The fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians is devoted to a scandalous offense that had been committed by a number of the Corinthian church. From the first verse we learn that the apostle did not always receive his information concerning the needs of the church direct from the Spirit, but often from other sources. The fact that he often depended upon credible reports, does not in the least detract from his character as an inspired apostle. God does not tell men that which they can find out as well for themselves. In this case Paul charges the church to purge itself, lest the single sin should corrupt the whole body. Verses 6, 7. Strict discipline is what the church owes to the steadfast members, no less than to the disloyal ones. The church at Corinth, however, was puffed up, not because of this sin, but in spite of it. While the whole body should have been mourning the shame that had come upon them, and making efforts to remove it, they were congratulating themselves on their prosperity. Indeed this sin may have served to make manifest their pride, because it is likely that many were Pharisaically boasting because they had not walked disorderly, not thinking that by tolerating sin in the church, they themselves became responsible for it. It has been well said that “Men are always elated and proud when they have the least occasion for it.” When church members feel a tendency to complacence and boasting, it is time to examine themselves to find out what is wrong.SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.1

“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators.” 1 Corinthians 5:9. The apostle here refers to a previous epistle, which has not been preserved. After briefly considering the supposition that the reason why it was not preserved was that it was not inspired (a thing not very probable), Barnes says: “If inspired, they may have answered the purpose which was designed by their inspiration, and then have been suffered to be lost-as all inspired books will be destroyed at the end of the world. It is to be remembered that a large part of the discourses of the inspired apostle, and even of the Saviour himself (John 21:25), have been lost. And why should it be deemed any more wonderful that inspired books should be lost than inspired oral teaching! Why more wonderful that a brief letter of Paul should be destroyed than that numerous discourses of him who spake as never man spake should be lost to the world? We should be thankful for the books that remain, and we may be assured that all the truth that is needful for our salvation has been preserved and is in our hands. That any inspired books have been preserved, amidst the efforts that have been made to destroy them all, is more a matter of wonder than that a few have been lost, and should rather lead us to gratitude that we have them, than to grief that a few, probably relating to local and comparatively unimportant matters, have been destroyed.”SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.2

“But now have I written you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, for a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” Verse 11. This is by many regarded as equivalent to saying that they should not partake of the Lord’s Supper with members of the church who were guilty of the above-mentioned sins; but the connection seems to strongly indicate that the prohibition extends to ordinary meals. Of course this would shut off communion, for they would not commune with one with whom they could not eat a common meal. To say that they shall not eat with a certain class is a far greater restriction than to say that they must not commune with them. Now in his former epistle Paul had said that they were not to company with fornicators. Of course that would effectually shut off partaking of the Lord’s Supper with them. Still they were not to abstain absolutely from all dealings with such men, for that would necessitate, as Paul says, a removal from the world. But now he is more rigid than before, and says that if one who professes to be a Christian is guilty of such practices, they are to show their abhorrence of his course, by refusing even to eat with him. The reason for this is readily seen: If a man made no profession, but was known to be a heathen, no one would think of holding the church responsible for his crimes, even though its members had dealings with him. But should the members of the church associate with one who had been, and perhaps still professed to be, one of their own number, and who was notoriously licentious, the world would think that the church still recognized him as a Christian. So they were not to be seen in his company at all. This course was to be followed, not in a spirit of harshness, but for the reputation of Christ’s cause. And this restriction would not prevent them from relieving the wants of any who might need aid.SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.3

The violation of the tenth commandment is quite generally regarded as a comparatively venial offense, but Paul places the covetous man in no enviable position. Covetousness, the use of abusive language, and extortion, are classed with drunkenness and adultery. The Greek word for covetous is defined by Liddell and Scott as “one who has or claims more than his share.” If Paul’s injunction were strictly obeyed, what a thinning out there would be in many churches. There are few churches in which there are not some who are so desirous of having more than their share that they will even rob God of his portion.SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.4

“Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?” 1 Corinthians 6:2, 3. This language will allow of no other interpretation than that the saints will have some part to act in apportioning the amount of punishment due to wicked men and angels. Some have taught from this text, that the people of God will ultimately gain the ascendancy in this world’s affairs, so that all public offices will be filled by them; but this cannot be true, for a plain distinction is made between the judgment which the saints are to exercise, and “the things that pertain to this life.” Christ himself taught the same thing to his followers when he said to them: “In the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:28. This is at the last day,-the time when Daniel says that judgment is to be given to the saints of the Most High. Daniel 7:22.SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.5

