1 Corinthians 11–14

When another believer's conscience is troubled, it is good to deny yourself, and not expose your liberty to someone else's judgment. In love one must respect the scruple of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the intelligence and liberty of Christ. If one does everything for God's glory, one does not seek to gratify self but gives it up. This puts no stumbling block before anyone — Jews, Greeks, or the church of God. Love alone walks like that, seeking God's glory and man's good.

Verse 1 preserves the continuity from chapter 10. As Paul followed Christ in his self-sacrificing devotion to the glory of God, so he urges the saints to follow him. This is not to put them under his control, but to give them an example.

The Greek word is the one we get "mimics" from... Paul follows Christ: copies Him, "mimics" Him, if we can say it reverently. And we all are to be "joint-imitators" of Paul... It tells us we are not only to "keep step," but also to "keep rank."

How did he seek to "please all"? Not, we may be sure, by associating with their evils, but by following Christ in all His lowly grace.

No man was more gentle, humble and gracious than the Apostle. But no one was bolder, more forceful and more plain in speech when the truth was in question. If it were otherwise, he would have stopped being "the servant of Christ."

It is not a question of what one man says, or what another did, or what a third wrote. What matters is that the Word of God forms us through moral exercise... This is not a blind attachment to a leader. We do not do a thing because a leader does it or says it. We follow them only so far as they had the Word of God in all its purity as the basis of their life and ways.

Leaders there always will be, and rightly so when it is their faith that carries them ahead of others. But faith must be in the Word of God... Apart from this, we may go easily astray in the path of very good men. Peter led Barnabas astray after this fashion. Paul says: "Be imitators of me," but adds, "as I am of Christ."

Those early Christians depended on what they heard, and on what they saw in the way the preachers lived. They might say to themselves: how can I know what Christianity really is, or what Christ is like? The only way we can know what Christ is like is to watch closely how the men who brought the good news lived... And if they came to follow the Lord through the Apostle, with a man in between, that would lead them to follow the Lord directly... All Paul wanted was that they should see Christ in his ways so clearly that they would follow the Lord Himself.

Look carefully at the situation, and you will conclude that following Paul is just the way to be free from party spirit and party aims... Never for one moment would Paul take our gaze off Christ. If people could see Christ magnified in his life, that was the object of his life.

Grace delights to recognise all that is of God in the saints. In line with that grace, the Apostle opens this new section of the letter with a word of praise. There was so much in the assembly to condemn. Yet the Apostle can at least praise them for this: in all their questions they remembered him, and they kept the ordinances, or "directions", he had delivered to them.

First of all he puts them in their own clear, positive place, and he acknowledges the good things that were in them. He always owns whatever good he can before he begins to reprove anything. We ought to do the same. It opens the heart to receive rebuke.

Scripture uses the word "tradition" in two ways. It can mean the rules men added, as in Matthew 15. It also means what the apostles commanded the saints — first by word of mouth, then in inspired writings, and in both ways at once while the New Testament was still being written and not yet complete.

Paul used the same word in 1 Corinthians 11:2, "that as I have directed you, ye keep the directions". In that verse, "directed" and "directions" come from the same root. In that verse the meaning is divine instruction, not human traditional teaching.

The traditions the apostle urges the church to hold fast were truth they knew and had (1 Cor. 11:2). They were not scripture topped up by a vague spiritual sense that shapes everything by its own hidden power... A tradition you do not have and do not know is an absurd contradiction of the only true sense of tradition in scripture. ... The word of God alone has an absolute title over the heart and conscience of His people.

The word in 1 Corinthians 11:2 should be translated "traditions" or "directions." The apostle does not say what they were. But thank God, we know this much. Whatever ordinances, traditions or directions the Church needs to the end of time are set down plainly in the Scriptures of the New Testament. That is quite enough for us. Men have no authority at all to set up rites and ceremonies in the Church of God.

In spite of their many failings and practical disorders, they had remembered Paul's words in everything he had definitely commanded. What he delivered to them they had kept and observed — though, as what follows shows, with real fault in the manner and spirit of it. Serious disorders had arisen. They did not come from neglect of the positive directions the Corinthians had received. They came from far too little of the prime element of all true order in the house of God: remembering His very presence with His saints.

Chapters 11 to 14 no longer deal with testimony or conduct before the world. They deal with the conduct, order and unity that suit the Assembly, the body of Christ. Yet Paul does not open with the gathering of the Assembly, which starts at verse 17. He opens with the basic truths of God's order in creation. For if we ignore this first and lower order, how can we keep the higher one properly?

To correct this disorder the Apostle uses a way Scripture often takes to settle questions. To learn the principles involved in any question or difficulty, Scripture takes us back to the first time those principles were set out. Here a question had arisen about the relative position of men and women, so it takes us back to the order first established in creation.

This is a most characteristic specimen of the apostle's dealing with a point of order. He deduces the solution from first principles involved in divine dealings from the beginning. It is an admirable way of settling questions, not by mere abstract authority, even where the highest lay, but by conveying to others the ways of God in creation and providence, which drew out the admiration as well as submission of his heart.

There is a shared equality, of the highest and most perfect kind. It can never be touched or set aside. It is to be owned in the fullest possible way. On the other hand, that does not set aside God's order for the earth. In the place God has given here to the man and to the woman, the head of the woman is the man. The higher fact is shown forth in the lower one. There are not two heads in creation, but one. Two heads would mean division. God's thought is unity.

Every member of the human body is directed from the head. So the figure is very simple and expressive. It is a matter, in one word, of direction. The woman is to accept direction from the man. The man is to accept direction from Christ. And Christ accepts direction from God, and does so perfectly. Everyone else does it very imperfectly.

Some do object to this clear, settled fact. It does not mean that man is better than the woman, or superior to her. God has given him that place of headship. More than that, "the head of Christ is God." Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is fully equal with God. Yet as Man He is willing to recognize that God is His head. We should all see the great wisdom of God in this, and bow with thankfulness before Him for it.

This last statement does not in any way take away from the Deity of the Son. It is no question in this passage of Christ's place in the Godhead, but of the place He has taken in creation.

He is still the Servant of the will of God (though never less than God Himself), and what pleases Jehovah will prosper in His hand for ever. So the Head of Christ is God.

In all creation He is of course Head, in the sense of being Chief. That is the sense in which Scripture calls Him "the Head of every man" in 1 Corinthians 11:3. He is Head to the church in another sense, pictured by the human body: a living, organic union joins the head to the other members.

It would be even more perilously false to use these words to belittle Christ than to turn their force aside and deny the subjection of woman to man. God, then, is the head of the highest. And as woman is bound to own the place God has given her, so man is to fill his own assigned relationship suitably.

If a man prays or prophesies having his head covered, he dishonors his head; in itself a very small thing surely — in what it signifies, not small at all. Everything depends upon the truth which is in it, or the error. For him, the covered head is the place of subjection taken.

A covering on the head is the outward sign of being in the place of subjection. An uncovered head means the opposite. God has set an order for the place of man and woman, and His people are bound to respect it. It may appear a little thing, yet if disobeyed, as it was in Corinth (where women seemed to be puffed up and refused to follow this order), it becomes a stepping stone towards more serious evil.

He is speaking about prayer and prophecy. In prayer we speak to God for ourselves or for others. In prophecy we speak to people on God's behalf... If the man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours himself. He claims to go to God in prayer for others, or to speak to people as from God. Yet at the same time he abandons the place of authority that God has given him. In that case, can he be surprised if neither God nor man will listen to him?

A man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. Why? Because his head is Christ: he is therefore dishonoring Christ. Christ should not be covered up; He is the One who should be seen. If a man in this case covers his head he is covering up Christ, and in this way he dishonors Him.

If a man prays or prophesies with a covering on his head, he dishonours Christ his Head. With uncovered head the man acknowledges the headship of Christ. In Old Testament days the priests covered their heads, because they stood among visible symbols that displayed divine truth. Now Christ is the substance of those Old Testament shadows (Heb. 10:1 & Col. 2:17) and the image of the invisible God, and He is hidden from view (Col. 1:15 & 3:3). So the man leaves his head uncovered, as the image — that is, the visible representative — of God.

Every man who prays or prophesies with anything on his head — that is, covered — dishonours his head, as did every woman uncovered in these same exercises. This is the order of power, and God wants the fitting behaviour He Himself has set up in those who fear Him and know His grace... But this says nothing about preaching the gospel. Still, a man should always speak reverently and act in a fitting way even when preaching, instead of yielding to nature or chasing popularity in a worldly way.

When a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours his head — that is, he outwardly dishonours Christ. His own physical head stands for Christ, and Christ is to be shown, not covered. On the other hand, a woman who prays or prophesies without a head covering dishonours her head — that is, she outwardly dishonours the man. How does she do this? By virtually putting the man in the place of Christ!

In the eleventh chapter he gives directions for women when praying or prophesying. In the fourteenth he tells them to be silent in the assembly. The one place permits ministry, but does not say where it was to happen. The other says plainly that it is not to be in the assembly. Evidently, then, prayer and prophecy were to be outside of the assembly.

It is sometimes deduced from 1 Corinthians 11:5 that Christian women prayed in the churches. Otherwise why should praying with their heads uncovered be spoken against? The deduction does not appear to us to be legitimate. If a Christian woman prays or prophesies in the assembly with her head uncovered, she does two things. First, she defies the order about the sexes that Paul gives elsewhere. Second, she dishonours her head. Only the second is mentioned here, because the first has no direct bearing on the subject, which is the hair: how should Christian men and women wear it?

1 Corinthians 11:5 applies to no meeting of sisters. It might be in their father's house, without any formal meeting at all, as Philip's four daughters. It refers to inspiration, not to teaching. A woman is not permitted to teach.

We are told in Acts 21:9 that Philip the Evangelist had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. If God gives spiritual power, He means it to be used. Still, He has chosen to regulate how it is used. The Christians had made a mistake that many have made since. They supposed that having a spiritual gift means unlimited freedom to use it at all times and in all places.

When a woman's head was uncovered or shaven in the Old Testament it was a mark of shame. You can see it in Numbers 5:18, where a wife was under suspicion by her husband, and in Deuteronomy 21:10-13, about a woman taken captive by an Israelite... She must have no marks of shame upon her in the presence of the Lord. She is not to appear before God as one who is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband. The covering on her head would show that she acknowledges him as her head and enjoys his fullest confidence.

The apostle shows by her hair that God had covered her, and her mind and will are put on the same ground. A woman ought to be covered at family prayers, or like one of Philip's daughters prophesying in her father's house... The man is her real head, and she must cover her own head as a sign that she is under him. In effect she says, I have no head myself. The man is my head, and I am in subjection. The man could not do that, or there would be no visible head.

Some have also said that God gives a woman her hair as a covering, so that is enough. But God has given her long hair as a covering, and for that very reason He expects her to cover her own head too. That shows her agreement with what God has done. Notice the clear answer Scripture gives: "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short" (v. 6). Can this mean, "if a woman does not have hair, let her also cut her hair off?" Of course the Word of God does not indulge in such foolishness. The force of this verse is this: if the woman refuses to cover her head, she might as well go all the way. She might as well refuse what God has done in giving her long hair. Honest simplicity of faith can only bow to the facts as God gives them.

First, long hair is not the covering the apostle means, as people sometimes argue. In verse 6 he says, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head." So the covering is something in addition to the long hair. Second, the instruction is for women — not wives only, but women — and not for children. Finally, this is no set of rules for women's dress. It is only a direction about what is fitting for them when they are praying.

What shame did a woman's shaved or cut head confess? To answer that, we must look at the Law. There we find two occasions when the woman was shaved, or uncovered. First, when she was a suspected wife (Numbers 5). Second, when a man had recently taken her captive in battle and she was mourning her father's house, not yet joined to him (Deuteronomy 21). A woman's shaved state showed that she was not enjoying either the full confidence or the full joy of a husband. So the woman should not appear with such marks on her. The church should not look as though Christ suspected her, or as though she still felt herself a sorrowing captive. That would be her shame! But the covering on her head shows the church in neither of these states. It shows her happy in the affection and confidence of Christ, and this is her glory.

If she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she claims to express her place of dependence upon God, or to come from God. At the same time, she abandons the place of subjection in which God has placed her. In either case they have dishonoured themselves, for everyone out of his place is dishonoured before God. The uncovered woman is in effect taking the place of a man with a shaved head. It is a shame for a woman to have her head shaved, and that alone should teach her to cover it.

She was to have a covering on her head, a sign that she was subject to another. This may seem a very little thing. Yet what a wonderful thing it is, and what power it shows, to combine eternal things and the smallest matter of personal decorum in the same letter! The wearing of long hair or short, the use of a covering on the head or not! ... It is the smallness of man that needs big matters to make him important. But the smallest things of God have meaning when they bear on the glory of Christ, as they always do.

As to the "image of God" in verse 7, "image" is something that represents another, and so a man represents God, though he has certainly failed to fill the place up. The image of Jupiter was not necessarily like Jupiter, but it was made to represent him. So man keeps the place, though he has fallen in it — the same place in which God put him.

Scripture speaks of "image" and "likeness." The difference is that likeness means being like another — having the same traits and features. "Image" gives the thought of representing another, whether like or not... Man is still said to be in the "image of God" (1 Cor. 11:7), though, as fallen, he is very unlike God... The Son is "the image of the invisible God," and One who in His own Person perfectly represents God in His character and moral attributes, before the whole universe.

He was made sinless. But beyond that, he stood as the centre of an immense system. No angel was that. No angel was the one single centre of a system all around him. Adam was.

When we gather as a Christian assembly, the men remove their hats and the women remain covered... Man was made in the image of God, in His likeness, and man's place in God's creation is to stand in the image and glory of God. He is head over the creation below him; so it would not do to cover up the glory of God. The man remains uncovered, but the woman was given to the man to be his helper. The woman is the glory of the man. So in God's presence the glory of man is covered, but the glory of God is uncovered.

So the apostle points out that man stands directly as God's image and glory. Woman is man's glory, and she has no such place of public representation for God. Whatever she has in that respect comes indirectly, through him. Creation is the proof — not the way things have gone since. So no one can judge this rightly without looking back to the beginning... It is easy to see why, where people deny creation, or even ignore it, they argue and work for equality.

But the woman was created for man and of man, and she is the glory of man; therefore her head must be covered when she prays or prophesies, for man's glory must not be seen, especially in the gathered assembly. Christ's glory, and not man's, is to be displayed there.

"But the woman is the glory of the man." This glory is not the one to be displayed. Indeed, it is her very glory to be in lowly subjection that seeks no public place.

In 1 Cor. 11:8-9 the apostle Paul sums up the truth of the case in a few words, and it carries God's authority: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." Those who dare to dispute the fact must one day learn what it is to call God a liar. This is the ground of the sanctity of marriage: one woman for one man. From the beginning, He Who made her made her out of man, so that the two should be one flesh. People in general soon forgot it, and even Israel did. But there it stood, written and never erased, to instruct the faithful and shame the rebellious.

