Barnes' New Testament Notes

Notes on the New Testament
Explanatory and Practical
Part 58

By Albert Barnes

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 1

First Corinthians CHAPTER 10

IN regard to the design of this chapter commentators have not been agreed. Some have supposed that there is no connexion with the preceding, but that this is a digression. The ancient Greek expositors generally, and some of the moderns, as Grotius, supposed that the connexion was this: Paul had in the previous chapter described himself as mortifying his flesh, and keeping his body under, that he might gain the prize. In this chapter they suppose that his object is to exhort the Corinthians to do the same; and that in order to do this, he admonishes them not to be lulled into security by the idea of the many spiritual gifts which had been conferred upon them. This admonition he enforces by the example of the Jews, who had been highly favoured also, but who had nevertheless been led into idolatry. This is also the view of Doddridge, Calvin, and others. Macknight regards the chapter as an independent discussion of the three questions, which he supposes had been submitted to Paul:

(1.) Whether they might innocently go with their friends into the heathen temples, and partake of the feasts which were there made in honour of the idol.

(2.) Whether they might buy and eat meat sold in the markets which had been sacrificed to idols.

(3.) Whether, when invited to the houses of the heathens, they might partake of the meat sacrificed to idols, and which was set before them as a common meal. I regard this chapter as having a very close connexion with 1 Co 8.

In the close of chapter 8, (1 Co 9:13,) Paul had stated, when examining the question whether it was right to eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols, that the grand principle on which he acted, and on which they should act, was that of self-denial. To illustrate this he employs the ninth chapter, by showing how he acted on it in reference to a maintenance; showing that it was this principle that led him to decline a support to which he was really entitled. Having illustrated that, he returns in this chapter to the subject which he was discussing in chapter 8; and the design of this chapter is further to explain and enforce the sentiments advanced there, and to settle some other inquiries pertaining to the same general subject. The first point, therefore, on which he insists is, the danger of relapsing into idolatry—a danger which would arise, should they be in the habit of frequenting the temples of idols, and of partaking of the meats offered in sacrifice, 1 Co 10:1-24. Against this he had cautioned them in general, in 1 Co 8:7,9-12.

This danger he now sets forth by a variety of illustrations. He first shows them that the Jews had been highly favoured, had been solemnly consecrated to Moses and to God, and had been under the Divine protection and guidance, (1 Co 10:1-4;) yet that this had not kept them from the displeasure of God when they sinned, 1 Co 10:5. He shows that, notwithstanding their privileges, they had indulged in inordinate desires, 1 Co 10:6; that they had become idolaters, 1 Co 10:7; that they had been guilty of licentiousness, 1 Co 10:8; that they had tempted their leader and guide, 1 Co 10:9; that they had murmured, 1 Co 10:10; and that, as a consequence of this, many of them had been destroyed. In view of all this, Paul cautions the Corinthians not to be self-confident, or to feel secure; and not to throw themselves in the way of temptation by partaking of the feasts of idolatry, 1 Co 10:12-14. This danger he further illustrates (1 Co 10:15-24) by showing that if they partook of those sacrifices, they in fact became identified with the worshippers of idols. This he proved by showing that in the Christian communion, those who partook of the Lord's Supper were identified with Christians, 1 Co 10:16,17; that in the Jewish sacrifices the same thing occurred, and those who partook of them were regarded as Jews, and as worshippers of the same God with them, 1 Co 10:18; and that the same thing must occur, in the nature of the case, by partaking of the sacrifices offered to idols. They were really partaking of that which had been offered to devils; and against any such participation Paul would solemnly admonish them, 1 Co 10:19-22. Going on the supposition, therefore, that there was nothing wrong in itself in partaking of the meat that had been thus killed in sacrifice, yet Paul says (1 Co 10:23) that it was not expedient thus to expose themselves to danger; and that the grand principle should be to seek the comfort and edification of others, 1 Co 10:24. Paul thus strongly and decisively admonishes them not to enter the temples of idols to partake of those feasts; not to unite with idolaters in their celebration; not to endanger their piety by these temptations.

There were, however, two other questions on the subject which it was important to decide, and which had probably been submitted to him in the letter which they had sent for counsel and advice. The first was, whether it was right to purchase and eat the meat which had been sacrificed, and which was exposed indiscriminately with other meat in the market, 1 Co 10:25. To this Paul replies, that as no evil could result from this, as it could not be alleged that they purchased it as meat sacrificed to idols, and as all that the earth contained belonged to the Lord, it was not wrong to purchase and to use it. Yet if even this was pointed out to them as having been sacrificed to idols, he then cautioned them to abstain from it, 1 Co 10:28. The other question was, whether it was right for them to accept the invitation of a heathen, and to partake of meat then that had been offered in sacrifice, 1 Co 10:27. To this a similar answer was returned. The general principle was, that no questions were to be asked in regard to what was set before them; but if the food was expressly pointed out as having been offered in sacrifice, then to partake of it would be regarded as a public recognition of the idol, 1 Co 10:28-30. Paul then concludes the discussion by stating the noble rule that is to guide in all this: that everything is to be done to the glory of God, 1 Co 10:31; and that the great effort of the Christian should be so to act in all things as to honour his religion, as not to lead others into sin, 1 Co 10:32,33.

Verse 1. Moreover, brethren. But, or now, (de.) This verse, with the following illustrations, (1 Co 10:1-4,) is properly connected in Paul's argument with the statements which he had made in 1 Co 8:8, etc., and is designed to show the danger which would result from their partaking of the feasts that were celebrated in honour of idols. It is not improbable, as Mr. Locke supposes, that the Corinthians might have urged that they were constantly solicited by their heathen friends to attend those feasts; that in their circumstances it was scarcely possible to avoid it; that there could be no danger of their relapsing into idolatry; and their doing so could not be offensive to God, since they were known to be Christians; since they had been baptized, and purified from sin; since they were devoted to his service; since they knew that an idol was nothing in the world; and since they had been so highly favoured, as the people of God, with so many extraordinary endowments, and were so strongly guarded against the possibility of becoming idolaters. To meet these considerations, Paul refers them to the example of the ancient Jews. They also were the people of God. They had been solemnly dedicated to Moses and to God. They had been peculiarly favoured with spiritual food from heaven, and with drink miraculously poured from the rock. Yet, notwithstanding this, they had forgotten God, had become idolaters, and had been destroyed. By their example, therefore, Paul would warn the Corinthians against a similar danger.

I would not that ye should be ignorant. A large part of the church at Corinth were Gentiles. It could hardly be supposed that they were well informed respecting the ancient history of the Jews. Probably they had read these things in the Old Testament; but they might not have them distinctly in their recollection. Paul brings them distinctly before their minds, as an illustration and an admonition. The sense is, "I would not have you unmindful or forgetful of these things; I would have you recollect this case, and suffer their example to influence your conduct. I would not have you suppose that even a solemn consecration to God and the possession of distinguished tokens of Divine favour are a security against the danger of sin, and even apostasy; since the example of the favoured Jews shows that even in such circumstances there is danger."

How that all our fathers. That is, the fathers of the Jewish community; the fathers of us who are Jews. Paul speaks here as being himself a Jew, and refers to his own ancestors as such. The word "all" here seems to be introduced to give emphasis to the fact that even those who were destroyed (1 Co 10:5) also had this privilege. It could not be pretended that they had not been devoted to God, since all of them had been thus consecrated professedly to his service. The entire Jewish community which Moses led forth from Egypt had thus been devoted to him.

Were under the cloud. The cloud—the Shechinah—the visible symbol of the Divine presence and protection that attended them out of Egypt. This went before them by day as a cloud to guide them, and by night it became a pillar of fire to give them light, Ex 13:21,22. In the dangers of the Jews, when closely pressed by the Egyptians, it went behind them, and became dark to the Egyptians, but light to the Israelites, thus constituting a defence, Ex 14:20. In the wilderness, when travelling through the burning desert, it seems to have been expanded over the camp as a covering, and a defence from the intense rays of a burning sun. Nu 10:34, "And the cloud of JEHOVAH was upon them by day." Nu 14:14, "Thy cloud standeth over them." To this fact the apostle refers here. It was a symbol of the Divine favour and protection. Comp. Isa 4:5§. It was a guide, a shelter, and a defence. The Jewish rabbins say that "the cloud encompassed the camp of the Israelites as a wall encompasses a city, nor could the enemy come near them."—Pirke Eleazar, c. 44, as quoted by Gill. The probability is, that the cloud extended over the whole camp of Israel, and that to those at a distance it appeared as a pillar.

And all passed through the sea. The Red Sea, under the guidance of Moses, and by the miraculous interposition of God, Ex 14:21,22. This was also a proof of the Divine protection and favour, and is so adduced by the apostle. His object is to accumulate the evidences of the Divine favour to them, and to show that they had as many securities against apostasy as the Corinthians had, on which they so much relied.

{a} "under the cloud" Ex 13:21,22; Nu 9:18-22

{b} "all passed" Ex 14:19-22,29

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 2

Verse 2. And were all baptized. In regard to the meaning of the word baptized, See Barnes "Mt 3:6".

We are not to suppose that the rite of baptism, as we understand it, was formally administered by Moses, or by any other person, to the Jews, for there is not the least evidence that any such rite was then known; and the very circumstances here referred to forbid such an interpretation. They were baptized "in the cloud" and "in the sea," and this cannot be understood as a religious rite administered by the hand of man. It is to be remembered that the word baptism has two senses—the one referring to the application of water as a religious rite, in whatever mode it is done; and the other the sense of dedicating, consecrating, initiating into, or bringing under obligation to. And it is evidently in this latter sense that the word is used here, as denoting that they were devoted to Moses as a leader, they were brought under his laws, they became bound to obey him, they were placed under his protection and guidance by the miraculous interposition of God. This was done by the fact that their passing through the sea and under the cloud, in this manner, brought them under the authority and direction of Moses as a leader, and was a public recognition of their being his followers, and being bound to obey his laws.

Unto Moses, (eiv.) This is the same preposition which is used in the form of baptism prescribed in Mt 28:19. See Barnes "Mt 28:19".

It means that they were thus devoted or dedicated to Moses; they received and acknowledged him as their ruler and guide; they professed subjection to his laws, and were brought under his authority. They were thus initiated into his religion, and thus recognized his Divine mission, and bound themselves to obey his injunctions. —Bloomfield.

In the cloudimmersed in it as a person is in water. The whole account in the Old Testament leads us to suppose that the cloud either passed before them as a pillar, or that it had the same form in the rear of their camp, or that it was suspended over them, and was thus the symbol of the Divine protection. It would be altogether improbable that the dark cloud would pervade the camp. It would thus embarrass their movements, and there is not the slightest intimation in the Old Testament that it did. Nor is there any probability in the supposition of Dr. Gill and others, that the cloud, as it passed from the rear to the front of the camp, "let down a plentiful rain upon them, whereby they were in such a condition as if they had been all over dipped in water." For,

(1.) there is not the slightest intimation of this in the Old Testament.

(2.) The supposition is contrary to the very design of the cloud. It was not a natural cloud, but was a symbol of the Divine presence and protection. It was not to give rain on the Israelites, or on the land, but it was to guide, and to be an emblem of the care of God.

(3.) It is doing violence to the Scriptures to introduce suppositions in this manner without the slightest authority. It is further to be observed, that this supposition does by no means give any aid to the cause of the Baptist after all. In what conceivable sense were they, even on this supposition, immersed? Is it immersion in water when one is exposed to a shower of rain? We speak of being sprinkled or drenched by rain, but is it not a violation of all propriety of language to say that a man is immersed in a shower? If the supposition, therefore, is to be admitted, that rain fell from the cloud as it passed over the Jews, and that this is meant here by "baptism unto Moses," then it would follow that sprinkling would be the mode referred to, since this is the only form that has resemblance to a falling shower. But the supposition is not necessary. Nor is it needful to suppose that water was applied to them at all. The thing itself is improbable, and the whole case is met by the simple supposition that the apostle means that they were initiated in this way into the religion of Moses, recognized his Divine mission, and under the cloud became his followers and subject to his laws. And if this interpretation is correct, then it follows that the word baptize does not of necessity mean to immerse.

And in the sea. This is another expression that goes to determine the sense of the word baptize. The sea referred to here is the Red Sea, and the event was the passage through that sea. The fact in the case was, that the Lord caused a strong east wind to blow all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided, (Ex 14:21,) and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left, Ex 14:22. From this whole narrative it is evident that they passed through the sea without being immersed in it. The waters were driven into high adjacent walls for the very purpose that they might pass between them dry and safe. There is the fullest proof that they were not submerged in the water. Dr. Gill supposes that the water stood up above their heads, and that "they seemed to be immersed in it." This might be true; but this is to give up the idea that the word baptize means always to immerse in water, since it is a fact, according to this supposition, that they were not thus immersed, but only seemed to be. And all that can be meant therefore is, that they were in this manner initiated into the religion of Moses, convinced of his Divine mission, and brought under subjection to him as their leader, lawgiver, and guide. This passage is a very important one to prove that the word baptism does not necessarily mean entire immersion in water. It is perfectly clear that neither the cloud nor the waters touched them. "They went through the midst of the sea on dry ground." It remains only to be asked whether, if immersion was the only mode of baptism known in the New Testament, the apostle Paul would have used the word not only so as not necessarily to imply that, but as necessarily to mean something else?

{a} "same" Ex 16:15,35; Neh 9:15,20; Ps 78:24,25

{*} "meat" "food"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 3

Verse 3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat. That is, manna; Ex 16:15,35; Neh 9:15,20.

The word meat here is used in the old English sense of the word, to denote food in general. They lived on manna. The word spiritual here is evidently used to denote that which was given by the Spirit, or by God; that which was the result of his miraculous gift, and which was not produced in the ordinary way, and which was not the gross food on which men are usually supported. It had an excellency and value from the fact that it was the immediate gift of God, and is thus called "angel's food," Ps 78:25. It is called by Josephus, "Divine and extraordinary food," Ant. iii. 1. In the language of the Scriptures, that which is distinguished for excellence, which is the immediate gift of God, which is unlike that which is gross and of earthly origin, is called spiritual, to denote its purity, value, and excellence. Comp. Ro 7:14; 1 Co 3:1; 15:44,46; Eph 1:3.

The idea of Paul here is, that all the Israelites were nourished and supported in this remarkable manner by food given directly by God; that they all had thus the evidence of the Divine protection and favour, and were all under his care.

{a} "same" Ex 16:15,35; Neh 9:15,20; Ps 78:24,25

{*} "meat" "food"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 4

Verse 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink. The idea here is essentially the same as in the previous verse, that they had been highly favoured of God, and enjoyed tokens of the Divine care and guardianship. That was manifested in the miraculous supply of water in the desert, thus showing that they were under the Divine protection, and were objects of the Divine favour. There can be no doubt that by "spiritual drink" here the apostle refers to the water that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses, Ex 17:6; Nu 20:11. Why this is called "spiritual" has been a subject on which there has been much difference of opinion. It cannot be because there was anything peculiar in the nature of the water, for it was evidently real water, fitted to allay their thirst. There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a reference in this to the drink used in the Lord's Supper. But it must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner; and the word "spiritual" must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God. Spiritual blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and the former denote those which are immediately given by God as an evidence of the Divine favour. That the Jews used the word "spiritual" in this manner is evident from the writings of the Rabbins. Thus they called the manna "spiritual food," (Yade Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109, 3;) and their sacrifices they called "spiritual bread," (Tzeror Hammor, fol. 93,2.)—Gill. The drink therefore, here referred to, was that bestowed in a supernatural manner, and as a proof of the Divine favour.

For they drank of that spiritual Rock. Of the waters which flowed from that rock. The Rock here is called "spiritual," not from anything peculiar in the nature of the rock, but because it was the source to them of supernatural mercies, and became thus the emblem and demonstration of the Divine favour, and of spiritual mercies, conferred upon them by God.

