commanded them to "drink ye all of it." The disciples did exactly what Jesus commanded, "And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it" (Mark 14:23). They drank the liquid (fruit of the vine) in the one container (cup).

when he had supped: The words "when he had supped" (deipneo) do not mean when he had drunk, but "after supper" or after he had eaten the Passover supper. Luke says, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you" (22:20).

saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: "This cup" is the same cup mentioned in the first phrase of this verse and refers to the cup containing the fruit of the vine. Therefore, Jesus says the cup containing the fruit of the vine "is the new testament in my blood." Jesus is not saying that this cup is the literal New Testament; but just as the bread represents the body of Christ and the fruit of the vine represents the blood of Christ, the cup containing the fruit of the vine represents the New Testament "in my blood."

The expression "in my blood" means "ratified and sealed by His blood" (Vine 157). The New Testament was made possible by the shedding of Jesus’ blood. Jesus is the testator of the New Testament; therefore, had He not shed His blood (died), the New Testament would not have come into effect. Paul says,

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Hebrews 9:15-17).

In order for a testament to be in force, there had to be a blood sacrifice. This fact was also true about the Old Testament. Paul says,

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you (Hebrews 9:18-20).

this do ye, as oft as ye drink it: Just as Jesus instructs about the one loaf, He also gives the seventh step by commanding the disciples to "do" as He did, "drink it" (singular)--the one cup containing the fruit of the vine. Jesus explains that this pattern is to be followed "as oft as ye drink it," meaning follow this example, not when you choose to do so, but every time you commune. "The words (this do) seem to refer to the whole action with the cup, the taking, blessing and passing round" (Cambridge Greek Testament 170).

in remembrance of me: (see verse 24 for explanation).

Paul "received of the Lord" (verse 23) seven steps and "delivered (them) unto (the disciples)" (verse 23):

Step #1 Jesus took one unleavened loaf (verse 23).

Step #2 Jesus gave thanks for one unleavened loaf (verse 24).

Step #3 Jesus broke the one unleavened loaf (involves eating) (verse 24).

Step #4 Jesus instructed disciples to "take (and) eat" (verse 24).

Step #5 Jesus took the cup (verse 25).

Step #6 Jesus drank (verse 25).

Step #7 Jesus instructed disciples "this do" (verse 25).

How Are Jesus’ Steps (Mentioned Above) Violated?

The Corinthians could not have made the Lord’s Supper a common meal if they had not violated the example left by Jesus. They violated the "fourth step" by not waiting for all the participants; and, therefore, some had to go without the Lord’s Supper. Today, people are violating the pattern given by the Lord by not following each step mentioned above. For example:

Step #1: Jesus took one unleavened loaf (verse 23). This example is violated in one of two ways:

1)    If the participants take more than one loaf. The King James Version uses the term "bread"; however, it is defined as "a loaf" (see verse 23). Every example of the Lord’s Supper clearly uses a singular number--"bread" not "breads."

2)    If the participants use a leavened loaf. That the Lord’s Supper was instituted after the Passover proves that the bread was unleavened. Moses says,

a.    Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread. Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover (Exodus 12:15-21).

Step #2: Jesus gave thanks for one unleavened loaf (verse 24). This example is violated by the participants’ failing to pray and thank God for the bread/loaf.

Step #3: Jesus broke the one unleavened loaf (involves eating) (verse 24). This example is violated by the participants’ failing to break (which involves eating) the loaf. The brother serving at the table is not to break the bread for others; instead, he is to break off the part that he consumes and then pass the remainder to the other participants, and they do likewise.

Step #4: After Jesus took the bread and gave thanks, He instructed the assembled disciples to "take (and) eat" (verse 24). The Corinthians violated this instruction by not communing together. Instead, they would partake before others were present. This example is violated today when Christians do not commune together. Christians must "...tarry one for another" (11:33) and not commune in individual groups before the congregation meets. Also, they must "...tarry one for another" by not leaving the worship service before everyone has communed.

Step #5: Jesus took the cup (verse 25). This example is violated by Christians’ taking more than one cup.

Step #6: Jesus drank (verse 25). The fact that Jesus had eaten (verse 24) indicates He also drank of the fruit of the vine that was in the cup. This example is violated by Christians’ failing to partake of the one cup.

Step #7: Jesus instructed His disciples "this do" (verse 25). Finally, after partaking of the one cup containing the fruit of the vine, Jesus commanded the assembled disciples to "do this," that is, "Do as I have done." Today, Christians violate Jesus’ command of "this do" by refusing to drink of one cup containing the fruit of the vine.

The purpose of the assembled disciples’ drinking from the one cup ("the cup of blessing") is clearly stated by Paul when he says, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" (10:16). Paul refers to "The cup (singular) of blessing which we (plural) bless" as the communion of the blood of Christ. There is no communion (joint participation) if the assembly does not drink of one "cup of blessing." The following explanations from scholars explain how the Lord’s Supper was conducted:

1.    "The cup was handed round--being designated the ’cup of blessing’ (10:16)--the contents of the cup are specifically described by our Lord as ’the fruit’ of the vine (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18)" (Smith’s Bible Dictionary 185).

2.    A communion cup is: "1. The cup used in common by all the communicants at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper" (Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary 1961).

3.    Speaking of "the cup of blessing" in 10:16: "The Master of the feast took a cup of wine in his hand, and solemnly blessed God for it....it was then passed to all the guests, each of whom drank of it in his turn" (The Union Bible Dictionary 1855).

The History of Individual Cups

The following is the "History of Individual Cups" as clearly explained and documented by Ronny F. Wade, evangelist, writer, and debater.

The Bible accounts of the institution of (the Lord’s Supper) all indicate that in the original observance Jesus took a loaf of unleavened bread and a cup (one) containing fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24). Just how long the New Testament church observed the communion in that fashion is unknown. We do know that about two hundred years after the establishment of the church there is a record indicating that more than one container was used in the Lord’s Supper. That record also indicates that there were other additions and changes being made in the divine pattern. Individual cups, however, are of rather recent origin. Rev. J.G. Thomas, a minister, who was also a physician, claims credit for inventing the first individual communion set. Their first use occurred in the Vaughnsville Congregational Church located in Putnam County, Ohio, sometime during the year of 1893. The idea became very popular and spread rapidly throughout the country. As people became more conscious of germs and the possible transmission of disease by several people drinking out of the same container, more and more churches adopted the practice. There were some, however, who felt that the sanitation feature was being overplayed and even ridiculed the necessity of individual drinking cups. In fact, there were a number of denominations that refused to accept them because they viewed them as an addition to the teaching of the scripture.

In the early days of the restoration movement, many churches used one cup. Alexander Campbell was in attendance at a congregation where such was the case, and he described it as one of the most beautiful services he ever attended. I quote:

’He then took the cup in a similar manner, and returned thanks for it, and handed it to the disciple sitting next to him, who passed it round; each one waiting upon his brother, until all were served.’

During the same time period, there were some churches who used two, or perhaps four cups to serve the congregation the fruit of the vine. One popular practice was to have all men sit on one side of the meeting house with the women sitting on the other side; a cup was then passed down each side. Eventually it would be the use of more than one cup that made the adoption of individual cups all the easier to accept. For after all, as the argument was made, if you can use more than one, then you can use as many as you might like to use, and that certainly became the case.

One of the early preachers, in the church, to oppose individual cups was the honored and revered J.W. McGarvey. In February 1910 he received a query about the use of cups. His reply is as follows:

’A brother in Pensacola, Florida asked me what authority have we for using the single cup in the communion service, as has been the custom of the Christian churches, other than it is implied in the narratives of the three gospels? We have none, but that is enough. On the other hand, we have no authority for doing otherwise. Every divinely appointed ordinance would be observed precisely as divine wisdom has appointed it.’

How then did the individual cups find their way into the church of Christ? Brother C.E. Holt of Florence, Alabama, may well have been the first non-instrument preacher to come out in favor of individual cups. His article in the June 11, 1911, Gospel Advocate claimed that the use of individual cups was probably much cleaner and more sanitary than several people drinking from the same cup. David Lipscomb, then editor of the paper, was not so easily convinced. In fact he steadfastly opposed the use of the individual communion cups for a rather lengthy period of time. It was only after a visit from G.C. Brewer that Lipscomb began to weaken somewhat and say that he was about to reach the conclusion that the cups were in no way a violation of scripture teaching. Soon after this, Brewer introduced the individual cups into the Central Church of Christ in Chattanooga, Tennessee. A short time later Lipscomb wrote in the Advocate that he no longer felt that individual cups were a violation of New Testament teaching. From this point forward, churches began adopting them throughout the country.

The above is a brief history of the changes that resulted in the introduction of individual cups into churches of Christ in America. Divisions came, as they always do, when innovations find their way into the church. It is noteworthy that this addition was not the result of what Jesus or Paul said but rather what men like C.E. Holt and G.C. Brewer said. It is rather sobering when one realizes that there is no higher authority for the use of individual cups in the communion than these mortal men (Wade 10).

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

1. The abuses 11:17-26

The first abuse reflects a problem on the horizontal level, between believers in the church. The second more serious abuse was vertical, involving the church and its Lord.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

D. The Lord’s Supper 11:17-34

Most of the Corinthians had been following Paul’s instructions regarding women’s head-coverings so he commended them (1 Corinthians 11:2), but he could not approve their practice at the Lord’s Supper. They needed to make some major changes there. What they were doing cut at the heart of both the gospel and the church. This is the one certain situation in the Corinthian church that Paul addressed in chapters 7-16 that the Corinthians themselves had not asked him about. He wrote that he had heard about it (1 Corinthians 11:18).

By way of background, we need to remember that in antiquity meals typically accompanied public worship in the early church, in Judaism, and in the pagan world. The early Christians observed the Lord’s Supper as part of such a meal, often called the love feast. Paul’s concern was that the love feast had become an occasion, not of love for fellow believers, but of selfishness.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Abuse of the Lord 11:23-26

There was an even more serious dimension to this problem. The Corinthians were sinning against the Lord as well as one another.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

As Jesus had taken the bread and given thanks for it, so He also took the cup and gave thanks for it (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20).

When Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, that blood ratified (gave formal sanction to) the New Covenant that Jeremiah had predicted (Jeremiah 31:31-34, cf. Exodus 24:8). The New Covenant replaced the old Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:18-28). Even though the Jews will be the major beneficiaries of the benefits of this covenant in the Millennium, all believers began to benefit from the death of Christ when He died. [Note: See Rodney J. Decker, "The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305.]

This arrangement resembles one that is possible to set up in a Charitable Lead Unit Trust under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. Suppose there was a vastly wealthy and generous philanthropist of the magnitude of a John D. Rockefeller or Bill Gates. As he prepared his will he bequeathed millions of dollars to various charitable causes that would benefit millions of people all over the world when he died. He also wrote into his will that when his only son reached the age of 21 he would inherit billions of dollars. When this man died, his son was only five years old, so for 16 years he did not enter into his father’s inheritance. However as soon as the philanthropist died the millions of dollars he had bequeathed to charity went to work immediately to help many people.

This illustration shows how the church enters into the blessings of the New Covenant. When Christ established the Lord’s Supper it was as though He notarized His will; it became official then. The will is the New Covenant. When He died His "estate" became available to those He chose to profit from it. Soon many people around the world, Jews and Gentiles alike in the church, began to benefit from the blessings of His death. However His chosen people, His son Israel, will not enter into his inheritance until the appointed time, namely, the Millennium. Blessings for the church began almost immediately after Christ’s death. Blessings for Israel will not begin until Christ’s appointed time arrives.

Whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover the father who was conducting the service would explain the significance of each part to the rest of the family (cf. Deuteronomy 16:3). Jesus did the same for His disciples when He instituted the Lord’s Supper.

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 11

THE LIMITS OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM ( 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 ; 1 Corinthians 11:1 )

11:1 All things are allowed to me, but all things are not good for me. All things are allowed, but all things do not build up. Let no one think only of his own good, but let him think of the good of the other man too. Eat everything that is sold in the market place, and don't ask fussy questions for conscience sake; for the earth and its fulness belong to god. If one of the pagans invites you to a meal, and you are willing to go, eat anything that is put before you, and don't ask questions for conscience sake. But if anyone says to you, "This is meat that was part of a sacrifice," don't eat it, for the sake of him who told you and for conscience sake. I don't mean your own conscience, but the conscience of the other man, for why has my liberty to be subject to the judgment of any man's conscience? If I partake of something after I have given thanks for it, how can I unjustly be criticized for eating that for which I gave thanks? So then, whether you eat or whether you drink or whatever you do, do all things to God's glory. Live in such a way that you will cause neither Jew nor Greek nor church member to stumble, just as I in all things try to win the approval of all men, for I am not in this job for what I can get out of it, but for what benefits I can bring to the many, that they may be saved. So then show yourselves to be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Paul brings to an end this long discussion of the question of meat offered to idols with some very practical advice.

