         
• Key
Chapter 11
- The apostle reprehends the Corinthians for several
irregularities in their manner of conducting public
worship; the men praying or prophesying with their
heads covered, and the women with their heads
uncovered, contrary to custom, propriety, and
decency, 1-6.
- Reasons why they should act
differently, 7-16.
- They are also reproved for their
divisions and heresies, 17-19.
- And for the irregular
manner in which they celebrated the Lord's Supper,
20-22.
- The proper manner of celebrating this holy rite laid
down by the apostle, 23-26.
- Directions for a
profitable receiving of the Lord's Supper, and avoiding
the dangerous consequences of communicating
unworthily, 27-34.
Notes on Chapter 11
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 1. Be ye followers of
me
This verse certainly belongs to the
preceding chapter, and is here out of all proper place and
connection.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 2. That ye remember me in all
things
It appears that the apostle had
previously given them a variety of directions relative to the
matters mentioned here; that some had paid strict attention to
them, and that others had not; and that contentions and
divisions were the consequences, which he here reproves and
endeavours to rectify. While Paul and Apollos had preached
among them, they had undoubtedly prescribed every thing that
was necessary to be observed in the Christian worship: but it
is likely that those who joined in idol festivals wished also
to introduce something relative to the mode of conducting the
idol worship into the Christian assembly, which they might
think was an improvement on the apostle's plan.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 3. The head of every man is
Christ
The apostle is speaking particularly
of Christianity and its ordinances: Christ is the
Head or Author of this religion; and is the creator,
preserver, and Lord of every man. The man also
is the lord or head of the woman; and the
Head or Lord of Christ, as Mediator between
God and man, is God the Father. Here is the
order-God sends his Son Jesus Christ to redeem man;
Christ comes and lays down his life for the world; every man
who receives Christianity confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father; and every believing woman will
acknowledge, according to Genesis
3:16, that God has placed her in a dependence on and
subjection to the man. So far there is no difficulty in this
passage.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 4. Praying, or
prophesying
Any person who engages in
public acts in the worship of God, whether prayer, singing, or
exhortation: for we learn, from the apostle himself, that
οτοις,
, to prophesy, signifies to speak unto
men to edification, exhortation, and comfort, 1 Corinthians
14:3. And this comprehends all that we understand by
exhortation, or even preaching.
Having his head
covered
With his cap or turban on,
dishonoureth his head; because the head being covered
was a sign of subjection; and while he was employed in the
public ministration of the word, he was to be considered as a
representative of Christ, and on this account his being
veiled or covered would be improper. This decision of the
apostle was in point blank hostility to the canons of the
Jews; for they would not suffer a man to pray unless he was
veiled, for which they gave this reason. "He should
veil himself to show that he is ashamed before God, and
unworthy with open face to behold him." See much in
Lightfoot on this point.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 5.
But every woman that prayeth, the meaning of
praying and prophesying, in respect to the
man, they have precisely the same meaning in respect to
the woman. So that some women at least, as well as some
men, might speak to others to edification, and
exhortation, and comfort. And this kind of
prophesying or teaching was predicted by Joel, Joel
2:28, and referred to by Peter, Acts
2:17. And had there not been such gifts bestowed on
women, the prophecy could not have had its fulfilment.
The only difference marked by the apostle was, the man had his
head uncovered, because he was the
representative of Christ; the woman had hers
covered, because she was placed by the order of God in
a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a
custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the
Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen
abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common
custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes
go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public
without a veil, she would dishonour her head-her
husband. And she must appear like to those women who
had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or
adultery.