That followed them. Margin, Went with, (akolouyoushv.) This evidently cannot mean that the rock itself literally followed them, any more than that they literally drank the rock; for one is as expressly affirmed, if it be taken literally, as the other. But as when it is said they "drank of the rock," it must mean that they drank of the water that flowed from the rock; so when it is said that the "rock followed" or accompanied them, it must mean that the water that flowed from the rock accompanied them. This figure of speech is common everywhere. Thus the Saviour said, (1 Co 11:25,) "This cup is the new testament," that is, the wine in this cup represents my blood, etc.; and Paul says, (1 Co 11:25,27,) "Whosoever shall drink this cup of the Lord unworthily," that is, the wine in the cup, etc., and, "as often as ye drink this cup," etc., that is, the wine contained in the cup. It would be absurd to suppose that the rock that was smitten by Moses literally followed them in the wilderness; and there is not the slightest evidence in the Old Testament that it did. Water was twice brought out of a rock to supply the wants of the children of Israel. Once at Mount Horeb, as recorded in Ex 17:6, in the wilderness of Sin, in the first year of their departure from Egypt. The second time water was brought from a rock about the time of the death of Miriam, at Kadesh, and probably in the fortieth year of their departure from Egypt, Nu 20:1. It was to the former of these occasions that the apostle evidently refers. In regard to this we may observe,

(1.) that there must have been furnished a large quantity of water to have supplied the wants of more than two millions of people.

(2.) It is expressly stated, (De 9:21,) that "the brook (stream, torrent, or river, see Nu 34:5; Jos 15:4,47; 1 Ki 8:65; 2 Ki 24:7) descended out of the mount," and was evidently a stream of considerable size.

(3.) Mount Horeb was higher than the adjacent country; and the water that thus gushed from the rock, instead of collecting into a pool and becoming stagnant, would flow off in the direction of the sea.

(4.) The sea to which it would naturally flow would be the Red Sea, in the direction of the Eastern or Elanitic branch of that sea.

(5.) The Israelites would doubtless, in their journeyings, be influenced by the natural direction of the water, or would not wander far from it, as it was daily needful for the supply of their wants.

(6.) At the end of thirty-seven years we find the Israelites at Ezion-geber, a seaport on the eastern branch of the Red Sea, where the waters probably flowed into the sea, Nu 33:36. In the fortieth year of their departure from Egypt, they left this place to go into Canaan by the country of Edom, and were immediately in distress again by the want of water. It is thus probable that the water from the rock continued to flow, and that it constituted a stream, or river; that it was near their camp all the time till they came to Ezion-geber; and that thus, together with the daily supply of manna, it was a proof of the protection of God, and an emblem of their dependence. If it be said that there is now no such stream to be found there, it is to be observed that it is represented as miraculous, and that it would be just as reasonable to look for the daily descent of manna there in quantities sufficient to supply more than two millions of men, as to expect to find the gushing and running river of water. The only question is, whether God can work a miracle, and whether there is evidence that he has done it. This is not the place to examine that question. But the evidence is as strong that he wrought this miracle as that he gave the manna, and neither of them is inconsistent with the power, the wisdom, or the benevolence of God.

And that Rock was Christ. This cannot be intended to be understood literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all that this can mean is, that that rock, with the stream of water thus gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah. The word was is thus often used to denote similarity or representation, and is not to be taken literally. Thus, in the institution of the Lord's Supper, the Saviour says of the bread, "This is my body," that is, it represents my body. Thus also of the cup, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," that is, it represents my blood, 1 Co 11:24,25. Thus the gushing fountain of water might be regarded as a representation of the Messiah, and of the blessings which result from him. The apostle does not say that the Israelites knew that this was designed to be a representation of the Messiah, and of the blessings which flow from him, though there is nothing improbable in the supposition that they so understood and regarded it, since all their institutions were probably regarded as typical. But he evidently does mean to say that the rock was a vivid and affecting representation of the Messiah; that the Jews did partake of the mercies that flow from him; and that even in the desert they were under his care, and had in fact among them a vivid representation of him, in some sense corresponding with the emblematic representation of the same favours which the Corinthian and other Christians had in the Lord's Supper. This representation of the Messiah, perhaps, was understood by Paul to consist in the following things:

(1.) Christians, like the children of Israel, are passing through the world as pilgrims, and to them that world is a wilderness—a desert.

(2.) They need continued supplies, as the Israelites did, in their journey. The world, like that wilderness, does not meet their necessities, or supply their wants.

(3.) That rock was a striking representation of the fulness of the Messiah, of the abundant grace which he imparts to his people.

(4.) It was an illustration of their continued and constant dependence on him for the daily supply of their wants. It should be observed, that many expositors understand this literally. Bloomfield translates it, "And they were supplied with drink from the spiritual Rock which followed them, even Christ." So Rosenmuller, Calvin, Glass, etc. In defence of this interpretation, it is said, that the Messiah is often called "a rock" in the Scriptures; that the Jews believed that the "angel of JEHOVAH" who attended them, (Ex 3:2, and other places,) was the Messiah; and that the design of the apostle was to show that this attending Rock, the Messiah, was the source of all their blessings, and particularly of the water that gushed from the rock. But the interpretation suggested above seems to me to be most natural. The design of the apostle is apparent. It is to show to the Corinthians, who relied so much on their privileges, and felt themselves so secure, that the Jews had the very same privileges— had the highest tokens of the Divine favour and protection, were under the guidance and grace of God, and were partakers constantly of that which adumurated or typified the Messiah, in a manner as real, and in a form as much fitted to keep up the remembrance of their dependence, as even the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.

{b} "spiritual drink" Ex 17:6; Nu 20:11 {1} "followed" "went with"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 5

Verse 5. But with many of them, etc. That is, with their conduct. They rebelled and sinned, and were destroyed. The design of the apostle here is to remind them, that although they enjoyed so many privileges, yet they were destroyed; and thus to admonish the Corinthians that their privileges did not constitute an absolute security from danger, and that they should be cautious against the indulgence of sin. The phrase rendered here "with many," (en toiv pleiosin,) should have been rendered, "with most of them;" literally, "with the many;" and it means, that with the greater part of them God was not well pleased; that is, he was pleased with but few of them.

Was not well pleased.
Was offended with their ingratitude and rebellion.
For they were overthrown, etc.

That is, by the pestilence, by wars, or died by natural and usual diseases, so that they did not reach the land of Canaan. But two men of that generation, Caleb and Joshua, were permitted to enter the land of promise, Nu 14:29,30.

{*} "many" "most"

{+} "overthrown" "Destroyed"

{a} "in the wilderness" Nu 14:29-35; 26:64,65; Heb 3:17; Jude 1:5

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 6

Verse 6. Now these things. The judgments inflicted on them by God for their sins.

Were our examples. Greek, Types, (tupoi;) margin, Figures. They were not designed to be types of us, but they are to be held up as furnishing an admonition to us, or a warning that we do not sin in the same way. The same God directs our affairs that ordered theirs; and if we sin as they did, we also must expect to be punished, and excluded from the favour of God, and from heaven.

Lust after evil things. Desire those things which are forbidden, and which would be injurious. They lusted after flesh, and God granted them their desires; and the consequence was a plague, and the destruction of multitudes, Nu 11:4,31-34.

So Paul infers that the Corinthian Christians should not lust after, or desire the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, lest it should lead them also to sin and ruin.

{1} "examples" "the figures"

{&} "lust after" "desire"

{b} "they also lusted" Nu 11:4,33,34

{|} "lusted" "desired"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 7

Verse 7. Neither be ye idolaters. This caution is evidently given in view of the danger to which they would be exposed if they partook of the feasts that were celebrated in honour of idols in their temples. The particular idolatry which is referred to here is, the worship of the golden calf that was made by Aaron, Ex 32:1-6.

As it is written. Ex 32:6.

The people sat down to eat and drink. To worship the golden calf. They partook of a feast in honour of that idol. I have already observed, that it was common to keep a feast in honour of an idol, and that the food which was eaten on such an occasion was mainly the meat which had been offered in sacrifice to it. This instance was particularly to the apostle's purpose, as he was cautioning the Corinthians against the danger of participating in the feasts celebrated in the heathen temples.

And rose up to play. Paizein. The Hebrew word used in Ex 32:6, means to laugh, to sport, to jest, to mock, to insult, (Ge 21:9;) and then to engage in dances accompanied with music, in honour of an idol. This was often practised, as the worship of idols was celebrated with songs and dances. This is particularly affirmed of this instance of idol worship, (Ex 32:19;) and this was common among ancient idolaters; and this mode of worship was even adopted by David before the ark of the Lord, 2 Sa 6:6; 1 Ch 13:8; 15:29.

All that the word "to play" here necessarily implies is, that of choral songs and dances, accompanied with revelry in honour of the idol. It was however the fact, that such worship was usually accompanied with much licentiousness; but that is not necessarily implied in the use of the word. Most of the oriental dances were grossly indecent and licentious; and the word here may be designed to include such indelicacy and licentiousness.

{c} "as it is written" Ex 32:6

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 8

Verse 8. Neither let us commit fornication, etc. The case referred to here was that of the licentious intercourse with the daughters of Moab, referred to in Nu 25:1-9.

And fell in one day. Were slain for their sin by the plague that prevailed.

Three and twenty thousand. The Hebrew text in Nu 25:9, is twenty-four thousand. In order to reconcile these statements, it may be observed, that perhaps twenty-three thousand fell directly by the plague, and one thousand were slain by Phinehas and his companions, (Grotius;) or it may be that the number was between twenty-three and twenty-four thousand, and it might be expressed in round numbers by either. —Macknight. At all events, Paul has not exceeded the truth. There were at least twenty-three thousand that fell, though there might have been more. The probable supposition is, that the three and twenty thousand fell immediately by the hand of God in the plague, and the other thousand by the judges; and as Paul's design was particularly to mention the proofs of the immediate Divine displeasure, he refers only to those who fell by that, in illustration of his subject. There was a particular reason for this caution in respect to licentiousness.

(1.) It was common among all idolaters; and Paul, in cautioning them against idolatry, would naturally warn them of this danger.

(2.) It was common at Corinth. It was the prevalent vice there. To Corinthianize was a term synonymous among the ancients with licentiousness.

(3.) So common was this at Corinth, that, as we have seen, (see the Introduction,) not less than a thousand prostitutes were supported in a single temple there; and the city was visited by vast multitudes of foreigners, among other reasons on account of its facilities for this sin. Christians, therefore, were in a peculiar manner exposed to it; and hence the anxiety of the apostle to warn them against it.

{d} "some of them" Nu 25:1-9

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 9

Verse 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, etc. The word tempt, when applied to man, means to present motives or inducements to sin: when used with reference to God, it means, to try his patience, to provoke his anger, or to act in such a way as to see how much he will bear, and how long he will endure the wickedness and perverseness of men. The Israelites tempted him, or tried his patience and forbearance, by rebellion, murmuring, impatience, and dissatisfaction with his dealings. In what way the Corinthians were in danger of tempting Christ is not known, and can only be conjectured. It may be that the apostle cautions them against exposing themselves to temptation in the idol temples—placing themselves, as it were, under the unhappy influence of idolatry, and thus needlessly trying, the strength of their religion, and making an experiment on the grace of Christ, as if he were bound to keep them even in the midst of dangers into which they needlessly ran. They would have the promise of grace to keep them only when they were in the way of their duty, arid using all other precautions. To go beyond this, to place themselves in needless danger, to presume on the grace of Christ to keep them in all circumstances, would be to tempt him, and provoke him to leave them. See Barnes "Mt 4:7".

As some of them also tempted. There is evidently here a word to be understood, and it may be either "Christ" or "God." The construction would naturally require the former; but it is not certain that the apostle meant to say that the Israelites tempted Christ. The main idea is that of temptation, whether it be of Christ or of God; and the purpose of the apostle is to caution them against the danger of tempting Christ, from the fact that the Israelites were guilty of the sin of tempting their leader and protector, and thus exposing themselves to his anger. It cannot be denied, however, that the more natural construction of this place is that which supposes that the word "Christ" is understood here rather than" God." In order to relieve this interpretation from the difficulty that the Israelites could not be said with any propriety to have tempted "Christ," since he had not then come in the flesh, two remarks may be made: First, by the "angel of the covenant," and the "angel of his presence," (Ex 23:20,23; 32:34; Ex 33:2; Nu 20:16; Isa 63:9; Heb 11:26, ) that went with them, and delivered them from Egypt, there is reason to think the sacred writers understood the Messiah to be intended; and that he who subsequently became incarnate was he whom they tempted. And, secondly, we are to bear in mind that the term Christ has acquired with us a signification somewhat different from that which it originally had in the New Testament. We use it as a proper name, applied to Jesus of Nazareth. But it is to be remembered that it is the mere Greek word for the Hebrew "Anointed," or the "Messiah;" and by retaining this signification of the word here, no small part of the difficulty will be avoided; and the expression then will mean simply that the Israelites "tempted the Messiah;" and the idea will be that he who conducted them, and against whom they sinned, and whom they tempted, was the Messiah who afterwards became incarnate; an idea that is in accordance with the ancient ideas of the Jews respecting this personage, and which is not forbidden, certainly, in any part of the Bible.

And were destroyed of serpents. Fiery serpents. Nu 21:6.

{e} "tempt Christ" Ex 17:2,7

{f} "serpents" Nu 21:6

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 10

Verse 10. Neither murmur ye. Do not repine at the allotments of Providence, or complain of his dealings.

As some of them also murmured. Nu 14:2. The ground of their murmuring was, that they had been disappointed; that they had been brought out of a land of plenty into a wilderness of want; and that instead of being conducted at once to the land of promise, they were left to perish in the desert. They therefore complained of their leaders, and proposed to return again into Egypt.

And were destroyed of the destroyer. That is, they were doomed to die in the wilderness without seeing the land of Canaan, Nu 14:29. The "destroyer" here is understood by many to mean the angel of death, so often referred to in the Old Testament, and usually called by the Jews Sammael. The work of death, however, is attributed to an angel in Ex 12:23. Compare Heb 11:28. It was customary for the Hebrews to regard most human events as under the direction of angels. In Heb 2:14, he is described as he "that had the power of death." Comp. the Book of Wisdom, 18:22,25. The simple idea here however is, that they died for their sin, and were not permitted to enter the promised land.

{a} "murmured" Nu 14:2,29

{b} "destroyer" 2 Sa 24:16

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 11

Verse 11. For ensamples. Greek, Types. (tupoi). The same word which is used in 1 Co 10:6. This verse is a repetition of the admonition contained in that verse, in order to impress it more deeply on the memory. See Barnes "1 Co 10:6".

The sense is, not that these things took place simply and solely to be examples, or admonitions, but that their occurrence illustrated great principles of human nature and of the Divine government; they showed the weakness of men, and their liability to fall into sin, and their need of the Divine protection, and they might thus be used for the admonition of succeeding generations.

They are written for our admonition. They are recorded in the writings of Moses, in order that we and all others might be admonished not to confide in our own strength. The admonition did not pertain merely to the Corinthians, but had an equal applicability to Christians in all ages of the world.

Upon whom the ends of the world are come. This expression is equivalent to that which so often occurs in the Scriptures, as "the last time," "the latter day," etc. See it fully explained See Barnes "Ac 2:17".

It means the last dispensation; or, that period and mode of the Divine administration under which the affairs of the world would be wound up. There would be no mode of administration beyond that of the gospel. But it by no means denotes necessarily that the continuance of this period called "the last times," and "the ends of the world," would be brief, or that the apostle believed that the world would soon come to an end. It might be the last period, and yet be longer than any one previous period, or than all the previous periods put together. There may be a last dynasty in an empire, and yet it may be longer than any previous dynasty, or than all the previous dynasties put together. The apostle Paul was at special pains in 2 Th 2 to show, that by affirming that the last time had come, he did not mean that the world would soon come to an end.

{*} "things" "types"

{1} "ensamples" "examples"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 12

Verse 12. Wherefore. As the result of all these admonitions. Let this be the effect of all that we learn from the unhappy self-confidence of the Jews, to admonish us not to put reliance on our own strength.

That thinketh he standeth. That supposes himself to be firm in the love of God, and in the knowledge of his truth; that regards himself as secure, and that will be therefore disposed to rely on his own strength.

Take heed lest he fall. Into sin, idolatry, or any other form of iniquity. We learn here,

(1.) that a confidence in our own security is no evidence that we are safe.