Creation is the proof, not the ordinary course of things since. So no one can judge this rightly without looking to the beginning. If verse 7 refers to where man and woman each came from, verse 8 then shows the woman made for the man, and after him. That is the ground of woman's subordination to man. Where people deny creation, or even ignore it, they naturally reason and work for their equality.

The very fact that woman was "taken out of man" proves her equality. She is not an inferior, but an equal, a helper suited to him. Between man and man there is similarity, sameness. Between man and woman there is equality, but with difference too.

This divine ordinance, if observed, is a great protection for woman. She needs it, because she is at a disadvantage compared with man in more ways than one. In the pagan world this ordinance is unknown, and so woman becomes a mere possession, bought and sold and misused by man. These errors, and the abuses that come from them, cannot survive in the light of the truth we have here. Woman is not only of the same species as man, but in her origin was of his very flesh and bone — taken out of man.

No one should treat her as inferior to man, unfit to be his companion, unsuited to be his helper. For "as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman." She was taken out of man at the first, and ever since man has owed his life on earth to her. If both thought these simple words of Scripture through, they would learn their true place in relation to each other.

In creation the man did not come from the woman, as has been true ever since. The woman came from the man: God took Eve from Adam's side. He created her for the man, since He said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation. So the woman should wear the sign of authority on her head — that is, she is under authority to her head, the man. Paul adds here, "because of the angels." Angels take a deep interest in the order God has set in His creation, and they care whether both man and woman obey.

He was given, it is true, in due time for the church, but the church from everlasting had been given to Him, and not He to the church. "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man" (1 Cor. 11:8).

Paul sums up the truth of the case in 1 Cor. 11:8-9, and he does it with God's authority. Those who dare to dispute the fact must one day learn what it is to call God a liar. This is the ground of the sanctity of marriage: one woman for one man. That was the order from the beginning, laid down by Him who made her out of man, so that the two should be one flesh. Sadly, people in general forgot it far too soon, and even Israel forgot it. But there it was, written in a way that cannot be erased, to instruct the faithful and shame the rebellious.

All this has to do with the present, not with what is final, what is heavenly, what is eternal. It is God's order as He set it up, and we are bound to respect it. Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. The man was created first, and it was not good for him to be alone. The woman was created to meet this need. But why a woman — why not another man? Because another man would not have brought the same help. He needs someone who pictures the dependence of the creature, rather than the kind of independence given to man. That very dependence appeals to him, and appeals to his heart, because she depends on him.

"Man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:9). So the woman was intended to supplement the man, not the man to supplement the woman.

The very fact that woman was taken out of man proves her equality with him. She is not his inferior, but his equal, his helper. There is equality, but with it diversity. Woman was made for man and to be with him at his side. God never intended that woman should be an independent creature apart from man, but that she should be associated with him... Woman never shines more brightly than when fulfilling the object for which she was created, which first of all was to be man's helper.

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God" (v. 7). As such he represents God, and God is to be prominent, not covered. "But woman is the glory of man" — and the glory of man is not to be prominent. She was created for the man, for God had said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation, and therefore the woman should have the sign of authority on her head — that is, that she is under authority to her head, the man.

There are other creatures who are intelligent and aware of the order of God's ways. In relation to them, the women were to be covered because of the angels. The angels watch the ways of God in redemption, and they watch what this wonderful work of His would produce.

Verses 11 and 12 show, however, that the man and the woman complete one another. The man is not a dictator, and the woman is not a slave. Each is needed in his or her place to keep the human race going. The woman came from man in the beginning. Yet ever since, the man has come "by the woman." "But all things of God." His wisdom and work is supreme in every part of creation.

Is not the Church needful to Christ? Yes, truly. God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And again, "Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." So the question is no longer only whether God can save a poor, helpless sinner. He did not leave "the first man" without a helper fit for him; neither would He leave the "Second."

The expression "authority on the head" has caused endless discussion. To have authority on the head unquestionably means to wear the sign of it in a covering or veil. On the other hand, in verses 11 and 12 the apostle is careful to insist that man and woman belong to each other. He denies that either is independent of the other. He affirms that God is the source of both, and of all things.

The apostle takes the state of the physical head as a sign. It shows the condition of the man or the woman in relation to their moral head. The woman's head — the man — is really her head, and she must cover her own head as a sign of her subjection. So she says in effect, "I have no head myself. The man is my head, and I am in subjection." The man could not do that, or there would be no visible head.

In creation the man did not come from the woman, though that has been the way ever since. The woman came from the man, as God took Eve from Adam's side. God made her for the man, for He had said it was not good for man to be alone. This was God's order in creation. So the woman should wear the sign of authority on her head — the sign that she is under authority to her head, the man.

Creation is the proof — not, of course, the ordinary course of things since. It is therefore impossible to form a right estimate without looking to the beginning. It is easy to see what happens where people deny creation, or even ignore it. Men then naturally reason and labour for equality.

Two things mark off the angels who never fell from those who did: perfect subjection, and ready obedience to the voice of their Creator. The angels who fell did not keep the place first given to them. And the power that sets true order in God's Church is the same life-giving Spirit who adorned the heavens. That Spirit set the chosen angels in their appointed places. These, then, whose very nature is order, ought not to see disorder in God's house.

The apostle is not speaking of wearing the sign of subjection at all times, though I believe it would be very fitting. She is in this a spectacle, with all present, to the angels. The whole subject is modesty, order, decency, and things in their right place... Angels should learn something in the church.

Most commentators have missed this thought completely. Some have drifted into degrading ideas about bad angels. Others have lowered the word to mean the righteous themselves, or Christian prophets, or those who preside in the assemblies, or people appointed to arrange betrothals, or mere spies sent there by the unfaithful.

This shows us the woman's place in the natural sphere. Man is the head. This does not imply inferiority. If it did, Christ would be essentially inferior to God, His Father — a thought impossible to those who believe in His eternal Deity. But in position, and as Man, the blessed Son took the place of subjection and obedience to the Father.

The woman's veil is not only a badge of her subjection; it is also her ornament and her praise. For meekness is beauty in the sight of God, and praise belongs to those who stay willingly in their appointed place.

He keeps the difference of place, but he also states that both have the same standing in the Lord. The woman was formed from the man and for the man. Yet the true Man had to be the woman's offspring. And the human race goes on in the earth only because the woman conceives and bears. Each is necessary to the other, and all of God, who frames the creature at His will, and for His praise.

Nothing can be stronger than this. The apostle had been proving the official superiority of the man over the woman. Then he states that, even so, one was not without the other in the Lord.

Still, this question of authority and subjection in the creation order in no way weakens the truth that the man and the woman depend on each other. But that mutual dependence is to be taken up in the Lord. In the world men and women are throwing off their allegiance to God, so they want to be more and more independent of one another. In Christianity we are brought back to depending on the Lord, and so on one another, and to owning that all things are of God. How can we be independent of the One from Whom we have our origin?

Yet she is not to be treated as inferior to the man, unfit to be his companion, unsuited to be his helper. For as the woman is of the man, so the man is by the woman. She was taken out of the man at the first, and ever since the man has owed his existence on earth to her. If both would weigh these plain statements of the Word, they would learn their true place towards each other. It would free the woman from the misdirected energy we see around us, and lead her to fill the place God intended for her.

There is a unity in God's creation, and it looks most beautiful when both man and woman keep their place and work as each is fitted to work. God gives each a dignity of their own, and each should act in the dignity that fits the place God has given.

There is an equality they share, of the most perfect and highest kind. It can never be touched, never set aside, and it should be owned as fully as possible. On the other hand, that does not set aside God's order for the earth. In the place God has given to man and to woman here, the head of the woman is the man. The higher truth is shown in the lower one. There are not two heads in creation, but one. Two heads would mean division. God's thought is unity… The man and the woman together form man in the full sense of humanity, and so the woman is needed to make the man what he is.

First, we see men and women seated together. This speaks of their equal and shared interest in Christ, where there is neither male nor female. As we read here, "in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman." As persons, they have the same standing in the church of God.

This question of authority and subjection in the creation order does not in any way weaken the truth that the man and the woman depend on each other. But that mutual dependence is to be taken up in the Lord. In the world men and women are throwing off their allegiance to God. So they seek more and more to be independent of one another. In Christianity we come back to depend on the Lord, and so on one another. We come to recognise that all things are of God. How can we be independent of the One from whom we have our origin?

Verse 12 both explains and develops this. God is the originator of all. Here it is not only the woman from the man as in verse 8, but also that every man (child) comes through the woman.

Verses 11 and 12 show, however, that the man and the woman are the complement of one another. The man is not a dictator and the woman is not a slave. Each is necessary in his or her place for the human race to continue. "And all things are from God." His wisdom and work is supreme in every aspect of creation.

He keeps the difference of place, and he also states that both share one standing in the Lord. If the woman came from the man and for the man at the start, the true Man must also be the woman's seed. Also, mankind continues on the earth by the natural conception of the woman. Each is necessary to the other, and all of God, who frames the creature at His will, and for His praise.

First, we see men and women seated together. This tells of their equal and common interest in Christ, where there is neither male nor female, as we read here, "For neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord"; for, personally considered, they have the same standing in the church of God.

The heir, or governor, is also spoken of as born of the woman — that is, once man had fallen; so great is the grace in God's purpose. Made out of the man where evil was worked out, He was born out of the woman: marvellous grace. "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman." Yet the man was created first, not the woman, and "the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." But as the woman is for the man, so the man is by the woman. Note this well: as we have said, it is marvellous grace.

God's creation has a unity, and it is most beautiful when both man and woman keep the place and function each is fitted for. For though the woman came from man to begin with, since that time man has come through the woman. Each has a dignity of its own, and both should act with the dignity that fits the place God has given.

[The closing words about anyone being contentious] are simply added, by the grace of God in the writer, to check the argumentative spirit of the Corinthians. They also guard the Corinthians against putting unfair legal pressure on the consciences of their sisters in Christ. After all, this could never be made a matter of church discipline. So the apostle does not speak here with the authoritative language of an apostle of Jesus Christ, as he did in that case of flagrant evil in 1 Corinthians 5. Instead he appeals to their own judgment, asking whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered.

He is not content with giving proofs from Scripture on this point. He will make God's people their own judges, on the lower though important ground of natural sense. Man and woman are naturally different. From that alone they might have concluded that for a woman to lift an unveiled face to her Creator is unbecoming. If long hair was given her as a veil, to screen her from the gaze of men, how much more should she take a covering when her prayers draw the eye of God straight and especially upon herself.

Further, he appeals to the sense of what is fitting, grounded on the make-up of both man and woman. He tells them to judge in themselves whether it is becoming for a woman to pray to God uncovered, and asks whether nature itself does not teach them. It is as natural for a man to have short hair as for a woman to have long hair. To reverse this in practice is a revolt against the nature of each. God's creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things, and here no one can claim such a call.

Here we have another instance of how the greatest truths are brought into connection with everyday subjects. Here is a question of whether a woman is to have a covering on or not. The whole ordering of God is brought in to settle whether a woman is to wear a cap on her head (v. 3-16). It was the custom there for women inspired by demons to have their hair flowing out wild, and this was not the order for a woman. They were to recognise the authority of man if they prayed or prophesied. The woman had her place for praying and prophesying, but not in the assembly.

Verses 13 and 14 make an appeal to the believer's sense of what is fitting. Your own proper discernment should lead you to conclude that a woman ought not to pray to God uncovered. Many ignore this clear voice of nature, but a Christian has no excuse for doing so. In many places custom has dulled this sense of what is fitting, but faith should certainly restore its keen edge.

The Apostle has spoken of what is true in creation (verses 3–10), of what is right "in the Lord" (verses 11, 12), of what is fitting according to nature (verses 13–15), and of what is allowed by custom (verse 16). He does all this to show the true position of men and women in relation to one another.

Nature is also a term describing the vast system of created things around us. To each part of it the Creator has given not only its existence, but its use, its order, its increase, its decay. These are often called "the laws of nature." They govern each thing and set what is proper to it. So nature teaches that a man should not have long hair, 1 Cor. 11:14; and a multitude of other things that belong to God's order in creation.

All through the word of God we find great prominence given to what is according to nature — to what is fitting. "Does not nature itself teach you?" says the inspired apostle to the assembly at Corinth. The Creator planted certain feelings and instincts in nature, and they must never be violated. We may set this down as a fixed principle, a rule of Christian ethics: no action can be of God if it does violence to the feelings that belong to nature. The Spirit of God may, and often does, lead us beyond and above nature, but never against it.

The apostle points out here that this is a fact that holds generally: "Does not nature itself teach you…?" It is not a rule for Christians only. Short hair stands for the authority that God has given the man as head. That is his place in the order of creation (1 Cor. 11:3).

He also appeals to the sense of what is fitting, which rests on the makeup of both man and woman. "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you…?" Suppose it is as natural for a man to have short hair as for a woman to have long hair. Is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this in practice? Where the word of His grace does not call us to something higher, God's creation must rule — and no one could claim such a call here.

In 1 Corinthians 11:14 we learn that it shows a lack of dignity for a man to have long hair. "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?" So if we truly want to live a life set apart to God, we must be ready to give up our dignity in nature. Our Lord Jesus Christ did this perfectly. He made Himself of no reputation. He surrendered His rights in everything. He could say, "I am a worm and not a man." He emptied Himself completely and took the very lowest place. He neglected Himself while He cared for others. Now this is the very thing we so dislike doing. We naturally stand up for our dignity and try to hold on to our rights. But the perfect Man never did, and if we aim at being Nazirites we will not either.

We must not overlook the particular case the passage deals with. We ought to watch it closely, especially Christian women. Behind all the movements of the world and of fashion lies the god of this age. His aim is to break down all the differences and barriers which God has set up. In this way Satan's schemes are carried out more easily.

He appeals to the sense of what is proper, based on how both man and woman are made. If short hair is as natural for a man as long hair is for a woman, is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this? God's creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things. No one could claim that here.

The uncut hair was a clear sign of dependence — of weakness clinging to strength. Long hair is the woman's glory; it is the mark of her dependence as the weaker vessel upon man. This is the place in which God has put her, and true glory is to fill perfectly the place God has given.

The woman has a natural covering in her long hair. So nature shows her place of subjection. It tells us that a hidden woman is a beautiful woman, while everyone looks down on a woman who cuts off her hair and imitates the man.

Our Authorized Version says in 1 Corinthians 11:15, "for her hair is given her for a covering." From this some teach that a woman's long hair is her head-covering, and that she needs no other covering. But this is a wrong translation. It does not give the meaning of the original Scripture at all. The Greek word here is completely different from the word rightly translated "covered" in verse 6. There the word means "to cover up, covering one's head." Here in verse 15 the word means "that which is thrown around."

Some would argue that since a woman's hair is given her for a covering, she needs no other covering. But this assumption ignores the force of the whole passage. The apostle is showing something else. God on His part has given her the covering of long hair to show her place of subjection. On her part she is to agree with this, by using a covering on her head.

Nature gives a woman long hair as a veil cast around her. It is not the head covering that the apostle insists on in the earlier verses. If man's glory must be covered in God's presence, as we have explained, then surely woman's long hair, her personal glory, must be covered in His presence too.