Tacitus informs us, Germ. 19, that,
considering the greatness of the population, adulteries were
very rare among the Germans; and when any woman was found
guilty she was punished in the following way: accisis
crinibus, nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo
maritus; "having cut off her hair, and stripped her before
her relatives, her husband turned her out of doors." And we
know that the woman suspected of adultery was ordered by the
law of Moses to be stripped of her veil, Numbers
5:18. Women reduced to a state of servitude, or slavery,
had their hair cut off: so we learn from Achilles
Tatius. Clitophon says, concerning Leucippe, who was
reduced to a state of slavery: (. . . ρας). lib. viii.
cap. 6, "she was sold for a slave, she dug in the ground, and
her hair being shorn off, her head was deprived of its
ornament," their hair in time of mourning. See Euripides in
Alcest., ver. 426. Admetus, ordering a common mourning
for his wife Alcestis, says:
(. . . ολη). "I order a general mourning for this woman!
let the hair be shorn off, and a black garment put on."
Propriety and decency of conduct are the points which the
apostle seems to have more especially in view. As a woman who
dresses loosely or fantastically, even in the
present day, is considered a disgrace to her husband,
because suspected to be not very sound in her morals;
so in those ancient times, a woman appearing without a veil
would be considered in the same light.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 6. For if the woman be not
covered
If she will not wear a veil in the
public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a
public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be
shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy,
then let her be covered-let her by all means
wear a veil. Even in mourning it was considered disgraceful to
be obliged to shear off the hair; and lest they should lose
this ornament of their heads, the women contrived to evade the
custom, by cutting off the ends of it only.
Euripides, in Orest., ver. 128, speaking of
Helen, who should have shaved her head on account of the death
of her sister Clytemnestra, says:
(. . . γυνη):
"see how she cuts off only the very points of her hair, that
she may preserve her beauty, and is just the same woman as
before." See the note on the preceding verse.
In Hindostan a woman cuts off her hair at the
death of her husband, as a token of widowhood; but this
is never performed by a married woman, whose hair is
considered an essential ornament. The veil of
the Hindoo women is nothing more than the garment
brought over the face, which is always very carefully done by
the higher classes of women when they appear in the
streets.-Ward's Customs.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 7. A man indeed ought not to
cover his head
He should not wear his
cap or turban in the public congregation, for
this was a badge of servitude, or an indication that he had a
conscience overwhelmed with guilt; and besides, it was
contrary to the custom that prevailed, both among the Greeks
and Romans.
He is the image and glory of
God
He is God's vicegerent in this lower
world; and, by the authority which he has received from
his Master, he is his representative among the
creatures, and exhibits, more than any other part of the
creation, the glory and perfections of the
Creator.
But the woman is the glory of the
man.
As the man is, among the creatures,
the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so
that the fear of him and the dread of him are on every beast
of the field, so the woman is, in the house and family, the
representative of the power and authority of the man. I
believe this to be the meaning of the apostle; and that he is
speaking here principally concerning power and
authority, and skill to use them. It is certainly not
the moral image of God, nor his celestial glory,
of which he speaks in this verse.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 8. For, the man is not of the
woman
Bishop Pearce translates
οτοις,
, thus: "For the man
doth not BELONG to the woman, but the woman to the man." And
vindicates this sense of εκ, by its use in 1 Corinthians
12:15. If the foot shall say, οτοις,
, I not
of the body, i.e. I do not belong to the body. He observes
that as the verb εστιν is in the present tense, and
will not allow that we should understand this verse of
something that is past, γαρ, for, in the following
verse, which is unnoticed by our translators, will have its
full propriety and meaning, because it introduces a reason
why the woman belongs to the man and not the man to the
woman. His meaning is, that the man does not belong to the
woman, as if she was the principal; but the woman
belongs to the man in that view.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 9.
Neither was the man created, οτοις,
. for the man was
not created upon the woman's account. The reason is plain from
what is mentioned above; and from the original creation of
woman she was made for the man, to be his proper or
suitable helper.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 10.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on
her head because of the
angels.
There are few portions in the
sacred writings that have given rise to such a variety of
conjectures and explanations, and are less understood, than
this verse, and 1 Corinthians
15:29. Our translators were puzzled with it; and have
inserted here one of the largest marginal readings found any
where in their work; but this is only on the words power on
her head, which they interpret thus: that is, a
covering, in sign that she is under the power of her
husband. But, admitting this marginal reading to be a
satisfactory solution so far as it goes, it by no means
removes all the difficulty. Mr. Locke ingenuously acknowledged
that he did not understand the meaning of the words; and
almost every critic and learned man has a different
explanation. Some have endeavoured to force out a
meaning by altering the text. The emendation of Mr.