(2.) Such a confidence may be one of the strongest evidences that we are in danger. Those are most safe who feel that they are weak and feeble, and who feel their need of Divine aid and strength. They will then rely on the true source of strength; and they will be secure.

(3.) All professed Christians should be admonished. All are in danger of falling into sin, and of dishonouring their profession; and the exhortation cannot be too often or too urgently pressed, that they should take heed lest they fall into sin. The leading and special idea of the apostle here should not be forgotten or disregarded. It is, that Christians in their favoured moments, when they are permitted to approach near to God, and when the joys of salvation fill their hearts, should exercise peculiar caution. For

(a.) then the adversary will be peculiarly desirous to draw away their thoughts from God, and to lead them into sin, as their fall would most signally dishonour religion;

(b.) then they will be less likely to be on their guard, and more likely to feel themselves strong, and not to need caution and solicitude. Accordingly, it often happens that Christians, after they have been peculiarly favoured with the tokens of the Divine favour, soon relapse into their former state, or fall into some sin that grieves the hearts of their brethren, or wounds the cause of religion. So it is in revivals; so it is in individuals. Churches that are thus favoured are filled with joy, and love, and peace. Yet they become self-confident and elated; they lose their humility and their sense of their dependence; they cease to be watchful and prayerful, supposing that all is safe; and the result often is, that a season of revival is succeeded by a time of coldness and declension. And thus, too, it is with individuals. Just the opposite effect is produced from what should be, and from what need be. Christians should then be peculiarly on their guard; and if they then availed themselves of their elevated advantages, churches might be favoured with continued revivals and ever-growing piety; and individuals might be filled with joy, and peace, and holiness, and ever-expanding and increasing love.

{c} "Wherefore" Pr 28:14; Ro 11:20

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 13

Verse 13. There hath no temptation taken you. What temptation the apostle refers to here is not quite certain. It is probable, however, that he refers to such as would, in their circumstances, have a tendency to induce them to forsake their allegiance to their Lord, and to lead them into idolatry and sin. These might be either open persecutions, or afflictions on account of their religion; or they might be the various allurements which were spread around them from the prevalence of idolatry. They might be the open attacks of their enemies, or the sneers and the derision of the gay and the great. The design of the apostle evidently is to show them that, if they were faithful, they had nothing to fear from any such forms of temptation, but that God was able to bring them through them all. The sentiment in the verse is a very important one, since the general principle here stated is as applicable to Christians now as it was to the Corinthians.

Taken you. Seized upon you, or assailed you. As when an enemy grasps us, and attempts to hold us fast.

But such as is common to man. (ei mh anywpinov.) Such as is human. Margin, Moderate. The sense is evident. It means such as human nature is liable to, and has been often subjected to; such as the human powers, under the Divine aid, may be able to resist and repel. The temptations which they had been subjected to were not such as would be fitted to angelic powers, and such as would require angelic strength to resist; but they were such as human nature had been often subjected to, and such as man had often contended with successfully. There is therefore, here, a recognition of the doctrine that man has natural ability to resist all the temptations to which he is subject; and that consequently, if he yields, he is answerable for it. The design of the apostle is to comfort the Corinthians, and to keep their minds from despondency. He had portrayed their danger; he had shown them how others had fallen; and they might be led to suppose that in such circumstances they could not be secure. He therefore tells them that they might still be safe, for their temptations were such as human nature had often been subject to, and God was able to keep them from falling.

But God is faithful. This was the only source of security; and this was enough. If they looked only to themselves, they would fall. If they depended on the faithfulness of God, they would be secure. The sense is, not that God would keep them without any effort of their own; not that he would secure them if, they plunged into temptation; but that if they used the proper means, if they resisted temptation, and sought his aid, and depended on his promises, then he would be faithful. This is everywhere implied in the Scriptures; and to depend on the faithfulness of God, otherwise than in the proper use of means and in avoiding the places of temptation, is to tempt him, and provoke him to wrath. See Barnes "Mt 4:1" and following.

Who will not suffer you to be tempted, etc. This is a general promise, just as applicable to all Christians as it was to the Corinthians. It implies,

(1.) that all the circumstances, causes, and agents that lead to temptation, are under the control of God. Every man that tempts another; every fallen spirit that is engaged in this; every book, picture, place of amusement; every charm of music and of song; every piece of indecent statuary; and every plan of business, Of gain, or ambition, are all under the control of God. He can check them; he can control them; he can paralyze their influence; he can destroy them. Comp. Mt 6:13.

(2.) When men are tempted, it is because God suffers or permits it. He does not himself tempt men, (Jas 1:13;) he does not infuse evil thoughts into the mind; he does not create an object of temptation to place in our way, but he suffers it to be placed there by others. When we are tempted, therefore, we are to remember that it is because he suffers or permits it; not because he does it. His agency is that of sufferance, not of creation. We are to remember, too, that there is some good reason why it is thus permitted; and that it may be turned in some way to his glory, and to our advancement in virtue.

(3.) There is a certain extent to which we are able to resist temptation. There is a limit to our power. There is a point beyond which we are not able to resist it. We have not the strength of angels.

(4.) That limit will, in all cases, be beyond the point to which we are tempted. If not, there would be no sin in falling, any more than there is sin in the oak when it is prostrated before the tempest.

(5.) If men fall into sin, under the power of temptation, they only are to blame. They have strength to resist all the temptations that assail them, and God has given the assurance that no temptation shall occur which they shall not be able, by his aid, to resist. In all instances, therefore, where men fall into sin—in all the yielding to passion, to allurement, and to vice—man is to blame, and must be responsible to God. And this is especially true of Christians, who, whatever may be said of others, cannot plead that there was not power sufficient to meet the temptation, or to turn aside its power.

But will with the temptation, etc. He will, at the same time that he suffers the trial or temptation to befall us, make a way of deliverance; he will save us from being entirely overcome by it.

That ye may be able to bear it. Or, that you may be able to bear up under it, or endure it. God knows what his people are able to endure, and as he has entire control of all that can effect them, he will adapt all trials to their strength, and will enable them to bear all that is appointed to them. This is a general promise, and is as applicable to other Christians as it was to the Corinthians. It was to them a positive promise, and to all in the same circumstances it may be regarded as such now. It may be used therefore,

(1.) as a ground of encouragement to those who are in temptation and trial. God knows what they are able to endure; and he will sustain them in their temptations. It matters not how severe the trial; or how long it may be continued; or how much they may feel their own feebleness; yet he who has appointed the trial is abundantly able to uphold them. They may, therefore, repose their all upon him, and trust to his sustaining grace.

(2.) It may be used as an argument, that none who are true Christians, and who are thus tried, shall ever fall away, and be lost. The promise is positive and certain, that a way shall be made for their escape, and they shall be able to bear it. God is faithful to them; and though he might suffer them to be tempted beyond what they are able to bear, yet he will not, but will secure an egress from all their trials. With this promise in view, how can it be believed that any true Christians who are tempted will be suffered to fall away and perish? If they do, it must be from one of the following causes: either because God is not faithful; or because he will suffer them to be tempted above what they are able to bear; or because he will not make a way for their escape. As no Christian can believe either of these, it follows that they who are converted shall be kept unto salvation.

{2} "common" "moderate"

{a} "who will not suffer" Da 3:17; 2 Pe 2:9

{b} "able" Jas 5:11

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 14

Verse 14. Wherefore. In view of the dangers and temptations that beset you; in view of your own feebleness, and the perils to which you would be exposed in the idol temples, etc.

Flee from idolatry. Escape from the service of idols; from the feasts celebrated in honour of them; from the temples where they are worshipped. This was one of the dangers to which they were peculiarly exposed; and Paul therefore exhorts them to escape from everything that would have a tendency to lead them into this sin. He had told them, indeed, that God was faithful; and yet he did not expect God would keep them without any effort of their own. He therefore exhorts them to flee from all approaches to it, and from all the customs which would have a tendency to lead them into idolatrous practices. He returns, therefore, in this verse, to the particular subject discussed in chapter 8—the propriety of partaking of the feasts in honour of idols; and shows the danger which would follow such a practice. That danger he sets forth in view of the admonitions contained in this chapter, from 1 Co 10:1-12. The remainder of the chapter is occupied with a discussion of the question stated in 1 Co 8, whether it was right for them to partake of the meat which was used in the feasts of idolaters.

{c} "beloved" 1 Jo 5:21

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 15

Verse 15. I speak as to wise men. I speak to men qualified to understand the subject; and present reasons which will commend themselves to you. The reasons referred to are those which occupy the remainder of the chapter.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 16

Verse 16. The cup of blessing which we bless. The design of this verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by partaking of the Lord's Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge him as their Lord, and dedicate themselves to him; and that, as they could not and ought not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time, so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honour of idols, or in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged. 1 Co 10:21. He states therefore,

(1.) that Christians are united and dedicated to Christ in the communion, 1 Co 10:16,17.

(2.) That this was true of the Israelites, that they were one people, devoted by the service of the altar to the same God, 1 Co 10:18.

(3.) That though an idol was nothing, yet the heathen actually sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them, 1 Co 10:19-21. The phrase, "cup of blessing," evidently refers to the wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is called "the cup of blessing" because over it Christians praise or bless God for his mercy in providing redemption. It is not because it is the means of conveying a blessing to the souls of those who partake of it—though that is true—but because thanksgiving, blessing, and praise were rendered to God in the celebration, for the benefits of redemption. See Barnes "Mt 26:26"

Or it may mean, in accordance with a well-known Hebraism, the blessed cup; the cup that is blessed. This is the more literal interpretation; and it is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge, and others.

Which we bless. Grotius, Macknight, Vetablus, Bloomfield, and many of the Fathers suppose that this means, "over which we bless God;" or, "for which we bless God." But this is to do violence to the passage. The more obvious signification is, that there is a sense in which it may be said that the cup is blessed, and that by prayer and praise it is set apart and rendered in some sense sacred to the purposes of religion. It cannot mean that the cup has undergone any physical change, or that the wine is anything but wine; but that it has been solemnly set apart to the service of religion, and by prayer and praise designated to be used for the purpose of commemorating the Saviour's love. That may be said to be blessed which is set apart to a sacred use, (Ge 2:3; Ex 20:11;) and in this sense the cup may be said to be blessed. See Lu 9:16: "And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed THEM," etc. Comp. Ge 14:9; 27:23,33,41; 28:1; Le 9:22,23; 2 Sa 6:18; 1 Ki 8:14.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Is it not the emblem by which the blood of Christ is exhibited, and the means by which our union through that blood is exhibited? Is it not the means by which we express our attachment to him as Christians; showing our union to him and to each other; and showing that we partake in common of the benefits of his blood? The main idea is, that by partaking of this cup they showed that they were united to him and to each other; and that they should regard themselves as set apart to him. We have communion with one, (koinwnia, that which is in common, that which pertains to all, that which evinces fellowship,) when we partake together; when all have an equal right, and all share alike; when the same benefits or the same obligations are extended to all. And the sense here is, that Christians partake alike in the benefits of the blood of Christ; they share the same blessings; and they express this together, and in common, when they partake of the communion.

The bread, etc. In the communion. It shows, since we all partake of it, that we share alike in the benefits which are imparted by means of the broken body of the Redeemer. In like manner it is implied, that if Christians should partake with idolaters in the feasts offered in honour of idols, that they would be regarded as partaking with them in the services of idols, or as united to them, and therefore such participation was improper.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 17

Verse 17. For we. We Christians.

Being many. Greek, The many. oi polloi. The idea is not, as our translation would seem to indicate, that Christians were numerous, but that all (for oi polloi is here evidently used in the sense of pantev, all) were united, and constituted one society.

Are one bread. One loaf; one cake. That is, we are united, or are one. There is evident allusion here to the fact that the loaf or cake was composed of many separate grains of wheat, or portions of flour united in one; or, that as one loaf was broken and partaken by all, it was implied that they were all one. We are all one society; united as one, and for the same object. Our partaking of the same bread is an emblem of the fact that we are one. In almost all nations the act of eating together has been regarded as a symbol of unity or friendship.

And one body. One society; united together.

For we are all partakers, etc. And we thus show publicly that we are united, and belong to the same great family. The argument is, that if we partake of the feasts in honour of idols with their worshippers, we shall thus show that we are a part of their society.

{*} "one bread" "Loaf"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 18

Verse 18. Behold Israel. Look at the Jews. The design here is to illustrate the sentiment which he was establishing, by a reference to the fact that among the Jews those who partook of the same sacrifices were regarded as being one people, and as worshipping one God. So, if they partook of the sacrifices offered to idols, they would be regarded also as being fellow-worshippers of idols with them.

After the flesh. See Ro 4:1. The phrase, "after the flesh," is designed to denote the Jews who were not converted to Christianity; the natural descendants of Israel, or Jacob.

Are not they which eat of the sacrifices. A portion of the sacrifices offered to God was eaten by the offerer, and another portion by the priests. Some portions of the animal, as the fat, were burnt; and the remainder, unless it was a holocaust, or whole burnt-offering, was then the property of the priests who had officiated, or of the persons who had brought it, Ex 29:13,22; Le 3:4,10,15; 4:9; 7:3,4; 8:26.

The right shoulder and the breast was the part which was assigned to the priests; the remainder belonged to the offerer.

Partakers of the altar? Worshippers of the same God. They are united in their worship, and are so regarded. And in like manner, if you partake of the sacrifices offered to idols, and join with their worshippers in their temples, you will be justly regarded as united with them in their worship, and partaking with them in their abominations.

{a} "after the flesh" Ro 4:1,12

{b} "are not" 1 Co 9:13

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 19

Verse 19. What say I then? This is in the present tense: ti oun fhmi, what do I say? What is my meaning ? What follows from this? Do I mean to say that an idol is anything; that it has a real existence? Does my reasoning lead to that conclusion—and am I to be understood as affirming that an idol is of itself of any consequence? It must be recollected that the Corinthian Christians are introduced by Paul (1 Co 8:4) as saying that they knew that an idol was nothing in the world. Paul did not directly contradict that; but his reasoning had led him to the necessity of calling the propriety of their attending on the feasts of idols in question; and he introduces the matter now by asking these questions, thus leading the mind to it rather than directly affirming it at once. "Am I in this reasoning to be understood as affirming that an idol is anything, or that the meat there offered differs from other meat? No; you know, says Paul, that this is not my meaning. I admit that an idol in itself is nothing: but I do not admit, therefore, that it is right for you to attend in their temples; for though the idol itself—the block of wood or stone—is nothing, yet the offerings are really made to devils; and I would not have you engage in such a service," 1 Co 10:20,21.

That the idol is any thing? That the block of wood or stone is a real living object of worship, to be dreaded or loved? See Barnes "1 Co 8:4".

Or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? Or that the meat which is offered differs from that which is not offered; that the mere act of offering it changes its qualities? I do not admit or suppose this.

{c} 1 Co 8:4

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 20

Verse 20. But. The negative here is omitted, but is understood. The ellipsis of a negative after an interrogative sentence is common in the classical writers, as well as in the Scriptures.—Bloomfield. The sense is, "No; I do not say this, but I say that there are reasons why you should not partake of those sacrifices; and one of those reasons is, that they have been really offered to devils."

They sacrifice to devils, (daimonioiv, demons.) The heathens used the word demon either in a good or a bad sense. They applied it commonly to spirits that were supposed to be inferior to the supreme God: genii; attending spirits; or, as they called them, divinities, or gods. A part were in their view good, and a part evil. Socrates supposed that such a demon or genius attended him, who suggested good thoughts to him, and who was his protector. As these beings were good and well disposed, it was not supposed to be necessary to offer any sacrifices in order to appease them. But a large portion of those genii were supposed to be evil and wicked, and hence the necessity of attempting to appease their wrath by sacrifices and bloody-offerings. It was therefore true, as the apostle says, that the sacrifices of the heathen were made, usually at least, to devils or to evil spirits. Many of these spirits were supposed to be the souls of departed men, who were entitled to worship after death, having been enrolled among the gods. The word "demons," among the Jews, was employed only to designate evil beings. It is not applied in their writings to good angels or to blessed spirits, but to evil angels, to idols, to false gods. Thus in the Seventy, the word is used to translate Elilim, idols, (Ps 96:5; Isa 65:10;) and Shaid, as in De 32:17, in a passage which Paul has here almost literally used, "They sacrificed unto devils, not to God." Nowhere in the Septuagint is it used in a good sense. In the New Testament the word is uniformly used also to denote evil spirits, and those usually which had taken possession of men in the time of the Saviour, Mt 7:22; 9:33,34; 10:8; 11:18; Mr 1:34,39, et alii. See also Campbell on the Gospels, Pre. Diss. vi., part i., & 14—16. The precise force of the original is not, however, conveyed by our translation. It is not true that the heathens sacrificed to devils, in the common and popular sense of that word, meaning thereby the apostate angel and the spirits under his direction; for the heathens were as ignorant of their existence as they were of the true God; and it is not true that they designed to worship such beings. But it is true,

(1.) that they did not worship the supreme and the true God. They were not acquainted with his existence; and they did not profess to adore him.