Long hair is the proper covering for the woman, telling of her place of subjection in the present order of things. If the man has long hair, it is a shame to him. But it is a glory to the woman, for "her hair is given to her for a covering." So the long hair speaks of the place of dependence. In the Nazarite we see one who has willingly given up what man would call "his rights" and his independence, to be wholly in subjection to God. The Lord Jesus is the great example in this, as in all else. He could say, "I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me."

The churches had a settled practice, shaped by apostolic wisdom. It is no light thing to disturb it, and the apostle says so with great moral force. It is a contemptible kind of independence that sets itself up against the spiritual feeling of the whole public witness in God's assemblies. It even sets itself above the men God has given heavenly wisdom to direct it all. This is not conscience and not spirituality. It is a love of differing from others that springs from the flesh, and at bottom sheer vanity. The custom he denies is the Corinthian novelty, which confused God's order in nature. It is not a love of arguing, though many writers, old and new, strangely conclude that.

The Spirit of God knew beforehand that some would be contentious about this. That closes the subject for good: the apostles had no such custom of being contentious. God has spoken. They had declared the truth of God, and they will not come down to the level of arguing over it.

Yet this is the Word of God, and deeply important for the true blessing of all the church of God on earth. Paul has stated the truth, but will not allow it to be a contentious issue. The truth of God is too precious and vital to be dragged down to the level of human argument.

On the whole question of dress the apostle urges his brothers, but gives no command. He points out what is fitting, and leaves his counsel to work on their spiritual discernment and right feeling. But he knew that some men are easier to command than to advise. Wherever a doubt can be raised, they would rather debate than follow the way of peace. His closing words are aimed at them. He wants them to know this: in objecting to his counsel they were condemning the general practice too — not only where he or his fellow apostles might be present, but in every company he knew and owned as a church or assembly of God.

The Apostle links the church at Corinth with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place. That shows the instructions apply to the whole Christian profession for all time. Again and again in this letter we find passages that overturn any effort to limit the instruction to one local assembly and to the apostles' own day. (See 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 7:17; 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:36-37; 1 Cor. 16:1.)

Neglect or carelessness is no excuse for disobeying God's instructions. Nor can the Apostle's closing words encourage anyone to disregard the instructions he has just given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He adds those words, by the grace of God in him, for two reasons. They put a check on the contentious spirit of the Corinthians. They also guard them against harsh, legal pressure on the consciences of their sisters in Christ. This, after all, could never become a matter of church discipline.

Little things like covering or uncovering the head often show the state of the heart. They test whether a person's will is subject to God and His Word, or whether it wants instead to go against the Word and follow the fashions and order of the day. Customs may change, but the principle of God's Word in this and other matters remains.

1 Corinthians 11:17 to 14:40 deals with coming together as an assembly. The section opens by saying that Paul is giving instructions about what happens "when you come together." The first aim is to remember the Lord Jesus (chapter 11). Then the truth of the one body comes in to govern the local gathering (chapter 12). Chapter 13 shows the "still more excellent way" — divine love. Chapter 14 gives the order for ministry that builds people up.

Paul had opened his corrective words with general praise, while he was dealing only with the smaller fault already mentioned. Now his tone turns to solemn and severe rebuke. He turns to the worse disorder still to be dealt with, and its sheer size puts every lesser failure in the shade. Their coming together should have been for their mutual comfort and encouragement, and for their common strength and blessing. Instead, through their lack of reverence and godly fear, it had become an occasion of spiritual disaster and dishonour.

The love-feast was a meal the early Christians ate together. Its aim was to build friendship among people who are strangers and pilgrims here, called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord. The Corinthians, however, had lost the sense that Christians are strangers here. They had let in from the world the rivalry between followers of favourite teachers, and in the same way they degraded even the love-feast by keeping class distinctions. The rich feasted on the food they had brought, while those who had nothing to give were made to feel their poverty sharply. So they destroyed the principle of Christian society at the very meal that ought to have shown it in practice.

The first thing was that when they came together, they came not for the better but for the worse. It made their true condition plain — as coming near to God in fact does. The first thing that showed itself was their divisions. In their very way of coming together they showed themselves apart.

Sadly, the disorder in the assembly at Corinth was so grave that the feast of remembrance brought God's governmental dealings upon them. That feast should have been for their blessing. Their coming together was not for the better, but for the worse.

Our place is not to criticise, nor to be displeased at this or that, nor to take sides or do anything that would grieve the Spirit. Either way we would be coming together for the worse and not for the better. When we are sure that God is there, and that each of us forms part of what glorifies Him, what a difference it makes! ... It is not only what we say or what we pray. The tone of it all has a great deal to do with it, and the spirit in which we are there.

In verse 17 the apostle carries his corrective work further. He turns to the mistakes and abuses among them when they actually came together — their assemblies... The saints at Corinth sometimes met in connection with the ministry of servants of the Lord — to listen to Apollos and get help through him, for instance. Such meetings were not "assemblies" in the sense in which we now use the word, that is, the church actually convening as such, in subjection to their risen Head, who acts by His Spirit among them.

The apostle begins here with another reference to their divisions. The first thing was that in coming together they came not for the better, but for the worse. Their meeting made their true condition plain — as coming near to God in fact does. In their very way of coming together they showed themselves apart.

First, their coming together in assembly did not express their unity as members of the one body, pictured in the one loaf. It only showed the spirit of division among them... The division, or schism (Greek schisma), is a difference of opinion, thought and feeling inside the assembly. A heresy (Greek hairesis) is a sect, or party, formed among the saints to hold a particular opinion, or to follow a chosen teacher. At Corinth both seem to have existed inside the assembly. But a division or schism inside, if it is not judged, will soon lead to a heresy or sect outside, or even break the assembly up completely into different sects.

The apostle uses "heresy" for a party of self-will, a faction that cuts itself off from the assembly... But wrong doctrine (heresy in the later church sense) does not necessarily lead the man who holds it to form a party outside. A schismatic spirit does tend straight to that. A split inside before long becomes a split outside.

Scripture nowhere presents division as evidence of spirituality. It is always evidence of the flesh. "You are still of the flesh," was the apostle's charge... Where the flesh rules, divisions are sure to raise their ugly head. So when the report of the divisions at Corinth reached Paul, it did not take him by surprise. "I partly believe it," he writes, "for there must be also heresies [schools of opinion] among you." Put the stress on that "you." There was no such "must" for the faithful saints at Ephesus, Colosse or Philippi.

Paul writes, clearly with grief of heart, that he had heard of divisions (schools of opinion and the like) among them when they came together in the assembly. He partly believed it for the reason given here: "there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." It was Satan's work to make these divisions, and so to destroy the practical unity of the saints. But God used them to test and sift His people, so that those He approved might be made manifest.

The word is translated "divisions" in 1 Cor. 1:10 and elsewhere, and refers to divisions caused by parties in the church. In view of the unity of the Spirit, we can only call schism sin. The unity meant for the church was not merely being gathered together in assembly... The modern ideas of "agreeing to differ," or of "unity only in essentials," are not found in Scripture — the opposite is.

The word hairesis comes from "to choose." The same Greek word also gives us "sect." It names the sects among the Jews, such as the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Heresies and sects developed early in the church; they were the result of the working of man's will in some form. The root of the Greek word, "to choose," shows that a heresy is something a person picks out for himself. The doctrine held and pressed may be true in itself, but it may be exaggerated or taken out of its place. The usual result is a party or sect. God has given in His word everything the church needs, so there is no room for man's choice or man's will. He must be a humble receiver.

Schism is a division inside the assembly. Everyone still belongs to the same fellowship as before, even if selfish favouritism or dislike has split their thoughts and feelings. Heresy, as Scripture normally uses the word here (not the later church sense), means a party among the saints. They separate from the rest because they follow their own will even more strongly. A split inside, if left unjudged, tends towards a sect or party outside. Then the approved become clear to see: they refuse these narrow and selfish ways. And the party-man condemns himself, because he prefers his own particular views to the fellowship of all saints in the truth.

Here the Holy Spirit blames these divisions. While they last, He says, their coming together does harm, not good. True, He says they must be — but why? So that the faithful may be separated from the unfaithful. Does this, then, approve the divisions? Our Lord says, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!" Jesus says plainly that such temptations must come. Does He therefore approve or excuse them?

The "approved" in 1 Corinthians 11:19 are clearly those who will not support "divisions"; the disapproved are those who engineer them. It is false that "truth has only been preserved by division."

The "Paul" and "Apollos" and "Cephas" parties were forming at Corinth. Some of the more spiritual and faithful believers refused to join their movements. To a careless or worldly-minded onlooker, they most likely looked like just one more party. Even if they found it hard or impossible to prove otherwise and clear themselves, God approved them, and so did the inspired apostle. With that they had to be content.

He does not say, "so that those who are Christians may be recognized." I believe the "approved" ones stood in contrast to the "heretics," or self-willed ones. The meaning of the word "heresy" is self-will, which is the root of schism. So he says, "Let a man approve himself, and so let him eat." It is not "examine" but "approve" — the same word as in verse 19.

Now "heresy" is not self-will, and is not the root but rather the fruit of "schism." The splits already inside, the schisms, showed the apostle that heresies — parties outside — were sure to follow. The Lord would turn even this to His glory, by making clear who the approved are: those who hold fast to Him and set their faces against this party work.

The first day of the week the disciples met together to break bread. This was evidently their custom... Other things were done; they spoke, taught, as Paul did, sang; but they met together to break bread. This is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 11:20, where the apostle says that the Corinthians did not really assemble for the Lord's supper, since each ate his own supper, not thinking of the others, but eating and drinking for his own pleasure. Now this shows clearly that the object of the assembly was the Lord's supper.

We gather together to His name, and the Lord has affixed His name to His supper. It is the Lord's table, and it is the Lord's supper in a special way. The original expression is such that it shows the supper belongs peculiarly to Him. His name is upon it as being His own supper, just as the first of the week is distinguished as the Lord's day.

People once supposed that the word kuriakon (compare kuriake, used of the Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10) was coined for this purpose. But we now know that the word belonged to the everyday Greek of that period. It was used to mean "imperial," or "royal."

The text shows that the Corinthians clearly confused the Lord's Supper with an ordinary meal, or put it on the same level as one. Some came who were hungry and ate their fill. Others were thirsty and drank too much. The more prosperous among them showed their status all too clearly and ate more than the others. Moreover, it appears that each one came when it suited him... They failed to tell the difference between the Lord's Supper and a normal meal. Paul describes this as eating and drinking unworthily.

The Corinthians came together, and the result was that they ate their own supper. They brought their own food and their wretched selves with them. "Self" was prominent in their minds the whole time they were together. And though they made the usual motions with their mouths, the hearts of many were far from the Lord.

Never forget this: you can be at the Lord's Table and still fail completely to take part in the Lord's Supper... Selfishness, and forgetting what the supper means, had thrown them into such disorder that they turned this solemn occasion into a feast. So what they ate was their own supper, not the Lord's Supper. They had cut the bread and wine off from almost all connection with the body and blood of Christ.

Though professing to do so, the Corinthians did not eat the Lord's supper. So we conclude that taking the Lord's supper does not mean simply eating the bread and drinking the wine. It means entering into the truth of all its deep meaning. It is not a question of doctrine, but of the affections. The simplicity of the description is most striking. The newest believer can easily understand it. Yet the oldest believer cannot reach the bottom of it.

When we come to the Supper, we do not come to a mere ceremony. We do not sit down to perform an empty ritual. We come to remember a Person. "Do this," He said, "in remembrance of ME." If at the cross the "YOU" filled His thoughts, at the Supper the "ME" must fill ours... the personal element eclipses all else.

How very marked the distinction between "the Lord's supper" and "his own supper"! Does it not strike you, dear friend? The first holds the grand idea of the whole body. The second is a miserable, selfish individualism. We cannot eat "the Lord's supper" with spiritual understanding unless we hold in our hearts the blessed truth of the whole body and every precious member of it. In short, when we eat "the Lord's supper," we think of Christ and His beloved members. When we eat "our own supper," we are occupied with self and its interests.

At these love-feasts they each brought their fare as at the festive shared meal (the eranos) of the Greeks. This was, in fact, a contribution-meal. What a descent from Christianity to pagan practice, when each would bring his own! So the rich came with plenty, and the poor had little or nothing to bring. When they came together for these feasts, selfishness marked them, not love. Those who had plenty soon proved how easy it is to have too much, and those who were poor felt it on these occasions.

The love-feast was a meal the early Christians ate in common. Its aim was to build friendship among people who are strangers and pilgrims here, called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord... The Corinthians, however, had lost that sense of being strangers here. So the principle of Christian fellowship was destroyed at the very meal that should have displayed it. And as they selfishly forgot why they came together, God gave them up to the deeper sin of degrading the Lord's supper, which they ate at the same time, through the effects of their licence in eating and drinking.

We consider the older Authorized Version's rendering of 1 Corinthians 11:21 quite correct. The word it translates "drunken" comes from the same root as the word rendered "do not get drunk" in Ephesians 5:18. That proves very clearly that the wine they used was intoxicating.

Paul told them to "wait for one another." Each had been eating his own supper before his neighbour's came, making a picnic of it, as they pleased. I do not know that they became actually drunk, but some were what one calls carousing. It is all easily understood if you remember that they were taking a meal before the Supper.

They failed to discern the body of Christ, and so each one thought only of himself... Here self was allowed to bear fruit so glaring and so monstrous that it shocks our natural feelings. But suppose I come to the meetings and sit there thinking only of the chapter I am to read, the hymn I am to give out, the part I am to take. Then self is the hinge on which my thoughts turn in spiritual things, just as much as if I had brought my own supper and eaten it, like the Corinthians in natural things, while my poor brother who could not afford one went away without.

But if they wanted to eat and drink independently of others in the assembly, could they not do this in their homes? They were despising the Church of God, and shaming others less privileged than themselves.

They made that sacred memorial so much a private thing that it became a scene of unfitting disorder, everyone eating for himself. So the apostle instructs in verse 33: "So then, my brothers... wait for one another."

The love-feast was a meal the early Christians shared in common. Its aim was to build social fellowship among people who are strangers and pilgrims here, called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord. But the Corinthians had lost the sense that Christians are strangers here. They had let in from the world the rivalry of the schools over favourite teachers. In the same way they degraded even the love-feast by holding to class distinctions. The rich feasted on their own contributions to the meal, and made those who had nothing to give feel their poverty keenly.

The supper was a memorial of Him in His death, but it was a memorial of Him, the living One. It sent their hearts back to Calvary, but He was present; this was the point. They had houses to eat and drink in. If the question was satisfying hunger and thirst, let them eat their food at home. But at the Supper the Lord was there, while His death and the manner of His death filled their hearts.

These thoughtless rioters had done a double wrong. They had despised not only God, but His Church... They had gathered, but where was the Lord? It is a solemn thing to come together in that Name. An assembly of Christian worshippers is not simply a voluntary association. To the eye it is made up of people, but it takes its name and true character from God, who is always in the middle of His gathered people... To behave badly in His congregation is to insult Him in His house... His house would have fed them well. But while that spirit ruled, the gathering was their own, not His.

