say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise ture. They supposed it might be a common fesyou not. tival. They had made it the occasion of great disorder. He therefore adverts to the solemn circumstances in which it was instituted; the What! This whole verse is designed to convey the language of severe rebuke for their hav-particular object which it had in view—the coming so grossly perverted the design of the Lord's supper. Have ye not houses, &c.-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, &c.-The phrase "church of God" Grotius understands of the place. But the word "church," (¿KKλnoia,) 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? &c.-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. 66 memoration 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. (Ver. 26.) By this means, the apostle evidently hoped to recall them from their irregu larities, and to bring them to a just mode of celebrating this holy ordinance. He did not, therefore, denounce them either 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 Cor. xii. 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, &c.-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 Matt. xxvi. 23-25, 48-50. 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 Paul F which was eaten on such occasions. See Note on Matt. xxvi. 26. VER. 24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in "remembrance of me. a Or, for a. And when he had given thanks, &c.-See Note on Matt. xxvi. 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 ob servance, and should thus be constantly borne in VER. 25. After the same manner also he took the 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, &c.-See Note, Matt. xxvi. 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 man disposes of his property after his death. This is also the proper classic meaning of the Greek word here used, diazýкn, (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 oven, a covenant, agreement. But it is remarkable that that word never is used by the LXX, to denote the covenant made between God and man. That translation uniformly employs for this purpose the word dia‡ýên, 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 oven is used by them but three times, (Isa. xxviii. 15; xxx. 1; Dan. xi. 6.) and in neither instance with any reference to the covenant which God is represented as making with man. The word διαθήκη, 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 LXX, was evidently in use by the apostles, and by the Jews every where. The writers of the New Testament, therefore, adopted the word as they found it; and spoke of the new dispensation as the 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 Note, Matt. xxvi. 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 expressive 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, (chap. xxii. 19;) though it does not occur in Matthew, Mark, or John. 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 any thing 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 show 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 shal! 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. VER. 27. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. d d John vi. 63, 64. Chap. x. 21. Wherefore (wore.)-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.See ver. 26. Paul 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 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, . 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 (draživç) 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, (Note on ver. 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 s 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, (ivoxoc.)-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. (Matt. v. 22. Comp. Ex. xxii. 3; xxxiv. 7. Num. xiv. 18; xxxv. 27. Lev. xx. 9. See also Deut. xix. 10. Matt. xxvi. 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.— Rosenmüller 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 that 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 hos tility 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. VER. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. e 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 1 John iii. 20, 21. But let a man examine himself.—Let him search and see if he have the proper qualifications; if he have knowledge to discern the Lord's body, (Note, ver. 29;) if he have 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 every thing 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, &c.-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, VER. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. word 66 f Judgment. Rom. xiii. 2. For he that eateth, &c.-In order to excite them to a deeper reverence to 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. ver. 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 coudemnation itself. The 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, (piua,) 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 Rom. iii. 8; xiii. 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. (Ver. 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, (ver. 30;) and, (2.) Because the reason assigned for these judgments is, that they might not be condemned with the wicked; i. ¿. as the wicked are in hell. (Ver. 32.)-Whitby, Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 17. Not discerning the Lord's body,-Not discriminating (un dakgiver) 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 Notes, ver. 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 sin, 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. VER. 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For this cause.-On account of the improper manner of celebrating the Lord's supper. See ver. 21. Many are weak, (aoJevtic.)—Evidently referring to prevailing bodily sickness and disThis is the natural and obvious interpretation of this passage. The sense clearly is, ease. |