(2.) They worshipped demons; beings that they regarded as inferior to the true God; created spirits, or the spirits of men that had been enrolled among the number of the gods.

(3.) It was true that many of these beings were supposed to be malign and evil in their nature, and that their worship was designed to deprecate their wrath. So that, although an idol was nothing in itself, the gold or wood of which it was made was inanimate, and incapable of aiding or injuring them; and although there were no real beings such as the heathens supposed—no genii or inferior gods—yet they designed to offer sacrifice to such beings, and to deprecate their wrath. To join them in this, therefore, would be to express the belief that there were such beings, and that they ought to be worshipped, and that their wrath should be deprecated.

I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. I would not that you should have communion with demons. I would not have you express a belief of their existence; or join in worship to them; or partake of the spirit by which they are supposed to be actuated— a spirit that would be promoted by attendance on their worship. I would not have you, therefore, join in a mode of worship where such beings are acknowledged. You are solemnly dedicated to Christ; and the homage due to him should not be divided with homage offered to devils, or to imaginary beings.

{a} "devils" Le 17:7; De 32:17; Ps 106:37

{*} "devils" "demons"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 21

Verse 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, etc. This does not mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a natural impossibility; for they certainly had power to do it. But it must mean that they could not consistently do it. It was not fit, proper, decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ: they had devoted themselves to him; and they could not, consistently with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a striking instance in which the word cannot is used to denote not natural but moral inability.

And the cup of devils. Demons, 1 Co 10:20. In the feasts in honour of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drunk by the worshippers. See Virg. AEn. viii. 273. The custom of drinking toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring out wine, or drinking in honour of the heathen gods; and is a practice that partakes still of the nature of heathenism. It was one of the abominations of heathenism to suppose that their gods would be pleased with the intoxicating draught. Such a pouring out of a libation was usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually accompanies the drinking of a glass in this manner, if it mean anything, is now also a prayer: but to whom? to the god of wine? to a heathen deity? Can it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God—the God of purity? Has Jehovah directed that prayer should be offered to him in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to him? Either the sentiment is unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a heathen god, or it is mockery of JEHOVAH; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul, "Ye cannot consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the cup where a PRAYER, is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of JEHOVAH." Now, can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations there?

And of the table of devils. Demons. It is not needful to the force of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil spirits. They were not God; and to worship theta was idolatry. The apostle means that Christians could not consistently join in the worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honour of them.

{b} "cup" De 32:38

{*} "devils" "demons"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 22

Verse 22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? That is, shall we, by joining in the worship of idols, provoke or irritate God, or excite him to anger? This is evidently the meaning of the word, parazhloumen rendered "provoke to jealousy." The word usually rendered by this word by the seventy, has this sense in De 32:21; 1 Ki 14:22; Eze 8:3; Ps 78:58.

There is a reference here, doubtless, to the truth recorded in Ex 20:5, that God "is a jealous God," and that he regards the worship of idols as a direct affront to himself. The sentiment of Paul is, that to join in the worship of idols, or in the observance of their feasts, would be to participate in that which had ever been regarded by God with peculiar abhorrence, and which more than anything else tended to provoke his wrath. We may observe, that any course of life that tends to alienate the affections from God, and to fix them on other beings or objects, is a sin of the same kind as that referred to here. Any inordinate love of friends, of property, of honour, has substantially the same idolatrous nature, and will tend to provoke him to anger. And it may be asked of Christians now, whether they will by such inordinate attachments provoke the Lord to wrath? whether they will thus excite his displeasure, and expose themselves to his indignation? Very often Christians do thus provoke him. They become unduly attached to a friend, or to wealth, and God in anger takes away, that friend by death, or that property by the flames: or they conform to the world, and mingle in its scenes of fashion and gaiety, and forget God; and in displeasure he visits them with judgments, humbles them, and recalls them to himself.

Are we stronger than he? This is given as a reason why we should not provoke his displeasure. We cannot contend successfully with him; and it is therefore madness and folly to contend with God, or to expose ourselves to the effects of his indignation.

{c} "provoke" De 32:21; Job 9:4; Eze 22:14

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 23

Verse 23. All things are lawful for me. See Barnes "1 Co 6:12".

This is a repetition of what he had said before; and it is here applied to the subject of eating the meat that had been offered to idols. The sense is, "Though it may be admitted that it was strictly lawful to partake of that meat, yet there were strong reasons why it was inexpedient; and those reasons ought to have the binding force of law."

All things edify not. All things do not tend to build up the church, and to advance the interests of religion; and when they do not have this effect, they are not expedient, and are improper. Paul acted for the welfare of the church. His object was to save souls. Anything that would promote that object was proper; any thing which would hinder it, though in itself it might not be strictly unlawful, was in his view improper. This is a simple rule, and might be easily applied by all. If a man has his heart on the conversion of men and the salvation of the world, it will go far to regulate his conduct in reference to many things concerning which there may be no exact and positive law. It will do much to regulate his dress; his style of living; his expenses; his entertainments; his mode of intercourse with the world. He may not be able to fix his finger on any positive law, and to say that this or that article of dress is improper; that this or that piece of furniture is absolutely forbidden; or that this or that manner of life is contrary to any explicit law of JEHOVAH; but he may see that it will interfere with his great and main purpose, to do good on the widest scale possible; and THEREFORE to him it will be inexpedient and improper. Such a grand leading purpose is a much better guide to direct a man's life than would be exact positive statutes to regulate everything, even if such minute statutes were possible.

{d} "things" 1 Co 6:12

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 24

Verse 24. Let no man seek his own. This should be properly interpreted of the matter under discussion, though the direction assumes the form of a general principle. Originally it meant, "Let no man, in regard to the question about partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, consult his own pleasure, happiness, or convenience; but let him, as the leading rule on the subject, ask what will be for the welfare of others. Let him not gratify his own taste and inclinations, regardless of their feelings, comfort, and salvation; but let him in these things have a primary reference to their welfare." He may dispense with these things without danger or injury; he cannot indulge in them without endangering the happiness or purity of others. His duty, therefore, requires him to abstain. The injunction, however, has a general form, and is applicable to all Christians, and to all cases of a similar kind. It does not mean that a man is not in any instance to regard his own welfare, happiness, or salvation; it does not mean that a man owes no duty to himself or family, or that he should neglect all these to advance the welfare of others; but the precept means, that in cases like that under consideration, when there is no positive law, and when a man's example would have a great influence, he should be guided in his conduct, not by a reference to his own ease, comfort, or gratification, but by a reference to the purity and salvation of others. And the observance of this simple rule would make a prodigious change in the church and the world.

But every man another's wealth. The word wealth is not in the Greek. Literally, "that which is of another;" the word to referring to anything and everything that pertains to his comfort, usefulness, happiness, or salvation. The sentiment of the whole is, when a man is bound and directed by no positive law, his grand rule should be the comfort and salvation of others. This is a simple rule; it might be easily applied; and this would be a sort of balance-wheel in the various actions and plans of the world. If every man would adopt this rule, he could not be in much danger of going wrong; he would be certain that he would not live in vain.

{e} "Let no man" Php 2:4,21

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 25

Verse 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles. In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honour of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it.

Asking no question for conscience sake. Not hesitating or doubting as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things. But,

(1.) that which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits or any other intoxicating drinks because they were offered for sale, any more than it would be to commit suicide because men offered pistols, and bowie-knives, and halters to sell.

(2.) There are many things now concerning which similar questions may be asked; as, e.g., is it right to use the productions of slave-labour, the sugar, cotton, etc., that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that which is known to be made on the Sabbath; or that which it is known a man has made by a life of dishonesty sad crime? The consciences of many persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case before us.

(a.) If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the market, if it be in itself lawful, if there is no ready mark of distinction, then the apostle would direct us not to hesitate.

(b.) If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach of the Sabbath, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living, then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to use it. If a man abhors slavery, and Sabbath-breaking, and dishonesty, then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and extend these abominations?

(c.) If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will be construed into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain. See 1 Co 10:28. No man is at liberty to patronize slavery, Sabbath-breaking, dishonesty, or licentiousness in any form. Every man can live without doing it; and where it can be done, it should be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth than for good men to act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and of gain that results from oppression and fraud.

{a} "Whatsoever" 1 Ti 4:4

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 26

Verse 26. For the earth is the Lord's. This is quoted from Ps 24:1. The same sentiment is also found in Ps 50:12, and in De 10:14. It is here urged as a reason why it is right to partake of the meat offered in the market. It all belongs to the Lord. It does not really belong to the idol, even though it has been offered to it. It may, therefore, be partaken of as his gift, and should be received with gratitude.

And the fulness thereof. All that the earth produces belongs to him. He causes it to grow; and he has given it to be food for man; and though it may have been devoted to an idol, yet its nature is not changed. It is still the gift of God; still the production of his hand; still the fruit of his goodness and love.

{b} "the earth" De 10:14; Ps 24:1; 50:12

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 27

Verse 27. If any of them that believe not. That are not Christians; that are still heathens.

Bid you to a feast. Evidently not a feast in the temple of an idol, but at his own house. If he ask you to partake of his hospitality.

And ye be disposed to go. Greek, "And you will to go." It is evidently implied here that it would be not improper to go. The Saviour accepted such invitations to dine with the Pharisees, (See Barnes "Lu 11:37") and Christianity is not designed to abolish the courtesies of social life; or to break the bonds of intercourse; or to make men misanthropes or hermits. It allows and cultivates, under proper Christian restraints, the intercourse in society which will promote the comfort of men, and especially that which may extend the usefulness of Christians. It does not require, therefore, that we should withdraw from social life, or regard as improper the courtesies of society. See Barnes "1 Co 5:10".

Whatsoever is set before you, etc. Whether it has been offered in sacrifice or not; for so the connexion requires us to understand it.

Eat. This should be interpreted strictly. The apostle says "eat," not "drink;" and the principle will not authorize us to drink whatever is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake; for while it was a matter of indifference in regard to eating, whether the meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, it is not a matter of indifference whether a man may drink intoxicating liquor. That is a point on which the conscience should have much to do; and on which its honest decisions, and the will of the Lord, should be faithfully and honestly regarded.

{*} "bid" "ask"

{c} "is set" Lu 10:7

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 28

Verse 28. But if any man. If any fellow guest; any scrupulous fellow Christian who may be present. That the word "any" (tiv) refers to a fellow guest seems evident; for it is not probable that the host would point out any part of the food on his own table, of the lawfulness of eating which he would suppose there was any doubt. Yet there might be present some scrupulous fellow Christian who would have strong doubts of the propriety of partaking of the food, and who would indicate it to the other guests.

For his sake that shewed it. Do not offend him; do not lead him into sin; do not pain and wound his feelings.

And for conscience sake". Eat not, out of respect to the conscientious scruples of him that told thee that it had been offered to idols. The word conscience refers to the conscience of the informer, (1 Co 10:29;) still he should make it a matter of conscience not to wound his weak brethren, or lead them into sin.

For the earth is the Lord's, etc. See 1 Co 10:26. These words are wanting in many MSS., (see Mill's Greek Testament,) and in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic versions; and are omitted by Griesbach. Grotius says that they should be omitted. There might easily have been a mistake in transcribing them from 1 Co 10:26. The authority of the Mss., however, is in favour of retaining them; and they are quoted by the Greek fathers and commentators. If they are to be retained, they are to be interpreted, probably, in this sense: "There is no necessity that you should partake of this food. All things belong to God; and he has made ample provision for your wants without subjecting you to the necessity of eating this. Since this is the case, it is best to regard the scruples of those who have doubts of the propriety of eating this food, and to abstain."

{d} "not" 1 Co 8:10,12

{e} "the earth" 1 Co 10:26

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS — Chapter 10 - Verse 29

Verse 29. Conscience, I say, not thine own. I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean, that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that ground, as if an idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous, or of leading them into sin.

For why is my liberty, etc. There is much difficulty in this clause; for as it now stands, it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying: He had been urging them to have respect to other men's consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. Macknight and some others understand it as an objection: "Perhaps you will say, But why is my liberty to be ruled by another man's conscience?" Doddridge supposes that this and 1 Co 10:30 come in as a kind of parenthesis, to prevent their extending his former caution beyond what he designed. "I speak only of acts obvious to human observation; for as to what immediately lies between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged, arraigned, condemned at the bar of another man's conscience?" But it is probable that this is not an objection. The sense may be thus expressed: "I am free; I have liberty to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty—the right which I exercise—will be misconstrued, misjudged, condemned (for so the word krinetai seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience. Under these circumstances, why should I act so as to expose myself to this censure and condemnation? It is better for me to abstain, and not to use this liberty in the case, but to deny myself for the sake of others."

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS — Chapter 10 - Verse 30

Verse 30. For if I by grace be a partaker. Or rather, "If I partake by grace—if, by the grace and mercy of God, I have a right to partake of this—yet why should I so conduct as to expose myself to the reproaches and evil surmises of others? Why should I lay myself open to be blamed on the subject of eating, when there are so many bounties of Providence for which I may be thankful, and which I may partake of without doing injury, or exposing myself in any manner to be blamed?"

Why am I evil spoken of. Why should I pursue such a course as to expose myself to blame or censure?

For that for which I give thanks. For my food. The phrase, "for which I give thanks," seems to be a periphrasis for food, or for that of which he partook to nourish life. It is implied that he always gave thanks for his food; and that this was with him such a universal custom, that the phrase, "for which I give thanks," might be used as convenient and appropriate phraseology to denote his ordinary food. The idea in the verse, then, is this: "By the favour of God, I have a right to partake of this food. But if I did, I should be evil spoken of, mid do injury, And it is unnecessary. God has made ample provision elsewhere for my support, for which I may be thank. I will not therefore expose myself to calumny and reproach, or be the occasion of.injury to others by partaking of the food offered in sacrifice to idols."

{1} "grace" "thanksgiving"

{a} "give thanks" Ro 14:6

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 31

Verse 31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink. This direction should be strictly and properly applied to the case in hand; that is, to the question about eating and drinking the things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols. Still, however, it contains a general direction that is applicable to eating and drinking at all times; and the phrase, "whatsoever ye do," is evidently designed by the apostle to make the direction universal.

Or whatsoever ye do. In all the actions and plans of life; whatever be your schemes, your desires, your doings, let all be done to the glory of God.

Do all to the glory of God. The phrase, "the glory of God," is equivalent to the honour of God; and the direction is, that we should so act in all things as to honour him as our Lawgiver, our Creator, our Redeemer; and so as to lead others by our example to praise him and to embrace his gospel. A child acts so as to honour a father when he always cherishes reverential and proper thoughts of him; when he is thankful for his favours; when he keeps his laws; when he endeavours to advance his plans and his interests;; and when he so acts as to lead all around him to cherish elevated opinions of the character of a father. He dishonours him when he has no respect to his authority; when he breaks his laws; when he leads others to treat him with disrespect. In like manner, we live to the glory of God when we honour him in all the relations which he sustains to us; when we keep his laws; when we partake of his favours with thankfulness, and with a deep sense of our dependence; when we pray unto him; and when we so live as to lead those around us to cherish elevated conceptions of his goodness, and mercy, and holiness. Whatever plan or purpose will tend to advance his kingdom, and to make him better known and loved, will be to his glory. We may observe in regard to this,

(1.) that the rule is universal. It extends to everything. If in so small matters as eating and drinking we should seek to honour God, assuredly we should in all other things.