Apart from these excesses, the assembly was no place for social feasting. "Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" asks the Apostle. Or were they putting the poor to shame and despising the assembly of God, which holds rich and poor together?... They brought the social element into the assembly, and it led to social distinctions and self-indulgence. So their coming together denied in practice both the Lord's Supper and the assembly of God.

They were a spectacle of greed. What made it more blatant: those who had money were the worse offenders, despising the church of God and putting the poor to shame. With all his desire to praise the Corinthians, in this the apostle could not.

The moral root of the disorder was this: they failed to discern the body of Christ, and so each was occupied with himself... Here they let self produce fruit so glaring and so monstrous that it shocks our natural feelings. But suppose I come to the meetings and sit there, thinking only of the chapter I am to read, the hymn I am to give out, the part I am to take. Then self is just as much the hinge on which my thoughts and worries turn in spiritual things. It would be no different in natural things if, like the Corinthians, I brought my own supper and ate it, while my poor brother who could not afford this went away without.

Thinking about this special revelation adds to the seriousness of the subject. Paul, the chief of the apostles, was not in the supper room with the eleven before the crucifixion. But the Lord spoke to him directly from heaven, so that he heard from His own lips in glory that those who loved Him were to keep this supper.

Does this not show what the Lord thinks of the supper, and how He values our remembrance of Himself and our answer to His love? His own heart of love, which brought Him down into death, gives this revelation to Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Jews might otherwise have said that the supper was only for Jews, since it was tied to the Passover. But the Lord gives it to him as a distinct and direct message to the Gentiles.

It is interesting to notice that Paul received a revelation of the supper, not of baptism. He was baptized like anyone else, and not even by an apostle, in case anyone twisted that into making him dependent on the twelve apostles. He was baptized by a simple disciple, Ananias… But the supper is the memorial of Christ, and especially of His death, and it is now bound up with the body of Christ… Paul was the chosen vessel who would make known the mystery of Christ and the church. So it seemed good to the Lord that he should receive a special revelation of His supper, the standing sign of its unity and public witness of its communion.

The only remedy for disorder at the Lord's supper — even in the days of the apostles, note — was to go back to the original institution: its spirit, its meaning, its orderly simplicity. Paul did not argue on the subject. In verses 23 to 27, he simply goes back to what the Lord Himself had instituted… Any "order", however grand or beautiful to human eyes, is disorder in God's eyes if it is not God's order.

The revelation came to him about "the Lord Jesus" — not Jesus only, but the One Who is the exalted Lord in the highest place in glory. When was it? On "the same night in which he was delivered up" (as it should read). That is a much wider thought than the rendering "betrayed", which limits it to Judas' treachery. What does it involve? That was the hour when everything in man's heart came out, when all the wickedness of man rose to its height. There was the treachery of Judas, the weakness of Peter and of His disciples, the hatred of the scribes and priests, the cruel mockery of the soldiers, and the unrighteousness of Pilate, who three times protested His innocence and finally gave Him up to be slain. Behind it all was the power and energy of Satan.

No tongue can tell how the Lord felt the betrayal of one of His own! He felt it keenly; but, feeling it, He took the bread and there and then instituted the Supper. What did that mean? To me it meant this. You may not be able to trust anyone else, but you may trust Me. If treachery springs up in this inner circle, who can you look to? My love will not fail you… In days of darkness and nights of treachery and betrayal you will find Me always the same.

We might have thought that the work the Lord Jesus was about to do would have filled all His thoughts and taken all His attention. But no; He thinks of the love of His disciples, and longs to draw that love, so ready to wander, back to Himself, again and again.

What the Lord lays down is not only a permission; it is also a command... So too with the cup. Supper was ended, and with it the Master's share in the former things. He hands us the new covenant of life and peace, for each of us to accept, in this new and special cup of blessing. The Master would not drink it... But He cannot drink the cup of the new covenant. His blood is not shed for Himself, but for His saints.

A "cup" is a common picture in Scripture, where the cup stands for what is in it. "This cup," that is, the wine, "is the new covenant in My blood." The Lord is pointing here in particular to the new covenant promised long ago through Jeremiah. God will make it with His repentant earthly people. Then their sins will be put away, and Jehovah will write His laws in their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34). The foundation blessings of that future covenant with Israel are ours now through the blood of Christ.

At last, in the upper room in Jerusalem, the Lord spoke of it to just the Twelve. He spoke of it in a way that showed heaven had not forgotten it... But He added two important things to what Jeremiah had revealed. First, the covenant would rest on the blood of a sacrifice. Second, that blood was to be His own.

The Lord's supper then is to remind us of Christ, of His death; not of our sins but of our sins forgiven and ourselves loved. It is in no way the old covenant of condemnation. It is the new covenant: God known in grace, wrongdoing forgiven, and sins remembered no more. It has not yet been made with the houses of Israel, settled for ever in the land under the reign of Messiah. But the blood that is its foundation has been shed, and we who believe, Jew or Gentile, have it in spirit, not in letter... Of this the cup especially is the pledge.

No mystery surrounds this feast such as men delight to import into it. All is simplicity. It is the simple, but touching, memorial of the death of Christ. The bread speaks of His body — Himself. The cup speaks of His blood — His work. The symbols of the body and the blood are separate, speaking of a dead Christ.

And so with the cup "after the supper," who could hesitate about what that cup set forth? He Himself says, "In My blood." It is not the blood in the body but apart, separated from it — that is, in death.

Notice how the instruction, "This do in remembrance of Me", is repeated for the cup as well as for the loaf. The Lord Himself is speaking, so He seeks the remembrance of Himself — "of Me." It is very important to remember that the Lord Jesus Christ is the central figure of this Supper. He is there!

They had observed the appointed ceremony, but had forgotten Him. They shared the bread and the wine, but the Lord Himself was not before them. They thought only of themselves and of their "own supper".

At the institution of the Supper, the Lord Himself made no restrictions... He laid down nothing about how often to take part. Later He gave a special revelation to the apostle to the Gentiles, and even there He did not fix the gap between one feast of remembrance and the next. His silence on this point tells us with the greatest certainty that He has left it to the love and faithfulness of our hearts.

You could not find two words that mean so much when put together: the death of the Lord. How much is held in this — that He who is called the Lord had died! What love! what purposes! what efficacy! what results!

"The Lord's death." Such words invite meditation; they take us back to the past. "Till He come." This carries us on in thought to the future... The Lord had died, but the Lord will return; and He has lost none of His rights by death... by it all our blessings for eternity have been purchased, and are put beyond the reach of uncertainty.

Note well that it is not even a dying Christ, but a dead Christ. Many wrongly teach that His sacrifice is repeated again and again. That is not so. He is a dead Christ: "for by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).

We remember what is not present, never what is. And what we remember is in the past... Clearly the Lord's death is not a present thing, but past: "death no longer has dominion over him." We remember a dead Lord. But the Lord we deal with now is living.

Whenever the children of God take the Supper as the Lord set it up, they announce together the central truth of Christianity — "the Lord's death until He comes."... The death of the Lord is remembered there. The believers announce His death every time they take the Supper. It is true of those whose voice is not heard in the assembly, yes, even if some were unable to speak.

Showing the Lord's death until He comes is not only a memorial; it is a testimony to the world that they crucified the Lord. The church at the Lord's supper publicly witnesses to the world's sin and its condemnation... For it is no less a witness of the patience of God as of the world's sin. So long as the church remains here, the forgiveness of sins through His blood is preached.

The Gospel proclaims His death and its wonderful results, whereas His Supper furnishes the lasting and standing witness to its reality.

The central event in God's history of the world is the death of Christ upon the cross... The next great event is the Lord's second coming. The Lord's supper connects the two, standing between the past event and the future one... The Lord has not yet come, so those who neglect the supper are without legitimate excuse.

As regards the Lord's supper, it is said, "you proclaim the Lord's death [not, till death, but] until he comes," 1 Cor. 11:26. There is the basis of our common hope — the death of Christ. We go on showing this until He comes again to receive us to Himself. If I think of death, of my going to be with Christ, I am thinking about myself. I shall be happy, but that is not the whole church glorified.

His silence on this point tells us with full certainty that He has left this to the love and faithfulness of our hearts. We answer His own expressed desire by eating bread and drinking wine as often as circumstances allow... In Jerusalem at the first the saints were able to break bread at home daily. In Troas the custom was to gather for that purpose on the first day of the week.

Paul condemns the way in which the supper was observed. Some people have misunderstood this text and have needlessly stayed away from the Lord's supper for years. They say, "I am not worthy to go; it says in the Bible I ought not to go." But they have not read the passage carefully. The verse does not speak about unworthy persons eating. It speaks about the unworthy way in which some people ate.

If eating the Supper depended on personal worthiness, no one on earth could take part. No one is worthy in himself to share in the Lord's Supper. We are only worthy in this sense: Christ has taken us in our lost condition and cleansed us by His blood. That fitted us for His presence and gave us the right to take part in the Supper. This right is the result of what He has done for us, and not of any personal worthiness.

Suppose someone threw dirt at my mother's picture, or treated it with contempt. He would be guilty in my eyes, not of disrespect to a mere painting, but to my mother, and I would greatly resent it. Now some in the church at Corinth were doing something like that. They were treating the Lord's Supper as a common meal, or worse. They did not recognise its sacred character. It was sacred for two reasons: because of what it represented, and because the Lord Himself set it up as a remembrance of Himself in death.

It is not a question of allowing unworthy persons to take part. Low as the Corinthians had sunk, they had not fallen that far. But they were in danger of reducing its observance to a form for themselves. They were in danger of taking part in the supper without exercise of soul — either about their own ways, or about the unspeakable love of the One who was reminding them of His death for them... To eat or drink it as an ordinary meal, or a common thing, without reflection or self-judgment, is to eat and drink "unworthily." And it is worse when a Christian does it. Of all men he should feel most what he owes the Lord.

It would show that he did not discern the Lord's body. He did not see in the death of the Lord the judgment of the evil he was committing, or the love that led the Lord to bear that judgment — though by eating the Supper he claimed to see both.

The supper, then, was no common meal. To take part in it unworthily was no light matter. Whoever did so was guilty of the body and blood of the Lord — that is, liable to judgment because of the slight put on Him. Such a person ate and drank judgment to himself — judgment (krima), not damnation (katakrima). He did not discern the Lord's body, that is, what the bread stood for... Yet there was grace in the Lord's dealing with them. He dealt with them this way because they were true Christians, so that they would not be condemned with the world.

The Lord would have His own to come, but not with carelessness of spirit or levity... Still He invites all, even while He urges the testing of our ways. Self-judgment is with a view to coming, not to staying away.

The word says, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat." It does not say, "Let him absent himself." It is unjudged evil that affects the assembly. A person who habitually judges himself will never prove a hindrance to the assembly.

"Let a person examine himself," not to see whether he is a Christian, as some say. We should be sure of our salvation. But even then the Lord means us to search our hearts seriously and to question our souls every time, so that we see in what spirit and state we come to the Lord's Supper.

1 Corinthians 11 is not about the basic question of whether we take part. It is about the way we take part. After examining himself, a person is not left choosing between eating and staying away. The verse says, "and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (v. 28). The person in view is a believer who should, and indeed must, examine himself closely. Can he eat in a worthy manner? Or are there things in his walk that he must put right?

Each one is to put himself to the test, and so eat and drink. The Lord wants His own to come, but not carelessly or lightly... He still invites everyone, even as He presses us to examine our ways. Self-judgment aims at coming, not at staying away. For these are people whom grace counts worthy. Whatever their past, whatever their own unworthiness, they have been washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

But some may say: I dare not examine myself. If I did, I would find such shocking things that I could not go to the Lord's table, because I would find myself so unfit. That is not what we find here... When self-examination puts us in the searching light of God's most holy presence, we will uncover much that we grieve over before the Lord. But should we stay away from His supper because of that? Certainly not. We judge ourselves, we condemn in His sight everything we have found that is against His mind, and then we eat. And so these precious words follow: "But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged" (v. 31).

Another person's fault should not keep me away. If it is a good reason for one person to stay away, it ought to stop everyone. Is the Lord to be forgotten because somebody deserves blame? Deal with the person at fault as Scripture directs, by rebuke or otherwise. But my place is to "do this in remembrance of Christ."

This does not mean that while I sit at the Lord's table I should look into my own heart. That would be a poor, miserable occupation. I can do that at home. A person ought to examine or test himself. That means judging himself over what he has done and what he is capable of doing. We may be so pleased with ourselves that we forget how easily we go wrong without God's grace.

Remember this. The Table is spread on the ground of finished redemption, but we are to gather round it in the power of personal holiness. Personal holiness does not save us, but we are saved to it — as Christians, grace gives us the right to take part, yet we must examine and judge not merely our ways, but ourselves. Christ was judged for our sins on the cross, and we are urged to judge ourselves, and then proclaim His death. We believe this holy work of self-judgment is deep, earnest and habitual. It is not a formal, wordy confession of the lips on Sunday morning, covering the sins and follies of the past week, soon followed by the sins and follies of the next.

The translators have brought in a word and an idea of their own, and it is plainly wrong. They dared to say that "the one who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks damnation to himself." It is not true. God says, "he eats and drinks judgment to himself."

"Discerning the body" has no reference to grasping the church's unity or nature. It means only distinguishing between an ordinary meal and that supper which brings before us the body of Christ given for us. It is the memorial of His death that the apostle presses here, not our union with Him. Not to discern the (Lord's) body is to treat this supper as a common thing.

I discern then the body of the Lord — but the body of the Lord given, His blood shed, His death! It is not an ordinary meal, or a simple act of remembrance, if you like. It is an institution Christ has given to His own. They are not meant to find in the elements anything other than the bread and the fruit of the vine. But their faith may feed on Jesus in the sweetest way, by the power of the Holy Spirit — on what He has been for them when He died on the cross.

People usually apply the word "unworthily" here to the persons doing the act, when it refers to the way the act is done. The apostle never doubted that the Corinthians were Christians. He looked on them as saints, and as saints he urged them to keep the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner. He never raises the question of anyone but true Christians being there.

This does not mean that when I am sitting at the Lord's table I am to look into my own heart, which would be a poor, wretched occupation. I can do that at home. A person ought to examine or prove himself. It means judging himself about what he has done and what he is capable of doing… So, "let a person examine himself" — and not stay away, but come and eat of this bread and drink of this cup.

What we are during the week we will be while at the Lord's table. What our heart has been occupied with throughout the past six days it will also be occupied with on the first day of the week while at His table. If we have been careless and indifferent toward the Lord during the week, we are bound to be careless and indifferent toward Him at His table. We will fail to discern His body and His blood in the true sense in the emblems of the Supper. So we will eat and drink judgment to ourselves.

There were many weak and sick among them, and a good many had died. So the judgment of the Lord had to be on them — not because they were not His own, but because they were. As the apostle says, when we are judged in this way we are disciplined by the Lord, so that we may not be condemned along with the world. He draws the sharpest line between this present judgment and the judgment to come. Yet this present judgment is a most serious and awful thing. Love inflicts it — a love which, because it is holy and because it is love, must inflict what is painful to inflict.