It remains for the prophet John to fix definitely the time when the saints will engage in this work of judgment. We have already learned that it is when Christ comes, and that is when the righteous are raised. 1 Thessalonians 4:16. In Revelation 20:4 we read: “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” The next verse shows that this thousand years commences with the resurrection of the righteous (at Christ’s coming), and ends with the resurrection of the wicked, who will be raised to suffer the second death, which is described in the succeeding verses. From this it is plain that when the saints are made immortal, they at once enter upon the work of judging. Just how much of the work is allotted to them, we cannot of course tell, but it will have to do simply with the fixing of the sentence, and not with the execution, for that is committed to Christ. See John 5:26, 27. If Christians could only realize that they must be ready, when Christ comes, to take part in such a work as this, their minds would not be so much taken up with light and frivolous things that do not elevate and strengthen them.SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.6

When Paul says, “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” he must not be considered as giving any sanction to litigation; for he says in verse 7, “Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” Their cause might be just, yet rather than engage in strife, they should suffer themselves to be defrauded. Paul had no sympathy with the idea that men must stand up for their personal rights, although he was very jealous for the honor of God’s cause. E. J. W.SITI November 22, 1883, page 521.7

“Our Lord’s Last Passover. (Continued.)” The Signs of the Times, 9, 44.

E. J. Waggoner

(Continued.)

We have now to consider the remaining events of the passover supper, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Although in Exodus 12, where the directions for the passover are recorded, there is no mention made of wine, we learn from the Rabbinical writings that four cups were drank during the meal. Matthew and Mark speak only of the cup which Christ blessed as the emblem of his blood. Luke speaks of two cups, chap. 22:17, 20. The first one mentioned is one of those drank during the passover supper; the second, verse 20, is plainly said to be the emblem of Christ’s blood. And this verse furnishes proof that the Lord’s Supper was instituted at the close of the passover supper; for Luke says: “Likewise also he took the cup after supper; saying, This is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.1

There is no disagreement between Luke 22:29, and Matthew 20:26: “The first says: “Likewise also [he took] the cup after supper;” the latter says: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” The unleavened bread was on the table as part of the passover meal. While they were at table, and some of them still eating, Jesus took of this bread, and did as is recorded. This act, and the solemn manner of Christ marked the close of the Passover meal, so that when he took the cup it was indeed after supper.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.2

We have now sufficient data from which to ascertain whether or not Judas partook of the Lord’s Supper. All of the evangelists state that it was while they were at supper that he was pointed out. Matthew 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23 John 13:18, 21-26. Thus the prophecy in Psalm 41:9 was fulfilled. John tells us (13:26) that the traitor was designated by Jesus giving him a sop when he had dipped it in the dish. But this shows that they were then partaking of the passover, which as we have seen, was after the feet-washing, and before the Lord’s Supper. John further tells us that when Judas had received the sop he “went immediately out.” John 13:30. The conclusion, then, is unavoidable, that Judas was not present when Jesus instituted his memorial supper.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.3

Matthew 26:27 is urged as an objection against this conclusion. “And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” Mark also says that they all drank of it. But we reply that “all” need not necessarily refer to the twelve, but might refer only to all who were present; for after Judas had left them, and Christ was in the garden with only the eleven, he said to them, “All ye shall be offended because of the this night.” No one will claim that Judas was present with them.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.4

Luke’s account is supposed by some to disprove this conclusion. In order to make the subject perfectly clear, we will give his account in full. Verse 17: “And he took the cup [one of the passover cups], and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.5

The objection is, that Christ is here represented as mentioning the traitor but not until after it had taken place, and that, consequently, Judas was at the Lord’s Supper. To this we answer thus: 1. We already proved that the Lord’s Supper followed the passover (see verse 20), and that Judas left during the passover supper. See John 13:30, in connection other proof given above. 2. We have also seen that Luke’s account is not chronological; that he mentions many events out of their regular order. There is, therefore, no alternative left us but to conclude that Luke has not followed the consecutive order of the events in this instance. Should we conclude otherwise, we not only make confusion of the accounts of the other evangelists, but we make Luke inconsistent with himself.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.6

