<hi type="bold">8. fornication--</hi>literally, Fornication was generally, as in this case (<reference osisRef="Num.25.1-Num.25.18">Nu 25:1-18</reference>), associated at the idol feasts with spiritual fornication, that is, idolatry. This all applied to the Corinthians (<reference osisRef="1Cor.5.1">1Co 5:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.5.9">9</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.6.9">6:9</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.15.18">15, 18</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.8.10">1Co 8:10</reference>). Balaam tempted Israel to both sins with Midian (<reference osisRef="Rev.2.14">Re 2:14</reference>). Compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.8.7">1Co 8:7</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.8.9">9</reference>, "stumbling-block," "eat ... thing offered unto ... idol."

<hi type="bold">three and twenty thousand--</hi>in <reference osisRef="Num.25.9">Nu 25:9</reference> "twenty and four thousand." If this were a real discrepancy, it would militate rather against inspiration of the subject matter and thought, than against verbal inspiration. The solution is: Moses in Numbers includes all who died "in the plague"; Paul, all who died "in one day"; one thousand more may have fallen the next day [Kitto, Biblical Cyclopædia]. Or, the real number may have been between twenty-three thousand and twenty-four thousand, say twenty-three thousand five hundred, or twenty-three thousand six hundred; when writing generally where the exact figures were not needed, one writer might quite veraciously give one of the two round numbers near the exact one, and the other writer the other [Bengel]. Whichever be the true way of reconciling the seeming discrepant statements, at least the ways given above prove they are not really irreconcilable.

8. fornication-- literally, Fornication was generally, as in this case (Nu 25:1-18), associated at the idol feasts with spiritual fornication, that is, idolatry. This all applied to the Corinthians (1Co 5:1, 9; 6:9, 15, 18; 1Co 8:10). Balaam tempted Israel to both sins with Midian (Re 2:14). Compare 1Co 8:7, 9, "stumbling-block," "eat... thing offered unto... idol." three and twenty thousand-- in Nu 25:9 "twenty and four thousand." If this were a real discrepancy, it would militate rather against inspiration of the subject matter and thought, than against verbal inspiration. The solution is: Moses in Numbers includes all who died "in the plague"; Paul, all who died "in one day"; one thousand more may have fallen the next day [Kitto, Biblical Cyclopædia]. Or, the real number may have been between twenty-three thousand and twenty-four thousand, say twenty-three thousand five hundred, or twenty-three thousand six hundred; when writing generally where the exact figures were not needed, one writer might quite veraciously give one of the two round numbers near the exact one, and the other writer the other [Bengel]. Whichever be the true way of reconciling the seeming discrepant statements, at least the ways given above prove they are not really irreconcilable.


<hi type="bold">9. tempt Christ--</hi>So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read "Lord"; and one manuscript only "God." If "Lord" be read, it will mean Christ. As "Christ" was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.4">1Co 10:4</reference>), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In <reference osisRef="Num.21.5">Nu 21:5</reference> it is "spake against God" (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.9">1Co 10:9</reference>, "God," to harmonize it with <reference osisRef="Num.21.5">Nu 21:5</reference>). As either "Christ" or "Lord" is the genuine reading, "Christ" must be "God." Compare "Why do ye tempt the Lord?" (<reference osisRef="Exod.17.2">Ex 17:2</reference>, <reference osisRef="Exod.17.7">7</reference>. Compare <reference osisRef="Rom.14.11">Ro 14:11</reference>, with <reference osisRef="Isa.45.22">Is 45:22</reference>, <reference osisRef="Isa.45.23">23</reference>). Israel's discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the "Angel" of the covenant (<reference osisRef="Exod.23.20">Ex 23:20</reference>, <reference osisRef="Exod.23.21">21</reference>; <reference osisRef="Exod.32.34">32:34</reference>; <reference osisRef="Isa.63.9">Is 63:9</reference>). Though they drank of "that Rock ... Christ" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.4">1Co 10:4</reference>), they yet complained for want of water (<reference osisRef="Exod.17.2">Ex 17:2</reference>, <reference osisRef="Exod.17.7">7</reference>). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, "the true manna," "the bread of life"), they yet murmured, "Our soul loatheth this light bread." In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare <reference osisRef="John.8.56">Joh 8:56</reference>; <reference osisRef="Heb.11.26">He 11:26</reference>). The Greek for "tempt" means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare <reference osisRef="Ps.95.8">Psa 95:8</reference>, <reference osisRef="Ps.95.9">9</reference>; <reference osisRef="Num.14.22">Nu 14:22</reference>). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God's long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.

9. tempt Christ-- So the oldest versions, Irenæus (264), and good manuscripts read. Some of the oldest manuscripts read "Lord"; and one manuscript only "God." If "Lord" be read, it will mean Christ. As "Christ" was referred to in one of the five privileges of Israel (1Co 10:4), so it is natural that He should be mentioned here in one of the five corresponding sins of that people. In Nu 21:5 it is "spake against God" (whence probably arose the alteration in the one manuscript, 1Co 10:9, "God," to harmonize it with Nu 21:5). As either "Christ" or "Lord" is the genuine reading, "Christ" must be "God." Compare "Why do ye tempt the Lord?" (Ex 17:2, 7. Compare Ro 14:11, with Is 45:22, 23). Israel's discontented complainings were temptings of Christ especially, the "Angel" of the covenant (Ex 23:20, 21; 32:34; Is 63:9). Though they drank of "that Rock... Christ" (1Co 10:4), they yet complained for want of water (Ex 17:2, 7). Though also eating the same spiritual meat (Christ, "the true manna," "the bread of life"), they yet murmured, "Our soul loatheth this light bread." In this case, being punished by the fiery serpents, they were saved by the brazen serpent, the emblem of Christ (compare Joh 8:56; He 11:26). The Greek for "tempt" means, tempt or try, so as to wear out the long-suffering of Christ (compare Psa 95:8, 9; Nu 14:22). The Corinthians were in danger of provoking God's long-suffering by walking on the verge of idolatry, through overweening confidence in their knowledge.


<hi type="bold">10. some of them ... murmured--</hi>upon the death of Korah and his company, who themselves were murmurers (<reference osisRef="Num.16.41">Nu 16:41</reference>, <reference osisRef="Num.16.49">49</reference>). Their murmurs against Moses and Aaron were virtually murmurs against God (compare <reference osisRef="Exod.16.8">Ex 16:8</reference>, <reference osisRef="Exod.16.10">10</reference>). Paul herein glances at the Corinthian murmurs against himself, the apostle of Christ.

<hi type="bold">destroyed--</hi>fourteen thousand seven hundred perished.

<hi type="bold">the destroyer--</hi>THE same destroying angel sent by God as in <reference osisRef="Exod.12.23">Ex 12:23</reference>, and <reference osisRef="2Sam.24.16">2Sa 24:16</reference>.

10. some of them... murmured-- upon the death of Korah and his company, who themselves were murmurers (Nu 16:41, 49). Their murmurs against Moses and Aaron were virtually murmurs against God (compare Ex 16:8, 10). Paul herein glances at the Corinthian murmurs against himself, the apostle of Christ. destroyed-- fourteen thousand seven hundred perished. the destroyer-- THE same destroying angel sent by God as in Ex 12:23, and 2Sa 24:16.


<hi type="bold">11. Now ... these things ... ensamples--</hi>resuming the thread of <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.6">1Co 10:6</reference>. The oldest manuscripts read, "by way of example."

<hi type="bold">the ends of the world--</hi>literally, "of the ages"; the New Testament dispensation in its successive phases (plural, "ends") being the winding up of all former "ages." No new dispensation shall appear till Christ comes as Avenger and Judge; till then the "ends," being many, include various successive periods (compare <reference osisRef="Heb.9.26">He 9:26</reference>). As we live in the last dispensation, which is the consummation of all that went before, our responsibilities are the greater; and the greater is the guilt, Paul implies, to the Corinthians, which they incur if they fall short of their privileges.

11. Now... these things... ensamples-- resuming the thread of 1Co 10:6. The oldest manuscripts read, "by way of example." the ends of the world-- literally, "of the ages"; the New Testament dispensation in its successive phases (plural, "ends") being the winding up of all former "ages." No new dispensation shall appear till Christ comes as Avenger and Judge; till then the "ends," being many, include various successive periods (compare He 9:26). As we live in the last dispensation, which is the consummation of all that went before, our responsibilities are the greater; and the greater is the guilt, Paul implies, to the Corinthians, which they incur if they fall short of their privileges.