(2.) It is designed that this should be the constant rule of conduct, and that we should be often reminded of it. The acts of eating and drinking must be performed often; and the command is attached to that which must often occur, that we may be often reminded of it, and that we may be kept from forgetting it.

(3.) It is intended that we should honour God in our families and among our friends. We eat with them; we share together the bounties of Providence; and God designs that we should honour him when we partake of him mercies, and that thus our daily enjoyments should be sanctified by a constant effort to glorify him.

(4.) We should devote the strength which we derive from the bounties of his hand to his honour and in his service. He gives us food; he makes it nourishing; he invigorates our frame; and that strength should not be devoted to purposes of sin, and profligacy, and corruption. It is an act of high dishonour to God, when HE gives us strength, that we should at once devote that strength to pollution and to sin.

(5.) This rule is designed to be one of the chief directors of our lives. It is to guide all our conduct, and to constitute a test by which to try our actions. Whatever can be done to advance the honour of God is right; whatever cannot be done with that end is wrong. Whatever plan a man can form that will have this end is a good plan; whatever cannot be made to have this tendency, and that cannot be commenced, continued, and ended with a distinct and definite desire to promote his honour, is wrong, and should be forthwith abandoned.

(6.) What a change would it make in the world if this rule were everywhere followed! How differently would even professing Christians live! How many of their plans would they be constrained at once to abandon! And what a mighty revolution would it at once make on earth, should all the actions of men begin to be performed to promote the glory of God!

(7.) It may be added, that sentiments like that of the apostle were found among the Jews, and even among heathens. Thus Maimonides, as cited by Grotius, says, "Let everything be in the name of Heaven;" i.e., in the name of God. Capellus cites several of the rabbinical writers who say that all actions, even eating and drinking, should be done in the name of God. See the Critici Sacri. Even the heathen writers have something that resembles this. Thus Arrian (Eph 1:19) says, "Looking unto God in all things, small and great." Epictetus, too, on being asked how any one may eat so as to please God, answered, "By eating justly, temperately, and thankfully."

{b} "Whether" Col 3:17

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 32

Verse 32. Give none offence. Be inoffensive; that is, do not act so as to lead others into sin. See Barnes "Ro 14:13".

Neither to the Jews, etc. To no one, though they are the foes of God or strangers to him. To the Jews be inoffensive, because they think that the least approach to idol worship is to be abhorred. Do not so act as to lead them to think that you connive at or approve idol worship, and so as to prejudice them the more against the Christian religion, and lead them more and more to oppose it. In other words, do not attend the feasts in honour of idols.

Nor to the Gentiles. Greek, Greeks. To the pagans who are unconverted. They are attached to idol worship. They seek every way to justify themselves in it. Do not countenance them in it, and thus lead them into the sin of idolatry.

Nor to the church of God. To Christians. Many of them are weak. They may not be as fully instructed as you are. Your example would lead them into sin. Abstain, therefore, from things which, though they are in themselves strictly lawful, may yet be the occasion of leading others into sin, and endangering their salvation.

{c} "none offence" Ro 14:13; 2 Co 6:3

{2} "Gentiles" "Greeks"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 10 - Verse 33

Verse 33. Even as I, etc. Paul here proposes his own example as their guide. The example which he refers to is that which he had exhibited as described in this and the preceding chapters. His main object had been to please all men; i.e., not to alarm their prejudices, or needlessly to excite their opposition, (See Barnes "1 Co 10:19"); also 1 Co 10:20-23", while he made known to them the truth, and sought their salvation. It is well when a minister can without ostentation appeal to his own example, and urge others to a life of self-denial and holiness, by his own manner of living, and by what he is himself in his daily walk and conversation.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 1

1st Corinthians Chapter 11

THE first verse in this chapter properly belongs to the preceding, and is the conclusion of the discussion which the apostle had been carrying on in that and the previous chapters. It has been improperly separated from that chapter, and in reading should be read in connexion with it. The remainder of the chapter is properly divided into two parts:

I. A discussion respecting the impropriety of a woman's praying or prophesying with her head uncovered, (1 Co 11:2-16;) and,

II. A reproof of their irregularities in the observance of the Lord's Supper, 1 Co 11:17-34.

I. In regard to the first, it seems probable that some of the women who, on pretence of being inspired, had prayed or prophesied in the Corinthian church, had cast off their veils after the manner Of the heathen priestesses. This indecent and improper custom, the apostle reproves. He observes, therefore, that the pre-emmence belongs to man over the woman, even as pre-eminence belonged to Christ over the man; that it was a dishonour to Christ when a man prayed or prophesied with his head covered, and in like manner it was regarded everywhere as dishonourable and improper for a woman to lay. aside the appropriate symbol of her sex, and the emblem of subordination, and to be uncovered in the presence of the man, (1 Co 11:3-6;) that if a woman was not veiled, if she laid aside the appropriate emblem of her sex and of her subordinate condition, she might as well part with her hair, which all knew would be dishonourable and improper, (1 Co 11:6;) that the woman had been created for a subordinate station, and should observe it, (1 Co 11:7-9;) that she should have power on her head because of the angels, (1 Co 11:10;) and yet, lest this should depress her, and seem to convey the idea of her utter inferiority and unimportance, he adds, that in the plan of salvation they are in many respects on an equality with the man, that the same plan was adapted to both, that the same blessings are appointed for both sexes, and the same high hopes are held out to both, (1 Co 11:11,12;) and that nature on this subject was a good instructor, and showed that it was uncomely for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, that her hair had been given her for an ornament and for beauty, and that, as it would be as improper for her to remove her veil as to cut off her hair, nature itself required that this symbol of her subordination should not be laid aside in public, 1 Co 11:13-16.

II. Next, as to the irregularities in the observance of the Lord's Supper, the apostle observes, (1 Co 11:17,) that he could not commend them for what he was about to say. There had been, and there were, irregularities among them, which it was his duty to reprove. In 1 Co 11:18-22, he states what those irregularities were. He then (1 Co 11:23-26) states the true nature and design of the Lord's Supper, as it was very evident that they had not understood it, but supposed it was a common feast, such as they had been accustomed to observe in honour of idols. In 1 Co 11:27-29, he states the consequences of observing this ordinance in an improper manner, and the proper way of approaching it; and in 1 Co 11:30-32, observes that their improper mode of observing it was the cause of the punishment which many of them had experienced. He then concludes by directing them to celebrate the Lord's Supper together; to eat at home when they were hungry; and not to abuse the Lord's Supper by making it an occasion of feasting; and assures them that the other matters of irregularity he would set in order when he should come among them.

Verse 1. Be ye followers of me. Imitate my example in the matter now under discussion. As I deny myself; as I seek to give no offence to any one; as I endeavour not to alarm the prejudices of others, but in all things to seek their salvation, so do you. This verse belongs to the previous chapter, and should not have been separated from it. It is the close of the discussion there.

Even as I also am of Christ. I make Christ my example. He is my model in all things; and if you follow him, and follow me as far as I follow him, you will not err. This is the only safe example; and if we follow this, we can never go astray.

{a} "ye followers" Eph 5:1; 1 Th 1:6

{*} "followers" "Imitators"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 2

Verse 2. Now I praise you, brethren. Paul always chose to commend Christians when it could be done, and never seemed to suppose that such praise would be injurious to them. See Barnes "1 Co 1:4" See Barnes "1 Co 1:5".

On this occasion he was the more ready to praise them, as far as it could be done, because there were some things in regard to them in which he would have occasion to reprove them.

That ye remember me in all things. That you are disposed to regard my authority and seek my direction in all matters pertaining to the good order of the church. There can be little doubt that they had consulted him in their letter (1 Co 7:1) about the proper manner in which a woman ought to demean herself if she was called upon, under the influence of Divine inspiration, to utter anything in public. The question seems to have been, whether, since she was inspired, it was proper for her to retain the marks of her inferiority of rank, and remain covered; or whether the fact of her inspiration did not release her from that obligation, and make it proper that she should lay aside her veil, and appear as public speakers did among men. To this the apostle refers, probably, in the phrase "all things," that even in matters of this kind, pertaining to the good order of the church, they were disposed to regard his authority.

And keep the ordinances. Margin, Traditions, (tav paradoseiv). The word does not refer to anything that had been delivered down from a former generation, or from former times, as the word tradition now usually signifies; but it means that which had been delivered to them, (paradidwmi;) i.e., by the apostles. The apostles had delivered to them certain doctrines, or rules, respecting the good order and the government of the church; and they had in general observed them, and were disposed still to do it. For this disposition to regard his authority, and to keep what he had enjoined, he commends them. He proceeds to specify what would be proper in regard to the particular subject on which they had made inquiry.

{b} "that ye" 1 Co 4:17

{c} "keep" Lu 1:6

{1} "ordinances" "traditions"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 3

Verse 3. But I would have you know. "I invite your attention particularly to the following considerations, in order to form a correct opinion on this subject." Paul does not at once answer the inquiry, and determine what ought to be done; but he invites their attention to a series of remarks on the subject, which led them to draw the conclusion which he wished to establish. The phrase here is designed to call the attention to the subject, like that used so often in the New Testament, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

That the head, etc. The word head, in the Scriptures, is designed often to denote master, ruler, chief, The word Greek is often thus used in the Old Testament. See Nu 17:3; 25:15; De 28:13,44; Jud 10:18; 11:8,11; 1 Sa 15:17; 2 Sa 22:44.

In the New Testament the word is used in the sense of lord, ruler, chief, in Eph 1:22; 4:15; Eph 5:23; Col 2:10. Here it means that Christ is the Ruler, Director, or Lord of the Christian man. This truth was to be regarded in all their feelings and arrangements, and was never to be forgotten. Every Christian should recollect the relation in which he stands to him, as one that is fitted to produce the strictest decorum, and a steady sense of subordination.

Of every man. Every Christian. All acknowledge Christ as their Ruler and Master. They are subject to him; and in all proper ways recognize their subordination to him.

And the head of the woman is the man. The sense is, she is subordinate to him; and in all circumstances-in her demeanour, her dress, her conversation, in public and in the family circle—should recognize her subordination to him. The particular thing here referred to is, that if the woman is inspired, and speaks or prays in public, she should by no means lay aside the usual and proper symbols of her subordination. The danger was, that those who were under the influence of inspiration would regard themselves as freed from the necessity of recognizing that, and would lay aside the veil, the usual and appropriate symbol of their occupying a rank inferior to the man. This was often done in the temples of the heathen deities by the priestesses, and it would appear also that it had been done by Christian females in the churches.

And the head of Christ is God. Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the Supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere.

{d} "head of every man" Eph 5:23

{e} "Christ" Ge 3:16; 1 Pe 3:1,5,6

{f} "the man" Joh 14:28; 1 Co 15:27,28

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 4

Verse 4. Every man praying or prophesying. The word prophesying here means, evidently, teaching; or publicly speaking to the people on the subject of religion. See Barnes "Ac 2:17".

See also the subject considered more at length in the Notes on chapter 14. Whether these persons who are here said to prophesy were all inspired, or claimed to be inspired, may admit of a question. The simple idea here is, that they spoke in the public assemblies, and professed to be the expounders of the Divine will.

Having his head covered. With a veil, or turban, or cap, or whatever else is worn on the head. To remove the hat, the turban, or the covering of the head, is a mark of respect for a superior when in his presence.

Dishonoureth his head. Does dishonour to Christ as his head, (1 Co 11:2;) that is, he does not, in his presence and in his service, observe the usual and proper custom by which a subordinate station is recognised, and which indicates respect for a superior. In the presence of a prince or a nobleman, it would be considered as a mark of disrespect should the head be covered. So in the presence of Christ, in whose name he ministers, it is a mark of disrespect if the head is covered. This illustration is drawn from the customs of all times and countries, by which respect for a superior is indicated by removing the covering from the head. This is one reason why a man should not cover his head in public worship. Another is given in 1 Co 11:7. Other interpretations of the passage may be seen in Bloomfield's Critical Digest.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 5

Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth. In the Old Testament, prophetesses are not unfrequently mentioned. Thus Miriam is mentioned, (Ex 15:20;) Deborah, (Jud 4:4;) Huldah, (2 Ki 22:14;) Nosdish, (Ne 6:14.) So also in the New Testament, Anna is mentioned as a prophetess, Lu 2:36. That there were females in the early Christian church who corresponded to those known among the Jews in some measure as endowed with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cannot be doubted. What was their precise office, and what was the nature of the public services in which they were engaged, is not however known. That they prayed is clear; and that they publicly expounded the will of God is apparent also. See Barnes "Ac 2:17".

As the presumption is, however, that they were inspired, their example is no warrant now for females to take part in the public services of worship, unless they also give evidence that they are under the influence of inspiration, and the more especially as the apostle Paul has expressly forbidden their becoming public teachers, 1 Ti 2:12. If it is now pleaded, from this example, that women should speak and pray in public, yet it should be just so far only as this example goes, and it should be only when they have the qualifications that the early prophetesses had in the Christian church. If there are any such; if any are directly inspired by God, there then will be an evident propriety that they should publicly proclaim his will, and not till then. It may be further observed, however, that the fact that Paul here mentions the custom of women praying or speaking publicly in the church, does not prove that it was right or proper. His immediate object now was not to consider whether the practice was itself right, but to condemn the manner of its performance as a violation of all the proper rules of modesty and of subordination. On another occasion, in this very epistle, he fully condemns the practice in any form, and enjoins silence on the female members of the church in public, 1 Co 14:34.

With her head uncovered. That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair dishevelled, when they pretended to be under the influence of Divine inspiration. This was the case with the heathen priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she was veiled. See this proved by Lightfoot in loco.

Dishonoureth her head. Shows a want of proper respect to man—to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordination. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonour to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognised in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.

For that is even all one as if she were shaven. As if her long hair, which nature teaches her she should wear for a veil, (1 Co 11:15, margin,) should be cut off. Long hair is, by the custom of the times, and of nearly all countries, a mark of the sex, an ornament of the female, and judged to be beautiful and comely. To remove that is to appear, in this respect, like the other sex, and to lay aside the badge of her own. This, says Paul, all would judge to be improper. You yourselves would not allow it. And yet to lay aside the veil—the appropriate badge of the sex, and of her sense of subordination—would be an act of the same kind. It would indicate the same feeling, the same forgetfulness of the proper sense of subordination; and if that is laid aside, ALL the usual indications of modesty and subordination might be removed also. Not even under religious pretences, therefore, are the usual marks of sex, and of propriety of place and rank, to be laid aside. Due respect is to be shown, in dress, and speech, and deportment, to those whom God has placed above us; and neither in language, in attire, nor in habit, are we to depart from what all judge to be proprieties of life, or from what God has judged and ordained to be the proper indications of the regular gradations in society.

{a} "woman" Ac 21:9

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 6

Verse 6. For if the woman be not covered. If her head be not covered with a veil.

Let her also be shorn. Let her long hair be cut off. Let her lay aside all the usual and proper indications of her sex and rank in life. If it is done in one respect, it may with the same propriety be done in all. See Note above.

But if it be a shame, etc. If custom, nature, and habit; if the common and usual feelings and views among men would pronounce this to be a shame, the other would be pronounced to be a shame also by the same custom and common sense of men.

Let her be covered. With a veil. Let her wear the customary attire indicative of modesty and a sense of subordination. Let her not lay this aside even on any pretence of religion.

{b} "shorn" Nu 5:18; De 21:12

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 7

Verse 7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head. That is, with a veil; or in public worship; when he approaches God, or when in his name he addresses his fellow-men. It is not fit and proper that he should be covered. The reason why it is not proper, the apostle immediately states:

Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. The phrase "the image of God" refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker, (Ge 1:27;) and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which he is still the image of God. It is not because man is holy or pure, and thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested by his Maker with authority and dominion: he was superior to all other creatures, Ge 1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be recognised and regarded. If he wore a veil or turban, it would be a mark of servitude or inferiority. It was therefore improper that he should appear in this manner; but he should be so clad as not to obscure or hide the great truth that he was the direct representative of God on the earth, and had a superiority to all other creatures.