(i) His advice is that a Christian can buy anything that is sold in the shops and ask no questions. It was true that the meat sold in the shops might well have formed part of a sacrifice or have been slaughtered in the name of some god lest the demons enter into it; but it is possible to be too fussy and to create difficulties where none need exist. After all, in the last analysis, all things are God's.

(ii) If the Christian accepts an invitation to dinner in the house of a pagan, let him eat what is put before him and ask no questions. But, if he is deliberately informed that the meat is part of a sacrifice, he must not eat it. The assumption is that he is told by one of these brothers who cannot rid his conscience of the feeling that to eat such meat is wrong. Rather than bring worry to such a man the Christian must not eat.

(iii) So once again out of an old and remote situation emerges a great truth. Many a thing that a man may do with perfect safety as far as he himself is concerned, he must not do if it is going to be a stumbling-block to someone else. There is nothing more real than Christian freedom; but Christian freedom must be used to help others and not to shock or hurt them. A man has a duty to himself but a still greater duty to others.

We must note to where that duty extends.

(i) Paul insisted that a Corinthian Christian must be a good example to the Jews. Even to his enemies a man must be an example of the fine things.

(ii) The Corinthian Christian had a duty to the Greeks; that is to say he had to show a good example to those who were quite indifferent to Christianity. It is in fact by that example that many are won. There was a minister who went far out of his way to help a man who had nothing to do with the Church and rescued him from a difficult situation. That man began to come to Church and in the end made an astonishing request. He asked to be made an elder that he might spend his life showing his gratitude for what Christ through his servant had done for him.

(iii) The Corinthian Christian had a duty to his fellow Church member. It is the plain fact of life that somebody takes the cue for his conduct from everyone of us. We may not know it; but a younger or a weaker brother is often looking to us for a lead. It is our duty to give that lead which will strengthen the weak and confirm the waverer and save the tempted from sin.

We can do all things to the glory of God only when we remember the duty we must discharge to our fellow men; and we will do that only when we remember that our Christian freedom is given to us not for our own sake but for the sake of others.

1 Corinthians 11:1-34; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 are amongst the most difficult in the whole epistle for a modem person in the western world to understand; but they are also among the most interesting, for they deal with the problems which had arisen in the Corinthian Church in connection with public worship. In them we see the infant Church struggling with the problem of offering a fitting and a seemly worship to God. It will make the section easier to follow if we set out at the beginning the various parts of which it is composed.

(i) 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 deals with the problem of whether or not women should worship with their heads uncovered.

(ii) 1 Corinthians 11:17-23 deals with problems which have arisen in connection with the Agape ( G26) or Love Feast, the weekly common meal which the Christian congregation held.

(iii) 1 Corinthians 11:24-34 deals with the correct observance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

(iv) 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 discusses the problem of welding into one harmonious whole those who possess all kinds of different gifts. It is here that we have the great picture of the Church as the Body of Christ, and of each member as a limb in that body.

(v) 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is the great hymn of love which shows men the more excellent way.

(vi) 1 Corinthians 14:1-23 deals with the problem of speaking with tongues.

(vii) 1 Corinthians 14:24-33 insists on the necessity of orderliness in public worship and seeks to bring under necessary discipline the overflowing enthusiasm of a newly born Church.

(viii) 1 Corinthians 14:24-36 discusses the place of women in the public worship of God in the Church of Corinth.

THE NECESSARY MODESTY ( 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 )

11:2-16 I praise you because you remember me in all things and because you hold fast to the traditions as I handed them down to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and that the man is the head of the woman, and that God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or preaches with his head covered shames his head. Every woman who prays or preaches with her head uncovered shames her head, for she is in exactly the same case as a woman whose head has been shaved; for, if a woman does not cover her head, let her have her hair cut also. If it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or to be shaved, let her have her head covered. A man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man; for the man did not come from the woman but the woman from the man; for the man was not created for the sake of the woman but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else's authority, for the sake of the angels. All the same it is true that, in the Lord, woman is nothing without man nor man without woman; for just as woman came from man, so man is born through woman, and all things are from God. Use your own judgment on this. Is it fitting for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach us that it is a dishonour to a man if he lets his hair grow long? But if a woman lets her hair grow long it is her glory, because her hair was given to her for a covering. All the same, if anyone wishes to go on arguing for the sake of arguing, it is sufficient to say that we have no such custom, nor have the Churches of God.

This is one of these passages which have a purely local and temporary significance; they look at first sight as if they had only an antiquarian interest because they deal with a situation which has long since ceased to have any relevance for us; and yet such passages have a very great interest because they shed a flood of light on the domestic affairs and problems of the early Church; and, for him who has eyes to see, they have a very great importance, because Paul solves the problems by principles which are eternal.

The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul's answer was bluntly this--the veil is always a sign of subjection, worn by an inferior in the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public worship veiled and equally wrong for a woman to appear unveiled. It is very improbable that in the twentieth century we are likely to accept this view of the inferiority and subordination of women. But we must read this chapter in the light not of the twentieth century but of the first, and as we read it we must remember three things.

(i) We must remember the place of the veil in the East. To this day eastern women wear the yashmak which is a long veil leaving the forehead and the eyes uncovered but reaching down almost to the feet. In Paul's time the eastern veil was even more concealing. It came right over the head with only an opening for the eyes and reached right down to the feet. A respectable eastern woman would never have dreamed of appearing without it. Writing in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, T. W. Davies says, "No. respectable woman in an eastern village or city goes out without it, and, if she does, she is in danger of being misjudged. Indeed English and American missionaries in Egypt told the present writer that their own wives and daughters when going about find it often best to wear the veil."

The veil was two things. (a) It was a sign of inferiority. (b) But it was also a great protection. 1 Corinthians 11:10 is very difficult to translate. We have translated it: "For this reason a woman ought to retain upon her head the sign that she is under someone else's authority," but the Greek literally means that a woman ought to retain "her authority upon her head." Sir William Ramsay explains it this way--"In Oriental lands the veil is the power and honour and dignity of the woman. With the veil on her head she can go anywhere in security and profound respect. She is not seen; it is a mark of thoroughly bad manners to observe a veiled woman in the street. She is alone. The rest of the people around are non-existent to her, as she is to them. She is supreme in the crowd.... But without the veil the woman is a thing of nought, whom anyone may insult.... A woman's authority and dignity vanish along with the all-covering veil that she discards."

In the East, then, the veil is all-important. It does not only mark the inferior status of a woman; it is the inviolable protection of her modesty and chastity.

(ii) We must remember the status of women in Jewish eyes. Under Jewish law woman was vastly inferior to man. She had been created out of Adam's rib ( Genesis 2:22-23) and she had been created to be the helpmeet of man ( Genesis 2:18). There was a Rabbinic piece of fanciful exegesis which said, "God did not form woman out of the head lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye lest she should lust; nor out of the ear lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth lest she should be talkative; nor out of the heart lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot lest she should be a wandering busybody; but out of a rib which was always covered; therefore modesty should be her primary quality."

It is the unfortunate truth that in Jewish law a woman was a thing and was part of the property of her husband over which he had complete rights of disposal. It was true that in the synagogue, for instance, women had no share whatever in the worship but were segregated completely from the men in a shut-off gallery or other part of the building. In Jewish law and custom it was unthinkable that women should claim any kind of equality with men.

In 1 Corinthians 11:10 there is the curious phrase that women should be veiled "for the sake of the angels." It is not certain what this means, but probably it goes back to the strange old story in Genesis 6:1-2 which tells how the angels fell a prey to the charms of mortal women and so sinned; it may well be that the idea is that the unveiled woman is a temptation even to the angels, for an old Rabbinic tradition said that it was the beauty of women's long hair which tempted the angels.

(iii) It must always be remembered that this situation arose in Corinth, probably the most licentious city in the world. Paul's point of view was that in such a situation it was far better to err on the side of being too modest and too strict rather than to do anything which might either give the heathen a chance to criticize the Christians as being too lax or be a cause of temptation to the Christians themselves.

It would be quite wrong to make this passage of universal application; it was intensely relevant to the Church of Corinth but it has nothing to do with whether or not women should wear hats in church at the present day. But for all its local significance it has three great permanent truths in it.

(i) It is always better to err on the side of being too strict than on the side of being too lax. It is far better to abandon rights which may be a stumbling-block to some than to insist on them. It is the fashion to decry convention; but a man should always think twice before he defies it and shocks others. True, he must never be the slave of convention, but conventions do not usually come into being for nothing.

(ii) Even after he has stressed the subordination of women, Paul goes on to stress even more directly the essential partnership of man and woman. Neither can live without the other. If there be subordination, it is in order that the partnership may be more fruitful and more lovely for both.

(iii) Paul finishes the passage with a rebuke to the man who argues for the sake of argument. Whatever the differences that may arise between men, there is no place in the Church for the deliberately contentious man or woman. There is a time to stand on principle; but there is never a time to be contentiously argumentative. There is no reason why people should not differ and yet remain at peace.

THE WRONG KIND OF FEAST ( 1 Corinthians 11:17-22 )

11:17-22 When I give you this instruction, I am not praising you, because when you meet together it is actually doing you more harm than good. Firstly, I hear that when you meet together in assembly, there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. There are bound to be differences of opinion among you, so that it may become clear which of you are of tried and sterling quality. So then when you assemble together in the same place it is certainly not the Lord's meal that you eat; for each of you, when you eat, is in a hurry to get his own meal first, and the result is that some go hungry and some drink until they are drunk. Have you not your own houses for eating and drinking? Have you no reverence for the assembly of God? Are you going to shame those who are poor? What am I to say to you? Am I to commend you in this? I certainly do not.

The ancient world was in many ways much more social than ours is. It was the regular custom for groups of people to meet together for meals. There was, in particular, a certain kind of feast called an eranos to which each participant brought his own share of the food, and in which all the contributions were pooled to make a common meal. The early Church had such a custom, a feast called the Agape ( G26) or Love Feast. To it all the Christians came, bringing what they could, the resources were pooled and they sat down to a common meal. It was a lovely custom; and it is to our loss that the custom has vanished. It was a way of producing and nourishing real Christian fellowship.

But in the Church at Corinth things had gone sadly wrong with the Love Feast. In the Church there were rich and poor; there were those who could bring plenty, and there were slaves who could bring hardly anything at all. In fact for many a poor slave the Love Feast must have been the only decent meal in the whole week. But in Corinth the art of sharing had got lost. The rich did not share their food but ate it in little exclusive groups by themselves, hurrying through it in case they had to share, while the poor had next to nothing. The result was that the meal at which the social differences between members of the Church should have been obliterated only succeeded in aggravating these same differences. Unhesitatingly and unsparingly Paul rebukes this.

(i) It may well be that the different groups were composed of those who held different opinions. A great scholar has said, "To have religious zeal, without becoming a religious partisan, is a great proof of true devotion." When we think differently from a man, we may in time come to understand him and even to sympathize with him, if we remain in fellowship with him and talk things over with him; but, if we shut ourselves off from him and form our own little group while he remains in his, there is never any hope of mutual understanding.

He drew a circle that shut me out--

Rebel, heretic, thing to flout--

But love and I had the wit to win--

We drew a circle that took him in.

(ii) The early Church was the one place in all the ancient world where the barriers were down. That world was very rigidly divided; there were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks and the barbarians--the people who did not speak Greek; there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman citizens and the lesser breeds without the law; there were the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one place where all men could and did come together. A great Church historian has written about these early Christian congregations, "Within their own limits they had solved almost by the way the social problem which baffled Rome and baffles Europe still. They had lifted woman to her rightful place, restored the dignity of labour, abolished beggary, and drawn the sting of slavery. The secret of the revolution is that the selfishness of race and class was forgotten in the Supper of the Lord, and a new basis for society found in love of the visible image of God in men for whom Christ died."

A church where social and class distinctions exist is no true church at all. A real church is a body of men and women united to each other because all are united to Christ. Even the word used to describe the sacrament is suggestive. We call it the Lord's Supper; but supper is to some extent misleading. Usually to us it is not the main meal of the day. But the Greek word is deipnon ( G1173) . For the Greek the breakfast was a meal where all that was eaten was a little bread dipped in wine; the midday meal was eaten anywhere, even on the street or in a city square; the deipnon ( G1173) was the main meal of the day, where people sat down with no sense of hurry and not only satisfied their hunger but lingered long together. The very word shows that the Christian meal ought to be a meal where people linger long in each other's company.