<hi type="bold">12. thinketh he standeth--</hi>stands and thinks that he stands [Bengel]; that is, stands "by faith ... well pleasing" to God; in contrast to <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.5">1Co 10:5</reference>, "with many of them God was not well pleased" (<reference osisRef="Rom.11.20">Ro 11:20</reference>).

<hi type="bold">fall--</hi>from his place in the Church of God (compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.8">1Co 10:8</reference>, "fell"). Both temporally and spiritually (<reference osisRef="Rom.14.4">Ro 14:4</reference>). Our security, so far as relates to God, consists in faith; so far as relates to ourselves, it consists in fear.

12. thinketh he standeth-- stands and thinks that he stands [Bengel]; that is, stands "by faith... well pleasing" to God; in contrast to 1Co 10:5, "with many of them God was not well pleased" (Ro 11:20). fall-- from his place in the Church of God (compare 1Co 10:8, "fell"). Both temporally and spiritually (Ro 14:4). Our security, so far as relates to God, consists in faith; so far as relates to ourselves, it consists in fear.


13. Consolation to them, under their temptation; it is none but such as is "common to man," or "such as man can bear," "adapted to man's powers of endurance" [Wahl].

<hi type="bold">faithful--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Ps.125.3">Psa 125:3</reference>; <reference osisRef="Isa.27.3">Is 27:3</reference>, <reference osisRef="Isa.27.8">8</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rev.3.10">Re 3:10</reference>). "God is faithful" to the covenant which He made with you in calling you (<reference osisRef="1Thess.5.24">1Th 5:24</reference>). To be led into temptation is distinct from running into it, which would be "tempting God" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.9">1Co 10:9</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.4.7">Mt 4:7</reference>).

<hi type="bold">way to escape--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Jer.29.11">Jr 29:11</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Pet.2.9">2Pe 2:9</reference>). The Greek is, "the way of escape"; the appropriate way of escape in each particular temptation; not an immediate escape, but one in due time, after patience has had her perfect work (Jas 1:<reference osisRef="2Cor.4.12">2-4, 12</reference>). He "makes" the way of escape simultaneously with the temptation which His providence permissively arranges for His people.

<hi type="bold">to bear it--</hi>Greek, "to bear up under it," or "against it." Not, He will take it away (<reference osisRef="2Cor.12.7-2Cor.12.9">2Co 12:7-9</reference>).

13. Consolation to them, under their temptation; it is none but such as is "common to man," or "such as man can bear," "adapted to man's powers of endurance" [Wahl]. faithful-- (Psa 125:3; Is 27:3, 8; Re 3:10). "God is faithful" to the covenant which He made with you in calling you (1Th 5:24). To be led into temptation is distinct from running into it, which would be "tempting God" (1Co 10:9; Mt 4:7). way to escape-- (Jr 29:11; 2Pe 2:9). The Greek is, "the way of escape"; the appropriate way of escape in each particular temptation; not an immediate escape, but one in due time, after patience has had her perfect work (Jas 1:2-4, 12). He "makes" the way of escape simultaneously with the temptation which His providence permissively arranges for His people. to bear it-- Greek, "to bear up under it," or "against it." Not, He will take it away (2Co 12:7-9).


14. Resuming the argument, <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.7">1Co 10:7</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.8.9">1Co 8:9</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.8.10">10</reference>.

<hi type="bold">flee--</hi>Do not tamper with it by doubtful acts, such as eating idol meats on the plea of Christian liberty. The only safety is in wholly shunning whatever borders on idolatry (<reference osisRef="2Cor.6.16">2Co 6:16</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.6.17">17</reference>). The Holy Spirit herein also presciently warned the Church against the idolatry, subsequently transferred from the idol feast to the Lord's Supper itself, in the figment of transubstantiation.

14. Resuming the argument, 1Co 10:7; 1Co 8:9, 10. flee-- Do not tamper with it by doubtful acts, such as eating idol meats on the plea of Christian liberty. The only safety is in wholly shunning whatever borders on idolatry (2Co 6:16, 17). The Holy Spirit herein also presciently warned the Church against the idolatry, subsequently transferred from the idol feast to the Lord's Supper itself, in the figment of transubstantiation.


15. Appeal to their own powers of judgment to weigh the force of the argument that follows: namely, that as the partaking of the Lord's Supper involves a partaking of the Lord Himself, and the partaking of the Jewish sacrificial meats involved a partaking of the altar of God, and, as the heathens sacrifice to devils, to partake of an idol feast is to have fellowship with devils. We cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility of "judging" for ourselves. The weakness of private judgment is not an argument against its use, but its abuse. We should the more take pains in searching the infallible word, with every aid within our reach, and above all with humble prayer for the Spirit's teaching (<reference osisRef="Acts.17.11">Ac 17:11</reference>). If Paul, an inspired apostle, not only permits, but urges, men to judge his sayings by Scripture, much more should the fallible ministers of the present visible Church do so.

<hi type="bold">To wise men--</hi>refers with a mixture of irony to the Corinthian boast of "wisdom" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.4.10">1Co 4:10</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.11.19">2Co 11:19</reference>). Here you have an opportunity of exercising your "wisdom" in judging "what I say."

15. Appeal to their own powers of judgment to weigh the force of the argument that follows: namely, that as the partaking of the Lord's Supper involves a partaking of the Lord Himself, and the partaking of the Jewish sacrificial meats involved a partaking of the altar of God, and, as the heathens sacrifice to devils, to partake of an idol feast is to have fellowship with devils. We cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility of "judging" for ourselves. The weakness of private judgment is not an argument against its use, but its abuse. We should the more take pains in searching the infallible word, with every aid within our reach, and above all with humble prayer for the Spirit's teaching (Ac 17:11). If Paul, an inspired apostle, not only permits, but urges, men to judge his sayings by Scripture, much more should the fallible ministers of the present visible Church do so. To wise men-- refers with a mixture of irony to the Corinthian boast of "wisdom" (1Co 4:10; 2Co 11:19). Here you have an opportunity of exercising your "wisdom" in judging "what I say."


<hi type="bold">16. The cup of blessing--</hi>answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper (<reference osisRef="Matt.26.27">Mt 26:27</reference>; <reference osisRef="Luke.22.17">Lu 22:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="Luke.22.20">20</reference>).

<hi type="bold">we bless--</hi>"we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.18">1Co 10:18</reference>, "They who eat ... are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (<reference osisRef="Eph.5.30">Ep 5:30</reference>, <reference osisRef="Eph.5.32">32</reference>), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.18">1Co 10:18</reference>). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.20">1Co 10:20</reference>). Alford explains, "The cup ... is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (<reference osisRef="John.6.53-John.6.57">Joh 6:53-57</reference>). It is not said, "The cup ... is the blood," or "the bread ... is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood ... body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (<reference osisRef="Lev.17.11">Le 17:11</reference>, <reference osisRef="Lev.17.12">12</reference>). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.24">1Co 11:24</reference>). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.

16. The cup of blessing-- answering to the Jewish "cup of blessing," over which thanks were offered in the Passover. It was in doing so that Christ instituted this part of the Lord's Supper (Mt 26:27; Lu 22:17, 20). we bless-- "we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare 1Co 10:18, "They who eat... are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (Ep 5:30, 32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1Co 10:18). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (1Co 10:20). Alford explains, "The cup... is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (Joh 6:53-57). It is not said, "The cup... is the blood," or "the bread... is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood... body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (Le 17:11, 12). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (1Co 11:24). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.


<hi type="bold">17. one bread--</hi>rather, "loaf." One loaf alone seems to have been used in each celebration.

<hi type="bold">and one body--</hi>Omit "and"; "one loaf [that is], one body." "We, the many (namely, believers assembled; so the Greek), are one bread (by our partaking of the same loaf, which becomes assimilated to the substance of all our bodies; and so we become), one body" (with Christ, and so with one another).

<hi type="bold">we ... all--</hi>Greek, "the whole of us."

17. one bread-- rather, "loaf." One loaf alone seems to have been used in each celebration. and one body-- Omit "and"; "one loaf [that is], one body." "We, the many (namely, believers assembled; so the Greek), are one bread (by our partaking of the same loaf, which becomes assimilated to the substance of all our bodies; and so we become), one body" (with Christ, and so with one another). we... all-- Greek, "the whole of us."


<hi type="bold">18. Israel after the flesh--</hi>the literal, as distinguished from the spiritual, Israel (<reference osisRef="Rom.2.29">Ro 2:29</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.4.1">4:1</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.9.3">9:3</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.4.29">Ga 4:29</reference>).

<hi type="bold">partakers of the altar--</hi>and so of God, whose is the altar; they have fellowship in God and His worship, of which the altar is the symbol.

