Chapter 11
In this chapter the apostle blames, and endeavours to
rectify, some great indecencies and manifest disorders in the church of
Corinth; as, I. The misconduct of their women (some of whom seem to have been
inspired) in the public assembly, who laid by their veils, the common token of
subjection to their husbands in that part of the world. This behaviour he
reprehends, requires them to keep veiled, asserts the superiority of the husband,
yet so as to remind the husband that both were made for mutual help and comfort
(v. 1–16). II. He blames them for their discord and neglect and contempt of the
poor, at the Lord’s supper (v. 17–22). III. To rectify these scandalous
disorders, he sets before them the nature and intentions of this holy
institution, directs them how they should attend on it, and warns them of the
danger of a conduct to indecent as theirs, and of all unworthy receiving (v. 23
to the end).
Verses 1-16
Paul, having answered the cases put to him, proceeds in this
chapter to the redress of grievances. The first verse of the chapter is put, by
those who divided the epistle into chapters, as a preface to the rest of the
epistle, but seems to have been a more proper close to the last, in which he
had enforced the cautions he had given against the abuse of liberty, by his own
example: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (v. 1), fitly
closes his argument; and the way of speaking in the next verse looks like a
transition to another. But, whether it more properly belong to this or the last
chapter, it is plain from it that Paul not only preached such doctrine as they
ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to imitate. "Be ye
followers of me,’’ that is, "Be imitators of me; live as you see me
live.’’ Note, Ministers are likely to preach most to the purpose when they can
press their hearers to follow their example. Yet would not Paul be followed
blindly neither. He encourages neither implicit faith nor obedience. He would
be followed himself no further than he followed Christ. Christ’s pattern is a
copy without a blot; so is no man’s else. Note, We should follow no leader
further than he follows Christ. Apostles should be left by us when they deviate
from the example of their Master. He passes next to reprehend and reform an
indecency among them, of which the women were more especially guilty,
concerning which observe,
I. How he prefaces it. He begins with a commendation of what
was praiseworthy in them (v. 2): I praise you, that you remember me in all
things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. Many of them,
it is probable, did this in the strictest sense of the expression: and he takes
occasion thence to address the body of the church under this good character;
and the body might, in the main, have continued to observe the ordinances and
institutions of Christ, though in some things they deviated from, and
corrupted, them. Note, When we reprove what is amiss in any, it is very prudent
and fit to commend what is good in them; it will show that the reproof is not
from ill-will, and a humour of censuring and finding fault; and it will
therefore procure the more regard to it.
II. How he lays the foundation for his reprehension by
asserting the superiority of the man over the woman: I would have you know
that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and
the head of Christ is God. Christ, in his mediatorial character and
glorified humanity, is at the head of mankind. He is not only first of the
kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a name above every name: though in this
high office and authority he has a superior, God being his head. And as God is
the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is
the head of the tow sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the
kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he
has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man’s
place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason
she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like
an affectation of changing places. Something like this the women of the church
of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed
and prophesied even in their assemblies, v. 5. It is indeed an apostolical
canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (ch. 14:34; 1
Tim. 2:12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration
also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of
the apostle’s discourse, ch. 14. Others with a limitation: though a woman might
not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate
any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she
had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration
(because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter
hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any
affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is
plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the
manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an
unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things
are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner
wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in
this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The
manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be
concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.
III. The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying
uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it
must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for
persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the
custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being
covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to
understand,
IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension. 1. The
man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head,
namely, Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit
unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in
our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The
woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She appears in the
dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might,
with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom
of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was
desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which
God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these
prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age
of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did
not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to
change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things
is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and
introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her,
and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. If
she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made to be the glory of the
man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks like a wish of
having this order inverted. 2. Another reason against this conduct is that the
man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious
dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at
the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God.
The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v. 7): she is his
representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is
a partaker of human nature, and so far is God’s representative too, but it is
at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the
man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the
man, v. 8. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here
below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out
of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to
the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving
that honour from him out of whom she was made. 3. The woman was made for the
man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman. She was
naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use,
and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in subjection to
the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an
affectation of equality. 4. She ought to have power on her head, because of
the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power
or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and
inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering
herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen.
24:65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies,
even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that
is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the
transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. 2:14), which increased
her subjection to man, Gen. 3:16. Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix
in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their
shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil.
Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion
that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies.
Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship
of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of
divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and
satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.