Suppose the true and holy aim of the Lord's supper is treated lightly. Suppose the one taking part does not discern the body — that is, he does not tell the difference between the memorial of Christ and an ordinary meal. Here the Spirit teaches us that such a person eats and drinks judgment as a present thing. He brings on himself the chastening hand of the Lord, in defence of His honour and His love. If people saw the evil at work inside them, they would avoid not only its outbreak in their conduct, but His chastening too.

Many had become sick and weak, and many had fallen asleep, that is, had died. The issue is not whether a person is worthy to take part, but that he takes part in an unworthy way. Every Christian was worthy to take part simply because he was a Christian, unless some sin had shut him out. But a Christian might come to it without judging himself... It is the government of God in the hands of the Lord who judges His own house: an important and too much forgotten truth.

These persons had failed to judge themselves, failed to discern the Lord's body in the broken bread. They had eaten in an unworthy manner, though they were true Christians. So God, ruling His own house, had to chasten them with sickness, even to death. That way they would not be condemned with the world... surely no father would think of chastening a good child for the sin of a bad one.

The word "sleep" is used of death only when a believer is meant. The whole passage tells us that those who were put to sleep in Jesus were believers. The point was this: they were taken to heaven because they were accepted. They were taken from earth because they were NOT acceptable.

Sometimes perplexed souls ask, "What is the particular sin that leads to death?" No particular sin at all. Two believers may go wrong in the same way. Yet the Lord weighs all the circumstances. He may lay one on a sick bed and take the other out of the world. There is no question of the salvation of the soul in these dealings; it is divine chastening.

In the light of the New Testament, chastening may be sent for retribution, as we see in 1 Corinthians 11:30. But it may not be. Look at Paul's case — 2 Corinthians 12:7. There the thorn in the flesh was preventive, to keep him from becoming proud and falling. Yet again, it may be neither retributive nor preventive but educational, as Hebrews 12 shows.

To "judge" oneself is not the same word as to be "judged" by the Lord. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 11:29, "discerning the Lord's body." So our task is not only to judge an evil we have committed. It is to discern our condition, as the light shows it up — and God Himself is in the light — while we walk in that light. This prevents our falling into evil in act or in thought.

To judge the open sin is easy. It gives me no assurance at all that I will avoid it in future, and no sign in itself of recovered spirituality. "But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged." To judge our sins and to judge ourselves are two different things. To judge ourselves, we must have distinguished and judged the state that the sins only come out of. That state is the root. Leave it in place, and fresh fruit will surely grow.

We never get right by only judging this or that outbreak; we should always search out the cause... Judging ourselves does not mean pronouncing judgment on one particular fault. It means judging the real cause, and not just the occasions. That is the Christian way of judging. It does not deal with the surface, but with what lies underneath: the roots we can hardly see behind the acts that anyone can see.

If they discerned the evil at work inside them, they would avoid not only its outward appearance, but His chastening too. If they fail to judge themselves, He does not fail in watchful care, and He deals with them. Even that judgment flows from His love. It takes the shape of chastening, so that they may not perish in the condemnation still to fall on the guilty world. The Lord's express aim in sending these bodily sufferings now is that His failing saints may escape damnation.

The people of Israel were not examining themselves to see whether they were Israelites, since that was their birth condition. Nor do we examine ourselves to discover whether we are children of God. That was settled forever when we were born of God by faith in Christ Jesus. But an Israelite who had touched something defiling carried uncleanness on him. He had to be cleansed from it and made clean before he ate of the peace offering. In the same way, we have to be clean when we come to the Lord's table.

First of all, we should judge ourselves. Self-judgment is not comparing ourselves with even the most godly believer we know. It is comparing ourselves with Christ. And if we really do that, we will have no wish to judge where we should not.

In our experience, Christians who are hard on their fellow Christians are the ones who do not judge themselves in their own lives. Those who are tender and gracious, and yet faithful, are the ones who truly judge themselves in God's presence.

They took the Lord's supper as if it were a common meal, and the poor had not enough to eat, while the rich indulged in gluttony and wine. As a result many were sick and even "slept," that is, died. But all this was present chastening in this world. Paul says, "But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world." God chastened the Corinthians for their faults, but did not condemn them with the world as unbelievers.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 we learn the security of grace on one side, and on the other the Lord's dealing with the inconsistent ways of those who are His. Even godly men, despite their ability and learning, have missed this truth. Their ignorance shows in the mistranslation of a word that is all-important for the true sense. It is not "damnation" but "judgment" in verse 29, expressly contrasted with "condemnation" in verse 32. The Lord was then judging the faulty state and walk of the Corinthian believers by sickness and even death. His purpose was that they should not be condemned along with the world, because they were His and were to be kept from "damnation." He judged them in this present, earthly way for the blessing of their souls.

We do not like the term "punishment" as applied to the dealings of our loving Father. There is nothing penal, in the strict sense of the word, even in His wise and faithful correction. Christ our blessed Substitute exhausted on our behalf all that was penal. God chastens His children to make them partakers of His holiness, as we learn in Hebrews 12. The Father also judges His house, as we read in 1 Peter 4:17. So sickness and death came on many at Corinth for their disorderly conduct at the Lord's table — but so they might "not be condemned along with the world."

1 Corinthians 11:32 is a beautiful verse. It means that God is determined to preserve His grace to us. His government will not shrink from taking a believer off this earth, through judgment, if need be. Through the work of Christ, the believer is always fit for heaven. But through his own bad conduct as a Christian, he may not be fit for earth. If we judge ourselves, God will not judge us. But if we refuse to judge ourselves, God will chasten us, so that we may answer to practical sanctification.

If God has a people, He will not only save them, but will also make them partakers of His holiness. Sheep carelessly tended stray, and must be sought... He deals with us according to our state, but on the basis of His own effectual work of redemption. We are not of the world, because His death and resurrection delivered us from it. If we conform to it, or seek its things too eagerly, He will treat us now according to our ways... Meanwhile the world is already under condemnation. God leaves it to run on in its evil course until the measure of its wrongdoing is full.

I do not doubt that much of the sickness and trouble Christians face is chastening sent by God. It comes because of things that are evil in His sight — things the conscience ought to have noticed but neglected. So God has to produce in us the effect that self-judgment ought to have produced before Him. It would, however, be untrue to suppose that all afflictions are chastenings. Though they are so sometimes, they are not always sent because of sin.

When they came together, they claimed it was to eat the Lord's Supper. In practice it was to enjoy a feast of their own. The Apostle says, "Each one in eating takes his own supper." ... At this earlier feast they let the poor go hungry, while some drank to excess. But apart from these excesses, the assembly was no place for social feasting. "Have you not houses to eat and to drink in?" the Apostle asks. Or were they putting the poor to shame, and despising the assembly of God, which includes rich and poor?

To work out the force of this exhortation you must pay attention to the connection. It refers back to verse 21. There the apostle describes the abuses that had crept into the Corinthian assembly in connection with the Lord's Supper. Some had gone so far as to eat their "own supper" by themselves. This, he plainly tells them, was not to eat the Lord's Supper (v. 20)... They lost all sense of unity and fellowship in their own selfish practices and pleasures... The next verse (33rd) gives the conclusion: wait for one another, and do not go on eating one before another as you have been doing. Let there be unity, so that all may eat together in remembrance of the Lord.

The sin at Corinth was their not waiting one for another. This is clear from the words the apostle uses to sum up the whole question (1 Cor. 11): "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." Why were they to wait for one another? Surely, so that they might express their unity more clearly.

And we have to consider each other too in this connection. We read, "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another." That does not only mean waiting until everyone can be present. There is much more in it than that. It means we are to be marked by consideration, forbearance, love and grace. In fact, the way the Lord has treated us is the way we are to treat each other... Wait for one another when you come together. By mutual forbearance and sympathy and love and grace, be to each other what the Lord has been to you.

In the body of Christ each one is only a member. If the Corinthians had recognised and taken this in, the one who had a supper would have waited for those who had none, and shared it with them. In the same way, my soul may take in this precious unity of the body, and my own humble place in it as one member. Then I will not be in such haste to act in the assembly that I stop others from acting... "Wait for one another" will surely apply to this as well as to the breaking of bread.

The apostle closes his serious rebuke and instruction by urging them to wait for each other when they come together to eat. In this way self would be judged, and love would be at work. "If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment." When one person indulges the flesh, it stirs up the flesh in another. The Lord must then judge more than the one who first dishonoured Him.

The love-feast (or Agape) was a meal which the early Christians shared together. Its aim was to build social fellowship among people who are strangers and pilgrims here. They are called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord. The Corinthians, however, had lost the sense that Christians are strangers in this world. In their zeal for favourite teachers they had let the world's rivalry between schools into the church. In the same way they degraded even the love-feast by keeping class distinctions. The rich feasted on the food they had brought, and made those who had nothing to give feel their poverty sharply.

The Lord led the apostle to do two things. First, to explain that His hand had been dealing with some in sickness, and others in death or falling asleep. Second, to separate the Lord's Supper from any such feast in future.

The supper was a memorial of Him in His death, but it was a memorial of Him, the living One. It sent their hearts back to Calvary, but He was present; this was the point. They had houses to eat and drink in, if it was a question of satisfying hunger and thirst; let them eat their necessary food at home. But at the Supper the Lord was there, while His death and the manner of His death filled their hearts.

We are to depend on the Lord in a way that makes the saints depend on each other too. That is true consideration for one another. We must be careful not to push ourselves forward, and equally careful not to leave all responsibility to others. If it was the physical appetite that needed satisfying, they were to satisfy it at home. Then merely selfish desires would not enter the sacred feast of the Lord.

"Condemned" is right in verse 32. But a man eats and drinks judgment, or fault, or crime, for it is the thing he is accused of to himself. "Condemnation" is not right in verse 34, where the older translation read, "that ye come not together unto condemnation." The sense is judgment, or fault. Our word "crime" comes from the Greek word. It means the judgment passed on someone, but people also use it for the fault itself.

Self would in this way be judged, and love kept in active exercise... The indulgence of the flesh in one person provokes the flesh in another, and the Lord must then judge more than the one who first dishonoured Him.

The closing verses of the chapter give us an example of God's chastening in response to wrong done. God chastens His children so that they may not be judged with the world. If only we judged ourselves, we would escape the evil and would not need the hand of God on us. Let us note that! How excellent is the holy art of self-judgment, and how little we practise it.

The apostle did not say everything he might have said. "The rest I will arrange when I come." It would not have served the best interests of the assembly to lay everything down formally. The written word is the unerring standard. The Spirit in living power, not tradition, is its true supplement. We need the Holy Spirit as well as Scripture, and we have Him. But Scripture is the rule, not the Spirit — though we cannot use it rightly without Him. This keeps up practical dependence on God. He would not have us act, alone or together, without the clear light of His word. If we do not have that light, we ought to wait for it.

Among the Corinthians there was much disorder in their assembly life and gatherings, so that a long passage (1 Cor. 11:17–14:40) is taken up with corrective instruction, and even then the apostle has to say, "The rest will I set in order when I come."

From the first verse of chapter 7 we gather that Paul sat down to write this letter as a reply. The Corinthians had sent him a letter of enquiry earlier. When he wrote, there were graver and more urgent matters to deal with first, and these fill up chapters 1 to 6. He now turns to their enquiries. We find the words "Now concerning" repeated at the start of 1 Cor. 8, 1 Cor. 12 and 1 Cor. 16. They had clearly written with questions about marriage, things offered to idols, spiritual gifts and collections.

Notice that the translators added the word "gifts." Nor is it correct. The subject includes gifts, but it goes further. It takes in what is of far deeper importance, as the source of it all: the presence of the Spirit, working in the sovereign power of a divine person in the church and through its members. Perhaps "spirituals" would give the idea if our language could bear it without any addition. If we must supply a word for clarity, it should be "manifestations" rather than "gifts."

It is not only the effects produced, whether in the way of power or of grace. Above all there is the first, parent truth, the centre of it all: the Holy Spirit Himself, come down to be here for the glory of the Lord Jesus in the assembly. The apostle is not discussing the personal state of those who form part of that assembly. He is discussing the Spirit's action in each and all.

The presence of the Spirit is more important than even the gifts He distributes and directs. It is what forms the one body. The assembly is bound to own it and act on it — and that is exactly what the Christian world has in effect denied since the apostles.

So the apostle wants them to know the source, character, and purpose of all that flows from the Spirit in the assembly. He wants them to know how the Spirit shows Himself in each member of Christ. And first, he reminds them of the pitiful state they were in as pagans.

There was a danger for them, and there may be one for us, because we are members of that one body… The reality of Satan's power is a solemn lesson to all of us. The change was not merely from bad affections to kind and good ones. The spirit of the enemy is at work to lower His name. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is here for the express purpose of maintaining the glory of the Lord. We cannot enjoy this without faith… God looks for faith in the action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly.

There is no excuse for a Christian's ignorance in relation to the interests of Christ. Paul urged believers in Christ again and again to be intelligent and not ignorant (Rom. 1:13; Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 1 Cor. 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13). Paul prayed that the believers at Colossae might have "spiritual understanding" (Col. 1:9). Clearly a Christian should want this kind of understanding more than any other.

Before His positive teaching on the Spirit and His workings, he leads them back in memory to what they once were by nature. It is good for us to be reminded of this often. A lazy familiarity with truth can tempt us to forget what kind of people we both were and are.

He says "when you were pagans," not "that you were pagans." It told them nothing new to say they were pagans. In those days it was not merely a leading. It was a carrying away to what they would now look back on with pain, seeing its extreme folly and its boldness. It was Satan's direct opposition to the truth of God. They would learn that the true God is nothing like a dumb idol. He has spoken to us by His Son. And by His Spirit He opens mouths that were once silent, so that they speak for Jesus Christ the Lord.

They had no solid hope to rest their souls on, because they did not know the God who made them. So they gave way to their own delusions. His power and divine nature appealed to their consciences from almost every object they saw, yet they stayed in guilty ignorance of Him. So they were carried away to these dumb idols, however they were led. Their own natural instincts drew them, and behind that was the strong hand of the ruler of the darkness of this world.

Not a blind following of them, as when they were heathen (1 Cor. 12:2) following dumb idols. Are you to be led blindfold? No; you are to be led intelligently. "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit."

Most of the Christians at Corinth had been poor Gentiles. They had no discernment, and the enemy's delusions led them about like fools. So they were in greater danger of being deceived again the same way. The Spirit of God gives force to the truth in a man's heart and clears his moral sight. When a man is not filled with that Spirit, the enemy's seductive power dazzles his imagination. He loves marvels, however unbelieving he may be about the truth.

The Spirit of God worked in our Lord Jesus, and the Jews said the power came from Beelzebub, the prince of the demons (Matt. 12:22-32). That was the unpardonable sin. Today the danger is the opposite sin: calling the power of Satan the Holy Spirit of God. This glaring error was a danger in the early church too. In a pagan city like Corinth, believers were especially open to demons speaking among them as oracles.