(iii) A church is no true church if the art of sharing is forgotten. When people wish to keep things to themselves and to their own circle they are not even beginning to be Christian. The true Christian cannot bear to have too much while others have too little; he finds his greatest privilege not in jealously guarding his privileges but in giving them away.

THE LORD'S SUPPER ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 )

11:23-34 For I received of the Lord that which I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night on which he was being delivered up, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body which is for you; this do that you may remember me." In the same way, after the meal, he took the cup and said, "This cup is the new covenant and it cost my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, so that you will remember me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you do proclaim the death of the Lord until he will come. Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord in an unfitting way is guilty of a sin against the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he who eats and drinks as some of you do, eats and drinks judgment to himself, because he does not discern what the body means. It is because of this that many among you are ill and weak and some have died. But if we truly discerned what we are like we would not be liable to judgment. But in this very judgment of the Lord we are being disciplined that we may not be finally condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together wait for each other. If anyone is hungry let him eat at home, so that you may not meet together in such a way as to render yourselves liable to judgment. As for the other matters, I will put them in order when I shall have come.

No passage in the whole New Testament is of greater interest than this. For one thing, it gives us our warrant for the most sacred act of worship in the Church, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and, for another since the letter to the Corinthians is earlier than the earliest of the gospels, this is actually the first recorded account we possess of any word of Jesus.

The Sacrament can never mean the same for every person; but we do not need fully to understand it to benefit from it. As someone has said, "We do not need to understand the chemistry of bread in order to digest it and to be nourished by it." For all that we do well to try at least to understand something of what Jesus meant when he spoke of the bread and the wine as he did.

"This is my body," he said of the bread. One simple fact precludes us from taking this with a crude literalism. When Jesus spoke, he was still in the body; and there was nothing clearer than that his body and the bread were at that moment quite different things. Nor did he simply mean, "This stands for my body." In a sense that is true. The broken bread of the Sacrament does stand for the body of Christ; but it does more. To him who takes it into his hands and upon his lips with faith and love, it is a means not only of memory but of living contact with Jesus Christ. To an unbeliever it would be nothing; to a lover of Christ it is the way to his presence.

"This cup," said Jesus, in the usual version, "is the new covenant in my blood." We have translated it slightly differently, "This cup is the new covenant and it cost my blood." The Greek preposition en most commonly means in; but it can, and regularly does, mean at the cost or price of, especially when it translates the Hebrew preposition be. Now a covenant is a relationship entered into between two people. There was an old covenant between God and man and that old relationship was based on law. In it God chose and approached the people of Israel and became in a special sense their God; but there was a condition, that, if this relationship was going to last, they must keep his law. (compare Exodus 24:1-8). With Jesus a new relationship is opened to man, dependent not on law but on love, dependent not on man's ability to keep the law--for no man can do that--but on the free grace of God's love offered to men.

Under the old covenant a man could do nothing other than fear God for he was ever in default since he could never perfectly keep the law; under the new covenant he comes to God as a child to a father. However you look at things, it cost the life of Jesus to make this new relationship possible. "The blood is the life," says the law ( Deuteronomy 12:23); it cost Jesus' life, his blood, as the Jew would put it. And so the scarlet wine of the sacrament stands for the very life-blood of Christ without which the new covenant, the new relationship of man to God, could never have been possible.

This passage goes on to talk about eating and drinking this bread and wine unworthily. The unworthiness consisted in the fact that the man who did so did "not discern the Lord's body." That phrase can equally well mean two things; and each is so real and so important that it is quite likely that both are intended.

(i) It may mean that the man who eats and drinks unworthily does not realize what the sacred symbols mean. It may mean that he eats and drinks with no reverence and no sense of the love that these symbols stand for or the obligation that is laid upon him.

(ii) It may also mean this. The phrase the body of Christ again and again stands for the Church; it does so, as we shall see, in 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. Paul has just been rebuking those who with their divisions and their class distinctions divide the Church; so this may mean that he eats and drinks unworthily who has never realized that the whole Church is the body of Christ but is at variance with his brother. Every man in whose heart there is hatred, bitterness, contempt against his brother man, as he comes to the Table of our Lord, eats and drinks unworthily. So then to eat and drink unworthily is to do so with no sense of the greatness of the thing we do, and to do so while we are at variance with the brother for whom also Christ died.

Paul goes on to say that the misfortunes which have fallen upon the Church at Corinth may be due to nothing else than the fact that they come to this sacrament while they are divided among themselves; but these misfortunes are sent not to destroy them but to discipline them and to bring them back to the right way.

We must be clear about one thing. The phrase which forbids a man to eat and drink unworthily does not shut out the man who is a sinner and knows it. An old highland minister seeing an old woman hesitate to receive the cup, stretched it out to her, saying, "Take it, woman; it's for sinners; it's for you." If the Table of Christ were only for perfect people none might ever approach it. The way is never closed to the penitent sinner. To the man who loves God and his fellow men the way is ever open, and his sins, though they be as scarlet, shall be white as snow.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

1 Corinthians 11:25

As oft as ye drink -- Not talking about the time, but that it is to be done in the manner of a memorial.

They met each first day (1 Corinthians 16:1-2) to worship and observe the Lord’s Supper.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

After the same manner also he took the cup,.... That is, off from the table, or out of the hands of the master of the house, and blessed or gave thanks, as he did before when he took the bread; see Matthew 26:27, "when he had supped"; the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, read, "when they had supped"; which give a true sense, though not a literal translation; for both Christ and his disciples had supped, having both eaten the passover supper, and the bread, the principal part in the Lord's supper, when he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them:

saying, this cup is the New Testament, or covenant,

in my blood; alluding to the old covenant, which was ratified and confirmed by the blood of bulls, and which was called "the blood of the covenant", Exodus 24:8 but the new covenant was established with Christ's own blood, of which the wine in the cup was a sign and symbol; for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for it was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but it is so called in distinction from the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it, under the Mosaic economy; and it is always new, and will be succeeded by no other; and it provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others. Now this is said to be "in the blood" of Christ; that is, it is ratified, and all its blessings and promises are confirmed by his blood: hence his blood is called "the blood of the everlasting covenant", Hebrews 13:20, pardon and righteousness, peace and reconciliation, and entrance into the holiest of all, all come through this blood, and are secured by the same; and to which the faith of the saints is directed in this ordinance, to observe, receive, and enjoy for themselves:

this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me; of his soul's being poured out unto death; of his blood being shed for the remission of sins; and of his great love in giving himself an atoning sacrifice to divine justice, and laying such a foundation for solid peace and joy in the hearts of his people.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:   24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.   25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.   26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.   27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.   28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.   29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.   30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.   31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.   32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.   33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.   34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

      To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in the reformation of all abuses.

      I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from the Lord what he delivered to them,Romans 11:23; Romans 11:23. He had the knowledge of this matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated, without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.

      II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,

      1. Of the author--our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the church only has power to institute sacraments.

      2. The time of the institution: It was the very night wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which are therein to be commemorated.

      3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Matthew 26:26), he broke, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me,Romans 11:24; Romans 11:25. Here observe,

      (1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord bade them all drink of it (Matthew 26:27; Matthew 26:27), as if he would, by this expression, lay in a caveat against the papists' depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour, though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide Lightfoot on Matthew 26:27. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by these outward signs; they are Christ's body and blood, his body broken, his blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his blood.

      (2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour's actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink, and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples, and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life,Colossians 3:4.

      (3.) We have here an account of the ends of this institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ, to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his death, at God's right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ's death, to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.

      (4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, c. Our bodily meals return often we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord's day, if not every day when they assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord's will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father's glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.

      III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (Romans 11:27; Romans 11:27), of violating this sacred institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing,Hebrews 10:29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment to themselves,Romans 11:29; Romans 11:29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery. Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord's table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord's body--not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord's supper may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned with the world,Romans 11:32; Romans 11:32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Hebrews 12:6), especially with so merciful a purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is kindness to use the rod to prevent the child's ruin. He will visit such iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves; at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.

      IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the Lord's table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (Romans 11:28; Romans 11:28), try and approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance, its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who, through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial, have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who would be welcome at this marriage-feast--grace in habit, and grace in exercise. 2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged,Romans 11:31; Romans 11:31. If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge others, lest we be judged (Matthew 7:1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but should be very candid in judging others.

      V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (Romans 11:33; Romans 11:34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord's table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God's worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.

Spurgeon's Verse Expositions of the Bible

EXPOSITION OF Matthew 26:26-30 ; and 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 .

We will read, first, Matthew's account of the institution of the Lord's supper.

Matthew 26:26-30 And as they were eating,

In the middle of the Paschal Feast our Lord instituted the sacred festival which was ever afterwards to be known as "the Lord's supper." The one ordinance was made to melt gradually into the other: "as they were eating."

26. Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take eat; this is my body.

"This represents my body." He could not possibly have meant that the bread was his body; for there was his body sitting at the table, whole and entire. They would have been astonished beyond measure if they had understood him literally; but they did not do so, any more than when Christ said, "I am the door," or "I am the Good Shepherd."

27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

"Every one of you." Was this the Lord's supper? Yes. What say the Romanists about it? Why, that the people may not drink the cup! Yet our Saviour says to his disciples, "Drink ye all of it."

28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

They had had sin brought to their minds; they had had a personal reminder of their own liability to sin; now they were to have a perpetual pledge of the pardon of sin, in the cup, which was the emblem of Christ's blood, "shed for many for the remission of sins."

29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus took the Nazarite vow to drink no more, to partake no more of the fruit of the vine, till he should meet us again in his Father's kingdom. He has pledged us once for all in that cup, and now he abstains until he meets us again. Thus he looks forward to a glorious meeting; but he bids us take the cup, and thus remember him until he comes.

30. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

To his last great battle the Champion goes singing, attended by feeble followers, who could not protect him; but who could sing with him. I think he must have led the tune; his disciples were too sorrowful to sing until his clear voice started the Hallelujah Psalms; but they joined him in the holy exercise, for "they" as well as their Lord sang the hymn. When you are about to face a trial, offer a prayer; but, if you can, also sing a hymn. It will show great faith if, before you enter into the burning fiery furnace, you can sing psalms unto the Lord who redeemeth his people.

Now let us read Paul's version of this same matter.

1 Corinthians xi. 20, 21. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

These Corinthians had fallen into a very queer state. I do not think that any Baptist Church that I have ever known of has acted in this fashion; but when churches have no ministers, when there is an open ministry where everybody talketh and nobody listeneth, they fall into a queer condition, especially into divisions and heart-breaking strifes. It was so in the case of this church at Corinth. Here everybody brought his own provision, and some ate to the full, and others had not enough; and they thought that they were observing "the Lord's supper."

22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?

There is your proper place if you want a meal. Go home, and eat and drink; do not come to the sanctuary for such a purpose: "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?"

22, 23. Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you,

He had received it by a special revelation, Poor Paul was brought in late, and he was like one born out of due time. He had not been present in the upper room with Christ at the first famous breaking of bread; so the Lord came and gave him a special revelation concerning this sacred feast, so that, whenever he spoke or wrote to any of the churches about the Lord's supper, he could say, "I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you."

23, 24. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The Lord's supper is a simple service of remembrance. Nothing is said about an altar, or a priest, or a sacrifice. Our Lord took bread, gave thanks for it, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." Mark that "this do"; it will not be right to do something else instead of this; and we must not do this for any other purpose than the one he mentions, "This do in remembrance of me." This command raises a previous question, "Do we know him?" we cannot remember Christ if we do not know him.

25, 26. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drinketh it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

"By Christ redeemed, in Christ restored,

We keep the memory adored,

And show the death of our dear Lord,

Until he come!

"And thus that dark betrayal-night,

With the last advent we unite;

By one blest chain of loving rite

Until he come!"

27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

If such a man has treated "this bread" and "this cup" with contempt, he has treated "the body and blood of the Lord" with contempt; it shall be so reckoned to him. Many have been trouble by this verse. They have said, "We are unworthy." You are, this is quite true; but the text does not say anything about your being unworthy. Paul uses an adverb, not an adjective. His words are, "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily," that is, in an unfit way, to gain something by it, as men used to take what they called "the sacrament" to get into certain offices, or as some come to the communion-table for the sake of the charitable gifts that are for the poor of the church; this is to eat and drink "unworthily." To come carelessly, to come contemptuously, to say, "I do not care whether I am a Christian, or not; but I shall come to the communion," this is to eat and drink "unworthily." Notice the ly; we are all unworthy of this sacred feast, and if unworthiness could shut us out, who would dare to be here?