18. Israel after the flesh-- the literal, as distinguished from the spiritual, Israel (Ro 2:29; 4:1; 9:3; Ga 4:29). partakers of the altar-- and so of God, whose is the altar; they have fellowship in God and His worship, of which the altar is the symbol.


<hi type="bold">19-20. What say I then?--</hi>The inference might be drawn from the analogies of the Lord's Supper and Jewish sacrifices, that an idol is really what the heathen thought it to be, a god, and that in eating idol-meats they had fellowship with the god. This verse guards against such an inference: "What would I say then? that a thing sacrificed to an idol is any real thing (in the sense that the heathen regard it), or that an idol is any real thing?" (The oldest manuscripts read the words in this order. Supply "Nay") "But [I say] that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (demons)." Paul here introduces a new fact. It is true that, as I said, an idol has no reality in the sense that the heathen regard it, but it has a reality in another sense; heathendom being under Satan's dominion as "prince of this world," he and his demons are in fact the powers worshipped by the heathen, whether they are or are not conscious of it (<reference osisRef="Deut.32.17">De 32:17</reference>; <reference osisRef="Lev.17.7">Le 17:7</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Chr.11.15">2Ch 11:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="Ps.106.37">Psa 106:37</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rev.9.20">Re 9:20</reference>). "Devil" is in the Greek restricted to Satan; "demons" is the term applied to his subordinate evil spirits. Fear, rather than love, is the motive of heathen worship (compare the English word "panic," from Pan, whose human form with horns and cloven hoofs gave rise to the vulgar representations of Satan which prevail now); just as fear is the spirit of Satan and his demons (<reference osisRef="Jas.2.19">Jas 2:19</reference>).

19-20. What say I then?-- The inference might be drawn from the analogies of the Lord's Supper and Jewish sacrifices, that an idol is really what the heathen thought it to be, a god, and that in eating idol-meats they had fellowship with the god. This verse guards against such an inference: "What would I say then? that a thing sacrificed to an idol is any real thing (in the sense that the heathen regard it), or that an idol is any real thing?" (The oldest manuscripts read the words in this order. Supply "Nay") "But [I say] that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (demons)." Paul here introduces a new fact. It is true that, as I said, an idol has no reality in the sense that the heathen regard it, but it has a reality in another sense; heathendom being under Satan's dominion as "prince of this world," he and his demons are in fact the powers worshipped by the heathen, whether they are or are not conscious of it (De 32:17; Le 17:7; 2Ch 11:15; Psa 106:37; Re 9:20). "Devil" is in the Greek restricted to Satan; "demons" is the term applied to his subordinate evil spirits. Fear, rather than love, is the motive of heathen worship (compare the English word "panic," from Pan, whose human form with horns and cloven hoofs gave rise to the vulgar representations of Satan which prevail now); just as fear is the spirit of Satan and his demons (Jas 2:19).


<hi type="bold">21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord--</hi>really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (<reference osisRef="1Kgs.18.21">1Ki 18:21</reference>).

<hi type="bold">cup of devils--</hi>in contrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol.

<hi type="bold">the Lord's table--</hi>The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Mal 1:7, "altar ... table of the Lord"), and the heathen idol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices (<reference osisRef="Isa.65.11">Is 65:11</reference>). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jews' sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is the only substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew's sacrificial feast partook rather "of the altar" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.18">1Co 10:18</reference>) than of God manifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.

21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord-- really and spiritually; though ye may outwardly (1Ki 18:21). cup of devils-- in contrast to the cup of the Lord. At idol feasts libations were usually made from the cup to the idol first, and then the guests drank; so that in drinking they had fellowship with the idol. the Lord's table-- The Lord's Supper is a feast on a table, not a sacrifice on an altar. Our only altar is the cross, our only sacrifice that of Christ once for all. The Lord's Supper stands, however, in the same relation, analogically, to Christ's sacrifice, as the Jews' sacrificial feasts did to their sacrifices (compare Mal 1:7, "altar... table of the Lord"), and the heathen idol feasts to their idolatrous sacrifices (Is 65:11). The heathen sacrifices were offered to idol nonentities, behind which Satan lurked. The Jews' sacrifice was but a shadow of the substance which was to come. Our one sacrifice of Christ is the only substantial reality; therefore, while the partaker of the Jew's sacrificial feast partook rather "of the altar" (1Co 10:18) than of God manifested fully, and the heathen idol-feaster had fellowship really with demons, the communicant in the Lord's Supper has in it a real communion of, or fellowship in, the body of Christ once sacrificed, and now exalted as the Head of redeemed humanity.


<hi type="bold">22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?--</hi>by dividing our fellowship between Him and idols (<reference osisRef="Ezek.20.39">Eze 20:39</reference>). Is it our wish to provoke Him to assert His power? <reference osisRef="Deut.32.21">De 32:21</reference> is before the apostle's mind [Alford], (<reference osisRef="Exod.20.5">Ex 20:5</reference>).

<hi type="bold">are we stronger?--</hi>that we can risk a contest with Him.

22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?-- by dividing our fellowship between Him and idols (Eze 20:39). Is it our wish to provoke Him to assert His power? De 32:21 is before the apostle's mind [Alford], (Ex 20:5). are we stronger?-- that we can risk a contest with Him.


<hi type="bold">23. All things are lawful for me, &c.--</hi>Recurring to the Corinthian plea (<reference osisRef="1Cor.6.12">1Co 6:12</reference>), he repeats his qualification of it. The oldest manuscripts omit both times "for me."

<hi type="bold">edify not--</hi>tend not to build up the spiritual temple, the Church, in faith and love. Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decision (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.1-Acts.15.29">Ac 15:1-29</reference>), which seems to have been not so much regarded outside of Palestine, but rather to the broad principle of true Christian freedom, which does not allow us to be governed by external things, as though, because we can use them, we must use them (<reference osisRef="1Cor.6.12">1Co 6:12</reference>). Their use or non-use is to be regulated by regard to edification.

23. All things are lawful for me, &c.-- Recurring to the Corinthian plea (1Co 6:12), he repeats his qualification of it. The oldest manuscripts omit both times "for me." edify not-- tend not to build up the spiritual temple, the Church, in faith and love. Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decision (Ac 15:1-29), which seems to have been not so much regarded outside of Palestine, but rather to the broad principle of true Christian freedom, which does not allow us to be governed by external things, as though, because we can use them, we must use them (1Co 6:12). Their use or non-use is to be regulated by regard to edification.


24. (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.33">1Co 10:33</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.13.5">1Co 13:5</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.15.1">Ro 15:1</reference>, 2).

24. (1Co 10:33; 1Co 13:5; Ro 15:1, 2).


<hi type="bold">25. shambles--</hi>butchers' stalls; the flesh market.

<hi type="bold">asking no question--</hi>whether it has been offered to an idol or not.

<hi type="bold">for conscience' sake--</hi>If on asking you should hear it had been offered to idols, a scruple would arise in your conscience which was needless, and never would have arisen had you asked no questions.

25. shambles-- butchers' stalls; the flesh market. asking no question-- whether it has been offered to an idol or not. for conscience' sake-- If on asking you should hear it had been offered to idols, a scruple would arise in your conscience which was needless, and never would have arisen had you asked no questions.


26. The ground on which such eating without questioning is justified is, the earth and all its contents ("the fulness thereof," <reference osisRef="Ps.20.1">Psa 20:1</reference>; <reference osisRef="Ps.50.12">50:12</reference>), including all meats, belong to the Lord, and are appointed for our use; and where conscience suggests no scruple, all are to be eaten (<reference osisRef="Rom.14.14">Ro 14:14</reference>, <reference osisRef="Rom.14.20">20</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Tim.4.4">1Ti 4:4</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Tim.4.5">5</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="Acts.10.15">Ac 10:15</reference>).

26. The ground on which such eating without questioning is justified is, the earth and all its contents ("the fulness thereof," Psa 20:1; 50:12), including all meats, belong to the Lord, and are appointed for our use; and where conscience suggests no scruple, all are to be eaten (Ro 14:14, 20; 1Ti 4:4, 5; compare Ac 10:15).


<hi type="bold">27. ye be disposed to go--</hi>tacitly implying, they would be as well not to go, but yet not forbidding them to go (<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.9">1Co 10:9</reference>) [Grotius]. The feast is not an idol feast, but a general entertainment, at which, however, there might be meat that had been offered to an idol.

<hi type="bold">for conscience' sake--</hi>(See on <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.25">1Co 10:25</reference>).