Toup, of Cornwall, is the most remarkable: he reads οτοις,
,
going out, instead of εξουσιαν, power; wherefore
the woman, when she goes out, should have a veil on
her head. Whatever ingenuity there may appear in this
emendation, the consideration that it is not acknowledged by
any MS., or version, or primitive writer, is sufficient
proof against it. Dr. Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Bishop
Pearce, have written best on the subject, in which they allow
that there are many difficulties. The latter contends, 1. That
the original should be read, Wherefore the woman ought to
have A power upon her head, that is, the
power of the husband over the wife; the word power
standing for the sign or token of that power
which was a covering or veil. Theophylact
explains the word, οτοις,
, "the symbol of being
under power, that is, a veil, or covering." And
Photius explains it thus:
(. . . ν); to wear a
veil on the head is a symbol of subjection. It is no
unusual thing, in the Old and New Testament, for the
signs and tokens of things to be called by the
names of the things themselves, for thus
circumcision is called the covenant, in Genesis
17:10,13, though it was only the sign of it.
2. The word angels presents another difficulty. Some
suppose that by these the apostle means the fallen
angels, or devils; others, the governors of the
Church; and others, those who were deputed among
the Jews to espouse a virgin in the name of a lover.
All these senses the learned bishop rejects, and believes that
the apostle uses the word angels, in its most obvious
sense, for the heavenly angels; and that he speaks according
to the notion which then prevailed among Jews, that the holy
angels interested themselves in the affairs of men, and
particularly were present in their religious assemblies, as
the cherubim, their representation, were present in their
temple. Thus we read in Ecclesiastes
5:6: Neither say thou before the ANGEL, it was
an error; and in 1 Timothy
5:21: I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the elect ANGELS, to the Jews, Josephus, War,
b. ii. chap. 16: I protest before God, your holy
temple, and all the ANGELS of heaven, passages
suppose, or were spoken to those who supposed,
that the angels know what passes here upon earth. The notion,
whether just or not, prevailed among the Jews; and if so, St.
Paul might speak according to the common opinion.
3. Another difficulty lies in the phrase οτοις,
,
wherefore, which shows that this verse is a
conclusion from what the apostle was arguing before;
which we may understand thus: that his conclusion, from the
foregoing argument, ought to have the more weight, upon
account of the presence, real or supposed, of the holy angels,
at their religious meetings. See Bishop Pearce, in loc.
The learned bishop is not very willing to allow that the
doctrine of the presence of angelic beings in religious
assemblies is legitimate; but what difficulty can there be in
this, if we take the words of the apostle in another place:
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to
minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Hebrews
1:14. And perhaps there is no time in which they can
render more essential services to the followers of God than
when they are engaged in Divine ordinances. On the whole, the
bishop's sense of the passage and paraphrase stands thus: "And
because of this superiority in the man, I conclude that the
woman should have on her head a veil, the mark of her
husband's power over her, especially in the religious
assemblies, where the angels are supposed to be invisibly
present."
The ancient versions make little alteration in the common
reading, and the MSS. leave the verse nearly as it stands in
the common printed editions. The Armenian has a word that
answers to umbram, a shade or covering. The
AEthiopic, her head should be veiled. The common
editions of the Vulgate have potestatem, power; but in
an ancient edition of the Vulgate, perhaps one of the first,
if not the first, ever printed, 2 vols. fol., sine
ulla nota anni, Ideo debet mulier velamen
habere super caput suum: et propter angelos. My old MS.
translation seems to have been taken from a MS. which had the
same reading: Wherefore the woman schal haue a veyl on her
heuyd; and for aungels. Some copies of the
Itala have also velamen, a veil.