28. But let a man examine himself,

Let a man look himself up and down, as a lawyer cross-questions a witness, as a man examines money to see whether it has the true ring of gold about it; or not: "Let a man examine himself."

28. And so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Let him come as a true believer, as sincere; if not perfect, yet true; if not all he ought to be, yet in Christ; if not all he wants to be, yet still on the way to it, by being in Christ, who is "the way, the truth and the life."

29. For he that eateth, and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

He does not see the meaning of the emblem of Christ's death. He degrades the symbol by making it take the place of the thing signified. He sees the bread, but not the body; and he damnifies himself, condemns himself, by such eating. He is a loser rather than a gainer by eating and drinking unworthily.

30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Persons coming to the Lord's table in an improper spirit are very apt to come under God's discipline; some will be taken ill; and some will die. This discipline is being carried on in every true church of God. God's providence will work in this way if many treat the table of the Lord as the Corinthians did, acting as if it were a common place for eating and drinking. Many of them were weak and sickly, and many died.

31. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

If we are God's people, we shall be judged by him here for our wrongdoing. We shall not be like the world that is left to the day of judgment; but we shall be judged now. God will visit with temporal judgments those of his children who sin against him.

32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

You know that a man will see a great deal that is wrong in children in the street, and say nothing about it; but if it is his own who is up to mischief, he will give him a sweet taste of the rod. So, if you belong to God, you cannot sin deeply without having a present judgment, a present discipline; and you ought to be thankful for it, painful though it may seem to be for the time, for "when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

How gently Paul talks to these Corinthians! They deserve to be scolded; but he is very tender with them. He says, "If you must come together in this way, at least have the good manners to stop for one another; and if you do come to the communion of the Lord, treat it with that respect and reverence which it deserves.

34. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come,

May we to-night keep this feast in due order under the power of the Holy Spirit, and may we find a blessing in it to God's praise! Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HYMNS FROM "OUR OWN HYMN BOOK" 938, 947.

Kelly Commentary on Books of the Bible

As usual, the introductory words (1 Corinthians 1:1-3) of the epistle give us no little intimation of that which is to follow. The apostle speaks of himself as such "called [to be ] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God," but coupling a brother with him, "and Sosthenes our brother," he writes to "the church of God at Corinth" not to the saints, as was the case in the epistle to the Romans, but to the church at Corinth "to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus," as in the former epistle "called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

This will be found to lead the way into the main subject of the present communication. Here we must not look for the great foundations of Christian doctrine. There is the unfolding of the assembly in a practical way; that is, the church of God is not viewed here in its highest character. There is no more than an incidental glance at its associations with Christ. No notice is here taken of the heavenly places as the sphere of our blessing; nor are we given to hear of the bridal affections of Christ for His body. But the assembly of God is addressed, those sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints called, "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Thus room is left for the profession of the Lord's name. It is not, as in Ephesians, "to the saints which are in Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." There is no such closeness of application, nor intimacy, nor confidence in a really intrinsically holy character. Sanctified they were in Christ Jesus. They had taken the place of being separate, "calling upon the name of the Lord;" but the remarkable addition should be noticed by the way "with all that in every place call upon the name of the Lord, both theirs and ours." And this is the more notable, because if there be an epistle which the unbelief of Christendom tries more than another to annul in its application to present circumstances, it is this first letter to the Corinthians. Nor need we wonder. Unbelief shrinks from that which calls, now rather recalls, the saints to a due sense of their responsibility in virtue of their position as the church of God here below. Those at Corinth had forgotten it. Christendom has not merely forgotten but denied it, and so would fain treat a large part of that which will come before us tonight as a bygone thing. It is not disputed that God did thus work in times past; but they have not the smallest serious thought of submitting to its directions as authoritative for present duty. Yet who can deny that God has taken more care to make this plain and certain in the very frontispiece of this epistle than anywhere else? He is wise and right: man is not. Our place is to bow and believe.

There is another point also to be weighed in the next verses (4-8). The apostle tells them how he thanks his God always on their behalf, but refrains from any expression of thankfulness as to their state. He recognises their rich endowments on God's part. He owns how they had been given all utterance, and all knowledge, the working of the Spirit of God, and His power. This is exceedingly important; for there is a disposition often to consider that difficulties and disorder among the saints of God are due to a want of government and of ministerial power. But no amount of gift, in few or many, can of itself produce holy spiritual order. Disorder is never the result of weakness alone. This, of course, may be taken advantage of, and Satan may tempt men to assume the semblance of a strength they do not possess. No doubt assumption would produce disorder; but weakness simply (where it leads souls, as it should, to spread out their need before the Lord) brings in the gracious action of the Holy Ghost, and the unfailing care of Him who loves His saints and the assembly. It was not so at Corinth. Theirs was rather the display of conscious strength; but at the same time they lacked the fear of God, and the sense of responsibility in the use of what God had given them. They were like children disporting themselves with not a little energy that wrought in vessels which altogether failed in self-judgment. This was a source, and a main source, of the difficulty and disorder at Corinth. It is also of great importance to us; for there are those that continually cry out for increase of power as the one panacea of the church. What reflecting spiritual mind could doubt that God sees His saints are not able to bear it? Power in the sense in which we are now speaking of it that is, power in the form of gift is far from being the deepest need or the gravest desideratum of the saints. Again, is it ever the way of God to display Himself thus in a fallen condition of things? Not that He is restrained, or that He is not Sovereign. Not, moreover, that He may not give, and liberally as suits His own glory; but He gives wisely and holily, so as to lead souls now into exercise of conscience and brokenness of spirit, and thus keep and even deepen their sense of that to which God's church is called, and the state into which it has fallen.

At Corinth there was a wholly different state of things. It was the early rise of the church of God, if I may so say, among the Gentiles. And there was not wanting an astonishing sample of the power of the Spirit in witness of the victory that Jesus had won over Satan. This was now, or at least should have been, manifested by the church of God, as at Corinth. But they had lost sight of God's objects. They were occupied with themselves, with one another, with the supernatural energy which grace had conferred on them in the name of the Lord. The Holy Ghost in inspiring the apostle to write to them in no way weakens the sense of the source and character of that power. He insists on its reality, and reminds them that it was of God; but at the same time he brings in the divine aim in it all. "God," says he, "is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." Immediately after he alludes to the schisms that were then at work among them, and calls on them to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment; informing them of the tidings which had reached him through the house of Chloe, that there were contentions among them, some saying, "I am of Paul," others "I am of Apollos;" some, "I am of Cephas," and others "I am of Christ himself." There is no abuse to which flesh cannot degrade the truth. But the apostle knew how to introduce the Lord's name and grace with the grandly simple but weighty facts of His person and work. It was unto His name that they were baptized; it was He that had been crucified. And be it observed, that from the first of this epistle it is the cross of Christ that has the prominence. It is not so much His blood-shedding, nor even His death and resurrection, but His cross. This would have been as much out of place in the beginning of Romans as the putting forward of propitiation would be out of place here. Expiation of sins by Christ, His death and resurrection, are given of God to be displayed before the saints, who needed to know the firm, immutable foundation of grace; but what the saints wanted most was to learn the gross inconsistency of turning to selfish ease, honour, and aggrandisement the privileges of God's church, and the power of the Spirit of God that wrought in its members.

It is the cross which stains the pride of man, and puts all his glory in the dust. Hence the apostle brings Christ crucified before them. This to the Jew was a stumbling-block, and to the Greek foolishness. These Corinthians were deeply affected by the judgment of both Jews and Greeks. They were under the influence of man. They had not realized the total ruin of nature. They valued those that were wise, scribes, or disputers of this world. They were accustomed to the schools of their age and country. They conceived that if Christianity did such great things when those who possessed it were poor and simple, what might it not do if it could only be backed by the ability, and the learning, and the philosophy of men! How it must ride triumphantly to victory! How the great must bow, and the wise be brought in! What a glorious change would result when not the unlettered poor only, but the great and the noble, the wise and the Prudent, were all joined in the confession of Jesus!

Their thoughts were fleshly, not of God. The cross writes judgment on man, and folly on his wisdom, as it is itself rejected by man as folly; for what could seem more egregiously unreasonable to a Greek than the God that made heaven and earth becoming a man, and, as such, crucified by the wicked hands of His creatures here below? That God should use His power to bless man was natural; and the Gentile could coalesce as to it with the Jew. Hence too, in the cross, the Jew found his stumbling-block; for he expected a Messiah in power and glory. Though the Jew and the Greek seemed opposite as the poles, from different points they agreed thoroughly in slighting the cross, and in desiring the exaltation of man as he is. They both, therefore, (whatever their occasional oppositions, and whatever their permanent variety of form,) preferred the flesh, and were ignorant of God the one demanding signs, the other wisdom. It was the pride of nature, whether self-confident or founded on religious claims.

Hence the apostle Paul, in the latter part of chap. 1, brings in the cross of Christ in contrast with fleshly wisdom, as well as religious pride, urging also God's sovereignty in calling souls as He will. He alludes to the mystery (1 Corinthians 2:1-16), but does not develop here the blessed privileges that flowed to us from a union with Christ, dead, risen, and ascended; but demonstrates that man has no place whatever, that it is God who chooses and calls, and that He makes, nothing of flesh. There is glorying, but it is exclusively in the Lord. No flesh should glory in his presence."

This is confirmed in1 Corinthians 2:1-16; 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, where the apostle reminds them of the manner in which the gospel had entered Corinth. He had come there setting his face against all things that would commend himself. No doubt, to one of such eminent ability and such varied gifts as the apostle Paul, it was hard, to speak after the manner of men, to be nothing. How much it must have called for self-denial utterly to decline that which he could have handled so well, and which people at Corinth would have hailed with loud acclamation. Just think of the great apostle of the Gentiles, on the immortality of the soul, giving free rein to the mighty spirit that was in him! But not so. What absorbed his soul, in entering, the intellectual and dissolute capital of Achaia, was the cross of Christ. He determined therefore, as he says, to know nothing else not exactly to know the cross alone, but "Jesus Christ and him crucified." It was emphatically, though not exclusively, the cross. It was not simply redemption, but along with this another order of truth. Redemption supposes, undoubtedly, a suffering Saviour, and the shedding of that precious blood which ransoms the captives. It is Jesus who in grace has undergone the judgment of God, and brought in the full delivering power of God for the souls that believe. But the cross is more than this. It is the death of shame pre-eminently. It is utter opposition to the thoughts, feelings, judgments, and ways of men, religious or profane. This is the part accordingly that he was led in the wisdom of God to put forward. Hence the feelings of the apostle were distrust of self, and dependence on God according to that cross. As he says, "I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling." Thus, as Christ Himself is said in 2 Corinthians 13:1-14 to be crucified in weakness, such was also the servant here. His speech and his preaching was "not in enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." Accordingly, in this chapter he proceeds to supplement the application of the doctrine of the cross to the state of the Corinthians by bringing in the Holy Ghost; for this again supposes the incapacity of man in divine things.

All is opened out in a manner full of comfort, but at the same time unsparing to human pride. Weigh from the prophecy of Isaiah the remarkable quotation "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit." There is first the great standing fact before our eyes. Such is the Saviour to the saved. Christ crucified is the death-knell on all man's wisdom, and power, and righteousness. The cross writes total condemnation on the world. It was here the world had to say to Jesus. All that it gave Him was the cross. On the other hand, to the believer it is the power of God and the wisdom of God, because he humbly but willingly reads in the cross the truth of the judgment of his own nature as a thing to be delivered from, and finds Him that was crucified, the Lord Himself, undertaking a deliverance just, present, and complete; as he says, "Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Flesh is absolutely put down. Man cannot go lower for weakness and ignominy than the cross on which hangs all the blessedness God gives the believer. And therein God is glorified as He is nowhere else. This in both its parts is exactly as it should be; and faith sees and receives it in Christ's cross. The state of the Corinthians did not admit of Christ risen being brought in, at least here. It might have drawn a halo, as it were, round human nature this presenting the risen man in the first instance. But he points to God as the source, and Christ as the channel and means, of all the blessing. "Of him," says he, "are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." But then, as he shows, there was not only this great source of blessing in Christ, but there is the power that works in us. Never is it the spirit of man that lays hold of this infinite good which God vouchsafes him. Man requires a divine power to work within him, just as he needs the Saviour outside himself

Accordingly, in 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, still carrying on the thought of Christ crucified, and connecting it with their condition, he intimates that he was in no wise limited to it. If persons were grounded in Christianity, he was prepared to go into the greatest depths of revealed truth; but then the power of entering safely was not human, but of the Holy Ghost. Man is no more capable of fathoming the depths of divine things than a brute can comprehend the works of human wit or science. This doctrine was utterly repulsive to the pride of the Greeks. They might admit man to have need of pardon, and of moral improvement. They fully admitted his want of instruction, and refinement, and, so to speak, of spiritualization, if it only might be. Christianity deepens our estimate of every want. Man not only wants a new life or nature, but the Holy Ghost. It is not merely His grace in a general sense, but the power of the Holy Ghost personally dwelling in him. It is this alone which can lead us into the deep things of God. And this, he lets us see, affects not merely this particular or that, but the whole working of divine grace and power in man. The whole and sole means of communicating blessing to us must be the Holy Ghost. Hence he insists, that as it is the Spirit of God in the first place who reveals the truth to us, so it is the same Spirit who furnishes suitable words, as, finally, it is through the Holy Ghost that one receives the truth revealed in the words He Himself has given. Thus, from first to last, it is a process begun, carried on, and completed by the Holy Ghost. How little this makes of man!