V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest
the inference be carried too far (v. 11, 12): Nevertheless, neither is the
man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. They were
made for one another. It is not good for him to be alone (Gen. 2:18),
and therefore was a woman made, and made for the man; and the man was intended
to be a comfort, and help, and defence, to the woman, though not so directly
and immediately made for her. They were made to be a mutual comfort and
blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh
(Gen. 2:24), and this for the propagation of a race of mankind. They are
reciprocal instruments of each other’s production. As the woman was first
formed out of the man, the man is ever since propagated by the woman (v. 12),
all by the divine wisdom and power of the First Cause so ordaining it. The
authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such
near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God
that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not
his power.
VI. He enforces his argument from the natural covering
provided for the woman (v. 13–15): "Judge in yourselves—consult
your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests—is it comely for a woman to
pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between
the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a
distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman’s
hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to
have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.’’ Note,
It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to
make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.
VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious
to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure
the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have
them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere
authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd
and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all
the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom
in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It
was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies,
and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they
should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with
this, or lay it aside.
Verses 17-22
In this passage the apostle sharply rebukes them for much
greater disorders than the former, in their partaking of the Lord’s supper,
which was commonly done in the first ages, as the ancients tell us, with a
love-feast annexed, which gave occasion to the scandalous disorders which the
apostle here reprehends, concerning which observe,
I. The manner in which he introduces his charge: "Now
in this that I declare to you I praise you not, v. 17. I cannot commend,
but must blame and condemn you.’’ It is plain, from the beginning of the
chapter, that he was willing and pleased to commend as far as he could. But
such scandalous disorders, in so sacred an institution, as they were guilty of,
called for a sharp reprehension. They quite turned the institution against
itself. It was intended to make them better, to promote their spiritual
interests; but it really made them worse. They came together, not for the
better, but for the worse. Note, The ordinances of Christ, if they do not
make us better, will be very apt to make us worse; if they do not do our souls
good, they do us harm; if they do not melt and mend, they will harden.
Corruptions will be confirmed in us, if the proper means do not work a cure of
them.
II. He enters upon his charge against them in more
particulars than one. 1. He tells them that, upon coming together, they fell
into divisions, schisms—schismata. Instead of concurring unanimously in celebrating the
ordinance, they fell a quarrelling with one another. Note, There may be schism
where there is no separation of communion. Persons may come together in the
same church, and sit down at the same table of the Lord, and yet be
schismatics. Uncharitableness, alienation of affection, especially if it grows
up to discord, and feuds, and contentions, constitute schism. Christians may
separate from each other’s communion, and yet be uncharitable one towards another;
they may continue in the same communion, and yet be uncharitable. This latter
is schism, rather than the former. The apostle had heard a report of the
Corinthians’ divisions, and he tells them he had too much reason to believe it.
For, adds he, there must be heresies also; not only quarrels, but factions, and
perhaps such corrupt opinions as strike at the foundation of Christianity, and
all sound religion. Note, No marvel there should be breaches of Christian love
in the churches, when such offences will come as shall make shipwreck of faith
and a good conscience. Such offences must come. Note that men are necessitated
to be guilty of them; but the event is certain, and God permits them, that
those who are approved (such honest hearts as will bear the trial) may be set
to view, and appear faithful by their constant adherence to the truths and ways
of God, notwithstanding the temptations of seducers. Note, The wisdom of God
can make the wickedness and errors of others a foil to the piety and integrity
of the saints. 2. He charges them not only with discord and division, but with
scandalous disorder: For in eating every one taketh before the other his own
supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken, v. 21. Heathens used to
drink plentifully at their feasts upon their sacrifices. Many of the wealthier
Corinthians seem to have taken the same liberty at the Lord’s table, or at
least at their Agapai, or love-feasts, that were annexed to the supper.
They would not stay for one another; the rich despised the poor, and ate and
drank up the provisions they themselves brought, before the poor were allowed
to partake; and thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. This was
profaning a sacred institution, and corrupting a divine ordinance, to the last
degree. What was appointed to feed the soul was employed to feed their lusts
and passions. What should have been a bond of mutual amity and affection was
made an instrument of discord and disunion. The poor were deprived of the food
prepared for them, and the rich turned a feast of charity into a debauch. This
was scandalous irregularity.
III. The apostle lays the blame of this conduct closely on
them, 1. By telling them that their conduct perfectly destroyed the purpose and
use of such an institution: This is not to eat the Lord’s supper, v. 20.
It was coming to the Lord’s table, and not coming. They might as well have
staid away. Thus to eat the outward elements was not to eat Christ’s body.