27. ye be disposed to go-- tacitly implying, they would be as well not to go, but yet not forbidding them to go (1Co 10:9) [Grotius]. The feast is not an idol feast, but a general entertainment, at which, however, there might be meat that had been offered to an idol. for conscience' sake-- (See on 1Co 10:25).


<hi type="bold">28. if any man--</hi>a weak Christian at table, wishing to warn his brother.

<hi type="bold">offered in sacrifice unto idols--</hi>The oldest manuscripts omit "unto idols." At a heathen's table the expression, offensive to him, would naturally be avoided.

<hi type="bold">for conscience' sake--</hi>not to cause a stumbling-block to the conscience of thy weak brother (<reference osisRef="1Cor.8.10-1Cor.8.12">1Co 8:10-12</reference>).

<hi type="bold">for the earth is the Lord's, &c.--</hi>not in the oldest manuscripts.

28. if any man-- a weak Christian at table, wishing to warn his brother. offered in sacrifice unto idols-- The oldest manuscripts omit "unto idols." At a heathen's table the expression, offensive to him, would naturally be avoided. for conscience' sake-- not to cause a stumbling-block to the conscience of thy weak brother (1Co 8:10-12). for the earth is the Lord's, &c.-- not in the oldest manuscripts.


<hi type="bold">29. Conscience ... of the other--</hi>the weak brother introduced in <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.28">1Co 10:28</reference>.

<hi type="bold">for why is my liberty judged off another man's conscience?--</hi>Paul passes to the first person, to teach his converts by putting himself as it were in their position. The Greek terms for "the other" and "another" are distinct. "The other" is the one with whom Paul's and his Corinthian converts' concern is; "another" is any other with whom he and they have no concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat while I know it not, I have "liberty" to eat without being condemned by his "conscience" [Grotius]. Thus the "for," &c., is an argument for <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.27">1Co 10:27</reference>, "Eat, asking no questions." Or, Why should I give occasion by the rash use of my liberty that another should condemn it [Estius], or that my liberty should cause the destruction of my weak brother?" [Menochius]. Or, the words are those of the Corinthian objector (perhaps used in their letter, and so quoted by Paul), "Why is my liberty judged by another's conscience?" Why should not I be judged only by my own, and have liberty to do whatever it sanctions? Paul replies in <reference osisRef="1Cor.10.31">1Co 10:31</reference>, Your doing so ought always to be limited by regard to what most tends "to the glory of God" [Vatablus, Conybeare and Howson]. The first explanation is simplest; the "for," &c., in it refers to "not thine own" (that is, "not my own," in Paul's change to the first person); I am to abstain only in the case of liability to offend another's conscience; in cases where my own has no scruple, I am not bound, in God's judgment, by any other conscience than my own.

29. Conscience... of the other-- the weak brother introduced in 1Co 10:28. for why is my liberty judged off another man's conscience?-- Paul passes to the first person, to teach his converts by putting himself as it were in their position. The Greek terms for "the other" and "another" are distinct. "The other" is the one with whom Paul's and his Corinthian converts' concern is; "another" is any other with whom he and they have no concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat while I know it not, I have "liberty" to eat without being condemned by his "conscience" [Grotius]. Thus the "for," &c., is an argument for 1Co 10:27, "Eat, asking no questions." Or, Why should I give occasion by the rash use of my liberty that another should condemn it [Estius], or that my liberty should cause the destruction of my weak brother?" [Menochius]. Or, the words are those of the Corinthian objector (perhaps used in their letter, and so quoted by Paul), "Why is my liberty judged by another's conscience?" Why should not I be judged only by my own, and have liberty to do whatever it sanctions? Paul replies in 1Co 10:31, Your doing so ought always to be limited by regard to what most tends "to the glory of God" [Vatablus, Conybeare and Howson]. The first explanation is simplest; the "for," &c., in it refers to "not thine own" (that is, "not my own," in Paul's change to the first person); I am to abstain only in the case of liability to offend another's conscience; in cases where my own has no scruple, I am not bound, in God's judgment, by any other conscience than my own.


<hi type="bold">30. For--</hi>The oldest manuscripts omit "For."

<hi type="bold">by grace--</hi>rather, "thankfully" [Alford].

<hi type="bold">I ... be partaker--</hi>I partake of the food set before me.

<hi type="bold">evil spoken of--</hi>by him who does not use his liberty, but will eat nothing without scrupulosity and questioning whence the meat comes.

<hi type="bold">give thanks--</hi>which consecrates all the Christian's acts (<reference osisRef="Rom.14.6">Ro 14:6</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Tim.4.3">1Ti 4:3</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Tim.4.4">4</reference>).

30. For-- The oldest manuscripts omit "For." by grace-- rather, "thankfully" [Alford]. I... be partaker-- I partake of the food set before me. evil spoken of-- by him who does not use his liberty, but will eat nothing without scrupulosity and questioning whence the meat comes. give thanks-- which consecrates all the Christian's acts (Ro 14:6; 1Ti 4:3, 4).


31. Contrast <reference osisRef="Zech.7.6">Zec 7:6</reference>; the picture of worldly men. The godly may "eat and drink," and it shall be well with him (<reference osisRef="Jer.22.15">Jr 22:15</reference>, <reference osisRef="Jer.22.16">16</reference>).

<hi type="bold">to the glory of God--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Col.3.17">Col 3:17</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Pet.4.11">1Pe 4:11</reference>)--which involves our having regard to the edification of our neighbor.

31. Contrast Zec 7:6; the picture of worldly men. The godly may "eat and drink," and it shall be well with him (Jr 22:15, 16). to the glory of God-- (Col 3:17; 1Pe 4:11)--which involves our having regard to the edification of our neighbor.


<hi type="bold">32. Give none offence--</hi>in things indifferent (<reference osisRef="1Cor.8.13">1Co 8:13</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.14.13">Ro 14:13</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.6.3">2Co 6:3</reference>); for in all essential things affecting Christian doctrine and practice, even in the smallest detail, we must not swerve from principle, whatever offense may be the result (<reference osisRef="1Cor.1.23">1Co 1:23</reference>). Giving offense is unnecessary, if our own spirit cause it; necessary, if it be caused by the truth.

32. Give none offence-- in things indifferent (1Co 8:13; Ro 14:13; 2Co 6:3); for in all essential things affecting Christian doctrine and practice, even in the smallest detail, we must not swerve from principle, whatever offense may be the result (1Co 1:23). Giving offense is unnecessary, if our own spirit cause it; necessary, if it be caused by the truth.


<hi type="bold">33. I please--</hi>I try to please (<reference osisRef="1Cor.9.19">1Co 9:19</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.9.22">22</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.15.2">Ro 15:2</reference>).

<hi type="bold">not seeking mine own--</hi>(<reference osisRef="1Cor.10.24">1Co 10:24</reference>).

<hi type="bold">many--</hi>rather as Greek, "THE many." <chapter eID="1Cor.10"/>

33. I please-- I try to please (1Co 9:19, 22; Ro 15:2). not seeking mine own-- (1Co 10:24). many-- rather as Greek, "THE many."


<title type="x-s2">CHAPTER 11</title>
 <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.1-1Cor.11.34">1Co 11:1-34</reference>. Censure on Disorders in Their Assemblies: Their Women Not Being Veiled, and Abuses at the Love-Feasts.

1. Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter.

<hi type="bold">followers--</hi>Greek, "imitators."

<hi type="bold">of Christ--</hi>who did not please Himself (<reference osisRef="Rom.15.3">Ro 15:3</reference>); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dying as man, for us (<reference osisRef="Eph.5.2">Ep 5:2</reference>; <reference osisRef="Phil.2.4">Php 2:4</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.2.5">5</reference>). We are to follow Christ first, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.

CHAPTER 11 1Co 11:1-34. Censure on Disorders in Their Assemblies: Their Women Not Being Veiled, and Abuses at the Love-Feasts. 1. Rather belonging to the end of the tenth chapter, than to this chapter. followers-- Greek, "imitators." of Christ-- who did not please Himself (Ro 15:3); but gave Himself, at the cost of laying aside His divine glory, and dying as man, for us (Ep 5:2; Php 2:4, 5). We are to follow Christ first, and earthly teachers only so far as they follow Christ.


2. Here the chapter ought to begin.

<hi type="bold">ye remember me in all things--</hi>in your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail.

<hi type="bold">ordinances--</hi>Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.23">1Co 11:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.15.3">15:3</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Thess.2.15">2Th 2:15</reference>). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.23">1Co 11:23</reference>, as to the Lord's Supper, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (<reference osisRef="Rev.22.18">Re 22:18</reference>). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.