This introduces 1 Corinthians 3:1-23 and gives point to his rebukes. He taxes them with walking as men. How remarkable is such a reproach! Walking as men! Why, one might ask, how else could they walk? And this very difficulty as no doubt it would be to many a Christian now (that walking as men should be a reproach) was no doubt a clap of thunder to the proud but poor spirits at Corinth. Yes, walking as men is a departure from Christianity. It is to give up the distinctive power and place that belongs to us; for does not Christianity show us man judged, condemned, and set aside? On the faith of this, living in Christ, we have to walk. The Holy Ghost, besides, is brought in as working in the believer, and this, of course, in virtue of redemption by our Lord Jesus. And this is what is meant by being not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, which is proved by the Holy Ghost dwelling in us.

Here the apostle does not explain all this, and he gives a very withering reason for his reticence. These Corinthians had an uncommonly good opinion of themselves, and so they must be told plainly the reason why he does not open out these deep things. They themselves were not fit; they were but babes. What! the polished Greek believers no more than babes! This was rather what they would have said of the apostle or of his teaching. They thought themselves far in advance. The apostle had dwelt on the elementary truths of the gospel. They yearned after the fire of Peter and the rhetoric of Apollos. No doubt they might easily flatter themselves it was to carry on the work of God. How little many a young convert knows what will best lead him on! How little the Corinthians dreamt of depreciating the Second man, or of exalting the first! Hence the apostle tells them that he could not speak unto them as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat." Far from denying, he owns that their insinuation was true he had only brought before them elementary truths. They were not in a condition to bear more. Now this is full of meaning and importance practically at all times. We may damage souls greatly by presenting high truths to those that want the simplest rudiments of divine truth.

The apostle, as a wise master-builder, laid the foundation. The state of the Corinthians was such that he could not build on the foundation as he would have desired. His absence had given occasion for the breaking out of their carnal wishes after the world's wisdom. They were making even the ardour of a Peter and the eloquence of an Apollos to be a reason for dissatisfaction with one that, I need not say, was superior to both of them. But the apostle meets them in a way most unexpected to their self-satisfaction and pride, and lets them know that their carnality was the real reason why he could not go on with them into deeper things.

This leads him to point out the seriousness of the work or building; for he presents the church of God under this figure. What care each servant needs to take how and what he builds! What danger of bringing in that which would not stand the fire or judgment of God nay, further, of bringing in that which was not simply weak and worthless, but positively corrupting; for it was to be feared there were such elements even then at Corinth! Again he brings in another principle to bear upon them. Their party spirit, their feeling of narrowness, the disposition to set up this servant of Christ or that, was not only a dishonour to the Master, but a real loss to themselves. Not that there is any ground to suppose it was the fault of Peter or Apollos any more than of Paul. The evil was in the saints themselves, who indulged in their old zeal of the schools, and allowed their natural partiality to work. In point of fact this never can be without the most grievous impoverishment to the soul, as well as a hindrance to the Holy Ghost. What faith must learn is, that "all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas; . . . . . all are yours." Thus the subject enlarges, as is his wont, taking in an immense breadth of the Christian's possessions life, death, things present, and things to come. "All are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

This again brings in another point before the subject closes. He is not content with the pressing of responsibility on others; he had a solemn sense of his own place, which made him wonderfully independent of the judgments of men. Obedience gives firmness as well as humility. Not in the smallest degree was the pride of the Corinthians met by pride on his part, but by keeping the Lord and His will before his soul. Yet this is certainly true that this effect of faith looks like pride to a man who merely views things on the surface. The calm going on in the service of Christ, the endurance of this spirit or that, as no more than the idle wind, was no doubt exceedingly unpleasant to such as were wise in their own conceit, and valued the criticism they freely bestowed on the different servants of the Lord. But Paul sees all in the light of the eternal day. They had forgotten this, and were in a sense trafficking with these powers of the Spirit of God. They were making them the counters of a game they were playing in this world. They had forgotten that what God gives He gives in time, but in view of eternity. The apostle puts the truth of the case before their souls as he had it vividly before his own. (1 Corinthians 4:1-21)

Another thing is noticeable here. He had reproached them with walking not as Christians but as men (that is, with their habitual life and conversation formed on human principles instead of divine). On the other hand, it would appear from what follows, that they reproached the apostle in their hearts, not, of course, in so many words, with not being enough of a gentleman for their taste. This seems to me the gist of the fourth chapter. It was a thing that they considered quite beneath a Christian minister to work from time to time with his hands, often poor, occasionally in prison, knocked about by crowds, and so on. All this they thought the fruit of indiscretion and avoidable. They would have preferred respectability, public and private, in one who stood in the position of a servant of Christ. This the apostle meets in a very blessed way. He admitted that they were certainly not in such circumstances; they were reigning as kings. As for him it was enough to be the off-scouring of all men, this was his boast and blessedness. He wished that they did indeed reign that he might reign with them (that the blessed time might really arrive). How his heart would rejoice in that day with them! And surely the time will come, and they would all reign together when Christ reigns over the earth. But he quite admits that for the present the fellowship of Christ's sufferings was the place he had chosen. Of honour in the world, and ease for the flesh, he at least could not, if they could, boast. Present greatness was what he in no wise coveted; to suffer great things for His sake was what the Lord had promised, and what His servant expected in becoming an apostle. If his own service was the highest position in the church, his was certainly the lowest position in the world. This was as much an apostle's boast and glory as anything that God had given them. No answer can I conceive more telling to any one of his detractors at Corinth who had a heart and conscience.

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 we enter on another and more painful part of the epistle. A fearful instance of sin had come to light, so gross, indeed, that the like was not even named among the Gentiles. In fact it was a case of incest, and this among those called of God, and sanctified in Christ Jesus! The question is not in the least raised whether the guilty person was a saint or not; still less does he allow that which one so often and painfully heard pleaded in extenuation, "Oh, but he [or she] is a dear Christian." Christian affection is most excellent; as brethren we should love even to laying down life for each other; as it is also very right that we should own the work God has wrought, above all what He has wrought in grace. But when one bearing the name of the Lord has, through unwatchfulness, fallen into wickedness, which of course grieves the Holy Ghost and stumbles the weak, it is not the time to talk thus. It is the time, in the very love that God implants, to deal sternly with that which has disgraced the name of the Lord. Is this to fail in love to the person? The apostle showed ere long that he had more love for this evildoer than any of them. The second epistle to the Corinthians entreats them to confirm their love to him whom they had put away. They were too hard against him then, as they were too loose now. Here their consciences needed to be roused. To deal with the matter they owed to the Lord Jesus. It was not merely getting rid of the obnoxious man. They had to prove themselves clear in the matter certainly; but he puts before them another course, whenever the guilty one had repented.

"I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already," etc. The case was most gross, and there was no question about it. The facts were indisputable; the scandal was unheard of. "I have judged already, as though present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." There was no discussion raised whether the person might be converted. The fact is, church discipline supposes and goes on the ground that those on whom it is exercised are Christians; but when it is a question of discipline, it is not the season for the display of Christian affection. This would falsify the conscience and turn the eye from off the point to which the Holy Ghost was directing attention. There was wickedness in their midst; and while known and unjudged, all were implicated; none could be clean till it was put away. Accordingly the apostle, while he expresses the desire that the spirit of the man should be saved in the day of the Lord, flesh being destroyed, at the same time rouses the saints to that which became the name of the Lord on the very ground that they were unleavened. If they were free from evil, let them act consistently. Let them preserve that purity in practice which was theirs in principle. They were unleavened, and therefore should be a new lump. Notoriously there was old leaven among them. What business had it there? "Put away from" not the table of the Lord merely, this he does not say, but "Put away from among yourselves." This is much stronger than expelling from the table. Of course, it implies exclusion from the Lord's table, but from their table too "with such an one, no, not to eat." An ordinary meal, or any such act expressive even in natural things of fellowship with the person thus dishonouring the Lord, is forbidden.

Mark, they must put away. It is not the apostle acting for them; for God took particular care that this case, demanding discipline to the uttermost, should be where the apostle was not. What an admirable instruction for us who have no longer an apostle! None can pretend that it was an assembly where there was a high degree of knowledge or spirituality. The very reverse was the case. The responsibility of discipline depends on our relationship as an assembly to the Lord, not on its changing states. The Corinthians were babes; they were carnal. He who loved them well could not speak of them as spiritual. Nevertheless, this responsibility attached to the very fact that they were members of Christ His body. If saints are gathered to the name of the Lord, and so are God's assembly, if they have faith to take such a position here below, and have the Holy Ghost owned as in their midst, this, and nothing short of this, is their responsibility; nor does the ruined state of the church touch the question, nor can it relieve them from their duty to the Lord. The church at Corinth had soon failed most gravely far and wide. This was the more shameful, considering the brightness of the truth vouchsafed to them, and the striking manifestation of divine power in their midst. The presence of apostles elsewhere in the earth, the beautiful display of Pentecostal grace at Jerusalem, the fact that so short a time had elapsed since they had been brought out of heathenism into their standing in God's grace, all made the present state of the Corinthians so much the more painful; but nothing can ever dissolve the responsibility of saints, whether as individuals or as an assembly. "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Another thing is to be observed, that the Holy Spirit's scale of sin is not that of man. Which of you, my brethren, would have thought of classing a railer with an adulterer? A railer is one who uses abusive language for the purpose of injuring another, not the transient out-breaking of flesh, sad as it is, but provoked it may be, or at any rate, happening through unwatchfulness. The habit of evil speaking stamps him who practises it as a railer; and such a man is unfit for the company of the saints, for God's assembly. It is the old leaven of malice and wickedness. He is unclean. Doubtless the world would not so judge; but this is not the world's judgment. The Corinthians were under the influence of the world. The apostle had already shown that to walk as men is beneath the Christian. Now we see that to walk as the world, no matter how refinedly, ever exposes Christians to act worse than men of the world. God has stamped upon His children the name of Christ; and what does not express His name is inconsistent, not only with the Christian, but with His assembly. They are all as such held responsible, according to the grace and holiness and glory of Christ, for the sin done in their midst, of which they are cognisant. They are bound to keep themselves pure in ways.

There was another case also: brother was going to law with brother. (1 Corinthians 6:1-20) We have no reason to think they had fallen so far as to go to law with those that were not brethren; this would seem to be a lower step still. But brother was going to law with brother, ,and this before the unjust. How often now-a-days one hears, "Well, one expects something better from a brother; and surely he ought to suffer the consequences of his ill-doing." This was just the feeling of the Corinthian plaintiff. What, then, is the weapon that the apostle uses in this case? The dignified place in the glory that God designs for the Christian: "Know ye not that we shall judge the world judge angels?" Were such going before the Gentiles? Thus is seen how practical all truth is, and how God casts the bright light of the approaching day on the smallest matters of the life of today.

Again, there was no quarter in the world where personal purity was more unknown than at Corinth. Indeed, such were the habits of the ancient world, it would only defile the ears and minds of God's children to have any proofs of the depravity in which the world then lay, and that too in its best estate, the wisest and the greatest not excepted, those, alas. whose writings are in the hands of the youth of our day, and more than ever, perhaps, in their hands. Those wits, poets, and philosophers of heathen antiquity lived in habitual, yea, often in unnatural grossness, and thought nothing of it. It is a danger for the saints of God to be tinctured by the atmosphere of the world outside when the first fervour of grace cools, and they begin to take up their old habits. It was certainly so at Corinth.