Note, There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord’s supper which is as
none at all; it will turn to no account, but to increase guilt. Such an eating
was that of the Corinthians; their practices were a direct contradiction to the
purposes of this sacred institution. 2. Their conduct carried in it a contempt
of God’s house, or of the church, v. 22. If they had a mind to feast, they
might do it at home in their own houses; but to come to the Lord’s table, and
cabal and quarrel, and keep the poor from their share of the provision there
made for them as well as rich, was such an abuse of the ordinance, and such a
contempt of the poorer members of the church more especially, as merited a very
sharp rebuke. Such a behaviour tended much to the shame and discouragement of
the poor, whose souls were as dear to Christ, and cost him as much, as those of
the rich. Note, Common meals may be managed after a common manner, but
religious feasts should be attended religiously. Note, also, It is a heinous
evil, and severely to be censured, for Christians to treat their fellow-christians
with contempt and insolence, but especially at the Lord’s table. This is doing
what they can to pour contempt on divine ordinances. And we should look
carefully to it that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord’s table have the
appearance of contemning so sacred an institution.
Verses 23-34
To rectify these gross corruptions and irregularities, the
apostle sets the sacred institution here to view. This should be the rule in
the reformation of all abuses.
I. He tells us how he came by the knowledge of it. He was
not among the apostles at the first institution; but he had received from
the Lord what he delivered to them, v. 23. He had the knowledge of this
matter by revelation from Christ: and what he had received he communicated,
without varying from the truth a tittle, without adding or diminishing.
II. He gives us a more particular account of the institution
than we meet with elsewhere. We have here an account,
1. Of the author—our Lord Jesus Christ. The king of the
church only has power to institute sacraments.
2. The time of the institution: It was the very night
wherein he was betrayed; just as he was entering on his sufferings which
are therein to be commemorated.
3. The institution itself. Our Saviour took bread, and when
he had given thanks, or blessed (as it is in Mt. 26:26), he broke,
and said, Take, eat; this is my body, broken for you; this do in remembrance of
me. And in like manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is
the New Testament in my blood; this do, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance
of me, v. 24, 25. Here observe,
(1.) The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the
visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread
many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration.
What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the
body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their
monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter is as plainly a
part of this institution as words can make it. St. Matthew tells us, our Lord
bade them all drink of it (ch. 26:27), as if he would, by this expression, lay
in a caveat against the papists’ depriving the laity of the cup. Bread and the
cup are both made use of, because it is a holy feast. Nor is it here, or any
where, made necessary, that any particular liquor should be in the cup. In one
evangelist, indeed, it is plain that wine was the liquor used by our Saviour,
though it was, perhaps, mingled with water, according to the Jewish custom; vide
Lightfoot on Mt. 26. But this by no means renders it unlawful to have a
sacrament where persons cannot come at wine. In every place of scripture in
which we have an account of this part of the institution it is always expressed
by a figure. The cup is put for what was in it, without once specifying what
the liquor was, in the words of the institution. [2.] The things signified by
these outward signs; they are Christ’s body and blood, his body broken, his
blood shed, together with all the benefits which flow from his death and
sacrifice: it is the New Testament in his blood. His blood is the seal
and sanction of all the privileges of the new covenant; and worthy receivers
take it as such, at this holy ordinance. They have the New Testament, and their
own title to all the blessings of the new covenant, confirmed to them by his
blood.
(2.) We have here the sacramental actions, the manner in
which the materials of the sacrament are to be used. [1.] Our Saviour’s
actions, which are taking the bread and cup, giving thanks, breaking the bread,
and giving about both the one and the other. [2.] The actions of the
communicants, which were to take the bread and eat, to take the cup and drink,
and both in remembrance of Christ. But the external acts are not the whole nor
the principal part of what is to be done at this holy ordinance; each of them
has a significancy. Our Saviour, having undertaken to make an offering of
himself to God, and procure, by his death, the remission of sins, with all
other gospel benefits, for true believers, did, at the institution, deliver his
body and blood, with all the benefits procured by his death, to his disciples,
and continues to do the same every time the ordinance is administered to the
true believers. This is here exhibited, or set forth, as the food of souls. And
as food, though ever so wholesome or rich, will yield no nourishment without
being eaten, here the communicants are to take and eat, or to receive Christ
and feed upon him, his grace and benefits, and by faith convert them into
nourishment to their souls. They are to take him as their Lord and life, yield
themselves up to him, and live upon him. He is our life, Col. 3:4.
(3.) We have here an account of the ends of this
institution. [1.] It was appointed to be done in remembrance of Christ,
to keep fresh in our minds an ancient favour, his dying for us, as well as to
remember an absent friend, even Christ interceding for us, in virtue of his
death, at God’s right hand. The best of friends, and the greatest acts of
kindness, are here to be remembered, with the exercise of suitable affections
and graces. The motto on this ordinance, and the very meaning of it, is, When
this you see, remember me. [2.] It was to show forth Christ’s death,
to declare and publish it. It is not barely in remembrance of Christ, of what
he has done and suffered, that this ordinance was instituted; but to
commemorate, to celebrate, his glorious condescension and grace in our
redemption. We declare his death to be our life, the spring of all our comforts
and hopes. And we glory in such a declaration; we show forth his death, and
spread it before God, as our accepted sacrifice and ransom. We set it in view
of our own faith, for our own comfort and quickening; and we own before the
world, by this very service, that we are the disciples of Christ, who trust in
him alone for salvation and acceptance with God.