In his view of this text, Kypke differs from all
others; and nothing that so judicious a critic advances should
be lightly regarded. 1. He contends that οτοις,
occurs
nowhere in the sense of veil, and yet he supposes that
the word καλυμμα, veil is understood, and must in the
translation of the passage be supplied. 2. He directs that a
comma be placed after εξουσιαν, and that it be construed with
οφειλει, ought; after which he translates the verse
thus: Propterea mulier potestati obnoxia est, ita ut
velamen in capite habeat propter angelos; On this account
the woman is subject to power, so that she should have a veil
on her head, because of the angels. 3. He contends that both
the Latins and Greeks use debere and οφειλειν elegantly
to express that to which one is obnoxious or
liable. So Horace:-
---- Tu, nisi ventis Debes ludibrium, cave. Carm.
lib. i. Od. xiv. ver. 15.
Take heed lest thou owe a laughing stock to
the winds; i.e. lest thou become the
sport of the winds; for to these thou art now
exposing thyself.
So Dionys. Hal. Ant. lib. iii., page 205:
(. . . ρας). They departed
from the market, exposed to great dishonour. So
Euripides, I am exposed to
thy injury.
4. He contends that the words taken in this sense agree
perfectly with the context, and with,
wherefore, in this verse, "Because the man was not
created for the woman, but the woman for the man,
therefore she is subject to his authority, and should
have a veil on her head as a token of that subjection; and
particularly before the holy angels, who are present in the
congregations of the saints."
For Dr. Lightfoot's opinion, that by angels we are
to understand the paranymphs, or messengers who came on
the part of others, to look out for proper spouses for their
friends, I must refer to his works, vol. ii. fol., p. 772. The
reader has now before him every thing that is likely to cast
light on this difficult subject, and he must either adopt what
he judges to be best, or else think for himself.
After all, the custom of the Nazarite may cast some
light upon this place. As Nazarite means one who has
separated himself by vow to some religious austerity,
wearing his own hair, so a married woman was considered
a Nazarite for life; i.e. separated from all others,
and joined to one husband, who is her lord: and
hence the apostle, alluding to this circumstance, says, The
woman ought to have power on her head, i.e. wear
her hair and veil, for her hair is a
proof of her being a Nazarite, and of her subjection to
her husband, as the Nazarite was under subjection to
the Lord, according to the rule or law of his order. See
Clarke's notes on Numbers
6:5-7.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 11. Neither is the man
without the woman
The apostle seems to say:
I do not intimate any disparagement of the female sex,
by insisting on the necessity of her being under the power or
authority of the man; for they are both equally dependent on
each other, in the Lord, οτοις,
: but instead of this
reading, Theodoret has εντωκοσμω, in the world.
Probably the apostle means that the human race is continued by
an especial providence of God. Others think that he means that
men and women equally make a Christian society, and in it have
equal rights and privileges.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 12. For as the woman is of the
man
For as the woman was first formed out
of the side of man, man has ever since been formed out of the
womb of the woman; but they, as all other created things, are
of God.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 13. Judge in
yourselves
Consider the subject in
your own common sense, and then say whether it be
decent for a woman to pray in public without a veil on her
head? The heathen priestesses prayed or delivered their
oracles bare-headed or with dishevelled hair, non comptae
mansere comae, as in the case of the Cumaean Sibyl, AEn.
vi., ver. 48, and otherwise in great disorder: to be conformed
to them would be very disgraceful to Christian women.
And in reference to such things as these, the apostle appeals
to their sense of honour and decency.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 14. Doth not-nature-teach you,
that, if a man have long hair
Nature
certainly teaches us, by bestowing it, that it is proper for
women to have long hair; and it is not so with men. The hair
of the male rarely grows like that of a female, unless
art is used, and even then it bears but a scanty
proportion to the former. Hence it is truly womanish to
have long hair, and it is a shame to the man who affects it.