Accordingly the believers there were betrayed into their former uncleanness of life when the heavenly light got dim. And how does the apostle deal with this? He recalls to them the Holy Spirit's dwelling in them. What a truth, and of what force to the believer! He does not say simply that they were redeemed, though he brings it in also; still less does he merely reason on the moral heinousness of the sin; neither does he cite the law of God that condemned it. He presses upon them that which was proper to them as Christians. It was no question of man, let him be Gentile or Jew, but of a Christian. Thus he sets before them the distinctive Christian blessing the Holy Ghost dwelling in the believer, and making his body (not his spirit but his body) a temple of the Holy Ghost; for here was precisely where the enemy seems to have misled these Corinthians. They affected to think they might be pure in spirit, but do what they liked with their bodies. But, answers the apostle, it is the body which is the temple of the Holy Ghost. The body belongs to the Lord and Saviour; the body, therefore, and not the spirit only, He claims now. No doubt that the spirit be occupied with Christ is a grand matter; but the licentious flesh of man would talk, at any rate, about the Lord, and at the same time indulge in evil. This is set aside by the blessed fact that the Holy Ghost even now dwells in the Christian, and this on the ground of his being bought with a price. Thus the very call to holiness ever keeps the saint of God in the sense of his immense privileges as well as of his perfect deliverance.

1 Corinthians 7:1-40 naturally leads from this into certain questions that had been proposed to the apostle touching marriage and slavery questions which had to do with the various relationships of life. The apostle accordingly gives us what he had learned from the Lord, as well as what he could speak of as a commandment of the Lord, distinguishing in the most beautiful manner, not between inspired and non-inspired, but between revelation and inspiration. All the word is inspired; there is no difference as to this. There is no part of Scripture that is less inspired than another. " All (every) scripture is given by inspiration of God;" but all is not His revelation. We must distinguish between parts revealed and the whole inspired. When a thing is revealed of God, it is absolutely new truth, and of course is the commandment of the Lord. But the inspired word of God contains the language of all sorts of men, and very often the conversation of wicked men nay, of the devil I need not say that all this is not a revelation; but God communicates what Satan and wicked men say (as for instance Pilate's words to our Lord and the Jews). None of these evidently was that which is called a revelation; but the Holy Ghost inspired the writers of the book to give us exactly what each of these said, or revealed what was in the mind of God about them. Take, for example, the book of Job, in which occur the sayings of his friends. What intelligent reader could think that they were in any way authorised communicators of the mind of God? They say sometimes very wrong things, and sometimes wise, and often things that do not in the smallest degree apply to the case. Every word of the book of Job is inspired; but did all the speakers utter necessarily the mind of God? Did not one of the speakers condemn one or other of the rest? Need one reason on such facts? This, no doubt, makes a certain measure of difficulty for a soul at the first blush; but on maturer consideration all becomes plain and harmonious, and the word of God is enhanced in our eyes.

And so it is in this chapter, where the apostle gives both the commandment of the Lord, and his own matured spiritual judgment, which he expressly says was not the commandment of the Lord. Still he was inspired to give his judgment as such. Thus the whole chapter is inspired, one part of it just as much as another. There is no difference in inspiration. What was written by the different inspired instruments is of God as absolutely as if He had written it all without them. There is no degree in the matter. There can be no difference in inspiration. But in the inspired word of God there is not always revelation. Sometimes it is a record which the Spirit gave a man to make of what he had seen and heard, sometimes he recorded by the Spirit what no man could have seen or heard. Sometimes it was a prophecy of the future, sometimes a communication of God's present mind according to His eternal purpose. But all is equally and divinely inspired.

The apostle then lays down at least as far as may be here briefly sketched that while there are cases where it is a positive duty to be married, undisguisedly there was a better place of undivided devotedness to Christ. Blessed is he who is given. thus to serve the Lord without let: still it must be the gift of God. The Lord Jesus had laid down the same principle Himself. InMatthew 19:1-30; Matthew 19:1-30, it is needless to say, you have the selfsame truth in another form.

Again, while the Lord employs the apostle thus to give us both His own commandment and His mind, the general principle is stated as to the relationships of life. It is broadly laid down that one should remain in that condition in which he is called, and for a very blessed reason. Supposing one were a slave even, he is already, if a Christian, a freeman of Christ. You must remember that in these days there were everywhere bondmen: those that then ruled the. world took them from all classes and all countries There were bondmen highly educated, and once in a high position of life. Need it be said that often these bondmen rose up against their cruel masters? The very knowledge of Christ, and the possession of conscious truth, if grace did not counteract mightily, would tend to increase their sense of horror at their position. Suppose, for instance, a refined person, with the truth of God communicated to his soul, was the slave of one living in all the filth of heathenism, what a trial it would be to serve in such a position! The apostle urges the truth of that liberty in Christ which Christendom has well-nigh forgotten that if I am Christ's servant I am emancipated already. Match if you can the manumission he has got. Twenty millions will procure no such emancipation. At the same time, if my master allows me liberty, let me use it rather. Is it not a remarkable style of speech and feeling? The Christian, even if a slave, possesses the best freedom after all: anything else is but circumstantial. On the other hand, if you are a freeman, take care how you use your liberty: use it as the Lord's bondman. The freeman is reminded of his bondmanship; the bondman is reminded of his freedom. What a wonderful antithesis of man is the Second Man! How it traverses all the thoughts, circumstances, and hopes of flesh!

Then he brings before us the different relationships at the end of the chapter, as they are affected by the coming of the Lord. And there is nothing which shows more the importance of that hope as a practical power. There is not only the direct but the indirect allusion when the heart is filled with an object; and the indirect is a yet stronger witness of the place it holds than the direct. A mere hint connects itself with that which is your joy and constant expectation; whereas when a thing is little before the heart you require to explain, prove, and insist upon it. But this chapter brings vividly before them how all outward things pass away, even the fashion of this world. Time is short. It is too late either to make much of scenes so changing, or to seek this thing or that here below with such a morrow before our eyes. Hence he calls on those who had wives to be as those who had none, on those who were selling and buying to be above all the objects that made up the sum of business. In short, he puts Christ and His coming as the reality, and all else as the shadows, transitions, movements of a world that even now crumbles underneath us. No wonder that he follows all up at the end with his own judgment, that the man most blessed is he who has the least entanglement, and is the most thoroughly devoted to Christ and His service.

Next in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 he begins to take up another danger for the Corinthian saints. They had the sound of the truth ringing in their ears; and assuredly there are few sounds sweeter than the liberty of the Christian. But what is more liable to abuse? They had abused power to self-exaltation; they were now turning liberty to license. But there is a solemn fact which none can afford to forget as to both power and liberty that without responsibility nothing is more ruinous than either. Herein lay the sad failure of these saints. In the sense of responsibility they were utterly wanting They seem to have forgotten completely that the Lord from whom the liberty had come is the One in whose sight, and for whose glory, and according to whose will, all power was to be used. The apostle recalls them to this; but he takes up their license in going into heathen temples, and eating things offered to idols, not first of all on the high ground of the Lord, but on account of their brethren. In their boasted liberty, and because they knew an idol was nothing, they considered that they might go anywhere, and do what they pleased. Nay, not so, cries the apostle; you must consider your brother. There is many a disciple who, far from knowing how vain idolatry is, thinks a good deal of the idol. Thus, you that know so much, if you make light of going here and there, will induce other disciples to follow your steps who may slip into idolatry through it, and thus a brother perish for whom Christ died; and what is the liberty of one who is instructed may prove the extreme ruin of one who is equally a believer in the Lord. Thus he looks at the thing in its full character and ultimate tendency if unchecked. Grace, as we know, can arrest these tendencies, and avert the evil results.

In 1 Corinthians 9:1-27 he interrupts the course of his argument by an appeal to his own place as an apostle. Some were beginning to question his apostolate. It was not that he in the slightest degree forgot his call by God's will to that special service; neither was he insensible to the blessed liberty in which he was serving the Lord. He could lead about a sister-wife like another; he had foregone this for the Lord's sake. He could look for support from the church of God; he preferred to work with his own hands. So in the second epistle to the Corinthians he begs them to forgive the wrong; for he would not accept anything from them. They were not in a condition to be entrusted with such a gift. Their state was such, and God had so overruled it in His ways, that the apostle had received nothing from them. This fact he uses in order to humble them because of their pride and licentiousness.

The course of this chapter then touches on his apostolic place, and at the same time his refusal to use the rights of it. Grace can forego all questions of right. Conscious of what is due, it asserts rights for others, but refuses to use them for itself. Such was the spirit and the faith of the apostle. And now he shows what he felt as to practical state and walk. Far from being full of his knowledge, far from only using his place in the church for the assertion of his dignity and for immunity from all trouble and pain here below, he on the contrary was as one under the law to meet him that was under it; he was as a Gentile to meet him that was free from law (that is, a Gentile). Thus he was a servant of all that he might save some. Besides, he lets them know the spirit of a servant, which was so lacking in the Corinthians in spite of their gifts; for it is not the possession of a gift, but love which serves and delights in service. The simple fact of knowing that you have a gift may and often does minister to self-complacency. The grand point is to have the Lord before you, and when others are thought of, it is in the love which has no need to seek greatness, or to a et it. The love of Christ proves its greatness by serving others.

This, then, was the spirit of that blessed servant of the Lord. He reminds them of another point that he was himself diligent in keeping his body in subjection. He was like a man with a race that was going to be run, and who gets his body into training. He puts this in the strongest way, "Lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." Mark the tact of the apostle. When he has something discreditable to say, he prefers to say it about himself; when he has something pleasing to say, he loves to put it with regard to others. So here he says, "Lest I myself become a castaway," not " you." He meant their profit, no doubt; his aim was for them to have their own consciences searched by it. If Paul even was exercising himself to have a conscience void offence; if Paul was keeping his body in subjection, how much more did these men need it? They were abusing all the comfort that Christianity brings, to live at ease and play the gentleman, if one may speak according to modern language. They had not entered in the smallest degree into the spirit of the moral glory of Christ humbled here below. They had dislocated the cross from Christianity. They had severed themselves from the power of service. Thus they were in the utmost possible jeopardy; but the apostle, who had the blessedness of Christ before him, and the fellowship of His sufferings is scarce another had like him, even he used all diligence of heart, and held a tight rein over himself. Faithful man as he was, he allowed himself none of these licenses. Liberty indeed he prized, but it was not going here and there to feasts of idols. He was free to serve Christ, and time was short: what had such an one to do with heathen temples?

Thus he wants them to feel their danger, but first of all he begins with himself. He was free but watchful; and he was jealous over himself, the greater the grace shown him. It was not that he in the smallest degree doubted his security in Christ, as some so foolishly say; or that such as have eternal life may lose it again. But it is plain that men who merely take the place of having eternal life may, and often do, abandon that place. Those who have eternal life prove it by godliness; those who have it not prove the lack of it by indifference to holiness, and lack of that love which is of God. So the apostle shows that all his knowledge of the truth, far from making him careless, prompted him to yet greater earnestness, and to daily denial of himself. This is a very important consideration for us all (I press it more especially on the young in such a day as this); and the greater the knowledge of the saints, the more they need to keep it in view.