And who are they? Men who had been worshippers of dumb idols (1 Cor. 12:2). Gentiles, distant outsiders. "Such were some of you," he adds, after describing many kinds of evildoers (1 Cor. 6:9-11). What a company! Surely the worst of Corinth! Totally unable to reform themselves, but described as "washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus."

They would learn that the true God is nothing like a dumb idol. He has spoken to us by His Son. And by His Spirit He opens mouths that were once dumb, so that they speak for Jesus Christ the Lord.

The enemy used the same tactics in the early days of the church. He brought men into the public meetings of believers who really did speak by inspiration — but their inspiration came from demons, not from the Holy Spirit. So Paul lays down the test in 1 Corinthians 12:3. The confession of Jesus as LORD is the test. Many accounts could be given to prove that this test always works. It never fails. In today's spiritist seances, demons often say things that sound noble and beautiful, but they will never own Jesus as Lord.

No such man calls Jesus "accursed." No one puts Him under the curse, except at the cross. God did it there, as we know, when Jesus died for our sins. But no man speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus Himself accursed. And no one can say that Jesus is Lord except through the Holy Spirit.

He takes up the lowest way of honouring Christ. Of course, to say "Lord" is far from the highest way of naming Christ. It is what everyone is called to own when they part company with the world, repent and believe the gospel... So it was the very first confession all through Acts. No one was owned as a Christian until he owned Jesus as Lord... But "the Lord" means that He is the one God has exalted. God did not only raise Him from the dead; He set Him over everything.

If the name of Jesus is not given the highest honour, freely and sincerely, then its only other place is utter contempt... Between "accursed" and "Lord" there is no other place it can rightly hold. There seems to be a wide space between a living, worshipping faith and a deliberate, outright denial of that name. When the Spirit weighs a person's character, He treats that space as nothing and as a deception. For Him men are believers or unbelievers, confessors or deniers of the Lord.

But you say, "we say it all the time — that Jesus is the Lord. We are always talking about 'the Lord Jesus Christ.'" ... The flesh rebels against His Lordship over us. Our hearts are not willing to submit to His authority. We would rather choose our own path than walk in the one He has marked out for us.

An unclean spirit would not say "Lord Jesus," and the Spirit of God could not call Jesus accursed. But the question here is about spirits. It is not about conversion, and not about the need for grace to work in the heart before anyone can truly confess the name of Jesus. That need is very real, as we know, but it is not the subject here.

The Corinthians forgot these truths. They wanted to use the gift of tongues to lift themselves up and win glory for themselves. Yet what was it but a gift given to them, and by the Spirit just as He would? In truth, every gift was, as its name implies — charisma — a favour given to its owner by the Holy Spirit, just as He chose. The person had not deserved it, and could not claim it. He only received it. And each gift of the Spirit was for the profit of all.

Along with this testimony there were "varieties of gifts," yet not many spirits, "but the same Spirit." And there were "varieties of service, but the same Lord" — not "many lords"; Jesus was Lord. There were "varieties of activities, but the same God who empowers them all in everyone," for the activities were truly divine. There were not "many gods": all were the working of the one true God.

Though all who speak by the Holy Spirit exalt Christ, it does not follow that all have the same gift. This leads the apostle in verses 4 to 6 to speak of the diversity of spiritual gifts. The apostle tells us there are varieties of gifts. At the same time he reminds us that variety of gifts does not sacrifice unity of aim. For the same Spirit controls the varieties of gifts, and so all lead to the exaltation and expression of Christ.

In verses 4-6 we hear of the Spirit, the Lord, and God; the same Spirit — the same Lord, and the same God. Yet there is not a division into three classes of gifts, but the same thing is seen in three relations. The varieties of gifts are by the same Spirit; He gives them all. These gifts are also in relation to the Lord. They are for ministries — that is, service for the Lord, under whose authority and for whose glory we use them. And the whole working is of God, who works all in all.

These verses (4-6) rebuke, and at the same time correct, much of the serious disorder in Christendom. Christendom demands human ability, human wisdom, and theological training first, before anyone may use a gift. No, says the apostle. You need what no schools of men can give and no human attainments can supply — you need the power and energy of the Holy Spirit.

There are varieties of gifts, "but the same Spirit." These gifts differ greatly in character, yet they all come from the same source. God has to do with one as truly as with another. There is an immense difference between the lesser and the greater gifts, but still "the same Spirit." If I would respect the Spirit of God, I should respect the least gift that comes from Him.

Like them, we are inclined to talk a great deal about the greater gifts. We leave very little room for the exercise of the lesser. Sometimes the lesser gifts get shut out, either by arrangement beforehand or by strong preferences. Wherever that happens, the Spirit is quenched, and the assembly loses the benefit of the variety of gifts.

This is not the Trinity as such. Still, "the Spirit" and "the Lord" could not be brought in this way unless they were God just as the Father is. But it is plain that our Lord appears here not so much in His divine glory as the Son, but in the official position given to Him... it is not a division into three classes of gifts. It is the same thing seen in three relations. Gifts, in relation to the Spirit, through whom they come. Services, in relation to the Lord, under whom and for whose glory we carry them out as responsible servants. Operations, or workings, or effects, in relation to God, for it is God, and not man, who works the whole in all.

There were, along with this testimony, "diversities of gifts," yet not many spirits, but the same Spirit. There were differences of administrations (that is, ministries), but the same Lord — not "lords many"; Jesus was Lord. There were diversities of operations, but the same God who works all in all, for the operations were truly divine. There were not "gods many": all were the operation of the one true God.

Ministry is always under the Lord: "there are differences of administrations (ministries), yet but one Lord." The apostle says this just after he had said, "there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:4-5.) The two things are very different: the power is of the Spirit; rule and oversight belong to the Lord.

Verse 5 adds another thing: "And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord." You cannot have a gift without being a servant. You are not your own master in the use of the gift; you are a servant of the Lord Jesus. This the Corinthians had forgotten. They were acting independently. Even the Holy Spirit Himself has been willing to take the place of a servant. Having come down to that place, He lifts no one above it.

The Spirit witnesses to Jesus and glorifies Him by showing His perfections to the eye of faith. In the same way, all spiritual service flows directly to one common object, from the labour of an apostle to the simplest act of kindness for the Master's sake. For to us there is one Lord. We serve Him if we love Him, and are His disciples if we keep His sayings.

If there is the possession of a spiritual gift, the only one to whom the possessor of that gift is responsible is the Lord. He is responsible to go out in the exercise of that gift to the Lord, and where the Lord may lead him. He is no man's, and no church's servant, though delighted to serve all, if in doing so he can please his Master.

We must always remember this. If, by the power of God, we are free from all men, and responsible to God alone for the use of the gift He has entrusted to us, it is so that we may be the servants of all... He has made us free from self, free from independence, free from our own wills. He freed us to act as God acts, as He has acted in Christ — not to please ourselves, but to serve one another in love.

It is not a division into three classes of gifts. It is the same thing in substance, seen in three relations. They are gifts in relation to the Spirit, through whom they come. They are services in relation to the Lord, under whom and for whose glory we are responsible to use them. They are operations or workings or effects, in relation to God, for it is God, and not man, who works the whole in all. So if the Spirit gives a gift, using it is a ministry or service of the Lord, carried on by His authority. And it is God who makes it all effective.

The word "operations" means inner workings in the spirit of those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. In every case God Himself alone sets these workings in motion and controls them by His active will.

And there are "diversities of operations" or results produced, but it is "God that works them all" — the same spring of power. There may be many separate streams through which He is pleased to reveal Himself. But one source of supply feeds them all.

The words are framed so that nothing escapes His working. No member is so small or unnoticed that his part falls outside it. No small deed, no act such as giving out a hymn, no simple thing done by any member of the body of Christ happens apart from Him. God Himself is the One Who works all things in all. What a holy character this truth gives to assembly activity!

There were varieties of gifts, yet not many spirits, but the same Spirit. There were differences of ministries, but the same Lord — not many lords; Jesus was Lord. There were varieties of operations, but the same God who works all in all, for the operations were truly divine. There were not many gods. All were the work of the one true God.

Power belongs to God. What He wills He works, resisted or unresisted, in the armies of heaven, or with men upon the earth. But these words point above all to God's power at work now, and to its results. He shows those results in creating and preserving the Church, both to the faith of His chosen and to the rulers and powers in the heavenly places.

The Spirit is named first, because His working is what makes life and godliness exist and continue. The Lord comes next, because the Spirit bears direct witness to Him, and all spiritual teaching leads to obedient acknowledgment of Him.

This is not the Trinity as such, though certainly "the Spirit" and "the Lord" could not be introduced this way if they were not God equally with the Father. Our Lord appears here not so much in His divine glory as the Son, but in the official position given to Him. And God is spoken of as God, not in His personal distinctiveness as Father.

What are we to understand by "the manifestation of the Spirit"? To manifest is to make the presence of the Spirit plain and clear to others. What is hidden is not manifest. The Holy Spirit Himself is here in this world in an invisible form. The Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, was manifest in flesh. He was seen by angels, as well as men... but the Holy Spirit did not take a body of flesh, so His presence and His action stay hidden for the most part. The manifestation of the Spirit is through the members of the body of Christ.

Take the first example given. A certain man has the word of wisdom; there it is in his soul... The Spirit has given it to him, and he enjoys it himself. But the rest of the assembly knows nothing of it, until the Holy Spirit leads that person to use the word of wisdom for the comfort and well-being of his fellow members. Then the action of the Holy Spirit is made manifest.

The Spirit gives the manifestations of the gifts to "every man." He refuses to gather all His manifestations into one man, or into one particular class of men. This rebukes the greatest of all disorders in Christendom: setting apart a special class of men for the ministry. That splits the professing people of God into clergy and laity. Scripture allows no such distinction... No, says the apostle, it is to every man in the Assembly.

Every true Christian has been given something for service in the body, perhaps only a little wisdom. Everybody has something for service to the body, like a hand or a foot or an eye. But not everybody has a prominent gift, like a pastor or an evangelist.

The Corinthians were acting much like children. They treated the spiritual gift they had been given as a new toy, to use and enjoy for their own pleasure and standing. It was not that. It was a gift given to one member for the benefit of the whole body.

It is given in view of the common good. It is not given for the exaltation or prominence of the individual, for obtaining personal influence or gain, or as a means of living. It is given for profit — spiritual profit.

It pains me to have to reject an idea some hold, an idea so opposed to the grace of God: that this verse is about the work of the Spirit in a man for his own salvation. The question here is the Spirit's manifestations in the church, and their purpose was the common good.

Here the apostle is speaking strictly of the church. To each one inside it the manifestation of the Spirit is given, and it is given with a view to the common good, not for personal influence or display... It is not a question of miracles only, as the very first examples (the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge) prove. Nor is it a sign to unbelievers. It is for the profit of believers.

It is in a practical interest, and in the interest of all, that the Spirit manifests Himself. So the responsibility of everyone who has any gift at all is that by this he is made a debtor to others, for whose profit the gift is given. He is not his own in this sense. He belongs to those among whom God has given him his place.

The very fact that he had it made him responsible to use it — responsible to Him who did not give it for nothing. The gift itself carried both the ability to serve and the right to serve, for I am bound to help and serve with what I have. And if souls are helped, they hardly need to ask whether I had official permission to do it.

The faith here is not simple faith in the gospel. That is not a special gift which one believer may have and another may not. This is clear. It is the faith, the energy, that God gives. It overcomes difficulties. It rises above dangers. It faces them and is not alarmed by them.

Faith is the power to take hold of God, to take hold of His word, and to count on Him in the face of every difficulty and every enemy. God the Spirit gives this faith to some. We are all believers, but not every believer has the faith Paul speaks of here. It is the faith that removes mountains. It is the faith that stands against Satan and puts out his flaming arrows. It is the faith that always wins. It is the faith that walks even on the waves of the sea.

Scripture recognises specific faith about a specific thing. One of the people who received a miracle had faith to be healed (Acts 14:9). And 1 Corinthians 12:9 plainly teaches that there is a distinct spiritual gift of faith, which some have and some do not. Perhaps this is the special faith the Lord means when He says, "whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24). Real, God-given faith is meant here, not mystical or imagined faith. Many have probably tried this promise as an experiment, only to be disappointed. But God does not give His promises and the power of His Spirit to be tested out of curiosity, or used to serve private ends.

Then he says, "to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit." Why does this varied list repeat the words "by the same Spirit"? Because we so easily approve only of the one gift that pleases us, and forget how varied the Holy Spirit's work is.

No one could use the gift of healing, or gifts like it, whenever he chose. These gifts appeared only at the right time, and they worked only by the direct will of God. Power is His, and always in His hands. When Trophimus was sick, Paul's wish could not restore him. Yet the believer can come to the Lord in prayer and claim His power. In time of need we must seek refuge not in God's gifts, but in the faithfulness of the Giver.

It is worth noticing that the disciples never did miracles to save themselves from suffering, or to heal their friends when they were ill. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus. It was only God's mercy that healed Epaphroditus. The miracles the apostles did confirmed the testimony, and Christ glorified with the Father was the subject and source of that testimony.

Some teach that every believer who receives the baptism of the Spirit shows it by speaking in tongues. But that is not what Scripture teaches. 1 Corinthians 12:9-10 says, "to another [not to ALL] gifts of healing by the one Spirit … to another [not to ALL] various kinds of tongues."

Another might have "operations of powers." The Rheims and King James Versions wrongly render this as "the working of miracles." These were not "healings." They were power over material things, or over spiritual beings, as promised in Mark 16:17-18 and shown in the Acts of the Apostles.

Thinking of the Old Testament prophets, we may limit prophecy to foretelling future events. But that was only a small part of the prophet's work, even in Old Testament days. His great mission was to apply the word of God to the conscience and heart, to build people up. This is still the prophet's service in Christian times, and in this sense the gift continues.

A man surely builds others up when he strengthens souls by holding up Christ and making His love better known. So does the man who exhorts or teaches well. But none of these things is prophesying. Prophesying is that character of truth which puts a man's conscience in the presence of God. It gives the soul the certainty that His mind is in what is spoken. It strips and lays bare thoughts, motives, feelings, everything.

This gift is not about discerning whether or not people were Christians. It is about discerning whether the spirit by which they spoke was of God or of Satan.

This was one of the gifts in the early church, needed for "testing the spirits," because even then many false prophets had gone out into the world. 1 Cor. 12:10; 1 John 4:1-3. This gift was especially necessary at the time when the word of God was not fully written.

The deliberate distribution of these gifts stands out in the last two. "Kinds of tongues" means a variety of languages the speaker never learned. It is set apart from "interpretation of tongues," which is given to another, though 1 Corinthians 14:13 suggests how desirable it is for the two to go together.

Tongues, and the interpretation of tongues that completes them, come at the close of this list. That shows their relative importance from God's point of view. The primary gifts are always those that develop the church in love and faith and the knowledge of Christ. Scripture, on the other hand, always places the sign-gifts lowest on the scale, though people tend to value them differently and far too highly.