In ancient times the people of Achaia, the province in which
Corinth stood, and the Greeks in general, were noted for their
long hair; and hence called by Homer, in a great
variety of places, οτοις,
, the
long-haired Greeks, or Achaeans. Soldiers, in
different countries, have been distinguished for their long
hair; but whether this can be said to their praise or
blame, or whether Homer uses it always as a term of
respect, when he applies it to the Greeks, I shall not wait
here to inquire. Long hair was certainly not in repute
among the Jews. The Nazarites let their hair grow, but it was
as a token of humiliation; and it is possible that St.
Paul had this in view. There were consequently two reasons why
the apostle should condemn this practice:-1. Because it was a
sign of humiliation; 2. Because it was womanish.
After all it is possible that St. Paul may refer to
dressed, frizzled and curled hair, which
shallow and effeminate men might have affected in that
time, as they do in this. Perhaps there is not a
sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a
high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the
operator must have taken considerable pains, and the
silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting
to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and
degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and
they will inform you, that if a man have long hair,
it is a shame unto him.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 15. But if a woman have long
hair
The Author of their being has given a
larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of
men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in
various cases serve as a veil.
It is a certain fact that a man's long hair renders him
contemptible, and a woman's long hair renders her more
amiable. Nature and the apostle speak the same
language; we may account for it as we please.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 16. But if any man seem to be
contentious
οτοις,
.
If any person sets himself up as a wrangler-puts
himself forward as a defender of such points, that a
woman may pray or teach with her head uncovered, and
that a man may, without reproach, have long
hair; let him know that we have no such custom as either,
nor are they sanctioned by any of the Churches of God, whether
among the Jews or the Gentiles. We have already
seen that the verb δοκειν, which we translate to seem,
generally strengthens and increases the sense. From the
attention that the apostle has paid to the subject of
veils and hair, it is evident that it must have
occasioned considerable disturbance in the Church of Corinth.
They have produced evil effects in much later times.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 17. Now in this-I praise you
not
In the beginning of this epistle the
apostle did praise them for their attention in general
to the rules he had laid down, see 1 Corinthians
11:2; but here he is obliged to condemn certain
irregularities which had crept in among them, particularly
relative to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Through some
false teaching which they had received, in the absence of the
apostle, they appear to have celebrated it precisely in the
same way the Jews did their passover. That, we know,
was a regular meal, only accompanied with certain peculiar
circumstances and ceremonies: two of these ceremonies were,
eating bread, solemnly broken, and drinking a cup of wine
called the cup of blessing. Now, it is certain that our Lord
has taken these two things, and made them expressive of the
crucifixion of his body, and the shedding
of his blood, as an atonement for the sins of mankind.
The teachers which had crept into the Corinthian Church appear
to have perverted the whole of this Divine institution; for
the celebration of the Lord's Supper appears to have been made
among them a part of an ordinary meal. The people came
together, and it appears brought their provisions with them;
some had much, others had less; some ate to excess, others had
scarcely enough to suffice nature. One was hungry, and
the other was drunken, μεθυει, was filled to the
full; this is the sense of the word in many places of
Scripture. At the conclusion of this irregular meal they
appear to have done something in reference to our Lord's
institution, but more resembling the Jewish passover. These
irregularities, connected with so many indecencies, the
apostle reproves; for, instead of being benefited by
the Divine ordinance, they were injured; they came
together not for the better, but for the worse.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 18. There be divisions among
you
They had οτοις,
, schisms,
among them: the old parties were kept up, even in the place
where they assembled to eat the Lord's Supper. The
Paulians, the Kephites, and the Apollonians, continued to be
distinct parties; and ate their meals separately, even in the
same house.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 19. There must be also
heresies
οτοις,
. Not a common
consent of the members of the Church, either in the
doctrines of the Gospel, or in the ceremonies of
the Christian religion. Their difference in religious
opinion led to a difference in their religious
practice, and thus the Church of God, that should have
been one body, was split into sects and parties. The
divisions and the heresies sprung out of each
other. I have spoken largely on the word heresy in Acts
5:17, to which place I beg leave to refer the reader.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 20. This is not to eat the
Lord's Supper.