2. Here the chapter ought to begin. ye remember me in all things-- in your general practice, though in the particular instances which follow ye fail. ordinances-- Greek, "traditions," that is, apostolic directions given by word of mouth or in writing (1Co 11:23; 15:3; 2Th 2:15). The reference here is mainly to ceremonies: for in 1Co 11:23, as to the Lord's Supper, which is not a mere ceremony, he says, not merely, "I delivered unto you," but also, "I received of the Lord"; here he says only, "I delivered to you." Romanists argue hence for oral traditions. But the difficulty is to know what is a genuine apostolic tradition intended for all ages. Any that can be proved to be such ought to be observed; any that cannot, ought to be rejected (Re 22:18). Those preserved in the written word alone can be proved to be such.


3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (<reference osisRef="Gal.3.28">Ga 3:28</reference>), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.34">1Co 14:34</reference>, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation.

<hi type="bold">the head--</hi>an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public.

<hi type="bold">of every man ... Christ--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Eph.5.23">Ep 5:23</reference>).

<hi type="bold">of ... woman ... man--</hi>(<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.8">1Co 11:8</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gen.3.16">Ge 3:16</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Tim.2.11">1Ti 2:11</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.2.12">12</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Pet.3.1">1Pe 3:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Pet.5.6">5, 6</reference>).

<hi type="bold">head of Christ is God--</hi>(<reference osisRef="1Cor.3.23">1Co 3:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.15.27">15:27</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.15.28">28</reference>; <reference osisRef="Luke.3.22">Lu 3:22</reference>, <reference osisRef="Luke.3.38">38</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.14.28">Joh 14:28</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.20.17">20:17</reference>; <reference osisRef="Eph.3.9">Ep 3:9</reference>). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [Chrysostom]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171].

3. The Corinthian women, on the ground of the abolition of distinction of sexes in Christ, claimed equality with the male sex, and, overstepping the bounds of propriety, came forward to pray and prophesy without the customary head-covering of females. The Gospel, doubtless, did raise women from the degradation in which they had been sunk, especially in the East. Yet, while on a level with males as to the offer of, and standing in grace (Ga 3:28), their subjection in point of order, modesty, and seemliness, is to be maintained. Paul reproves here their unseemliness as to dress: in 1Co 14:34, as to the retiring modesty in public which becomes them. He grounds his reproof here on the subjection of woman to man in the order of creation. the head-- an appropriate expression, when he is about to treat of woman's appropriate headdress in public. of every man... Christ-- (Ep 5:23). of... woman... man-- (1Co 11:8; Ge 3:16; 1Ti 2:11, 12; 1Pe 3:1, 5, 6). head of Christ is God-- (1Co 3:23; 15:27, 28; Lu 3:22, 38; Joh 14:28; 20:17; Ep 3:9). "Jesus, therefore, must be of the same essence as God: for, since the man is the head of the woman, and since the head is of the same essence as the body, and God is the head of the Son, it follows the Son is of the same essence as the Father" [Chrysostom]. "The woman is of the essence of the man, and not made by the man; so, too, the Son is not made by the Father, but of the essence of the Father" [Theodoret, t. 3, p. 171].


<hi type="bold">4. praying--</hi>in public (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.17">1Co 11:17</reference>).

<hi type="bold">prophesying--</hi>preaching in the Spirit (<reference osisRef="1Cor.12.10">1Co 12:10</reference>).

<hi type="bold">having--</hi>that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (<reference osisRef="Isa.6.2">Is 6:2</reference>); however, Maimonides [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different.

<hi type="bold">dishonoureth his head--</hi>not as Alford, "Christ" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.3">1Co 11:3</reference>); but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen" [Bengel]. (Compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.7">1Co 11:7</reference>).

4. praying-- in public (1Co 11:17). prophesying-- preaching in the Spirit (1Co 12:10). having-- that is, if he were to have: a supposed case to illustrate the impropriety in the woman's case. It was the Greek custom (and so that at Corinth) for men in worship to be uncovered; whereas the Jews wore the Talith, or veil, to show reverence before God, and their unworthiness to look on Him (Is 6:2); however, Maimonides [Mishna] excepts cases where (as in Greece) the custom of the place was different. dishonoureth his head-- not as Alford, "Christ" (1Co 11:3); but literally, as "his head" is used in the beginning of the verse. He dishonoreth his head (the principal part of the body) by wearing a covering or veil, which is a mark of subjection, and which makes him look downwards instead of upwards to his Spiritual Head, Christ, to whom alone he owes subjection. Why, then, ought not man to wear the covering in token of his subjection to Christ, as the woman wears it in token of her subjection to man? "Because Christ is not seen: the man is seen; so the covering of him who is under Christ is not seen; of her who is under the man, is seen" [Bengel]. (Compare 1Co 11:7).


<hi type="bold">5. woman ... prayeth ... prophesieth--</hi>This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so <reference osisRef="Acts.2.18">Ac 2:18</reference>). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (<reference osisRef="1Cor.14.34">1Co 14:34</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.35">35</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Tim.2.11">1Ti 2:11</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.2.12">12</reference>). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.34">1Co 14:34</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.35">35</reference>. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation.

<hi type="bold">dishonoureth ... head--</hi>in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (<reference osisRef="Gen.24.65">Ge 24:65</reference>), and conjugal chastity (<reference osisRef="Gen.20.16">Ge 20:16</reference>); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (<reference osisRef="Num.5.18">Nu 5:18</reference>). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.

<hi type="bold">all one as if ... shaven--</hi>As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.15">1Co 11:15</reference>), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.

5. woman... prayeth... prophesieth-- This instance of women speaking in public worship is an extraordinary case, and justified only by the miraculous gifts which such women possessed as their credentials; for instance, Anna the prophetess and Priscilla (so Ac 2:18). The ordinary rule to them is: silence in public (1Co 14:34, 35; 1Ti 2:11, 12). Mental receptivity and activity in family life are recognized in Christianity, as most accordant with the destiny of woman. This passage does not necessarily sanction women speaking in public, even though possessing miraculous gifts; but simply records what took place at Corinth, without expressing an opinion on it, reserving the censure of it till 1Co 14:34, 35. Even those women endowed with prophecy were designed to exercise their gift, rather in other times and places, than the public congregation. dishonoureth... head-- in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one. all one as if... shaven-- As woman's hair is given her by nature, as her covering (1Co 11:15), to cut it off like a man, all admit, would be indecorous: therefore, to put away the head-covering, too, like a man, would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering: she ought, therefore, to add the other (the wearing of a head-covering) to show that she does of her own will that which nature itself teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.


6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, "shorn."

<hi type="bold">a shame--</hi>an unbecoming thing (compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.13-1Cor.11.15">1Co 11:13-15</reference>). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame."

6. A woman would not like to be "shorn" or (what is worse) "shaven"; but if she chooses to be uncovered (unveiled) in front, let her be so also behind, that is, "shorn." a shame-- an unbecoming thing (compare 1Co 11:13-15). Thus the shaving of nuns is "a shame."


7-9. Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man.

<hi type="bold">he is ... image ... glory of God--</hi>being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (<reference osisRef="Ps.8.4">Psa 8:4</reference>, <reference osisRef="Ps.8.5">5</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="2Cor.8.23">2Co 8:23</reference>). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare <reference osisRef="Jas.3.9">Jas 3:9</reference>). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (<reference osisRef="Col.1.15">Col 1:15</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="Heb.1.3">He 1:3</reference>). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed].

<hi type="bold">woman ... glory of ... man--</hi>He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (<reference osisRef="Gen.1.26">Ge 1:26</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.27">27</reference>). But as the moon in relation to the sun (<reference osisRef="Gen.37.9">Ge 37:9</reference>), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.

7-9. Argument, also, from man's more immediate relation to God, and the woman's to man. he is... image... glory of God-- being created in God's "image," first and directly: the woman, subsequently, and indirectly, through the mediation of man. Man is the representative of God's "glory" this ideal of man being realized most fully in the Son of man (Psa 8:4, 5; compare 2Co 8:23). Man is declared in Scripture to be both the "image," and in the "likeness," of God (compare Jas 3:9). But "image" alone is applied to the Son of God (Col 1:15; compare He 1:3). "Express image," Greek, "the impress." The Divine Son is not merely "like" God, He is God of God, "being of one substance (essence) with the Father." [Nicene Creed]. woman... glory of... man-- He does not say, also, "the image of the man." For the sexes differ: moreover, the woman is created in the image of God, as well as the man (Ge 1:26, 27). But as the moon in relation to the sun (Ge 37:9), so woman shines not so much with light direct from God, as with light derived from man, that is, in her order in creation; not that she does not in grace come individually into direct communion with God; but even here much of her knowledge is mediately given her through man, on whom she is naturally dependent.