1 Corinthians 14 makes it clear that the gift of tongues was not only miraculous. It was also a sign to unbelievers, unlike prophesying, which was expressly for building people up. So it was forbidden to speak "in a tongue" in the Christian assembly, unless someone there could interpret the unknown language for the profit of the saints. The sign-gifts are the ones the Holy Spirit has seen good to withdraw. He still grants all the others that are needed for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for building up the body of Christ.

It is taught that every believer who receives the baptism of the Spirit shows it by speaking with tongues. But that is not the teaching of Scripture. 1 Corinthians 12:9-10 says, "to another [not to ALL] gifts of healing by the one Spirit… to another [not to ALL] various kinds of tongues."

Here it is what God does, not man. The Spirit gives to one the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another faith. To another He gives miraculous gifts, to another prophecy, to another the gift of tongues. "AS HE WILLS" covers all this. It is the assertion of sovereignty, an essential attribute that belongs to God alone.

Many passages prove His personality — a matter of great importance, often lost sight of by those who constantly speak of Him as an influence. Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3). He "apportions to each one individually as He wills" (1 Cor. 12:11).

Here we see the unity of the Spirit. He not only distributes each gift to each person; He works all the gifts, so keeping up dependence on His power. We see no less His sovereign activity as a divine Person… Evil and error may have as many springs as there are men and demons with their varied and often conflicting wills, lusts, and passions. But the very same Spirit works all that glorifies Christ in these different gifts. He gives them out at His pleasure to each servant of the Lord.

God's order for His assembly is a variety of gifts, given to different people, exercised by one will — the power and will of the Holy Spirit. All true order in the assemblies of God's people is the outcome of God Himself working among His people. The Christian world at large ignores this order in practice, if not in doctrine. It does so by its human arrangements, its appointed ministers and its fixed ritual.

Setting aside a special class as priests limits the action of the Spirit of God to one class. It plainly contradicts the Scripture, "who apportions to EACH ONE individually as HE wills" (1 Cor. 12:11).

The Corinthians, unmindful of these truths, wanted to exercise the gift of tongues for their own exaltation and self-glorification. Yet what was it but a gift given to them, and by the Spirit just as He would? In truth, every gift was what its name meant — charisma, a favour. The Holy Spirit granted it to the one who had it, just as He chose. The person had not deserved it, and could not claim it. He only received it. Each gift of the Spirit was for the profit of all.

God is sovereign in His choice of instruments, true; but He morally fits the instrument for the purpose He has in view… So it is always true that in giving His gifts the Holy Spirit "apportions to each one individually as He wills" (1 Cor. 12:11). It is equally true that for the exercise of these gifts He selects those whom prayer and the diligent study of His word have fitted for His service.

The Holy Spirit is Sovereign, but He does not work in one member independently of all the others. I think no two gifts are alike. There are varieties of gifts, but one Spirit, and He alone has distributed them. We would do well to pay attention to this, and to the fact that services differ while there is one Lord. Man cannot make gifts; God gives them… If we understood the differences of services, and that each of us is responsible to the Lord, it would keep us from imitating others, or criticizing them.

Scripture does not only say the body is united with Christ. It says the body is Christ Himself — "so also is Christ." The limbs, so to speak, are simply attached to the Head. The Head gives motion, life, and character to the whole, so the whole thing goes by the name of the Head. It is not easy to grasp the full force of this remarkable language. It seems to lose the Church in Christ, so that He alone is seen, and the Church looks like only a part of Him.

Paul is clearly speaking of the Head in glory and the body here on earth. Together they make up one spiritual "man": Christ is the Head, and all the members are the body. When he says, "So also is Christ," he gives that one mystical man a single name — Christ.

Verse thirteen explains the statement made in verse twelve. It gives the nature and origin of the wonderful truth of verse twelve, which is this: though we are many members, we are one body, and that body carries the name Christ.

We, the members, do not build this unity ourselves. It does not come from each one losing his individuality and merging into the others. That is not how the body is formed. What forms it is the connection of the members with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Look at 1 Corinthians 12:12 to the end. No one in his right mind can fail to see a body on earth here. Paul compares it to our natural body... But it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into one body, and this took place on earth... Which of these gifts are to be exercised in heaven? The whole passage is as clear as language can make it: there is a body formed on earth.

Our human spirit controls how our bodies work. In the same way, the Spirit of God is the animating power of every member of the body of Christ. The body is one. It has many members, yet together they are one body. "So also is the Christ." This is not just local. It takes in the whole body of Christ worldwide, though the local assembly is meant to give expression to it.

"For just as the body is one and has many members" — this is diversity in unity. "And all the members of the body, though many, are one body" — this is unity in diversity. "So also is the Christ." We are united in one body, the Christ, and yet every child of God has his own appointed work, which no one else can do for him. Each one receives a different service. I cannot do yours, and you cannot do mine.

This side of the truth guards us from clericalism, and also from independence. Every member of the one body is needed. Where the gathering does not quench the Spirit, He works through the members for the profit of all.

Of much importance is verse 13... This refers to the formation of the body. The baptism mentioned in this verse is not water baptism. Water baptism does not save, nor can this ordinance put anyone as a member into the true church, the one body. The baptism is the baptism of the Spirit. It took place on the day of Pentecost. On that day the Spirit was poured out, and while He filled every believer, He also united them into one body. Then the body of Christ was formed once for all by this baptism... Many Christians speak of repeated baptisms by the Spirit and point to certain experiences as new baptisms. In the light of this verse all this is incorrect. Scripture knows only one baptism.

Note this carefully: faith did not form this unity, precious and mighty as faith is. The Holy Spirit formed it, sent down in person from heaven. Faith is individual; it does not unite, though it fits for union morally. One believes the gospel for one's own soul... But the baptism of the Spirit is something more than life. So it is not given to the dead unbeliever, but to those already made alive. The result is the one body.

Picture a lake with water as smooth as glass. Someone picks up a pebble and flings it into the centre. What is the result? A circle forms, and it widens and widens until every reed in the lake stands inside it. From the day of Pentecost until now, every soul born of God is brought into that unity, sooner or later, when he receives the forgiveness of his sins and the Holy Spirit.

In baptism a man is submerged and figuratively buried. Here is the basis on which the one body was formed and we are brought into it. We are natural men, children of Adam, with all our personal quirks and rough edges. And we have been submerged in the one Spirit. So all our natural distinctions have disappeared in the one body. There was no greater national distinction than Jew and Gentile. There was no clearer social divide than slave and free. But these distinctions and divides, and all others like them, are gone in the one body.

We have all been baptized in one Spirit into one body. But there is more: each of us, separately and for ourselves, has been made to "drink into (or, of) one Spirit." This seems to be a reference to John 7:37-39. Each member of the body has personally received or drunk of the one Spirit, so that He characterises and governs each. So unity is produced in this twofold way. Each has been submerged in the Spirit, and the Spirit is in each by a personal drinking in.

"We have all been made to drink into one Spirit." This is characteristic... They are all of one mind, all set on the same thing; heart and soul they are seeking the same object... What is that Spirit? It is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit which produces likeness to Christ.

God formed it by an act in the energy of the one Spirit, and that guarantees its integrity. Man cannot violate or destroy it, and neither can satanic power. But the visible display of it during its stay on earth may be marred, and has been. The thing itself, divinely formed, remains, and will be perfectly displayed in glory.

Had the Corinthians paid attention to this, how much sorrow and shame would have been spared!... It is a state that is always ready to repeat itself. It shows up most where knowledge takes the place of love, and believers stoop to form cliques with a favourite leader.

The great and most obvious mark of the body is that it consists of not one member but many. This is so essential to its nature that it could not be called "the body" if it consisted of only one member and not of many. It would be a monstrous shape. It would lack the beautiful unity with diversity seen in the human body, and in every other living structure. It is exactly so with the assembly of God. It is not only His house. It is also Christ's body, because one Spirit has baptised all the believers into one, whatever their background and their otherwise irreconcilable differences. This unity exists now, not only later. It is on earth, not only in heaven.

First, we are reminded that in the human body there is diversity in unity. "The body does not consist of one member but of many." Suppose each member neglected its own function out of envy of members that perhaps have a higher function. Then this diversity would be completely ignored, and the most serious disorder would follow. If the foot began to complain that it was not a hand, or the ear that it was not an eye, the work of the body would stop. Complaining members stop working well for the good of the body.

Sadly, some were misusing what God had given, so that they could exalt themselves. Others, giving their support to one leader or another, helped along a party spirit. This had led to envying, strife and division — marks of man in the flesh rather than of those "sanctified in Christ Jesus". Here in chapter 12 he shows that their behaviour clashed with the truth that the members of the body of Christ depend on each other.

If a humble member of the body were to complain that he was not put in a more exalted place, is he not part of the body? There are two ways the flesh acts: the first is discontent with oneself, and the second is contempt for other people. Each is to be content with his place. The ear would like the position of the eye; there is discontent... but the full blessing of the body normally depends on these differences.

Suppose I now looked to my head or my hand to perform all the functions of the body — it would be nothing less than folly. But the folly is still greater when you look to a "minister" to carry out all the functions of the body of Christ. I do not deny his gift, or gifts: he may be very gifted. But he cannot do the work of all the members of the body gathered there. All of them have gifts that differ according to the grace given.

If everyone realised that the body is not one member, there would not be this desire for uniformity in the things of God. There is unity, but not uniformity... The apostle wants each believer to realise that he has a part to play for all God's people. That part is not only in relation to the church everywhere, but right where he lives... It is so easy to want to be something other than what we are, and to be somewhere else. We imagine that we would then be of greater service. Whatever gift has been given to us, whether it looks important or not, it is for use. It may be of much greater value than we imagine.

Suppose a humble member of the body complains that he was not given a higher place. Is he not still part of the body? There are two ways the flesh acts. The first is discontent with oneself. The second is disdain for other people. Each one should be content with his place.

Here it is not the lower part wanting to be something greater. It is the higher part looking down on the lesser one... Let us be thankful for the grace that has given us any place at all. Let us throw ourselves into the work God has given us in the body of Christ. And let us value and make the most of every other member — not least those whose place is completely different from our own. Let disdain be as far from us as discontent.

No one person, no one member, can cut himself off from the body and stay independent... What makes this spirit of independence so serious is the attempt to break off practical connection with the body of Christ. A foot that claims to have no connection with the hand injures the hand. But the harm does not stop there: it reaches the whole body.

If the foot or the hand were cut off from the body, the relations would be different. But each one forms an essential part of the body. What is the body without the foot? It is incomplete. A body that has lost a part is imperfect, and its well-being suffers... If the foot does not act, what use is it? It still exists as part of the body, but it is a useless member. It gives no help, and it affects all the members.

Whenever someone uses the gift given to them, blessing always follows. But take the one with a humble gift, the kind pictured by "the foot." If he covets what he does not have, he loses his own proper work by ignoring his own place in the body. The whole idea dishonours God.

Can the foot excuse itself from use because it is not the hand? Does walking have no place because it is not work? Whether someone is prominent or not makes no difference. God has set every member in its own place in the body — not by our preference, but as it has pleased Him. If I wanted a different function, let me remember this: if I could change, I would very soon want something else. God knows better what is good for me than I do.

It is so easy to want to be something other than what we are, and to be somewhere else. We imagine we would then be of greater service in the things of God. Many may be saying "I am not of the body" by the attitude they take; their actions say it more plainly than words... They are content to let others do the service God fitted them for. They give little or no thought to their own place in the body.

There are two ways the flesh acts. The first is discontent with oneself, and the second is disdain of other people. Each should be content with his place. "If the ear should say, 'Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body'"... The ear would like the position of the eye. There is discontent.

Here we plainly have discontent with what the Lord had given... if the one with a humble gift, like the foot, covets what he does not have, he loses his own proper work by ignoring his place in the body. The whole thought is therefore dishonouring to God. So again in verse 16... It may run through the members, the highest as well as the lowest.

The foot or the ear cannot help themselves; they are part of the body. They may deny it. They may reject all connection with it. But they cannot get free from it except by amputation, which would be a loss to the body and death to them. The members have no choice about it. They are in the body. Just so it is with Christians and the body of Christ. They may not know it. They may refuse to learn about it. They may reject all connection with it. But they cannot get out of the body.

Because the ear is not as prominent as the eye, is it therefore unnecessary? Is receiving a report unimportant because it is not personal observation by sight? These verses show that no child of God ever has any excuse for not functioning in unity with the rest of the body of Christ... Suppose I preferred a different function. Let me consider this: if I could change, I would very soon prefer something else. God knows better what is good for me than I do.

The blessedness of the body is in each member doing its own function. It is not merely my ear that hears, but I that hear; nor is it only my eye that sees, but rather I who see. It is the man. This is what gives such a sense of unity. It is a real means of blessing to every member, the least just as much as the greatest. They all contribute; and indeed there would be a very noticeable loss if the least member failed to do its part.

Many may be saying "I do not belong to the body" by the attitude they adopt. Their actions speak more loudly than words. The clerical system exists largely because of those who are in effect saying "I do not belong to the body." They are content to let others do the service God has fitted them for. They have little or no concern about their own place in the body.

It is not the inferior part that wants to be something greater, but the superior part that disdains the lesser one... Let us be thankful for the grace that has given us any place. Let us earnestly carry out the functions God has given us in the body of Christ. But let us prize and make the most of every other member, not least those who have a place wholly different from our own. Disdain should be as far from us as discontent.

Next the passage shows how absurd such wishes are. If one member had the right to want some special place, so would all the rest. The result would be the ruin of the body. "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?" The wonderful coordination of the various members in the one body, each in its proper place, would be at an end.

If everyone realised that the body is not one member, no one would want uniformity in the things of God. There is unity, but not uniformity. There is diversity in the unity, and unity in the diversity.

These verses show that no child of God ever has any excuse for not functioning in unity with the rest of the body of Christ. And verse 17 adds that if the eye is essential (observation), so is the hearing (communication), and the smelling (perception). Whether one is prominent or not makes no difference. God has set every member in its own place in the body. He did it, not by our preference, but "as it has pleased Him." Suppose I wanted a different function. If I could change, I would very soon want something else. God knows better what is good for me than I do.

There is the hearing, the seeing, the smelling, and the many other necessary functions of the body, which have their matching parts in the body of Christ. Some are specially fitted with a discerning eye. Some can hear and judge so clearly. Others have such developed spiritual senses that they can tell sooner when things are right or wrong.

The blessing of the body is in each member doing its own work. It is not just my ear that hears — I hear. It is not just my eye that sees — I see. It is the whole person. And this is what gives such a sense of unity. It is a real means of blessing to every member, the least just as much as the greatest. They all contribute, and there would indeed be a very real loss if the least member failed to do its part.

There are two ways the flesh acts: the first is discontent with oneself, and the second is disdain of other people. Each is to be content with his place… The ear would like the position of the eye; there it is discontent. "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing?" The same holds if the whole body were an ear. But as a rule the full blessing of the body depends on these differences.

Suppose I looked to my head or my hand to perform all the functions of the body — it would be nothing less than folly. But the folly is greater still when you look to a "minister" to discharge all the functions of the body of Christ. I do not deny his gift, or gifts. He may have many gifts. But he cannot do the work of all the members of the body who gather there, since all have gifts differing according to the grace given.