They did not come together
to eat the Lord's Supper exclusively, which they should
have done, and not have made it a part of an ordinary
meal.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 21. Every one taketh
before-his own supper
They had a grand
feast, though the different sects kept in parties by
themselves; but all took as ample a supper as they could
provide, (each bringing his own provisions with him,) before
they took what was called the Lord's Supper. See Clarke
on 1 Corinthians
11:17.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat
and to drink in?
They should have taken
their ordinary meal at home, and have come together in
the church to celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Despise ye the church of
God
Ye render the sacred assembly and the
place contemptible by your conduct, and ye show yourselves
destitute of that respect which ye owe to the place set apart
for Divine worship.
And shame them that have
not?
οτοις,
, Them that are
poor; not them who had not victuals at that
time, but those who are so poor as to be incapable of
furnishing themselves as others had done. See Clarke on Matthew
13:12.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 23. I have received of the
Lord
It is possible that several of the
people at Corinth did receive the bread and wine of the
eucharist as they did the paschal bread and wine, as a mere
commemoration of an event. And as our Lord had by this
institution consecrated that bread and wine, not to be the
means of commemorating the deliverance from Egypt, and their
joy on the account, but their deliverance from sin and death
by his passion and cross; therefore the apostle states that he
had received from the Lord what he delivered; viz. that
the eucharistic bread and wine were to be understood of the
accomplishment of that of which the paschal lamb was the
type-the body broken for them, the blood shed for them.
The Lord Jesus-took
bread
See the whole of this account,
collated with the parallel passages in the four Gospels, amply
explained in my Discourse on the Eucharist, and in the
notes on Matt. 26.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 24. This do in remembrance of
me.
The papists believe the apostles were
not ordained priests before these words. Si quis dixerit,
illis verbis, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non
instituisse apostolos sacerdotes, anathema sit: "If any one
shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of me,'
Christ did not ordain his apostles priests, let him be
accursed." Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Conc. 2. And he that does
believe such an absurdity, on such a ground, is contemptible.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 26. Ye do show the Lord 's
death
As in the passover they showed forth
the bondage they had been in, and the redemption they had
received from it; so in the eucharist they showed forth the
sacrificial death of Christ, and the redemption from sin
derived from it.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 27. Whosoever shall eat-and
drink-unworthily
To put a final end to
controversies and perplexities relative to these words and the
context, let the reader observe, that to eat and
drink the bread and wine in the Lord's
Supper unworthily, is to eat and drink as the
Corinthians did, who ate it not in reference to Jesus Christ's
sacrificial death; but rather in such a way as the Israelites
did the passover, which they celebrated in remembrance of
their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Likewise, these
mongrel Christians at Corinth used it as a kind of historical
commemoration of the death of Christ; and did not, in the
whole institution, discern the Lord's body and blood as a
sacrificial offering for sin: and besides, in their
celebration of it they acted in a way utterly unbecoming the
gravity of a sacred ordinance. Those who acknowledge it as a
sacrificial offering, and receive it in remembrance of God's
love to them in sending his Son into the world, can neither
bring damnation upon themselves by so doing, nor eat
nor drink unworthily. See our translation of this verse
vindicated at the end of the chapter. See Clarke on 1 Corinthians
11:34.
Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. If he
use it irreverently, if he deny that Christ suffered unjustly,
(for of some such persons the apostle must be understood to
speak,) then he in effect joins issue with the Jews in their
condemnation and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, and renders
himself guilty of the death of our blessed Lord. Some,
however, understand the passage thus: is guilty, i.e.
eats and drinks unworthily, and brings on himself that
punishment mentioned 1 Corinthians
11:30.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 28. Let a man examine
himself
Let him try whether he has proper
faith in the Lord Jesus; and whether he discerns the Lord's
body; and whether he duly considers that the bread and
wine point out the crucified body and spilt blood of
Christ.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 29. Eateth and drinketh
damnation
οτοις,
, Judgment,
punishment; and yet this is not unto damnation,
for the judgment or punishment inflicted upon the disorderly
and the profane was intended for their emendation; for
in 1 Corinthians
11:32, it is said, then we are judged, οτοις,
,
we are chastened, παιδευμεθα, corrected as a father does his
children, that we should not be condemned with the
world.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 30. For this
cause
That they partook of this sacred
ordinance without discerning the Lord's body; many are weak
and sickly: it is hard to say whether these words
refer to the consequences of their own intemperance or to some
extraordinary disorders inflicted immediately by God himself.