<hi type="bold">10. power on her head--</hi>the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad).

<hi type="bold">because of the angels--</hi>who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare <reference osisRef="Ps.138.1">Psa 138:1</reference>, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (<reference osisRef="1Cor.4.9">1Co 4:9</reference>; <reference osisRef="Eph.3.10">Ep 3:10</reference>; <reference osisRef="Eccl.5.6">Ec 5:6</reference>). Hammond quotes Chrysostom, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" Bengel explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (<reference osisRef="Isa.6.2">Is 6:2</reference>). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (<reference osisRef="Matt.18.10">Mt 18:10</reference>, <reference osisRef="Matt.18.31">31</reference>). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."

10. power on her head-- the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of "power on her head"; the sign of her being under man's power, and exercising delegated authority under him. Paul had before his mind the root-connection between the Hebrew terms for "veil" (radid), and "subjection" (radad). because of the angels-- who are present at our Christian assemblies (compare Psa 138:1, "gods," that is, angels), and delight in the orderly subordination of the several ranks of God's worshippers in their respective places, the outward demeanor and dress of the latter being indicative of that inward humility which angels know to be most pleasing to their common Lord (1Co 4:9; Ep 3:10; Ec 5:6). Hammond quotes Chrysostom, "Thou standest with angels; thou singest with them; thou hymnest with them; and yet dost thou stand laughing?" Bengel explains, "As the angels are in relation to God, so the woman is in relation to man. God's face is uncovered; angels in His presence are veiled (Is 6:2). Man's face is uncovered; woman in His presence is to be veiled. For her not to be so, would, by its indecorousness, offend the angels (Mt 18:10, 31). She, by her weakness, especially needs their ministry; she ought, therefore, to be the more careful not to offend them."


11. Yet neither sex is insulated and independent of the other in the Christian life [Alford]. The one needs the other in the sexual relation; and in respect to Christ ("in the Lord"), the man and the woman together (for neither can be dispensed with) realize the ideal of redeemed humanity represented by the bride, the Church.


12. As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by means of woman; but all things (including both man and woman) are from God as their source (<reference osisRef="Rom.11.36">Ro 11:36</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.5.18">2Co 5:18</reference>). They depend mutually each on the other, and both on him.

12. As the woman was formed out of (from) the man, even so is man born by means of woman; but all things (including both man and woman) are from God as their source (Ro 11:36; 2Co 5:18). They depend mutually each on the other, and both on him.


13. Appeal to their own sense of decorum.

<hi type="bold">a woman ... unto God--</hi>By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and angels [Bengel].

13. Appeal to their own sense of decorum. a woman... unto God-- By rejecting the emblem of subjection (the head-covering), she passes at one leap in praying publicly beyond both the man and angels [Bengel].


14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (<reference osisRef="Num.6.5">Nu 6:5</reference>). Compare as to Absalom, <reference osisRef="2Sam.14.26">2Sa 14:26</reference>, and <reference osisRef="Acts.18.18">Ac 18:18</reference>.

14. The fact that nature has provided woman, and not man, with long hair, proves that man was designed to be uncovered, and woman covered. The Nazarite, however, wore long hair lawfully, as being part of a vow sanctioned by God (Nu 6:5). Compare as to Absalom, 2Sa 14:26, and Ac 18:18.


<hi type="bold">15. her hair ... for a covering--</hi>Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel].

15. her hair... for a covering-- Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel].


16. A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches.

<hi type="bold">if any ... seem--</hi>The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare <reference osisRef="Matt.3.9">Mt 3:9</reference>). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (<reference osisRef="1Cor.1.20">1Co 1:20</reference>).

<hi type="bold">we--</hi>apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: <hi type="bold">Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to Tertullian [Estius]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we--</hi>us" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.4.9">1Co 4:9</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.4.10">10</reference>).

<hi type="bold">no such custom--</hi>as that of women praying uncovered. Not as Chrysostom, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (<reference osisRef="John.18.39">Joh 18:39</reference>). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [Sclater] (<reference osisRef="1Cor.7.17">1Co 7:17</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.33">14:33</reference>).

<hi type="bold">neither--</hi>nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.

16. A summary close to the argument by appeal to the universal custom of the churches. if any... seem-- The Greek also means "thinks" (fit) (compare Mt 3:9). If any man chooses (still after all my arguments) to be contentious. If any be contentious and thinks himself right in being so. A reproof of the Corinthians' self-sufficiency and disputatiousness (1Co 1:20). we-- apostles: or we of the Jewish nation, from whom ye have received the Gospel, and whose usages in all that is good ye ought to follow: Jewish women veiled themselves when in public, according to Tertullian [Estius]. The former explanation is best, as the Jews are not referred to in the context: but he often refers to himself and his fellow apostles, by the expression, "we-- us" (1Co 4:9, 10). no such custom-- as that of women praying uncovered. Not as Chrysostom, "that of being contentious." The Greek term implies a usage, rather than a mental habit (Joh 18:39). The usage of true "churches (plural: not, as Rome uses it, 'the Church,' as an abstract entity; but 'the churches,' as a number of independent witnesses) of God" (the churches which God Himself recognizes), is a valid argument in the case of external rites, especially, negatively, for example, Such rites were not received among them, therefore, ought not to be admitted among us: but in questions of doctrine, or the essentials of worship, the argument is not valid [Sclater] (1Co 7:17; 14:33). neither-- nor yet. Catholic usage is not an infallible test of truth, but a general test of decency.


<hi type="bold">17. in this--</hi>which follows.

<hi type="bold">I declare--</hi>rather, "I enjoin"; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)."

<hi type="bold">that--</hi>inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.2">1Co 11:2</reference>). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord's Supper (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.23">1Co 11:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.37">1Co 14:37</reference>).

<hi type="bold">not for the better--</hi>not so as to progress to what is better.

<hi type="bold">for the worse--</hi>so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming together" must be "condemnation" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.34">1Co 11:34</reference>).

17. in this-- which follows. I declare-- rather, "I enjoin"; as the Greek is always so used. The oldest manuscripts read literally "This I enjoin (you) not praising (you)." that-- inasmuch as; in that you, &c. Here he qualifies his praise (1Co 11:2). "I said that I praised you for keeping the ordinances delivered to you; but I must now give injunction in the name of the Lord, on a matter in which I praise you not; namely, as to the Lord's Supper (1Co 11:23; 1Co 14:37). not for the better-- not so as to progress to what is better. for the worse-- so as to retrograde to what is worse. The result of such "coming together" must be "condemnation" (1Co 11:34).


<hi type="bold">18. first of all--</hi>In the first place. The "divisions" (Greek, "schisms") meant, are not merely those of opinion (<reference osisRef="1Cor.1.10">1Co 1:10</reference>), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapæ), (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.21">1Co 11:21</reference>). He does not follow up the expression, "in the first place," by "in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, "In the first place," namely, THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also created disorder in their assemblies [Alford], (<reference osisRef="1Cor.12.1">1Co 12:1</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.14.23">14:23</reference>, 26, 33, 40).

<hi type="bold">in the church--</hi>not the place of worship; for Isidore of Pelusium denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, "in the assembly" or "congregation"; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of "divisions" (schisms).

<hi type="bold">partly--</hi>He hereby excepts the innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing" [Alford]: while my love is unaffected by it [Bengel].

18. first of all-- In the first place. The "divisions" (Greek, "schisms") meant, are not merely those of opinion (1Co 1:10), but in outward acts at the love-feasts (Agapæ), (1Co 11:21). He does not follow up the expression, "in the first place," by "in the second place." But though not expressed, a second abuse was in his mind when he said, "In the first place," namely, THE ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, which also created disorder in their assemblies [Alford], (1Co 12:1; 14:23, 26, 33, 40). in the church-- not the place of worship; for Isidore of Pelusium denies that there were such places specially set apart for worship in the apostles' times [Epistle, 246.2]. But, "in the assembly" or "congregation"; in convocation for worship, where especially love, order, and harmony should prevail. The very ordinance instituted for uniting together believers in one body, was made an occasion of "divisions" (schisms). partly-- He hereby excepts the innocent. "I am unwilling to believe all I hear, but some I cannot help believing" [Alford]: while my love is unaffected by it [Bengel].


<hi type="bold">19. heresies--</hi>Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.18">1Co 11:18</reference>), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [Augustine, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by Trench, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"; "Sects" [Campbell, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so <reference osisRef="Acts.5.17">Ac 5:17</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.15.5">15:5</reference> translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (<reference osisRef="Matt.18.7">Mt 18:7</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.24.10">24:10</reference>, <reference osisRef="Matt.24.12">12</reference>; <reference osisRef="Luke.17.1">Lu 17:1</reference>) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity."