The apostle draws their attention to another warning in the history of Israel. These had eaten of the same spiritual meat, for so he calls it; they had the heaven-sent manna, had drunk of the same spiritual drink; yet what became of them? How many thousands of them perished in the wilderness? The apostle is approaching far closer to their state. He began with application to his own case, and now he points to Israel as a people sanctified to Jehovah. At length the word is, "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man; but God is faithful." This was a great comfort, but it was also a serious caution. "God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able." It is in vain, therefore, to plead circumstances as an excuse for sin. "But [He] will, with the temptation, also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." He makes it plain that he is, with characteristic address, dealing with their little-exercised consciences from the statement of his own earnest vigilance over his ways, and then from the sad and solemn history of Israel judged of the Lord. Thus, too, he goes forward into new ground, the deeper spiritual motives, the appeal to Christian affection as well as to faith. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? He begins with that which most nearly touches the heart. It would have been an order more natural, if one may so say, to speak of the body of Christ; as we know in the Lord's supper habitually, there is that which brings before us first the body and then the blood. The departure from what may be called the historical order makes the emphasis incomparably greater. More than that, the first appeal is founded on the blood of Christ, the answer of divine grace to the deepest need of a soul found in its guilt before God and covered with defilement. Was this to be slighted? "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" He does not here say, "the blood" or the "body of the Lord." This we find in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34; but it is here Christ, because it becomes a question of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority. This, then, is evidently an immense advance in dealing with the subject. Accordingly he now develops it, not on the ground of injury to a brother, but as a breach of fellowship with such a Christ, and indifference to His immense love. But he does not forget His authority: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of demons." It is not simply the love of Christ, but His full authority as the Lord. The apostle contrasts two mighty powers that were contesting demons, on the one hand, a power stronger than man, struggling as to him here below; and, on the other hand, there was the Lord that had shed His blood for them, but the Lord of all who should judge quick and dead. Hence he follows up with a comprehensive and simple principle, but full of liberty withal, that in going into the market you need ask no questions. If I do not know that the food has been connected with idols, the idol is nothing to me; but the moment I know it, it is no longer the question of an idol but a demon; and a demon, be assured, is a very real being indeed. Thus what the apostle insists on amounts to this, that their vaunted knowledge was short indeed. Whenever a person boasts, you will in general find. that he particularly fails precisely where he boasts most. If you set up for great knowledge, this will be the point in which you may be expected to break down. If you set up for exceeding candour, the next thing we may well dread to hear is that you have played very false. The best thing is to see that we give ourselves credit for nothing. Let Christ be all our boast. The sense of our own littleness and of His perfect grace is the way, and the only way, to go on well. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Then in 1 Corinthians 11:1-34 we enter on another point. It would seem that the sisters at Corinth gave them a deal of trouble, and that they had forgotten entirely their due relative place. No doubt the men were at least as much to blame. It is hardly possible that women should ever put themselves forward in the church unless Christian men have deserted their true, responsible position and public action. It is the man's place to guide; and although women may assuredly be far more useful in certain cases, still, unless the man guides, what an evident departure from the order God has assigned to them both! How complete a desertion of the relative position in which they were placed from the first! Thus it was at Corinth. Among the heathen, women played a most important part, and in no quarter of the world, perhaps, so prominent a one as there. Need it be said that this was to their deep shame? There was no city in which they were so degraded as that in which the attained such conspicuous and unnatural prominence. And how does the apostle meet this new feature? He brings in Christ. This is what decides all. He affirms the everlasting principles of God, and he adds that which has so brightly been revealed in and by Christ. He points out that Christ is the image and the glory of God, and that the man stands in an analogous place as connected with and distinguished from the woman. That is to say, the woman's place is one of unobtrusiveness, and in fact, she is most effective where she is least seen. The man, on the contrary, has a public part a rougher and ruder task, no doubt one that may not at all bring into play the finer affections, but which demands a calmer and more comprehensive judgment. The man has the duty of the outward rule and administration.

Accordingly he marks the first departure from what was right by the woman's losing the sign of her subjection. She was to have a covering, on her head; she was to have that which indicated as a sign that she was subject to another. The man seemed to have failed just in the opposite way; and although this may seem a very little thing, what a wonderful thing it is, and what power it shows, to be able to combine in the same epistle eternal things and the very smallest matter of personal decorum, the wearing of long hair or short, the use of a covering on the head or not! How truly it marks God and His word!! Men. would scorn to combine them both in the same epistle; it seems so petty and so incongruous. But it is the littleness of man which calls for big matters to make him important; but the smallest things of God have significance when they bear on the glory of Christ, as they always do. In the first place, it was out of order that a woman should prophesy with her head uncovered; man's place was to do so. He was the image and the glory of God. The apostle connects it all with first principles, going up to the creation of Adam and Eve in a very blessed manner, and above all bringing in the second Man, the last Adam. Did they think to improve on both?

The latter part of the chapter takes up not the relative place of the man and the woman, but the supper of the Lord, and so the saints gathered together. The first part of it, as is evident, has nothing to do with the assembly, and thus does not dispose of the question whether a woman should prophesy there. In fact, nothing is said or implied in the early verses of the assembly at all. The point primarily mooted is of her prophesying after the manner of a man, and this is done with the greatest possible wisdom. Her prophesying is not absolutely shut out. If a woman has a gift for prophecy, which she certainly may have as well as a man, for what is it given of the Lord but for exercise? Certainly such an one ought to prophesy. Who could say the gift of prophecy given to a woman is to be laid up in a napkin? Only she must take care how she does exercise it. First of all, he rebukes the unseemly way in which it was done the woman forgetting that she was a woman, and the man that he is responsible not to act as a woman. They seem to have reasoned in a petty way at Corinth, that because a woman has a gift no less than a man, she is free to use the gift just as a man might. This is in principle wrong; for after all a woman is not a man, nor like one officially, say what you please. The apostle sets aside the whole basis of the argument as false; and we must never hear reasoning which overthrows what God has ordained. Nature ought to have taught them better. But he does not dwell on this; it was a withering rebuke even to hint at their forgetfulness of natural propriety.

Then, in the latter verses, we have the supper of the Lord, and there we find the saints expressly said to be gathered together. This naturally leads the way to the spiritual gifts that are treated of in1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31. As to the supper of the Lord, happily I need not say many words to you. It is, by the great mercy of God, familiar to most of us; we live, I may say, in the enjoyment of it, and know it to be one of the sweetest privileges God vouchsafes us here below. Alas! this very feast had furnished occasion, in the fleshly state of the Corinthians, to a most humiliating abuse. What led to it was the Agape, as it was styled; for in those days there was a meal which the Christians used to take together. Indeed, the social character of Christianity never can be overlooked without loss, but in an evil state it is open to much abuse. Everything that is good may be perverted; and it never was intended to hinder abuse by extinguishing that which was only to be maintained aright in the power of the Spirit of God. No rules, no abstinence, no negative measures, can glorify God, or make His children spiritual; and it is only by the power of the Holy Ghost in producing a sense of responsibility to the Lord as well as of His grace that saints are duly kept. So it was then at Corinth, that the meeting for the Lord's Supper became mingled with an ordinary meal, where the Christians ate and drank together. They were glad to meet at any rate, originally it was so, when love was gratified with the company of each other. Being not merely young Christians, but unwatchful and then lax, this gave rise to sad abuse. Their old habits re-asserted their influence. They were accustomed to the feasts of the heathen, where people thought nothing whatever of getting drunk, if it was not rather meritorious. It was in some of their mysteries considered a wrong to the god for his votary not to get drunk, so debased beyond all conception were the heathen in their notions of religion.

Accordingly these Corinthian brethren had by little and little got on until some of them had fallen into intemperance on the occasion of the Eucharist; not, of course, simply by the wine drank at the table of the Lord, but through the feast that accompanied it. Thus the shame of their drunkenness fell upon that Holy Supper; and hence the apostle regulated, that from that time forward there should be no such feast coupled with the Lord's Supper. If they wished to eat, let them eat at home; if they came together in worship, let them remember it was to eat of the Lord's body, and to drink of the Lord's blood. He puts it in the strongest terms. He does not feel it needful or suitable to speak of "the figure" of the Lord's body. The point was to make its grace and holy impressiveness duly felt. It was a figure, no doubt; but .still, writing to men who were at least wise enough to judge aright here, he gives all its weight, and the strongest expression of what was meant. So Jesus had said. Such it was in the sight of God. He that partook undiscerningly and without self-judgment was guilty of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. It was a sin against Him. The intention of the Lord, the true principle and practice for a saint, is to come, examining his ways, trying his springs of action, putting himself to the proof; and so let him eat (not stay away, because there is much discovered that is humbling). The guard and warning is, that if there be not self-judgment, the Lord will judge. How low is the state of things to which all saints tend, and not the Corinthians only! There ought to have been, I suppose, an interposition of the church's judgment between the Christian's lack of self-judgment and the Lord's chastenings; but, alas! man's duty was altogether lacking. It was from no want of gifts. They had no sense of the place God designed self-judgment to hold; but the Lord never fails.

In 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 accordingly, the apostle enters on a full statement of these spiritual powers. He shows that the distinctive feature of that which the Spirit of God leads to is the confession, not exactly of Christ, but of Jesus as Lord. He takes the simplest and most necessary ground that of His authority. This is observable in verse 3: "Wherefore I give you to understand that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed, and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost." Impossible that the Spirit should dishonour, yea, that He should not exalt, Him who humbled Himself for God's glory. "Now, there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God that worketh all in all." They had forgotten all this. They were pre-occupied with human thoughts, with this clever Jew and that able Gentile. They had lost sight of God Himself working in their midst. The apostle points out that if there were different services, if distinct gifts to one and another, it was for the common good of all. He illustrates the nature of the church as a body with its various members subserving the interests of the body and the will of the head. "By one Spirit were we all baptized into one body;" it is not the Holy Ghost merely making many members, but "one body." Accordingly he confronts with this divine aim their misuse of their spiritual powers, independence one of another, disorder as to women, self-glorification, and the like, as we see in1 Corinthians 14:1-40; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 the detail. He presses that the least comely members, those that are least seen, may be of more importance than any others; just as in the natural body some of the most vital parts are not even visible. What would a man do without a heart, or liver, or lungs? So in the spiritual body there are members which are most important and not seen at all. But men are apt to value most those which make a showy appearance. Thus he rebukes the whole tenor and spirit of Corinthian vanity; at the same time he maintains their place of blessing and responsibility to the last. After all their faults he does not hesitate to, say, "Now ye are the body of Christ." This way of dealing with souls has been grievously enfeebled in the present day. Grace is so feebly known, that the first thought you will find amongst godly people is what they ought to be; but the ground and weapon of the apostle Paul is what they are by God's grace. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular; and God hath set some in the church." It was far from his mind in the least to deny it. Observe here an important use of the expression, "the church." It cannot be the local assembly, because, looking at Corinth, no apostles were there. Whatever might be the providential arrangements outside in the world, he is looking at the assembly of God here on earth; and it is the assembly as a whole, the Corinthian assembly being, as every true assembly is, a kind, of representative, of the church universally. It is the church of God here below; not merely churches, though that was true also.

Thus we can look at what the church will be by-and-by glorified and absolutely perfect. We can also look at a particular local assembly. Besides there is this most important sense of the church never to be forgotten namely, that divine institution viewed as a whole on. earth. Members of Christ no doubt compose it; but there is His body, the assembly as a whole, in which God works here below. Such is the reason why we do not find in this epistle evangelists or pastors, because it is not a question of what is needed to bring souls in or lead them on. He looks at the church as a thing already, subsisting as the witness of the power of God before men. Therefore it was not at all necessary to dwell on those gifts which are the fruit of Christ's love to and cherishing of the church. It is regarded as a vessel of power for the maintenance of God's glory, and responsible for this here below. Therefore tongues miracles, healings, the use of outward powers, are largely dwelt on here.

But we pass on to another and a still more important theme, a wonderfully full picture even for God's word, that most perfect and beautiful unfolding of divine love which we have in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. After all, if the Corinthians had coveted gifts, they had not coveted the best But even if we may desire the best gifts, there is better still; and the best of all is charity love. Accordingly we have this in the most admirable manner brought out both in what it is and in what it is not, and that too as corrective of the wrong desires of the Corinthians, and the evil spirit which had manifested itself in the exercise of their gifts; so that what seems to be an interruption is the wisest of parentheses between chapter 12, which shows us the distribution of gifts and their character, and chapter 14, which directs the due exercise of gifts in the assembly of God. There is but one safe motive-power for their use, even love. Without it even a spiritual gift only tends to puff up its owner, and to corrupt those who are its objects.

Hence 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 thus opens: "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy." And why? Prophecy seemed to be somewhat despised amongst the Corinthians. Miracles and tongues were liked, because these made themselves of importance. Such wonders made men stare, and drew general attention to those who were invested evidently with a superhuman energy. But the apostle lays it down, that the gifts which suppose the exercise of spiritual understanding have a far higher place. He himself could speak more tongues than they all. It need hardly be added that he did more miracles than any of them. Still, what he valued most was prophesying. We must not suppose that this gift simply means a man preaching. Prophesying never means preaching. More than this, prophesying is not simply teaching. It, no doubt, is teaching; but it is a good deal more. Prophesying is that spiritual application of the word of God to the conscience which puts the soul in His presence, and makes manifest as light to the hearer the mind of God. There is a great deal of valuable teaching, exhortation, and application, that has no such character. It is all very true, but it does not put the soul in the presence of God; it gives no such absolute certainty of God's mind flashing on the condition and judging the state of the heart before Him. I do not speak now of the unconverted, though prophesying might affect such as well as the converted. The direct object of it was, of course, the people of God; but in the course of the chapter the unbeliever is shown coming into the assembly and falling on his face, and owning that God was among them of a truth. Such is the genuine effect. The man finds himself judged in the presence of God.