(4.) It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance,
[1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, etc.
Our bodily meals return often; we cannot maintain life and health without this.
And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often tool The ancient
churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord’s day, if not every day when they
assembled for worship. [2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till
the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for
the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our
warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord’s will that we should thus
celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own
glory, and the Father’s glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the
present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the
final sentence. Note, The Lord’s supper is not a temporary, but a standing and
perpetual ordinance.
III. He lays before the Corinthians the danger of receiving
unworthily, of prostituting this institution as they did, and using it to the
purposes of feasting and faction, with intentions opposite to its design, or a
temper of mind altogether unsuitable to it; or keeping up the covenant with sin
and death, while they are there professedly renewing and confirming their
covenant with God. 1. It is great guilt which such contract. They shall be
guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27), of violating this sacred
institution, of despising his body and blood. They act as if they counted
the blood of the covenant, wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing,
Heb. 10:29. They profane the institution, and in a manner crucify their Saviour
over again. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they are guilty of his
blood. 2. It is a great hazard which they run: They eat and drink judgment
to themselves, v. 29. They provoke God, and are likely to bring down
punishment on themselves. No doubt but they incur great guilt, and so render
themselves liable to damnation, to spiritual judgments and eternal misery.
Every sin is in its own nature damning; and therefore surely so heinous a sin
as profaning such a holy ordinance is so. And it is profaned in the grossest
sense by such irreverence and rudeness as the Corinthians were guilty of. But
fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance
by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of
damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as
all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit
never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their
duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good
Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord’s table
as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord’s body—not making a
difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a
level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would
have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to
God, and brought down his judgments on them: For this cause many are weak
and sickly among you, and many sleep. Some were punished with sickness, and
some with death. Note, A careless and irreverent receiving of the Lord’s supper
may bring temporal punishments. Yet the connection seems to imply that even
those who were thus punished were in a state of favour with God, at least many
of them: They were chastened of the Lord, that they should not be condemned
with the world, v. 32. Now divine chastening is a sign of divine love: Whom
the Lord loveth he chasteneth (Heb. 12:6), especially with so merciful a
purpose, to prevent their final condemnation. In the midst of judgment, God
remembers mercy: he frequently punishes those whom he tenderly loves. It is
kindness to use the rod to prevent the child’s ruin. He will visit such
iniquity as this under consideration with stripes, and yet make those stripes
the evidence of his lovingkindness. Those were in the favour of God who yet so
highly offended him in this instance, and brought down judgments on themselves;
at least many of them were; for they were punished by him out of fatherly
good-will, punished now that they might not perish for ever. Note, It is better
to bear trouble in this world than to be miserable to eternity. And God
punishes his people now, to prevent their eternal woe.
IV. He points out the duty of those who would come to the
Lord’s table. 1. In general: Let a man examine himself (v. 28), try and
approve himself. Let him consider the sacred intention of this holy ordinance,
its nature, and use, and compare his own views in attending on it and his
disposition of mind for it; and, when he has approved himself to his own
conscience in the sight of God, then let him attend. Such self-examination is
necessary to a right attendance at this holy ordinance. Note, Those who,
through weakness of understanding, cannot try themselves, are by no means fit
to eat of this bread and drink of this cup; nor those who, upon a fair trial,
have just ground to charge themselves with impenitency, unbelief, and
alienation from the life of God. Those should have the wedding-garment on who
would be welcome at this marriage-feast-grace in habit, and grace in exercise.
2. The duty of those who were yet unpunished for their profanation of this
ordinance: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged, v. 31.
If we would thoroughly search and explore ourselves, and condemn and correct
what we find amiss, we should prevent divine judgments. Note, To be exact and
severe on ourselves and our own conduct is the most proper way in the world not
to fall under the just severity of our heavenly Father. We must not judge
others, lest we be judged (Mt. 7:1); but we must judge ourselves, to prevent
our being judged and condemned by God. We may be critical as to ourselves, but
should be very candid in judging others.
V. He closes all with a caution against the irregularities
of which they were guilty (v. 33, 34), charging them to avoid all indecency at
the Lord’s table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and
not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the
provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they
should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own
abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear
sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier
doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together
at any time to God’s worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down
vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else
they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would
rectify when he came to them.
Excerpt from:
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
Visit www.e-sword.net
and www.ccel.org