But it is still further objected that there is no break between verses 19 and 20, and that the statement, “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table,” closely follows the words, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you,” the two sentences being connected by the conjunction “but.” Keeping in mind the two points already brought out, as just mentioned above, a reference to the Greek of the text will remove this objection. The word translated “but” in verse 21 is pleen. Liddell & Scott’s Lexicon gives this definition: “Adv. after parenthesis, yet, still, but.” Robinson says of it: “At the beginning of a clause, much more, rather, besides, passing over into an adversative particle, but rather, but yet, nevertheless;-Also where the writer returns after a digression to a previous topic.” Andrews’ Latin lexicon says the same of the corresponding word in the Vulgate. Thus this objection is entirely removed. Luke introduces the subject of the passover, and speaks of the cup. This seems to remind him of the Lord’s Supper, and he briefly describes that in verses 19, 20, they being thrown in parenthetically, and in verse 21 he resumes the narrative concerning the passover.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.7

We think, therefore, that Luke’s account does not disagree in the least with that of the other evangelists, nor disprove our conclusion that Judas was not present when the Lord’s Supper was instituted.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.8

This fact is not without weight upon the subject of open or close communion. When we consider the nature and object of the Lord’s Supper, it will appear that Christ could not have allowed Judas to remain on that solemn occasion. The object of the Lord’s Supper is stated thus: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, eat to show the Lord’s death till he come.” 1 Corinthians 11:26. This information Paul says he “received of the Lord.” The supper, then, was intended as a memorial, to keep in mind the death and not merely to keep the fact in mind, but as an expression of the partaker’s belief in Christ death.SITI November 22, 1883, page 523.9

But a mere belief that Christ died is not sufficient to constitute Bible belief in this great sacrifice. The devils believe, but their belief is of no benefit to them. There are many disbelievers in Christianity who will admit that there was such a being as Christ, and that he died; and yet their belief is of no profit to them, for they do not discern Christ’s divine nature, nor the object for which he died. We must understand that he died to vindicate the claims of justice; that God’s law had been broken, and that the death of the sinner was demanded; that Christ died in man’s stead, that through faith in him we might be saved from death. But “faith without works is dead,” and therefore our faith in Christ is nothing unless accompanied by obedience. To reap any benefit from Christ’s sacrifice we must turn from our sins, and keep the whole law of God. See Isaiah 1:16-18; 55:7; Romans 6:1-6; Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46, etc. Now no one, however “liberal,” would claim that one who has no faith in Christ could be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. No one would think of inviting a heathen or a profane worldling to that ordinance.SITI November 22, 1883, page 524.1

But, as we have seen, faith in Christ implies an honest desire to keep God’s law; consequently, no one who is a violator of law of God, even though he may profess faith in Christ, has a right to come to the Lord’s table. We think this proposition cannot be controverted. We do not say that one must be without fault before he can commune, but he must have repentance for his sins, and an earnest desire to put them away. With trust in God, that he for Christ’s sake will forgive sin, the individual must humbly strive to walk in the light as fast as God shows it to him.SITI November 22, 1883, page 524.2

Now how was it would Judas? We find that he had cherished his selfish and avaricious feelings, and had finally yielded to them altogether, and had been stealing from the common purse which our Lord and his disciples had. John 12:6. He had been carrying on a constant deception. He had become so hardened, even under the sublime teachings and solemn warnings of Christ, that he had bargained to betray his Lord. He had deliberately sold himself to the devil for twenty dollars. He was a thief, a liar, a murderer, and a traitor; a villain of the deepest die; a hardened, unrepentant sinner. And his sin is augmented by the fact that he sinned against the greatest light that any man could have. It would have been sacrilege for such a one to each of the Lord’s Supper; to partake of the body and blood of Christ. We read: “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7. But Judas was walking in darkness, and could have no fellowship with Christ and his loyal disciples. He had nothing in common with them. He was with them, but not of them.SITI November 22, 1883, page 524.3

These two positions strengthen each other. From the very nature of the Lord’s Supper, as explained by the Holy Spirit, we see that it would have been morally impossible for Judas to remain on that occasion; and by our Lord’s action we may learn something as to what persons may be permitted to eat of the supper which is called by his name. For in the light of the foregoing testimony it seems clear that Christ designed that the traitor should be pointed out at the time that he was, so that he might withdraw and not be present at the ordinance which was to follow. This idea is strengthened by our Lord’s words to Judas, “What thou doest, do quickly.” Although none of the disciples fully understood that Judas was to betray Christ (or that he was to do it immediately), John 13:28, yet the fact that Christ knew of his intentions, and that nothing could be gained by further attempt at concealment, would naturally cause him to obey Christ’s command to go at once. E. J. W.SITI November 22, 1883, page 524.4

(To be Concluded.)

November 15, 1883

November 29, 1883