<hi type="bold">that ... approved may be made manifest--</hi>through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (<reference osisRef="Luke.2.35">Lu 2:35</reference>; <reference osisRef="1John.2.19">1Jo 2:19</reference>).

19. heresies-- Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (1Co 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion" [Augustine, Con. Crescon. Don. 2.7, quoted by Trench, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament], but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"; "Sects" [Campbell, vol. 2, pp. 126, 127]: so Ac 5:17; 15:5 translate the same Greek. At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mt 18:7; 24:10, 12; Lu 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists. The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly, and to the discipline of the former for glory. "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity." that... approved may be made manifest-- through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jo 2:19).


<hi type="bold">20. When ... therefore--</hi>Resuming the thread of discourse from <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.18">1Co 11:18</reference>.

<hi type="bold">this is not to--</hi>rather, "there is no such thing as eating the Lord's Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.33">1Co 11:33</reference>), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.21">1Co 11:21</reference>). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.

20. When... therefore-- Resuming the thread of discourse from 1Co 11:18. this is not to-- rather, "there is no such thing as eating the Lord's Supper"; it is not possible where each is greedily intent only on devouring "HIS OWN supper," and some are excluded altogether, not having been waited for (1Co 11:33), where some are "drunken," while others are "hungry" (1Co 11:21). The love-feast usually preceded the Lord's Supper (as eating the Passover came before the Lord's Supper at the first institution of the latter). It was a club-feast, where each brought his portion, and the rich, extra portions for the poor; from it the bread and wine were taken for the Eucharist; and it was at it that the excesses took place, which made a true celebration of the Lord's Supper during or after it, with true discernment of its solemnity, out of the question.


<hi type="bold">21. one taketh before other--</hi>the rich "before" the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of "tarrying for one another" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.33">1Co 11:33</reference>); hence the precept (<reference osisRef="1Cor.12.21">1Co 12:21</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.12.25">25</reference>).

<hi type="bold">his own supper--</hi>"His own" belly is his God (<reference osisRef="Phil.3.19">Php 3:19</reference>); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts.

<hi type="bold">drunken--</hi>The one has more than is good for him, the other less [Bengel].

21. one taketh before other-- the rich "before" the poor, who had no supper of their own. Instead of "tarrying for one another" (1Co 11:33); hence the precept (1Co 12:21, 25). his own supper-- "His own" belly is his God (Php 3:19); "the Lord's Supper," the spiritual feast, never enters his thoughts. drunken-- The one has more than is good for him, the other less [Bengel].


<hi type="bold">22. What!--</hi>Greek, "For."

<hi type="bold">houses--</hi>(compare <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.34">1Co 11:34</reference>)--"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [Alford].

<hi type="bold">despise ye the church of God--</hi>the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (<reference osisRef="Jas.2.5">Jas 2:5</reference>); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church.

<hi type="bold">shame them that have not--</hi>namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren.

<hi type="bold">I praise you not--</hi>resuming the words (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.17">1Co 11:17</reference>).

22. What!-- Greek, "For." houses-- (compare 1Co 11:34)--"at home." That is the place to satiate the appetite, not the assembly of the brethren [Alford]. despise ye the church of God-- the congregation mostly composed of the poor, whom "God hath chosen," however ye show contempt for them (Jas 2:5); compare "of God" here, marking the true honor of the Church. shame them that have not-- namely, houses to eat and drink in, and who, therefore, ought to have received their portion at the love-feasts from their wealthier brethren. I praise you not-- resuming the words (1Co 11:17).


23. His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper.

<hi type="bold">I--</hi>Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution.

<hi type="bold">received of the Lord--</hi>by immediate revelation (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.12">Ga 1:12</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="Acts.22.17">Ac 22:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.22.18">18</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.12.1-2Cor.12.4">2Co 12:1-4</reference>). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness.

<hi type="bold">night--</hi>the time fixed for the Passover (<reference osisRef="Exod.12.6">Ex 12:6</reference>): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed.

<hi type="bold">betrayed--</hi>With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.

23. His object is to show the unworthiness of such conduct from the dignity of the holy supper. I-- Emphatic in the Greek. It is not my own invention, but the Lord's institution. received of the Lord-- by immediate revelation (Ga 1:12; compare Ac 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1-4). The renewal of the institution of the Lord's Supper by special revelation to Paul enhances its solemnity. The similarity between Luke's and Paul's account of the institution, favors the supposition that the former drew his information from the apostle, whose companion in travel he was. Thus, the undesigned coincidence is a proof of genuineness. night-- the time fixed for the Passover (Ex 12:6): though the time for the Lord's Supper is not fixed. betrayed-- With the traitor at the table, and death present before His eyes, He left this ordinance as His last gift to us, to commemorate His death. Though about to receive such an injury from man, He gave this pledge of His amazing love to man.


<hi type="bold">24. brake--</hi>The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one taking before other his own supper."

<hi type="bold">my body ... broken for you--</hi>"given" (<reference osisRef="Luke.22.19">Lu 22:19</reference>) for you (Greek, "in your behalf"), and "broken," so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit "broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal "body" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, "This is My body." They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest manuscripts.

<hi type="bold">in remembrance of me--</hi>(See on <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.25">1Co 11:25</reference>).

24. brake-- The breaking of the bread involves its distribution and reproves the Corinthian mode at the love-feast, of "every one taking before other his own supper." my body... broken for you-- "given" (Lu 22:19) for you (Greek, "in your behalf"), and "broken," so as to be distributed among you. The oldest manuscripts omit "broken," leaving it to be supplied from "brake." The two old versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, read from Luke, "given." The literal "body" could not have been meant; for Christ was still sensibly present among His disciples when He said, "This is My body." They could only have understood Him symbolically and analogically: As this bread is to your bodily health, so My body is to the spiritual health of the believing communicant. The words, "Take, eat," are not in the oldest manuscripts. in remembrance of me-- (See on 1Co 11:25).


<hi type="bold">25. when he had supped--</hi>Greek, "after the eating of supper," namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper [Bengel].

<hi type="bold">the new testament--</hi>or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter.

<hi type="bold">in my blood--</hi>ratified by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (<reference osisRef="Heb.9.12">He 9:12</reference>).

<hi type="bold">as oft as--</hi>Greek, "as many times soever": implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of.

<hi type="bold">in remembrance of me--</hi>Luke (<reference osisRef="Luke.22.19">Lu 22:19</reference>) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.24">1Co 11:24</reference> and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (<reference osisRef="Heb.10.1">He 10:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="Heb.10.3">3</reference>). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.

25. when he had supped-- Greek, "after the eating of supper," namely, the Passover supper which preceded the Lord's Supper, as the love-feast did subsequently. Therefore, you Corinthians ought to separate common meals from the Lord's Supper [Bengel]. the new testament-- or "covenant." The cup is the parchment-deed, as it were, on which My new covenant, or last will is written and sealed, making over to you all blessings here and hereafter. in my blood-- ratified by MY blood: "not by the blood of goats and calves" (He 9:12). as oft as-- Greek, "as many times soever": implying that it is an ordinance often to be partaken of. in remembrance of me-- Luke (Lu 22:19) expresses this, which is understood by Matthew and Mark. Paul twice records it (1Co 11:24 and here) as suiting his purpose. The old sacrifices brought sins continually to remembrance (He 10:1, 3). The Lord's Supper brings to remembrance Christ and His sacrifice once for all for the full and final remission of sins.


<hi type="bold">26. For--</hi>in proof that the Lord's Supper is "in remembrance" of Him.

<hi type="bold">show--</hi>announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but "ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died FOR ME" [Wahl]. This word, as "is" in Christ's institution (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.24">1Co 11:24</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.25">25</reference>), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as a living person, not a mere abstract dogma, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh" (<reference osisRef="Eph.5.30">Ep 5:30</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="Gen.2.23">Ge 2:23</reference>); and ourselves "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," "our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood" [Church of England Prayer Book]. "Show," or "announce," is an expression applicable to new things; compare "show" as to the Passover (<reference osisRef="Exod.13.8">Ex 13:8</reference>). So the Lord's death ought always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, <reference osisRef="Rev.5.6">Re 5:6</reference>. That the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent, though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord's death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benefits of that death.