There is no need to enter into all that this chapter brings before us, but it may be well to observe that we have giving of thanks and blessing, as well as singing and prayer. Prophesying and the rest are brought in as all pertaining to the Christian assembly. What was not directly edifying, as speaking in a tongue, is forbidden unless one could interpret. I doubt very much whether there was any revelation after the scheme of Scripture was complete. To suppose anything revealed, when that which is commonly called the canon was closed, would be an impeachment of God's purpose in it. But till the last portion of His mind was written down in a permanent form for the church, we can quite understand His goodness in allowing a special revelation now and then. This gives no warrant to look for anything of the sort at any time subsequent to the completion of the New Testament. Again, it is plain from this that there are certain modifications of the chapter. Thus so far it is true that if anything has, through the will of God, terminated (for instance, miracles, tongues, or revelations), it is evident that such workings of the Spirit ought not to be looked for; but this does not in the smallest degree set aside the Christian assembly or the exercise according to God's will of what the Spirit still distinctly gives. And undoubtedly He does continue all that is profitable, and for God's glory, in the present state of His testimony and of His church here below. Otherwise the church sinks into a human institute.

In the end of the chapter a very important principle is laid down. It is vain for people to plead the mighty power of God as an excuse for anything disorderly. This is the great difference between the power of the Spirit and the power of a demon. A demon's power may be uncontrollable: chains, fetters, all the power of man outside, may utterly fail to bind a man who is filled with demons. It is not so with the power of the Spirit of God. Wherever the soul walks with the Lord, the power of the Spirit of God on the contrary is always connected with His word, and subject to the Lord Jesus. No man can rightly pretend that the Spirit forces him to do this or that unscripturally. There is no justification possible against Scripture; and the more fully the power is of God, the less will a man think of setting aside that perfect expression of God's mind. All things therefore are to be done decently and in order an order which Scripture must decide. The only aim, as far as we are concerned, that God endorses, is that all be done to edification, and not for self-display.

The next theme (1 Corinthians 15:1-58) is a most serious subject doctrinally, and of capital importance to all. Not only had the devil plunged the Corinthians into confusion upon moral points, but when men begin to give up a good conscience, it is no wonder if the next danger is making shipwreck of the faith. Accordingly, as Satan had accomplished the first mischief among these saints, it was evident the rest threatened soon to follow. There were some among them who denied the resurrection not a separate state of the soul, but the rising again of the body. In fact the resurrection must be of the body. What dies is to be raised. As the soul does not die, "resurrection" would be quite out of place; to the body it is necessary for God's glory as well as man. And how does the apostle treat this? As he always does. He brings Christ in. They had no thought of Christ in the case. They seem to have had no wish to deny the resurrection of Christ; but should not a Christian have at once used Christ to judge all by? The apostle at once introduces His person and work as a test. if Christ did not rise, there is no resurrection, and therefore no truth in the Gospel; "your faith is vain: you are yet in your sins." Even they were quite unprepared for so dreadful a conclusion. Shake the resurrection and Christianity goes. Having reasoned thus, he next points out that the Christian waits for the time of joy and glory and blessing for the body by-and-by. To give up resurrection is to surrender the glorious hope of the Christian, and to be the most miserable of men.. For what could be more cheerless than to give up all present enjoyment without that blessed hope, for the future at Christ's coming? Thus strongly was the whole complex nature of man before the apostle's mind in speaking of this hope of blessedness by-and-by.

Then, somewhat abruptly, instead of discussing the matter any more, he unfolds a most weighty revelation of truth "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the. resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." True, the kingdom is not yet come for which we are waiting, but it 'will come. See how all truth hangs together, and how Satan labours to make a consistency in error. He knows the weakness of man's mind. Nobody likes to be inconsistent. You may be dragged into it, but you are never comfortable when you have a sense of inconsistency about you. Hence, after one. error gains empire over the mind of man, he is ready to embrace others just to make all consistent.

Such was the danger here among the Corinthians. They had been offended by the apostle's supreme indifference to all that is of esteem among men. His habits of speech and life were not at all up to the mark that they supposed seemly before the world in a servant of God. Out of this fertile root of evil has the clergy grown. It has been the effort to acquire as much refinement as possible. Holy orders make a man a sort of gentleman if he was not so before. This seems to have been at work in, the minds of these critics of the apostle. Here we find what lay at the bottom of the matter. There is generally a root of evil doctrine where you find people wrong in practice. At any rate, where it is a deliberate, persistent, and systematic error, it will not be merely a practical one, but have a root deep underneath. And this was what now came out at Corinth. It was feebleness about that which, after all, lies at. the very foundation of Christianity. They did not mean to deny the person of Christ or His condition as risen from the dead; but, this is what the enemy meant, and into this their wrong notion tended to drift them. The next step, after denying resurrection for the Christian, would be to deny it about Christ. And here the apostle does not fail to rebuke them, and in a manner trenchant enough. He (exposes the stupidity of their questions, wise as they flattered themselves to be. How? It is always the danger of man that he is not content to believe; he would like first of all to understand. But this is ruinous in divine things, which are entirely outside sense and reason. All real understanding for the Christian is the fruit of faith.

The apostle does not hesitate in apostrophising the unbeliever, or at any rate, the errorist he has in view, to expose his folly. "Thou fool," says he, "that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die." Thus the strongest possible censure falls on these Corinthians, and this for the very matter in which they plumed themselves. Human reasoning is poor indeed outside its own sphere. However, he is not content merely with putting down their speculations; he brings in subsequent and special revelation. The previous part of the chapter had pointed out the connection of Christ's resurrection with our resurrection, followed by the kingdom which finally gives place in order that God may be all in all. In the latter part of the chapter he adds what had not been explained hitherto, From the early portion we should not have known but that all saints die, and that all rise at Christ's coming. But this would not be the full truth. It is most true that the dead in Christ rise, of course, but this does not explain about the living saints. He had vindicated the glorious character of the resurrection; he had proved how fundamental, and momentous, and practical, is the truth that the body is to be raised again, which they were disposed to deny as though it were a low thing, and useless even if possible. They imagined the true way to be spiritual was to make much of the spirit of man. God's way of making us spiritual is by a simple but strong faith in the resurrection-power of Christ; look to His resurrection as the pattern and spring of our own. Then at the last he adds that he would show them a mystery. On this I must just say a few words in order to develop its force.

The resurrection itself was not a mystery, The, resurrection of just and unjust was a well-known Old Testament truth. It might be founded on Scriptures comparatively few, but it was a fundamental truth of the Old Testament, as the apostle Paul lets us hear in his controversy with the Jews in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, the Lord Jesus also assumes the same thing in the gospels. But if the raising of the dead saints was known, and even the raising of the wicked dead, the change of the living saints was a truth absolutely unrevealed. Up to this it was not made known, It was a New Testament truth, as this indeed is what is meant by a "mystery." It was one of those, truths that were kept secret in the Old Testament, but now revealed not so much a thing difficult to comprehend when stated, as a thing not revealed before. "And behold," says he, "I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." Evidently this supports and confirms, while it might seem an exception to, the resurrection; but, in point of fact, it gives so much the more force and consistency to the rising of the dead in a very unexpected way. The general truth of the resurrection assuredly does put the sentence of death on all present things to the believer, showing that the earth cannot rightly be the scene of his enjoyment, where all is stamped with death, and that he must wait for the resurrection power of Christ to be applied before he enters the scene where the rest of God will be our rest, and where there will be nothing but joy with Christ, and even this earth will behold Christ and His saints reigning over it till the eternal day. The addition to this of the New Testament truth of the chance gives immense impressiveness to all, and a fresh force, because it keeps before the Christian the constant expectancy of Christ. "Behold, I show you a mystery" not now that the dead in Christ shall rise, but "we," beginning with the "we" "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed; for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality." And "therefore," as he closes with the practical deduction from it all, "my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work, of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."

The last chapter is now before us, in which the apostle lays down a weighty exhortation as to collections for the saints. He puts it on the ground of their being prospered in any degree, and connects it with the special day of Christian enjoyment, when they gather together for the communion of saints. "Upon the, first day of the week let every one of you lay by in store as he has been prospered, that there be no gatherings when I come." Need it be said how human influence has dislocated the truth there? No doubt this was precisely what the apostle, or the Holy Ghost rather, discerned to be at work at Corinth, the same mistake that has wrought so malignantly in Christendom; that is to say, personal rank, learning, eloquence, or a great name (as of an apostle for instance), invoked to call out the generosity of the saints (perhaps, even of the world), and increase the proceeds by all these or like means.

But is there not another danger? Is there no snare for you, beloved brethren? When persons are more or less free from the ordinary incubus of tradition, when they are not so much under the influence of excitement, and of those appeals to the love of being known and of pleasing this or that man, or the cause, or any of those human motives that often do operate, I apprehend that they are exposed to danger in a wholly opposite direction. Do we sufficiently make it a matter of personal responsibility to the Lord, everyone of us, to give, and that in connection with the first day of the week and its blessed surroundings and objects, when we meet at His table? Do we every one of us give as we are prospered by the way? It is very well to keep clear of human influence, but let us see to it that we do not forget that "the Lord has need" of our giving for the purposes He loves here below. And of this I am sure, that if we have rightly cast aside mere human calls, and if we do thank God for the deliverance from worldly influence, and from the power of custom, public opinion, etc., it would be a deep reproach if we did not do double as much now, under the grace that confides in us, as we used to do under the law that used to govern us. Your own consciences must answer whether you can meet the Lord about this matter. I believe that we are in no small danger of settling down in the conviction that our old way was quite wrong, and simply keeping the money in our pockets. It does seem to me, I confess, that bad as human pressure may be in order to raise money, bad as may be a variety of earthly objects in this way or that, bad as a worldly lavish expenditure is, after all, a selfish personal keeping to ourselves of what we have is the worst thing of all. I am quite persuaded that the danger of the saints of God who have been brought outside the camp lies here, lest, delivered from what they know to be wrong, they may not seek in this an exercised conscience. Standing in the consciousness of the power of God's grace, they need to be continually looking out that they be devoted to Him. To cease doing what was done in a wrong way, and sometimes for wrong ends too, is not enough. Let there be zealous and vigilant exercise of soul, and enquiry how to carry out right objects in right ways, and so much the more, if indeed a simpler, fuller knowledge of God's grace and of Christ's glory has been given us.

Then we have various forms of ministry noticed. It is not here gifts as such, but persons devoted to labouring in the Lord; for there is a difference between the two things, as this chapter shows us strikingly. For instance, the apostle himself comes before us in ministry with his especial gift and position in the church. Then again, Timothy is there, his own son in the faith, not only an evangelist, but with a charge over elders at length, to a certain extent acting occasionally for the apostle Paul. Again, we have the eloquent Alexandrian thus introduced: "As touching our brother Apollos I greatly desired him to come unto you, but his will was not at to come at this time." How delicate and considerate the grace of Paul who wished Apollos to go to Corinth then, and of Apollos who wished not to go under the circumstances! On the face of the case we have the working of liberty and responsibility in their mutual relations; and the apostle Paul is the very one to tell us that Apollos's will was not to go as he himself wished at this time. It was no question of one in a place of worldly superiority regulating the movements of another of subordinate degree. The apostle did express his strong desire for Apollos to go; but Apollos must stand to his Master, and be assured that he was using a wisdom greater than that of man's. Finally, we observe another character of service lower down in "the house of Stephanas." This was a simpler case and a humbler position, but very real before God, whatever the danger of being slighted of men. Hence, I think, the word of exhortation "I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)" etc. They gave themselves up in an orderly manner to this work. "That ye submit yourselves," not merely to Timothy or to Apollos, but to such, to the simple-hearted Christian men whose desire was to serve the Lord with the measure of power they had, and this proved by their persevering labour. Undoubtedly, in the midst of the difficulties of the church, in the face of the oppositions and disappointment, manifold griefs, enemies, and sources of sorrow and shame, it requires the power of God to go on without being moved by any of these things. It is an easy thing to make a start; but nothing short of the power of God can keep one without wavering at the work in the face of everything to cast down. And this was the question. We may suppose that these Corinthians were troublesome enough. From the statements made in the early part of the epistle it is evident; and so the apostle calls upon them to submit themselves. Evidently there was an unsubject spirit, and those ministered to thought they were just as good as the house of Stephanas. It is good to submit ourselves "unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboureth." I am persuaded, beloved brethren, that it is no impeachment of the blessedness of the brotherhood to maintain the speciality of ministry in the Lord. There can be in these matters no more deplorable error than to suppose that there is not to be this godly submission one toward another, according to the place and power that the Lord is pleased to entrust.

The Lord grant that our souls may hold fast the truth here revealed, and in no general or perfunctory way. All I pretend to now is to give a sketch or combination of the parts of the epistle. But may the word itself, and every part of it, sink into our souls and be our joy, that we may not only take the precious truth of such an epistle as the Romans for the peace and joy of our hearts in believing individually, but also may understand our place by faith as of God's assembly on earth, and with thankful praise as those that call on the name of the Lord ours as well as theirs as those that find ourselves practically in need of such exhortations. The Lord give us His own spirit of obeying the Father.