That there were disorders of the most reprehensible kind among
these people at this sacred supper, the preceding verses
sufficiently point out; and after such excesses, many might be
weak and sickly among them, and many
might sleep, i.e. die; for continual experience
shows us that many fall victims to their own
intemperance. How ever, acting as they did in this solemn and
awful sacrament, they might have "provoked God to plague them
with divers diseases and sundry kinds of death." Communion
service.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 31. If we would judge
ourselves
If, having acted improperly, we
condemn our conduct and humble ourselves, we shall not be
judged, i.e. punished for the sin we have
committed.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 32. But when we are
judged
See Clarke on 1 Corinthians
11:29.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 33. When ye come together to
eat
The Lord's Supper, tarry one for
another-do not eat and drink in parties as ye have
done heretofore; and do not connect it with any other meal.
• AC Top
JFB
Verse 34. And if any man
hunger
Let him not come to the house of God
to eat an ordinary meal, let him eat at home-take that
in his own house which is necessary for the support of his
body before he comes to that sacred repast, where he should
have the feeding of his soul alone in view.
That ye come not together unto
condemnation
That ye may avoid the
curse that must fall on such worthless communicants as
those above mentioned; and that ye may get that especial
blessing which every one that discerns the Lord's body
in the eucharist must receive.
The rest will I set in order, relative to this
business, to which you have referred in your letter, I will
regulate when I come to visit you; as, God permitting, I fully
design. The apostle did visit them about one year after this,
as is generally believed.
I HAVE already been so very particular in this long and
difficult chapter, that I have left neither room nor necessity
for many supplementary observations. A few remarks are all
that is requisite.
1. The apostle inculcates the necessity of order and
subjection, especially in the Church. Those who are
impatient of rule, are generally those who wish
to tyrannize. And those who are loudest in their
complaints against authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical,
are those who wish to have the power in their own hands, and
would infallibly abuse it if they had. They alone who are
willing to obey, are capable of rule; and he who
can rule well, is as willing to obey as to
govern. Let all be submissive and orderly; let the
woman know that the man is head and protector; let the man
know that Christ is his head and redeemer, and the gift of
God's endless mercy for the salvation of a lost world.
2. The apostle insisted on the woman having her head
covered in the Church or Christian assembly. If he saw the
manner in which Christian women now dress, and appear in the
ordinances of religion, what would he think? What would he
say? How could he even distinguish the Christian from
the infidel? And if they who are in Christ are new
creatures, and the persons who ordinarily appear in
religious assemblies are really new creatures (as they
profess in general to be) in Christ, he might reasonably
inquire: If these are new creatures, what must have
been their appearance when they were old creatures. Do
we dress to be seen? And do we go to the house of God
to exhibit ourselves? Wretched is that man or woman who goes
to the house of God to be seen by any but God himself.
3. The Lord's Supper may be well termed the feast of
charity; how unbecoming this sacred ordinance to be the
subject of dispute, party spirit, and division! Those who make
it such must answer for it to God. Every man who believes in
Christ as his atoning sacrifice should, as frequently as he
can, receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And every
minister of Christ is bound to administer it to every man who
is seeking the salvation of his soul, as well as to all
believers. Let no man dare to oppose this ordinance;
and let every man receive it according to the institution of
Christ.