And glory of God. The word glory in the classic writers means,

(1.) opinion, sentiment, etc.;

(2.) fame, reputation. Here it means, as it often does, splendour, brightness, or that which stands forth to represent God, or by which the glory of God is known. Man was created first; he had dominion given him; by him, therefore, the Divine authority and wisdom first shone forth; and this fact should be recognised in the due subordination of rank, and even in the apparel and attire which shall be worn. The impression of his rank and superiority should be everywhere retained.

But the woman is the glory of the man. The honour, the ornament, etc. She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from him, and was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh." All her comeliness, loveliness, and purity, are therefore an expression of his honour and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the customary use of the veil. She should appear with the symbol of modesty and subjection, which are implied by the head being covered. This sense is distinctly expressed in the following verse.

{c} "image" Ge 5:1

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 8

Verse 8. For the man is not of the woman. The man was not formed from the woman.

But the woman of the man. From his side, Ge 2:18,22,23.

{d} "For the man" Ge 2:18,22,23

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 9

Verse 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, etc. This is a simple statement of what is expressed in Genesis. The woman was made for the comfort and happiness of the man. Not to be a slave, but a help-meet; not to be the minister of his pleasures, but to be his aid and comforter in life; not to be regarded as of inferior nature and rank, but to be his friend, to divide his sorrows, and to multiply and extend his joys; yet still to be in a station subordinate to him. He is to be the head; the ruler; the presider in the family circle; and she was created to aid him in his duties, to comfort him in his afflictions, to partake with him of his pleasures. Her rank is therefore honourable, though it is subordinate. It is, in some respects, the more honourable because it is subordinate; and as her happiness is dependent on him, she has the higher claim to his protection and his tender care. The whole of Paul's idea here is, that her situation and rank as subordinate should be recognised by her at all times, and that in his presence it was proper that she should wear the usual symbol of modesty and subordination, the veil.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 10

Verse 10. For this cause, etc. There is scarcely any passage in the Scriptures which has more exercised the ingenuity of commentators than this verse. The various attempts which have been made to explain it may be seen in Pool, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. After all the explanations which have been given of it, I confess I do not understand it. It is not difficult to see what the connexion requires us to suppose in the explanation. The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word power (exousian) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defence or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a veil, though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that all women who prophesy or pray in public should be veiled. There can, perhaps, be no doubt that the word "power" has reference to a veil, or to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling.

Because of the angels. Some have explained this of good angels who were supposed to be present in their assemblies, (see Doddridge;) others refer it to evil angels; and others to messengers or spies who, it has been supposed, were present in their public assemblies, and who would report greatly to the disadvantage of the Christian assemblies if the women were seen to be unveiled. I do not know what it means; and I regard it as one of the very few passages in the Bible whose meaning as yet is wholly inexplicable. The most natural interpretation seems to me to be this: "A woman in the public assemblies, and in speaking in the presence of men, should wear a veil—the usual symbol of modesty and subordination —because the angels of God are witnesses of your public worship, (Heb 1:14,) and because they know and appreciate the propriety of subordination and order in public assemblies." According to this, it would mean that the simple reason would be that the angels were witnesses of their worship; and that they were the friends of propriety, due subordination, and order; and that they ought to observe these in all assemblies convened for the worship of God. I do not know that this sense has been proposed by any commentator; but it is one which strikes me as the most obvious and natural, and consistent with the context. The following remarks respecting the ladies of Persia may throw some light on this subject:— "The head-dress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses: the beauty of this head-dress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels—in default of which, they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, under the veil or kerchief, (couvre chef), only by the end of a small bandeau, shaped into a triangle: this bandeau, which is of various colours, is thin and light. The bandalette is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewelry, according to the quality of the wearer. This is, in my opinion, the ancient tiara, or diadem, of the queens of Persia: only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection, (c'est ld la marque a laquelle on reeonnoit qu'elles sont Sous PUISSANCE—-power.) The girls have little caps, instead of this kerchief or tiara; they wear no veil at home, but let two tresses of their hair fall under their cheeks. The caps of girls of superior rank are tied with a row of pearls. Girls are not shut up in Persia till they attain the age of six or seven years; before that age they go out of the seraglio, sometimes with their father, so that they may then be seen. I have seen some wonderfully pretty. They show the neck and bosom; and more beautiful cannot be seen.'—Chardin. "The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides; so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married."—Thevenot.

{1} "power" "a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her" "husband" Ge 24:55

{*} "on" "A veil on"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 11

Verse 11. Nevertheless. Lest the man should assume to himself too much superiority, and lest he should regard the woman as made solely for his pleasure, and should treat her as in all respects inferior, and withhold the respect that is due to her. The design of this verse and the following is to show that the man and woman are united in the most tender interests; that the one cannot live comfortably without the other; that one is necessary to the happiness of the other; and that though the woman was formed from the man, yet it is also to be remembered that the man is descended from the woman. She should therefore be treated with proper respect, tenderness, and regard.

Neither is the man without the woman, etc. The man and the woman were formed for union and society. They are not in any respect independent of each other. One is necessary to the comfort of the other; and this fact should be recognised in all their intercourse.

In the Lord. By the arrangements or direction of the Lord. It is the appointment and command of the Lord that they should be mutual helps, and should each regard and promote the welfare of the other.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 12

Verse 12. As the woman is of the man. In the original creation, she was formed from the man.

So is the man also by the woman. Is born of the woman, or descended from her. The sexes are dependent on each other, and should therefore cultivate an indissoluble union.

But all things of God. All things were created and arranged by him. This expression seems designed to suppress any spirit of complaint or dissatisfaction with this arrangement; to make the woman contented in her subordinate station, and to make the man humble by the consideration that it is all owing to the appointment of God. The woman should therefore be contented, and the man should not assume any improper superiority, since the whole arrangement and appointment is of God.

{a} "all things" Ro 11:36

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 13

Verse 13. Judge in yourselves. Or, "Judge among yourselves." I appeal to you. I appeal to your natural sense of what is proper and right. Paul had used various arguments to show them the impropriety of their females speaking unveiled in public. He now appeals to their natural sense of what was decent and right, according to established and acknowledged customs and habits.

Is it comely? etc. Is it decent, or becoming? The Grecian women, except their priestesses, were accustomed to appear in public with a veil.—Doddridge. Paul alludes to that established and proper habit, and asks whether it does not accord with their own views of propriety that women in Christian assemblies should also wear the same symbol of modesty.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 14

Verse 14. Doth not even nature itself. The word nature (fusiv) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among men. Thus we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war —the duties of office, of government, and of professional life, should be discharged by men. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain: nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right—a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations, showing what that sense is. No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded ill an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed, (Rhet. i.—see Rosenmuller,) that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him karhkomowntev acaioi, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among men has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Nu 6:1-6; Jud 13:6; Jud 16:17; 1 Sa 1:11. Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom, (2 Sa 14:26;) but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of AElian, (Hist. lib. ix. c. 14; Eustath. on Hom. ii. v.)

It is a shame unto him. It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 15

Verse 15. It is a glory to her. It is an ornament and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should suffer hers to grow long.

For a covering. Margin, Veil. It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was suffered to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed. There may also be an allusion here to the fact that the hair of women naturally grows longer than that of men. See Rosenmuller. The value which eastern females put on their long hair may be learned from the fact that when Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, was about to march against Seleucus Callinicus, his queen Berenice vowed, as the most precious sacrifice which she could make, to cut off and consecrate her hair if he returned in safety. "The eastern ladies," says Harmer, "are remarkable for the length and the great number of the tresses of their hair. The men there, on the contrary, wear very little hair on their heads." Lady M. W. Montague thus speaks concerning the hair of the women: "Their hair hangs at full length behind, divided into tresses, braided with pearl or riband, which is always in great quantity. I never saw in my life so many fine heads of hair. In one lady's I have counted one hundred and ten of these tresses, all natural; but it must be owned that every kind of beauty is more common here than with us." The men there, on the contrary, shave all the hair off their heads, excepting one lock; and those that wear hair are thought effeminate. Both these particulars are mentioned by Chardin, who says they are agreeable to the custom of the East: "The men are shaved; the women nourish their hair with great fondness, which they lengthen by tresses and tufts of silk, down to the heels. The young men who wear their hair in the East are looked upon as effeminate and infamous."

{1} "covering" "veil"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 16

Verse 16. But if any man seem to be contentious. The sense of this passage is probably this: "If any man, any teacher, or others, is disposed to be strenuous about this, or to make it a matter of difficulty; if he is disposed to call in question my reasoning, and to dispute my premises and the considerations which I have advanced, and to maintain still that it is proper for women to appear unveiled in public, I would add, that in Judea we have no such custom, neither does it prevail among any of the churches. This, therefore, would be a sufficient reasons why it should not be done in Corinth, even if the abstract reasoning should not convince them of the impropriety. It would be singular; would be contrary to the usual custom; would offend the prejudices of many; and should, therefore, be avoided."

We have no such custom. We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled. This custom, the apostle argues, ought to be allowed to have some influence on the church of Corinth, even though they should not be convinced by his reasoning.

Neither the churches of God. The churches elsewhere. It is customary there for the woman to appear veiled. If at Corinth this custom is not observed, it will be a departure from what has elsewhere been regarded as proper; and will offend these churches. Even, therefore, if the reasoning is not sufficient to silence all cavils and doubts, yet the propriety of uniformity in the habits of the churches, the fear of giving offence, should lead you to discountenance and disapprove the custom of your females appearing in public without their veil.

{a} "But if any man" 1 Ti 6:4

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 17

Verse 17. Now in this that I declare. In this that I am about to state to you; to wit, your conduct in regard to the Lord's Supper. Why this subject is introduced here is not very apparent. The connexion may be this. In the subjects immediately preceding he had seen much to commend, and he was desirous of commending them as far as it could be done. In 1 Co 11:2 of this chapter he commends them in general for their regard to the ordinances which he had appointed when he was with them. But while he thus commended them, he takes occasion to observe that there was one subject on which he could not employ the language of approval or praise. Of their irregularities in regard to the Lord's Supper he had probably heard by rumour, and as the subject was of great importance, and their irregularities gross and deplorable, he takes occasion to state to them again more fully the nature of that ordinance, and to reprove them for the manner in which they had celebrated it.

That ye come together. You assemble for public worship.

Not for the better, but for the worse. Your meetings, and your observance of the ordinances of the gospel, do not promote your edification, your piety, spirituality, and harmony; but tend to division, alienation, and disorder. You should assemble to worship God, and promote harmony, love, and piety; the actual effect of your assembling is just the reverse. In what way this was done he states in the following verses. These evil consequences were chiefly two: first, divisions and contentions; and, secondly, the abuse and profanation of the Lord's Supper.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 18

Verse 18. For first of all. That is, I mention as the first thing to be reproved.

When ye come together in the church. When you come together in a religious assembly; when you convene for public worship. The word church here does not mean, as it frequently does with us, a building. No instance of such a use of the word occurs in the New Testament; but it means, when they came together as a Christian assembly; when they convened for the worship of God. These divisions took place then; and from some cause which it seems then operated to produce alienations and strifes.

I hear. I have learned through some members of the family of Chloe, 1 Co 1:11.

That there be divisions among you. Greek, as in the margin, Schisms. The word properly means a rent, such as is made in cloth, (Mt 9:16; Mr 2:21;) and then a division, a split, a faction among men, Joh 7:43; 9:16; 10:19.

It does not mean here that they had proceeded so far as to form separate churches, but that there was discord and division in the church itself. See Barnes "1 Co 1:10, 1 Co 1:11.

And I partly believe it. I credit a part of the reports; I have reason to think, that, though the evil may have been exaggerated, yet that it is true at least in part. I believe that there are dissensions in the church that should be reproved.

{b} "hear" 1 Co 1:11,12

{2} "divisions" "schisms"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 19

Verse 19. For there must be. It is necessary, (dei;) it is to be expected; there are reasons why there should be. What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse. Comp. Mt 18:7; 2 Pe 2:1,2.

The meaning is not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion, not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist, and not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God.

Heresies. Margin, Sects. Greek, aireseiv. See Barnes "Ac 24:14".

The words heresy and heresies occur only in these places, and in Ga 5:20; 2 Pe 2:1. The Greek word occurs also in Ac 5:17, (translated sect;) Ac 15:6; Ac 24:5; 26:6; 28:22; in all which places it denotes, and is translated, sect. We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some doctrine, the holding of which will exclude from salvation. But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used, unless this is one, is in Ga 5:20; where, however, the word contentions or divisions would be quite as much in accordance with the connexion. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or sects, as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations.

(1.) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.

(2.) It is the sense which the connexion here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of irregularity in conduct; and the first thing which he mentions is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to doctrines, would by no means suit the connexion, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must be expected that there would be fundamental errors of doctrine in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner. The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected; there are causes for it; and it cannot be avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected, in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not." The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentions, may be traced to the following causes:

(1.) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of men, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.

(2.) Showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ. See Barnes "1 Co 1:12".

(3.) The multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.

(4.) The passions of men—their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends. And the time may yet come when this union shall be restored to his long-distracted church; and that while there may be an honest difference of opinion maintained and allowed, still the bonds of Christian love shall secure union of heart in all who love the Lord Jesus, and union of effort in the grand enterprise in which ALL can unite—that of making war upon sin, and securing the conversion of the whole world to God.

That they which are approved. That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.

May be made manifest. May be known; recognised; seen. The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is, to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation. See Ro 16:17: "Mark them which cause divisions, and AVOID THEM.

{a} "must be" Mt 18:7; 2 Pe 2:1,2

{1} "heresies" "sects"

{b} "that they" Lu 2:35

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS — Chapter 11 - Verse 20

Verse 20. When ye come together therefore, etc. When you are assembled as a church. Comp. Heb 10:25, and See Barnes "Ac 2:1".

Christians were constantly in the habit of assembling for public worship. It is probable that at this early period all the Christians in Corinth were accustomed to meet in the same place. The apostle here particularly refers to their assembling to observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. At that early period it is probable that this was done on every Lord's day.

This is not, etc. Margin, "Ye cannot eat." The meaning of this expression seems to be this: "Though you come together professedly to worship God, and to partake of the Lord's Supper, yet this cannot be the real design which you have in view. It cannot be that such practices as are allowed among you can be a part of the celebration of that supper, or consistent with it. Your greediness, (1 Co 11:21;) your intemperance, (1 Co 11:21;) your partaking of the food separately, and not in common, cannot be a celebration of the Lord's Supper. Whatever, therefore, you may profess to be engaged in, yet really and truly you are not celebrating the Lord's Supper."

The Lord's supper. That which the Lord Jesus instituted to commemorate his death. It is called "the Lord's," because it is his appointment, and is in honour of him; it is called "supper," (deipnon,) because the word denotes the evening repast. It was instituted in the evening; and it is evidently most proper that it should be observed in the after part of the day. With most churches the time is improperly changed to the morning—a custom which has no sanction in the New Testament; and which is a departure from the very idea of a supper.

{2} "one place" "ye cannot eat"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 21

Verse 21. For in eating. When you eat, having professedly come together to observe this ordinance. In order to understand this, it seems necessary to suppose that they had in some way made the Lord's Supper either connected with a common feast, or that they regarded it as a mere common festival to be observed in a way similar to the festivals among the Greeks. Many have supposed that this was done by making the observance of the Supper follow a festival, or, what were afterwards called, love-feasts, (agapai —Agapae). Many have supposed that that custom was derived from the fact that the Saviour instituted the Supper after a festival, a feast in which he had been engaged with his disciples, and that thence the early Christians derived the custom of observing such a festival, or common meal, before they celebrated the Lord's Supper. But it may be observed, that the passover was not a mere preliminary festival, or feast. It had no resemblance to the so-called love-feasts, It was itself a religious ordinance; a direct appointment of God; and was never regarded as designed to be preliminary to the observance of the Lords Supper, but was always understood as designed to be superseded by that. Besides, I know not that there is the slightest evidence, as has been often supposed, that the observance of the Lord's Supper was preceded, in the times of the apostles, by such a festival as a love-feast. There is no evidence in the passage before us; nor is any adduced from any other part of the New Testament. To my mind it seems altogether improbable that the disorders in Corinth would assume this form—that they would first observe a common feast, and then the Lord's Supper in the regular manner. The statement before us leads to the belief that all was irregular and improper; that they had entirely mistaken the nature of the ordinance, and had converted it into an occasion of ordinary festivity, and even intemperance; that they had come to regard it as a feast in honour of the Saviour on some such principles as they observed feasts in honour of idols, and that they observed it in some such manner; and that all that was supposed to make it unlike those festivals was, that it was in honour of Jesus rather than an idol, and was to be observed with some reference to his authority and name.