<hi type="bold">till he come--</hi>when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, "till He come" corporally; a contradiction in terms. The showbread, literally, "bread of the presence," was in the sanctuary, but not in the Holiest Place (<reference osisRef="Heb.9.1-Heb.9.8">He 9:1-8</reference>); so the Lord's Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ's own bodily presence; then the wine shall be drunk "anew" in the Father's kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord's Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (<reference osisRef="Matt.26.29">Mt 26:29</reference>). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (<reference osisRef="Lev.24.5-Lev.24.8">Le 24:5-8</reference>); so the Lord's death was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord's table the first day of every week in the primitive Church. We are now "priests unto God" in the dispensation of Christ's spiritual presence, antitypical to the HOLY PLACE: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ's coming, is antitypical to the HOLIEST PLACE, which Christ our High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (<reference osisRef="Heb.9.6">He 9:6</reference>, <reference osisRef="Heb.9.7">7</reference>); but which, at His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (<reference osisRef="Rev.7.15">Re 7:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rev.21.22">21:22</reference>). The supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the expression is not "return," but "come" (compare, however, <reference osisRef="John.14.3">Joh 14:3</reference>).

26. For-- in proof that the Lord's Supper is "in remembrance" of Him. show-- announce publicly. The Greek does not mean to dramatically represent, but "ye publicly profess each of you, the Lord has died FOR ME" [Wahl]. This word, as "is" in Christ's institution (1Co 11:24, 25), implies not literal presence, but a vivid realization, by faith, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, as a living person, not a mere abstract dogma, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh" (Ep 5:30; compare Ge 2:23); and ourselves "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones," "our sinful bodies made clean by His body (once for all offered), and our souls washed through His most precious blood" [Church of England Prayer Book]. "Show," or "announce," is an expression applicable to new things; compare "show" as to the Passover (Ex 13:8). So the Lord's death ought always to be fresh in our memory; compare in heaven, Re 5:6. That the Lord's Supper is in remembrance of Him, implies that He is bodily absent, though spiritually present, for we cannot be said to commemorate one absent. The fact that we not only show the Lord's death in the supper, but eat and drink the pledges of it, could only be understood by the Jews, accustomed to such feasts after propitiatory sacrifices, as implying our personal appropriation therein of the benefits of that death. till he come-- when there shall be no longer need of symbols of His body, the body itself being manifested. The Greek expresses the certainly of His coming. Rome teaches that we eat Christ present corporally, "till He come" corporally; a contradiction in terms. The showbread, literally, "bread of the presence," was in the sanctuary, but not in the Holiest Place (He 9:1-8); so the Lord's Supper in heaven, the antitype to the Holiest Place, shall be superseded by Christ's own bodily presence; then the wine shall be drunk "anew" in the Father's kingdom, by Christ and His people together, of which heavenly banquet, the Lord's Supper is a spiritual foretaste and specimen (Mt 26:29). Meantime, as the showbread was placed anew, every sabbath, on the table before the Lord (Le 24:5-8); so the Lord's death was shown, or announced afresh at the Lord's table the first day of every week in the primitive Church. We are now "priests unto God" in the dispensation of Christ's spiritual presence, antitypical to the HOLY PLACE: the perfect and eternal dispensation, which shall not begin till Christ's coming, is antitypical to the HOLIEST PLACE, which Christ our High Priest alone in the flesh as yet has entered (He 9:6, 7); but which, at His coming, we, too, who are believers, shall enter (Re 7:15; 21:22). The supper joins the two closing periods of the Old and the New dispensations. The first and second comings are considered as one coming, whence the expression is not "return," but "come" (compare, however, Joh 14:3).


<hi type="bold">27. eat and drink--</hi>So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, "or." Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood." Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," <reference osisRef="Heb.6.6">He 6:6</reference>). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ's Gospel, we may worthily communicate.

27. eat and drink-- So one of the oldest manuscripts reads. But three or four equally old manuscripts, the Vulgate and Cyprian, read, "or." Romanists quote this reading in favor of communion in one kind. This consequence does not follow. Paul says, "Whosoever is guilty of unworthy conduct, either in eating the bread, or in drinking the cup, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ." Impropriety in only one of the two elements, vitiates true communion in both. Therefore, in the end of the verse, he says, not "body or blood," but "body and blood." Any who takes the bread without the wine, or the wine without the bread, "unworthily" communicates, and so "is guilty of Christ's body and blood"; for he disobeys Christ's express command to partake of both. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," He 6:6). Unworthiness in the person, is not what ought to exclude any, but unworthily communicating: However unworthy we be, if we examine ourselves so as to find that we penitently believe in Christ's Gospel, we may worthily communicate.


<hi type="bold">28. examine--</hi>Greek, "prove" or "test" his own state of mind in respect to Christ's death, and his capability of "discerning the Lord's body" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.29">1Co 11:29</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.31">31</reference>). Not auricular confession to a priest, but self-examination is necessary.

<hi type="bold">so--</hi>after due self-examination.

<hi type="bold">of ... of--</hi>In <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.27">1Co 11:27</reference>, where the receiving was unworthily, the expression was, "eat this bread, drink ... cup" without "of." Here the "of" implies due circumspection in communicating [Bengel].

<hi type="bold">let him eat--</hi>His self-examination is not in order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.

28. examine-- Greek, "prove" or "test" his own state of mind in respect to Christ's death, and his capability of "discerning the Lord's body" (1Co 11:29, 31). Not auricular confession to a priest, but self-examination is necessary. so-- after due self-examination. of... of-- In 1Co 11:27, where the receiving was unworthily, the expression was, "eat this bread, drink... cup" without "of." Here the "of" implies due circumspection in communicating [Bengel]. let him eat-- His self-examination is not in order that he may stay away, but that he may eat, that is, communicate.


<hi type="bold">29. damnation--</hi>A mistranslation which has put a stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right translation is "judgment." The judgment is described (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.30-1Cor.11.32">1Co 11:30-32</reference>) as temporal.

<hi type="bold">not discerning--</hi>not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges of the Lord's body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit "Lord's" (see <reference osisRef="1Cor.11.27">1Co 11:27</reference>). Omitting also "unworthily," with most of the oldest manuscripts, we must translate, "He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, IF he discern not the body" (<reference osisRef="Heb.10.29">He 10:29</reference>). The Church is "the body of Christ" (<reference osisRef="1Cor.12.27">1Co 12:27</reference>). The Lord's body is His literal body appreciated and discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the elements themselves.

29. damnation-- A mistranslation which has put a stumbling-block in the way of many in respect to communicating. The right translation is "judgment." The judgment is described (1Co 11:30-32) as temporal. not discerning-- not duty judging: not distinguishing in judgment (so the Greek: the sin and its punishment thus being marked as corresponding) from common food, the sacramental pledges of the Lord's body. Most of the oldest manuscripts omit "Lord's" (see 1Co 11:27). Omitting also "unworthily," with most of the oldest manuscripts, we must translate, "He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, IF he discern not the body" (He 10:29). The Church is "the body of Christ" (1Co 12:27). The Lord's body is His literal body appreciated and discerned by the soul in the faithful receiving, and not present in the elements themselves.


<hi type="bold">30. weak ... sickly--</hi>He is "weak" who has naturally no strength: "sickly," who has lost his strength by disease [Tittmann, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament].

<hi type="bold">sleep--</hi>are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord's chastening for the individual's salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.31">1Co 11:31</reference>).

30. weak... sickly-- He is "weak" who has naturally no strength: "sickly," who has lost his strength by disease [Tittmann, Greek Synonyms of the New Testament]. sleep-- are being lulled in death: not a violent death; but one the result of sickness, sent as the Lord's chastening for the individual's salvation, the mind being brought to a right state on the sick bed (1Co 11:31).


<hi type="bold">31. if we would judge ourselves--</hi>Most of the oldest manuscripts, read "But," not "For." Translate also literally "If we duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged," that is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order to duly judge or "discern [appreciate] the Lord's body," we need to "duly judge ourselves." A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the Lord's Supper.

31. if we would judge ourselves-- Most of the oldest manuscripts, read "But," not "For." Translate also literally "If we duly judged ourselves, we should not be (or not have been) judged," that is, we should escape (or have escaped) our present judgments. In order to duly judge or "discern [appreciate] the Lord's body," we need to "duly judge ourselves." A prescient warning against the dogma of priestly absolution after full confession, as the necessary preliminary to receiving the Lord's Supper.


<hi type="bold">32. chastened--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Rev.3.19">Re 3:19</reference>).

<hi type="bold">with the world--</hi>who, being bastards, are without chastening (<reference osisRef="Heb.12.8">He 12:8</reference>).

32. chastened-- (Re 3:19). with the world-- who, being bastards, are without chastening (He 12:8).