4. Against the fidelity of our translation of 1 Corinthians
11:27of this chapter, Whosoever shall eat this
bread, AND drink this cup unworthily,
several popish writers have made heavy complaints, and accused
the Protestants of wilful corruption; as both the Greek
and Vulgate texts, instead of και and et, AND,
have η and vel, OR: Whosoever shall eat this
bread, OR drink this cup. As this criticism is made
to countenance their unscriptural communion in one
kind, it may be well to examine the ground of the
complaint. Supposing even this objection to be valid, their
cause can gain nothing by it while the 26th and 28th verses
stand, both in the Greek text and Vulgate, as they now do:
For as often as ye eat this bread, AND drink
this cup, Let him eat of that bread, AND drink
of that cup. But although η, OR, be the reading of the
common printed text, και AND, is the reading of the
Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex
Claromontanus, two of the best MSS. in the world: as also
of the Codex Lincolniensis, 2, and the Codex
Petavianus, 3, both MSS. of the first character: it is
also the reading of the ancient Syriac, all the
Arabic, the Coptic, the margin of the later
Syriac, the AEthiopic, different MSS. of the
Vulgate, and of one in my own possession; and of
Clemens Chromatius, and Cassiodorus.
Though the present text of the Vulgate has vel, OR, yet
this is a departure from the original
editions, which were all professedly taken from the
best MSS. In the famous Bible with out date,
place, or printer's name, 2 vols. fol., two
columns, and forty-five lines in each, supposed by many to be
the first Bible ever printed, the text stands
thus: Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem, ET
biberit calicem, Wherefore whosoever shall
eat this bread AND drink this cup, vel, OR.
The Bible printed by Fust, 1462, the first Bible with a
date, has the same reading. Did the Protestants
corrupt these texts? In the editio princeps of the
Greek Testament, printed by the authority of Cardinal
Ximenes at Complutum, and published by the authority of
Pope Leo X., though η, OR, stands in the Greek text;
yet, in the opposite column, which contains the
Vulgate, and in the opposite line, ET, and, is
found, and not VEL, or; though the Greek text would
have authorized the editor to have made this change: but he
conscientiously preserved the text of his Vulgate. Did
the Protestants corrupt this Catholic text also?
Indeed, so little design had any of those who differed from
the Romish Church to make any alteration here, that even
Wiclif, having a faulty MS. of the Vulgate by him, which read
vel instead of et, followed that faulty MS. and
translated, And so who ever schal ete the breed or
drinke the cup.
That και, AND, is the true reading, and not η,
or, both MSS. and versions sufficiently prove:
also that et, not vels is the proper reading in
the Vulgate, those original editions formed by Roman
Catholics, and one of them by the highest authority in the
papal Church, fully establish: likewise those MSS., versions,
fathers, and original editions, must be allowed to be, not
only competent, but also unsuspected and incontrovertible
witnesses.
But as this objection to our translation is brought forward
to vindicate the withholding the cup from the laity in
the Lord's Supper, it may be necessary to show that without
the cup there can be no eucharist. With respect to the
bread, our Lord had simply said, Take, eat, this is
my body; but concerning the cup, he says Drink
ye all of this; for as this pointed out the very
essence of the institution, viz. the blood of
atonement, it was necessary that each should have a
particular application of it, therefore he says, Drink ye ALL
of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is
essential to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; so that they
who deny the cup to the people, sin against
God's institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not
partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could
without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the
bread; but the cup as pointing out the blood
poured out, i.e. the life, by which alone the great
sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured,
is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is
demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven,
who denies the cup to the people, (and they all do this,) that
can be said to celebrate the Lord's Supper at all; nor is
there one of their votaries that ever received the holy
sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce so long
as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied.
How strange is it that the very men who plead so much for the
bare, literal meaning of this is my body, in the
preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink ye all of
this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has, in
the most positive manner, enjoined it, they will not permit
one of the laity to taste it! See the whole of this argument,
at large, in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the
Eucharist.
• AC Top
Top of SRB References ^
Top of JFB Comentary ^
Top Of Adam Clarke Commentary ^
Top of Page ^
Copyright Statement
The Adam Clarke Commentary is a derivative of an
electronic edition prepared by GodRules.net.
Bibliography
Information
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary
on 1 Corinthians 11". "The Adam Clarke Commentary".
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=011>.
1832.
|