Every one taketh before other his own supper. That is, each one is regardless of the wants of the others; instead of making even a meal in common, and when all could partake together, each one ate by himself, and ate that which he had himself brought. They had not only erred, therefore, by misunderstanding altogether the nature of the Lord's Supper, and by supposing that it was a common festival like those which they had been accustomed to celebrate; but they had also entirely departed from the idea that it was a festival to be partaken of in common, and at a common table. It had become a scene where every man ate by himself; and where the very idea that there was anything like a common celebration, or a celebration together, was abandoned. There is allusion here, doubtless, to what was a custom among the Greeks, that when a festival was celebrated, or a feast made, it was common for each person to provide, and carry a part of the things necessary for the entertainment. These were usually placed in common, and were partaken of alike by all the company. Thus Xenophon (Mem lib. iii. cap. xiv.) says of Socrates, that he was much offended with the Athenians for their conduct at their common suppers, where some prepared for themselves in a delicate and sumptuous manner, while others were poorly provided for. Socrates endeavoured, he adds, to shame them out of this indecent custom by offering his provisions to all the company.

And one is hungry. Is deprived of food. It is all monopolized by others.

And another is drunken. The word here used (meyuei) means, properly, to become inebriated, or intoxicated; and there is no reason for understanding it here in any other sense. There can be no doubt that the apostle meant to say, that they ate and drank to excess; and that their professed celebration of the Lord's Supper became a mere revel. It may seem remarkable that such scenes should ever have occurred in a Christian church, or that there could have been such an entire perversion of the nature and design of the Lord's Supper. But we are to remember the following things:

(1.) These persons had recently been heathens, and were grossly ignorant of the nature of true religion when the gospel was first preached among them.

(2.) They had been accustomed to such revels in honour of idols under their former modes of worship, and it is the less surprising that they transferred their views to Christianity.

(3.) When they had once so far misunderstood the nature of Christianity as to suppose the Lord's Supper to be like the feasts which they had formerly celebrated, all the rest followed as a matter of course. The festival would be observed in the same manner as the festivals in honour of idolaters; and similar scenes of gluttony and intemperance would naturally follow.

(4.) We are to bear in mind, also, that they do not seem to have been favoured with pious, wise, and prudent teachers. There were false teachers; and there were those who prided themselves on their wisdom, and who were self-confident, and who doubtless endeavoured to model the Christian institutions according to their own views; and they thus brought them, as far as they could, to a conformity with pagan customs and idolatrous rites. We may remark here:

(1.) We are not to expect perfection at once among a people recently converted from paganism,

(2.) We see how prone men are to abuse even the most holy rites of religion, and hence how corrupt is human nature.

(3.) We see that even Christians, recently converted, need constant guidance and superintendence; and that if left to themselves, they soon, like others, fall into gross and scandalous offences.

{c} "another is drunken" 2 Pe 2:13; Jude 1:12

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 22

Verse 22. What? This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their having so grossly perverted the design of the Lord's Supper.

Have ye not houses, etc. Do you not know that the church of God is not designed to be a place of feasting and revelry, nor even a place where to partake of your ordinary meals? Can it be that you will come to the places of public worship, and make them the scenes of feasting and riot? Even on the supposition that there had been no disorder, no revelry, no intemperance, yet on every account it was grossly irregular and disorderly to make the place of public worship a place for a festival entertainment.

Or despise ye the church of God. The phrase, "church of God," Grotius understands of the place. But the word church (ekklhsia) is believed not to be used in that sense in the New Testament; and it is not necessary to suppose it here. The sense is, that their conduct was such as if they had held in contempt the whole church of God, in all places, with all their views of the sacredness and purity of the Lord s Supper.

And shame them that have not? Margin, Are poor. Something must here be understood, in order to make out the sense. Probably it meant something like possessions, property, conveniences, accommodations. The connexion would make it most natural to understand "houses to eat and drink in;" and the sense then would be, "Do you thus expose to public shame those who have no accommodations at home—who are destitute and poor? You thus reflect publicly upon their poverty and want, while you bring your own provisions, and fare sumptuously, and while those who are thus unable to provide for themselves are thus seen to be poor and needy." It is hard enough, the idea is, to be poor, and to be destitute of a home. But it greatly aggravates the matter to be publicly treated in that manner; to be exposed publicly to the contempt which such a situation implies. Their treatment of the poor in this manner would be a public exposing them to shame; and the apostle regarded this as particularly dishonourable, and especially in a Christian church, where all were professedly on an equality.

What shall I say to you? etc. How shall I sufficiently express my surprise at this, and my disapprobation at this course? It cannot be possible that this is right. It is not possible to conceal surprise and amazement that this custom exists, and is tolerated in a Christian church.

{1} "that have not" "are poor"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 23

Verse 23. For, etc. In order most effectually to check the evils which existed, and to bring them to a proper mode of observing the Lord's Supper, the apostle proceeds to state distinctly and particularly its design. They had mistaken its nature. They supposed it might be a common festival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the particular object which it had in view—the commemoration of the death of the Redeemer; and the purpose which it was designed to subserve—which was not that of a festival, but to keep before the church and the world a constant remembrance of the Lord Jesus, until he should again return, 1 Co 11:26. By this means the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregularities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them even for their irregularity and gross disorder; he did not use harsh, violent, vituperative language; but he expected to reform the evil by a mild and tender statement of the truth, and by an appeal to their consciences as the followers of the Lord Jesus.

I have received of the Lord. This cannot refer to tradition, or mean that it had been communicated to him through the medium of the other apostles; but the whole spirit and scope of the passage seems to mean, that he had derived the knowledge of the institution of the Lord's Supper directly from the Lord himself. This might have been when on the road to Damascus, though that does not seem probable, or it may have been among the numerous revelations which at various times had been made to him. Comp. 2 Co 12:7. The reason why he here says that he had received it directly from the Lord is, doubtless, that he might show them that it was of Divine authority. "The institution to which I refer is what I myself received an account of from personal and direct communication with the Lord Jesus himself, who appointed it. It is not, therefore, of human authority. It is not of my devising, but is of Divine warrant, and is holy in its nature, and is to be observed in the exact manner prescribed by the Lord himself."

That which also I delivered, etc. Paul founded the church at Corinth; and of course he first instituted the observance of the Lord's Supper there.

The same night in which he was betrayed. By Judas. See Mt 26:23-25, 48-50.

Paul seems to have mentioned the fact that it was on the very night on which he was betrayed, in order to throw around it the idea of greater solemnity. He wished evidently to bring before their minds the deeply affecting circumstances of his death; and thus to show them the utter impropriety of their celebrating the ordinance with riot and disorder. The idea is, that in order to celebrate it in a proper manner, it was needful to throw themselves as much as possible into the very circumstances in which it was instituted; and one of these circumstances most fitted to affect the mind deeply, was the fact that he was betrayed by a professed friend and follower. It is also a circumstance the memory of which is eminently fitted to prepare the mind for a proper celebration of the ordinance now,

Took bread. Evidently the bread which was used at the celebration of the paschal supper. He took the bread which happened to be before him—such as was commonly used. It was not a wafer, such as the papists now use; but was the ordinary bread which was eaten on such occasions. See Barnes "Mt 26:26".

{a} "I have received" 1 Co 15:3

{b} "the Lord Jesus" Mt 26:26

{*} "bread" "loaf"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 24

Verse 24. And when he had given thanks. See Barnes "Mt 26:26".

Matthew reads it, "and blessed it." The words here used are, however, substantially the same as there; and this fact shows that, since this was communicated to Paul directly by the Saviour, and in a manner distinct from that by which Matthew learned the mode of the institution, the Saviour designed that the exact form of the words should be used in its observance, and should thus be constantly borne in mind by his people.

Take, eat, etc. See Barnes "Mt 26:26".

{2} "do in" "for a"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 25

Verse 25. After the same manner. In like manner; likewise. With the same circumstances, and ceremonies, and designs. The purpose was the same.

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

Saying, This cup, etc. See Barnes "Mt 26:27,28".

Is the new testament. The new covenant which God is about to establish with men. The word "testament" with us properly denotes a will—an instrument by which a man disposes of his property after his death. This is also the proper classic meaning of the Greek word here used, diayhkh, (diatheke.) But this is evidently not the sense in which the word is designed to be used in the New Testament. The idea of a will or testament, strictly so called, is not that which the sacred writers intend to convey by the word. The idea is evidently that of a compact, agreement, COVENANT, to which there is so frequent reference in the Old Testament, and which is expressed by the word—Berith—a compact, a covenant. Of that word the proper translation in Greek would have been sunyhkh, a covenant, agreement. But it is remarkable that that word never is used by the Seventy to denote the covenant made between God and man. That translation uniformly employs for this purpose the word diayhkh—a will, or a testament—as a translation of the Hebrew word, where there is a reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with men. The word sunyhkh is used by them but three times, Isa 28:15; 30:1; Da 11:6, and in neither instance with any reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with man. The word diayhkh, as the translation of—Berith—occurs more than two hundred times. (See Trommius' Concord.) Now this must have evidently been of design. What the reason was which induced them to adopt this can only be conjectured. It may have been that, as the translation was to be seen by the Gentiles as well as by the Jews, (if it were not expressly made, as has been affirmed by Josephus and others, for the use of Ptolemy,) they were unwilling to represent the eternal and infinite JEHOVAH as entering into a compact, an agreement, with his creature man. They therefore adopted a word which would represent him as expressing his will to them in a book of revelation. The version by the Seventy was evidently in use by the apostles, and by the Jews everywhere. The writers of the New Testament, therefore, adopted the word as they found it; and spoke of the new dispensation as a new testament which God made with man. The meaning is, that this was the new compact or covenant which God was to make with man in contradistinction from that made through Moses.

In my blood. Through my blood; that is, this new compact is to be sealed with my blood, in allusion to the ancient custom of sealing an agreement by a sacrifice. See Barnes "Mt 26:28".

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

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

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

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 26

Verse 26. For as often. Whenever you do this.

Ye eat this bread. This is a direct and positive refutation of the doctrine of the papists, that the bread is changed into the real body of the Lord Jesus. Here it is expressly called bread—bread still—bread after the consecration. Before the Saviour instituted the ordinance he took "bread"—it was bread then; it was "bread" which he "blessed" and "brake;" and it was bread when it was given to them; and it was bread when Paul here says they ate. How, then, can it be pretended that it is anything else but bread? And what an amazing and astonishing absurdity it is to believe that that bread is changed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!

Ye do shew the Lord's death. You set forth or exhibit, in an impressive manner, the fact that he was put to death; you exhibit the emblems of his broken body and shed blood, and your belief of the fact that he died. This shows that the ordinance was to be so far public as to be a proper showing forth of their belief in the death of the Saviour. It should be public. It is one mode of professing attachment to the Redeemer; and its public observance often has a most impressive effect on those who witness its observance.

Till he come. Till he return to judge the world. This demonstrates

(1.) that it was the steady belief of the primitive church that the Lord Jesus would return to judge the world; and

(2.) that it was designed that this ordinance should be perpetuated, and observed to the end of time. In every generation, therefore, and in every place where there are Christians, it is to be observed, until the Son of God shall return; and the necessity of its observance shall cease only when the whole body of the redeemed shall be permitted to see their Lord, and there shall be no need of those emblems to remind them of him, for all shall see him as he is.

{1} "ye do shew" "shew ye"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 27

Verse 27. Wherefore. Wste. So that; or it follows from what has been said. If this be the origin and intention of the Lord's Supper, then it follows that whoever partakes of it in an improper manner is guilty of his body and blood. The design of Paul is to correct their improper mode of observing this ordinance; and having showed them the true nature and design of the institution, he now states the consequences of partaking of it in an improper manner.

Shall eat this bread. 1 Co 11:26. Paul still calls it bread, and shows thus that he was a stranger to the doctrine that the bread was changed into the very body of the Lord Jesus. Had the papal doctrine of transubstantiation been true, Paul could not have called it bread. The Romanists do not believe that it is bread, nor would they call it such; and this shows how needful it is for them to keep the Scriptures from the people, and how impossible to express their dogmas in the language of the Bible. Let Christians adhere to the simple language of the Bible, and there is no danger of their falling into the errors of the papists.

Unworthily. Perhaps there is no expression in the Bible that has given more trouble to weak and feeble Christians than this. It is certain that there is no one that has operated to deter so many from the communion; or that is so often made use of as an excuse for not making a profession of religion. The excuse is, "I am unworthy to partake of this holy ordinance. I shall only expose myself to condemnation. I must therefore wait until I become more worthy, and better prepared to celebrate it." It is important, therefore, that there should be a correct understanding of this passage. Most persons interpret it as if it were unworthy, and not unworthily; and seem to suppose that it refers to their personal qualifications, to their unfitness to partake of it, rather than to the manner in which it is done. It is to be remembered, therefore, that the word here used is an adverb, and not an adjective, and has reference to the manner of observing the ordinance, and not to their personal qualifications or fitness. It is true that in ourselves we are all unworthy of an approach to the table of the Lord; unworthy to be regarded as his followers; unworthy of a title to everlasting life: but it does not follow that we may not partake of this ordinance in a worthy, i.e., a proper manner, with a deep sense of our sinfulness, our need of a Saviour, and with some just views of the Lord Jesus as our Redeemer. Whatever may be our consciousness of personal unworthiness and unfitness—and that consciousness cannot be too deep—yet we may have such love to Christ, and such a desire to be saved by him, and such a sense of his worthiness, as to make it proper for us to approach and partake of this ordinance. The term unworthily (anaxiwv) means, properly, in an unworthy or improper MANNER; in a manner unsuitable to the purposes for which it was designed or instituted; and may include the following things, viz.:

(1.) Such an irregular and indecent observance as existed in the church of Corinth, where even gluttony and intemperance prevailed under the professed design of celebrating the Supper.

(2.) An observance of the ordinance where there should be no distinction between it and common meals, See Barnes "1 Co 11:29" where they did not regard it as designed to show forth the death of the Lord Jesus. It is evident that where such views prevailed, there could be no proper qualification for this observance; and it is equally clear that such ignorance can hardly be supposed to prevail now in those lands which are illuminated by Christian truth.

(3.) When it is done for the sake of mockery, and when the purpose is to deride religion, and to show a marked contempt for the ordinances of the gospel. It is a remarkable fact that many infidels have been so full of malignity and bitterness against the Christian religion as to observe a mock celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no profounder depth of depravity than this; there is nothing that can more conclusively or painfully show the hostility of man to the gospel of God. It is a remarkable fact, also, that not a few such persons have died a most miserable death. Under the horrors of an accusing conscience, and the anticipated destiny of final damnation, they have left the world as frightful monuments of the justice of God. It is also a fact that not a few infidels who have been engaged in such unholy celebrations have been converted to that very gospel which they were thus turning into ridicule and scorn. Their consciences have been alarmed; they have shuddered at the remembrance of the crime; they have been overwhelmed with the consciousness of guilt, and have found no peace until they have found it in that blood whose shedding they were thus profanely celebrating.

Shall be guilty. Enocov. This word properly means, obnoxious to punishment for personal crime. It always includes the idea of ill-desert, and of exposure to punishment on account of crime or ill-desert, Mt 5:22; Ex 22:3; 34:7; Nu 14:18; 35:27; Le 20:9.

See also De 19:10; Mt 26:66.

Of the body and blood of the Lord. Commentators have not been agreed in regard to the meaning of this expression. Doddridge renders it, "Shall be counted guilty of profaning and affronting, in some measure, that which is intended to represent the body and blood of the Lord." Grotius renders it, "He does the same thing as if he should slay Christ." Bretschneider (Lex.) renders it, "Injuring by crime the body of the Lord." Locke renders it, "Shall be guilty of a misuse of the body and blood of the Lord;" and supposes it means that they should be liable to the punishment due to one who made a wrong use of the sacramental body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Rosenmuller renders it, "He shall be punished for such a deed as if he had affected Christ himself with ignominy." Bloomfield renders it, "He shall be guilty respecting the body, i.e., guilty of profaning the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently shall be amenable to the punishment due to such an abuse of the highest means of grace." But it seems to me that this does not convey the fulness of the meaning of the passage. The obvious and literal sense is, evidently, that they should by such conduct be involved in the sin of putting the Lord Jesus to death. The phrase "the body and blood of the Lord," in this connexion, obviously, I think, refers to his death—to the fact that his body was broken, and his blood shed, of which the bread and wine were symbols; and to be guilty of that, means to be guilty of putting him to death; that is, to be involved in the crime, or to do a thing which should involve the same criminality as that. To see this, we are to remember,

(1.) that the bread and wine were symbols or emblems of that event, and designed to set it forth.

(2.) To treat with irreverence and profaneness the bread which was an emblem of his broken body, was to treat with irreverence and profaneness the body itself; and in like manner the wine, the symbol of his blood.

(3.) Those, therefore, who treated the symbols of his body and blood with profaneness and contempt were united in spirit with those who put him to death. They evinced the same feelings towards the Lord Jesus that his murderers did. They treated him with scorn, profaneness, and derision; and showed that with the same spirit they would have joined in the act of murdering the Son of God. They would evince their hostility to the Saviour himself as far as they could do, by showing contempt for the memorials of his body and blood. The apostle does by no means, however, as I understand him, mean to say that any of the Corinthians had been thus guilty of his body and blood. He does not charge on them this murderous-intention. But he states what is the fair and obvious construction which is to be put on a wanton disrespect for the Lord's Supper. And the design is to guard them, and all others, against this sin. There can be no doubt that those who celebrate his death in mockery and derision are held guilty of his body and blood. They show that they have the spirit of his murderers; they evince it in the most awful way possible; and they who would thus join in a profane celebration of the Lord's Supper would have joined in the cry, "Crucify him, crucify him." For it is a most fearful and solemn act to trifle with sacred things; and especially to hold up to derision and scorn, the bitter sorrows by which the Son of God accomplished the redemption of the world.

{b} "unworthily" Joh 6:63,64; 1 Co 10:21

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 28

Verse 28. But let a man examine himself. Let him search and see if he have the proper qualifications—if he has knowledge to discern the Lord's body, (See Barnes "1 Co 11:29") if he has true repentance for his sins, true faith in the Lord Jesus, and a sincere desire to live the life of a Christian, and to be like the Son of God, and be saved by the merits of his blood. Let him examine himself, and see whether he have the right feelings of a communicant, and can approach the table in a proper manner. In regard to this we may observe,

(1.) that this examination should include the great question about his personal piety, and about his particular and special fitness for this observance. It should go back into the great inquiry whether he has ever been born again; and it should also have special reference to his immediate and direct preparation for the ordinance. He should not only be able to say in general that he is a Christian, but he should be able to say that he has then a particular preparation for it. He should be in a suitable frame of mind for it. He should have personal evidence that he is a penitent; that he has true faith in the Lord Jesus; that he is depending on him, and is desirous of being saved by him.

(2.) This examination should be minute and particular. It should extend to the words, the thoughts, the feelings, the conduct. We should inquire whether in our family and in our business, whether among Christians and with the world, we have lived the life of a Christian. We should examine our private thoughts; our habits of secret prayer and of searching the Scriptures. Our examination should be directed to the inquiry whether we are gaining the victory over our easily besetting sins, and becoming more and more conformed to the Saviour. It should, in short, extend to all our Christian character; and everything which goes to make up or to mar that character should be the subject of faithful and honest examination.

(3.) It should be done, because

(a.) it is well to pause occasionally in life, and take an account of our standing in the sight of God. Men make advances in business and in property only when they often examine their accounts, and know just how they stand.

(b.) Because the observance of the Lord's Supper is a solemn act, and there will be fearful results if it is celebrated in an improper manner.

(c.) Because self-examination supposes seriousness and calmness, and prevents precipitation and rashness—states of mind entirely unfavourable to a proper observance of the Lord's Supper.

(d.) Because by self-examination one may search out and remove those things that are offensive to God, and the sins which so easily beset us may be known and abandoned.

(e.) Because the approach to the table of the Lord is a solemn approach to the Lord himself; is a solemn profession of attachment to him; is an act of consecration to his service in the presence of angels and of men; and this should be done in a calm, deliberate, and sincere manner—such a manner as may be the result of a prayerful and honest self-examination.

And so let him eat, etc. And as the result of such examination, or after such an examination; that is, let the act of eating that bread be always preceded by a solemn self-examination. Bloomfield renders it, "and then," "then only." The sense is plain, that the communion should always be preceded by an honest and prayerful self-examination.

{a} "examine himself" 2 Co 13:5; 1 Jo 3:20,21

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 29

Verse 29. For he that eateth, etc. In order to excite them to a deeper reverence for this ordinance, and to a more solemn mode of observing it, Paul in this verse states another consequence of partaking of it in an improper and irreverent manner. Comp. 1 Co 11:27.

Eateth and drinketh damnation. This is evidently a figurative expression, meaning that by eating and drinking improperly he incurs condemnation-which is here expressed by eating and drinking condemnation itself. The word damnation we now apply, in common language, exclusively to the future and final punishment of the wicked in hell. But the word here used does not of necessity refer to that; and, according to our use' of the word now, there is a harshness and severity in our translation which the Greek does not require, and which probably was not conveyed by the word "damnation" when the translation was made. In the margin it is correctly rendered "judgment." The word here used (krima) properly denotes judgment; the result of judging, that is, a sentence; then a sentence by which one is condemned, or condemnation; and then punishment. See Ro 3:8; 13:2. It has evidently the sense of judgment here; and means that, by their improper manner of observing this ordinance, they would expose themselves to the Divine displeasure, and to punishment. And it refers, I think, to the punishment or judgment which the apostle immediately specifies, 1 Co 11:30,32. It means a manifestation of the Divine displeasure which might be evinced in this life; and which, in the case of the Corinthians, was manifested in the judgments which God had brought upon them. It cannot be denied, however, that a profane and intentionally irreverent manner of observing the Lord's Supper will meet with the Divine displeasure in the eternal world, and aggravate the doom of those who are guilty of it. But it is clear that this was not the punishment which the apostle had here in his eye. This is apparent,

(1.) because the Corinthians did eat unworthily, and yet the judgments inflicted on them were only temporal-that is, weakness, sickness, and temporal death, (1 Co 11:30;) and,

(2.) because the reason assigned for these judgments is, that they might not be condemned with the wicked; i.e., as the wicked are in hell, 1 Co 11:32.—Whitby. Comp. 1 Pe 4:17.

Not discerning the Lord's body. Not discriminating mh diakrinwn between the bread which is used on this occasion, and common and ordinary food. Not making the proper difference and distinction between this and common meals. It is evident that this was the leading offence of the Corinthians, See Barnes "1 Co 11:20,21"

and this is the proper idea which the original conveys. It does not refer to any intellectual or physical power to perceive that that bread represented the body of the Lord; not to any spiritual perception which it is often supposed that piety has to distinguish this; not to any view which faith may be supposed to have to discern the body of the Lord through the elements; but to the fact that they did not distinguish or discriminate between this and common meals. They did not regard it in a proper manner, but supposed it to be simply an historical commemoration of an event, such as they were in the habit of observing in honour of an idol or a hero by a public celebration. They, therefore, are able to "discern the Lord s body" in the sense intended here, who with a serious mind regard it as an institution appointed by the Lord Jesus to commemorate his death; and who distinguish thus between this and ordinary meals, and all festivals and feasts designed to commemorate other events. In other words, who deem it to be designed to show forth the fact that his body was broken for sill, and who desire to observe it as such. It is evident that all true Christians may have ability of this kind, and need not incur condemnation by any error in regard to this. The humblest and obscurest follower of the Saviour, with the feeblest faith and love, may regard it as designed to set forth the death of his Redeemer; and observing it thus, will meet with the Divine approbation.

{1} "drinketh damnation" "judgment" Ro 13:2

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 30

Verse 30. For this cause. On account of the improper manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper. See 1 Co 11:21.

Many are weak. Asyeneiv. Evidently referring to prevailing bodily sickness and disease. This is the natural and obvious interpretation of this passage. The sense clearly is, that God had sent among them bodily distempers as an expression of the Divine displeasure and judgment for their improper mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper. That it was not uncommon in those times for God in an extraordinary manner to visit men with calamity, sickness, or death, for their sins, is evident from the New Testament.

See Barnes "1 Co 5:5" See Barnes "Ac 5:1" and Ac 5:2-10. See Barnes "Ac 13:11" See Barnes "1 Ti 1:20, and, perhaps, See Barnes "1 Jo 5:16, and See Barnes "Jas 5:14,15.

It may possibly have been the case, that the intemperance and gluttony which prevailed on these occasions was the direct cause of no small part of the bodily disease which prevailed, and which in some cases terminated in death.

And many sleep. Have died. The death of Christians, in the Scriptures, is commonly represented under the image of sleep, Da 12:2; Joh 11:11,12; 1 Co 15:51; 1 Th 4:14; 5:10.

Perhaps it may be implied by the use of this mild term here, instead of the harsher word death, that these were true Christians. This sentiment is in accordance with all that Paul states in regard to the church at Corinth. Notwithstanding all their irregularities, he does not deny that they were sincere Christians, and all his appeals and reasonings proceed on that supposition, though there was among them much ignorance and irregularity. God often visits his own people with trial; and though they are his children, yet this does not exempt them from affliction and discipline on account of their imperfections, errors, and sins. The practical lesson taught by this is, that Christians should serve God with purity; that they should avoid sin in every form; and that the commission of sin will expose them, as well as others, to the Divine displeasure. The reason why this judgment was inflicted on the Corinthians was, that there might be a suitable impression made of the holy nature of that ordinance, and that Christians might be led to observe it in a proper manner. If it be asked whether God ever visits his people now with his displeasure for their improper manner of observing this ordinance, we may reply,

(1.) that we have no reason to suppose that he inflicts bodily diseases and corporeal punishments on account of it. But,

(2.) there is no reason to doubt that the improper observance of the Lord's Supper, like the improper observance of any other religious duty, will be followed with the expression of God's displeasure, and with a spiritual blighting on the soul. This may be evinced in the following modes:

(a.) In hardening the heart by an improper familiarity with the most sacred and solemn ordinances of religion.

(b.) Increased coldness and deadness in the service of God. If the ordinances of the gospel are not the means of making us better, they are the means of making us worse.

(c.) The loss of the favour of God, or of those pure, and spiritual, and elevated joys which we might have obtained by a proper observance of the ordinance. There is no reason to doubt that God may make it the occasion of manifesting his displeasure. It may be followed by a want of spiritual comfort and peace; by a loss of communion with God; and by a withholding of those comforts from the soul which might have been enjoyed, and which are imparted to those who observe it in a proper manner. The general principle, is, that an improper discharge of any duty will expose us to his displeasure, and to the certain loss of all those favours which might have resulted from a proper discharge of the duty, and to the tokens of the Divine displeasure. And this is as true of prayer, or of any other religious duty, as of an improper observance of the Lord's Supper.

{*} "sleep" "are dead"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 31

Verse 31. For if we would judge ourselves. If we would examine ourselves, (1 Co 11:28;) if we would exercise a strict scrutiny over our hearts, and feelings, and conduct, and come to the Lord's table with a proper spirit, we should escape the condemnation to which they are exposed who observe it in an improper manner. If we would exercise proper severity and honesty in determining our own character and fitness for the ordinance, we should not expose ourselves to the Divine displeasure.

We should not be judged. We should not be exposed to the expression of God's disapprobation. He refers here to the punishment which had come upon the Corinthians for their improper manner of observing the ordinance; and he says that if they had properly examined themselves, and had understood the nature of the ordinance, that they would have escaped the judgments that had come upon them. This is as true now as it was then. If we wish to escape the Divine displeasure; if we wish the communion to be followed with joy, and peace, and growth in grace, and not with blighting and spiritual barrenness, we should exercise a severe judgment on our character, and feelings, and motives; and should come to it with a sincere desire to honour Christ, and to advance in the Divine life.

{a} "we would judge" Ps 32:5; 1 Jo 1:9

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 32

Verse 32. But when we are judged. This is added, evidently, to console those who had been afflicted on account of their improper manner of observing the Lord's Supper. The sense is, that though they were thus afflicted by God; though he had manifested his displeasure at the manner in which they had observed the ordinance, yet the Divine judgment in the case was not inexorable. They were not regarded by God as wholly strangers to piety, and would not be lost for ever. They should not be alarmed, therefore, as if there was no mercy for them; but they should rather regard their calamities as the chastening of the Lord on his own children, and as designed for their salvation.

We are chastened of the Lord. It is his act; and it is not vengeance and wrath; but it is to be regarded as the chastisement of a father's hand, in order that We should not be condemned with the wicked. We are under the discipline (paideuomeya) of the Lord; we are dealt with as children, and are corrected as by the hand of a father. Compare Heb 12:5-10; 2 Co 6:9. The design of God's correcting his children is, that they should be reclaimed, and not destroyed.

That we should not be condemned with the world. It is implied here,

(1.) that the world—those who were not Christians—would be condemned;

(2.) that Paul regarded the Corinthians, whom he addressed, and who had even been guilty of this improper manner of observing the Lord's Supper, and who had been punished for it, as true Christians; and,

(3.) that the purpose which God had in view in inflicting these judgments on them was, that they might be purified, and enlightened, and recovered from their errors, and saved. This is the design of God in the calamities and judgments which he brings on his own children. And so now, if he afflicts us, or leave us to darkness, or follows the communion with the tokens of his displeasure, it is that we may be recovered to a deeper sense of our need of him; to juster views of the ordinance; and to a more earnest wish to obtain his favour.

{b} "we are chastened" Ps 94:12,13; Heb 12:5-11

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 33

Verse 33. When ye come together to eat. Professedly to eat the Lord's Supper.

Tarry one for another. Do not be guilty of disorder, intemperance, and gluttony. See Barnes "1 Co 11:21".

Doddridge understands this of the feast that he supposes to have preceded the Lord's Supper. But the more obvious interpretation is, to refer it to the Lord's Supper itself; and to enjoin perfect order, respect, and sobriety. The idea is, that the table was common for the rich and the poor; and that the rich should claim no priority or precedence over the poor.

{*} "tarry" "wait"

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11 - Verse 34

Verse 34. And if any man hunger, etc. The Lord's Supper is not a common feast; it is not designed as a place where a man may gratify his appetite. It is designed as a simple commemoration, and not as a feast. This remark was designed to correct their views of the Supper, and to show them that it was to be distinguished from the ordinary idea of a feast or festival.

That ye come not together unto condemnation. That the effect of your coming together for the observance of the Lord's Supper be not to produce condemnation. See Barnes "1 Co 11:29".

And the rest will I set in order, etc. Probably he refers here to other matters on which he had been consulted; or other things which he knew required to be adjusted. The other matters pertaining to the order and discipline of the church I will defer until I can come among you, and personally arrange them. It is evident from this, that Paul at this time purposed soon to go to Corinth. See 2 Co 1:15,16. It was doubtless true that there might be many things which it was desirable to adjust in the church there, which could not be so well done by letter. The main things, therefore, which it was needful to correct immediately, he had discussed in this letter; the other matters he reserved to be arranged by himself when he should go among them. Paul was disappointed in his expectations of returning among them as soon as he had intended, (see 2 Co 1:17,) and under this disappointment he forwarded to them another epistle. If all Christians would follow implicitly his directions here in regard to the Lord's Supper, it would be an ordinance full of comfort. May all so understand its nature, and so partake of it, that they shall meet the approbation of their Lord, and so that it may be the means of saving grace to their souls.

{1} "unto condemnation" "judgment"