This is not a question of a true theory or of a wise practice, but of the divine will. God has so ordained it, and those who wish otherwise are fighting against His word... The assembly follows God's design and constitution, so God sets each member in the place He arranged in the body of Christ, and gives a gift to suit it. Neither self, nor man, nor the church, but God, can and should set the members... He determines for the least as well as for the greatest.

In 1 Timothy 1:12, "Putting me in the ministry," the word is tithemi — to place. The same word appears in Acts 20:28, "over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers," and in 1 Corinthians 12:18, "God has set the members, every one of them, in the body as it pleased Him." Every one of these passages records God's act: putting the apostle into the ministry, placing elders over the church at Ephesus, setting all the various members in the body according to His pleasure.

How then is disorder prevented among the many members? By the recognition that it is God who has "set the members every one of them in the body as it has pleased Him." So in the body of Christ God has given each member his appointed place and function. The result is that no member is pre-eminent. If one member were pre-eminent, there would be no body at all. "If they were all one member, where would the body be?"

There are two ways the flesh acts: the first is discontent about oneself, and the second is disdain of other people. Each is to be contented with his place... The ear would like the position of the eye; there is the discontent... but the full blessing of the body ordinarily depends on these differences.

The moment I see that God has set that brother in his place, and this one in his, I am content, and say, Thank God for that servant and his ministry! It is his place, not mine, so, if I am right, I neither imitate nor copy it, being just satisfied with my own place and niche in the body.

What rest for the heart to know that man did not choose our place in the body — neither we ourselves nor anyone else! God marked out that place for us in infinite wisdom, and with perfect love. God has placed us where our part could best serve His will for the good of His church. In divine grace He has fitted us perfectly for that part. There is therefore no room for envy, no room for self-seeking... God has fitted no one else for the part He has given us. So if we do not serve God where He placed us, the saints of God will lose something.

Only real believers are members of the body of Christ — those who are born again, with the Spirit of God living in them... God has set the members, each one of them, in the body as it has pleased Him. It is inconceivable that God would put in the body any who are not genuine believers in Christ. The body is OF CHRIST and derives FROM Him... It is a living organism.

The body's diversity would be entirely ignored, and the gravest disorder would arise, if each member neglected its own function. That happens when a member envies members that may have a higher function. Suppose the foot began to complain that it was not a hand, or the ear that it was not an eye. Then the work of the body would stop, because complaining members stop working well for the good of the body. Only one thing prevents such disorder. We must recognise that it is God, and not man, who has "set the members every one of them in the body, as it has pleased Him". He gives each member its appointed place and function. The pre-eminence of one member would do away with the body. "If they were all one member", there would be no body.

Another writer remarks that the earlier proof of absurdity (v. 17) appealed to the concrete, while this one appeals to the abstract. I would add this. The first shows that forgetting the truth would destroy what makes each member distinct. This one shows that it would destroy the completeness of the body. "But now they are many members, and yet one body." (v. 20.) The unity of the body fits perfectly with diversity in the members. The diversity of the members fits that one body. And in fact this is according to God's mind.

Some object that in all God's works there is variety. They say that people's minds differ, and that you cannot shape everyone to the same monotonous pattern. Does the oneness that Scripture insists on so strongly mean a lifeless uniformity? The very picture constantly used to describe it proves the exact opposite. In the human body no two parts are alike. The endless differences in its bones, veins, muscles and ligaments all contribute to the healthy action of the whole. Difference of action does not involve schism and division.

What rest for the heart to know that man did not choose our place in the body — not we ourselves, and not anyone else. God marked that place out for us in infinite wisdom, and with perfect love. He has placed us where our part could best serve His will for the good of His church. In His grace He has fitted us perfectly for that part. There is therefore no room for envy; no room for self-seeking... God has fitted no one else for the part He has given us. So if we do not serve God where He has placed us, the saints of God will lose something.

The blessedness of the body is in each member doing its own function. It is not merely my ear that hears, but I that hear. It is not only my eye that sees, but I who see. It is the man... They all contribute; and there would indeed be a very real loss if the least member failed to do its part. This is what the Corinthians had seriously lost sight of. We are in just the same danger as they were. Indeed our danger is special, because we have come out of systems where there was only room for the priest or the minister, and we naturally tend towards it.

The unity of the body agrees perfectly with diversity in the members. And the diversity of the members agrees with that one body. This is in fact according to God's mind. The departure from this is what mainly makes up the disorganised state of the church we now see in Christendom. For the most part all the gifts that can find expression must be in one member in a congregation. And there is not one body, as far as the facts show, but many bodies, differing and opposed.

If verse 13 teaches that all true believers have been baptised into one body, the next verse again stresses the matching truth. The body is made up of many members. Do not confuse the unity God has established in the one body with uniformity. Uniformity marks much of man's work, especially in our day, but not God's work. Man invents machines. They turn out articles by the thousand or the million, exactly the same in every respect. In God's handiwork we see the utmost diversity in unity — unity in the most marvellous diversity.

In 1 Corinthians 12 the key point about the body is its oneness. This oneness rests on the truth that one Spirit forms the body. The body is therefore organic, with nothing artificial about it. The one body is therefore the fruit of an act of God. It is His workmanship. We did not make ourselves children of God. We were born "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). In the same way, we did not make ourselves members of the body of Christ. That too was not of the will of man but of God. So it comes under the statement that applies to all God's spiritual works: "whatever God does endures forever" (Ecclesiastes 3:14). No human opposition or failure can touch it. It stands today.

Here in chapter 12 he shows how far their behaviour was from the way the members of the body of Christ depend on each other. He illustrates his point from the human body (1 Corinthians 12:14-26). There is both a diversity of members — "the body does not consist of one member but of many" — and an essential unity. Paul clearly had the divided state of the Corinthians in view when he wrote that "the members may have the same care for one another". Understanding and valuing "There is one body" would stir up this mutual care in place of self-exaltation and favouritism (Ephesians 4:4).

It is well to remember the precious truth of one body, formed and energised by one Spirit. This truth is not merely something we express on certain occasions. It is what should shape and fashion all our ways in relation to Christ and His members. We need every member of the body, and each member needs us. We are bound together in mutual care and activity for each other's good. We are members one of another. Each member depends on the Head, and is never right unless right with Him. Yet the Head acts through the various members to build up the whole body.

All gifts, whether apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers, were for building up the body of Christ. Some of these gifts might never be used outside one assembly, yet they are for the whole Church.

Here the apostle puts down disdain — the higher members looking down on the lower. He puts it down even more strongly than he put down discontent in the lesser member toward the greater. The highest cannot do without the least. God has made nothing, gives nothing, in vain.

Here it is disdain, not discontent. Earlier it was the lower member discontented because it was not the higher. It is only flesh, no matter where it shows up. This is what is rebuked and set aside.

We have seen that envy of one another would break up the diversity; now we learn that disdain would break up the unity. If the eye treats the hand with contempt, and the head sneers at the feet, all unity of the body would be gone. What meets this danger? Again, recognizing God's own work. God has fitted the body together in such a way that no member can do without the other... in a word, every member is indispensable.

The eye lets in the light. But is light — even spiritual light — enough by itself, without the matching actions of the hand? The one may grasp a true principle, but the other is needed to put it into practice. Or can the head do without the feet? In other words, is intellect enough, apart from a consistent walk? Indeed, to reject one member would be to cripple the body.

He is using the comparison of the body, but not speaking of Christ. The fact is, this chapter does not present the Lord Jesus as the Head on high; here he is looking at the church on earth, and he calls it "Christ" — that is, the identification of the whole.

In Corinthians we see the Church in its order, fellowship, and service. It is the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), and so Christ is its Head. But the Head is not brought before us directly here, only in passing: "nor again the Head to the feet, I have no need of you." I see no difficulty in applying this to Christ.

We cannot do without every member... Because of the disorder in the church of God, we certainly cannot make use of the help of every member of the body of Christ. But even though we are largely deprived of their help and service, we cannot be independent of one of them without suffering loss. The members of the body are bound together that closely... The Corinthians, when split up into parties, were robbing themselves of the gifts given for them all.

He is looking here simply at the body, and bringing out the moral force of the comparison: the highest gift cannot treat the lowest as if he had no need of him. I am sure you will find that where there is spirituality as well as gift, the greater the gift, the more hearty the desire to see the least gift at work — the gift God has given for the good of the church. There will be no such thought as this: that because one person has a superior gift, all others must keep quiet while he is present. The spring of blessing in the church is God Himself, not any one member of the body...

If there are many members, we must remember there is only one Body. But the unity of the Body would be in danger if the higher members looked down on the lower. We have seen that envy of one another would break up the diversity; now we learn that disdain would break up the unity. If the eye treats the hand with contempt, and the head sneers at the feet, all unity of the body would be gone. What meets this danger? Again, the recognition of God's own work. God has tempered the Body together in such a way that no member can do without the other. The greatest member needs the least.

An instinct planted in us tells us this. We feel that the most attractive features can do without the care we freely give to the less attractive ones. Yet we know that some parts of the body seem weaker and are still necessary to its wellbeing, or even to its life. That is not true of some parts that have show and strength and a good place, though they are not so essential.

The main thing is this: the lesser members are not to want a greater place than they have. And the greatest ones are not to act as if they could do without the least. They are all precious in the assembly of God. It is not that they just have their place; "they are necessary." At times they can be hard to bear. They may show all too clearly the feebleness of people who cannot rise above their circumstances and surroundings. But still, "they are necessary."

This comparison drawn from nature checks the tendency of gift to exalt itself. At the same time it cheers the humbler believer with fewer gifts, who might imagine that honour belongs only to prominence in ministry. But in God's household honour follows duty, and the measure of duty is ability. A shepherd without a flock would be nothing but a name. In the same way, the Spirit's gifts only prove themselves when the body holds people those gifts were sent to help. So that the strong may make right use of their strength, the feeble must exist.

The most faithful and advanced Christians feel their dependence on God, and on all saints. Paul's apostolic gift depended in one sense on the prayers of the saints. God meant it to be that way, so that love would bind the church together. The apostle was in a prominent position. Yet he may have received power through the prayers of a poor bedridden woman. All hidden fruit will come to light in the last day… If my heart, which no one sees, does not beat, I cannot run. Some people are the real heart of the church. What we can see is not often what is most precious in God's sight.

Our concern for the parts we cover shows that we should care in the same way for every weakest member of the body of Christ. We should give them honour, if no prominent gift or public role has already brought them honour. The more quiet and obscure the gift, the more encouragement we ought to give that person; those more publicly gifted do not need the same encouragement, though they need our prayers.

Take the face, for instance. It needs no attention, since it is of itself a presentable part. But we naturally take more care of the part that lacks that quality — the foot, for example.

Do I own that I am a member of the body of Christ? That member may be an "unpresentable" or "less honourable" one, yet it is infinitely precious and necessary to the Head. The more "unpresentable" and "less honourable" it is in the sight of men, the more honoured by Him. And God set me in my right place in that body, as it pleased Him.

There was to be no self-exaltation. Among the Corinthians there certainly was, because they had so many gifts, especially the sign-gifts. They looked down on other members who were less prominent. And this caused the division that threatened the body.

The most dignified and most useful gifts in the local assembly were not the ones that drew the most attention. They were the ones that brought real blessing to the saints. Gifts of healing, miraculous powers, speaking with tongues and other sign-gifts were like the ornaments we put on our bodies. The gifts of greatest value built up, encouraged and comforted the saints.

When we dress our bodies, we use every skill we have to give them a beauty that nature has denied. So it is also in the Church. The more abundant grace given to some should find its happy opportunity in hiding what others lack. Love covers many sins like a garment. And the patient, diligent ministry of grace makes the beauty of Christ appear in many a soul. Without such care, that soul might waste away, unnoticed by every eye but that of the great Shepherd of the sheep.

We cover most of our visible members with clothing, to give them more abundant honour. Our concern for them is a witness that we should care in the same way for every weakest member of the body of Christ. We should give them honour, if no prominent gift and function has honoured them in public. The more quiet and obscure the gift, the more encouragement we ought to give that person. Those with more public gifts do not need the same encouragement, though they need our prayers.

Here we plainly see that our responsibility flows from what God has done. He has tempered the body together, fitting all its parts for mutual help and blessing, and we are to act in line with His purpose... Is there no danger of forgetting this truth? Do we care mainly for prominent members and splendid gifts, and neglect the members we think to be less honourable? Very often the assemblies with the most distinguished gifts are spiritually the weakest.

Take the face, for instance. It needs no special care, because it is presentable in itself. But we take more care of the part that is not as presentable — the foot, for example. So here we find God's aim: "But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body."

The quieter and more hidden the gift, the more encouragement we ought to give that person. Those with more public gifts do not need the same encouragement, though they need our prayers. It is God who has tempered the body together. He fits each member into its own place, where it depends on all the others and works with them. In doing so, He has shown real care for the weakest member.

The apostle never presents the gift with the outward, visible sign as the most valuable and important one. He states the exact opposite, and he separates the two kinds of gift.

No doubt this had special application to the conditions in Corinth when the apostle wrote. The most dignified and most useful gifts in the local assembly were not the ones that drew the most attention. They were the ones that brought real blessing to the believers. Gifts of healing, miraculous powers, speaking in tongues and other sign gifts were like the decorations we add to our bodies. The gifts of greatest value were the ones that built up, encouraged and comforted the believers.

There are many members, but only one body. That unity is in great danger if the higher members look down on the lower ones. Envy of one another would break up the diversity; disdain would break up the unity. If the eye treats the hand with contempt, and the head sneers at the feet, all unity of the body would be gone. Only one thing shuts out this disorder: recognising the presence and power of God. He has tempered the body together so that no member can do without the others.

Here we see that our responsibility flows from what God has done. He has tempered the body together. He adjusted it in all its parts for mutual help and blessing, and we are to act in line with His purpose and preserve what He has made... Is there no danger of forgetting this truth? Do we care mainly for prominent members and splendid gifts, and neglect the members we think are less honourable? Very often the assemblies with the most distinguished gifts are the weakest in spiritual life. Their danger is losing their sense of dependence on the Head and on one another, and looking too much to the gifts they admire.

The moment I see that God has set one brother in his place and another in his, I am content. I say, Thank God for that servant and his ministry! It is his place, not mine. So, if I am right, I neither try to rival it nor copy it. I am satisfied with my own place and niche in the body.

We have seen, then, that God has made the body of Christ like the natural body. He formed it so that there would be no division of interest. Instead, the good of each lies in the good of all, and each member cares for every other. It is His aim, but may not be the fact.

The word is translated "divisions" in 1 Corinthians 1:10 and elsewhere. It refers to divisions caused by parties in the church. Given the unity of the Spirit, schism can only be sin… Scripture does not teach the modern ideas of "agreeing to differ" or "unity only in essentials." It teaches the opposite.

There was to be no self-exaltation. But there certainly was among the Corinthians, because of the gifts they had in such abundance, especially the sign-gifts. They looked down on other members who were less prominent. And this was responsible for the threatening division in the body.

…and not least where knowledge takes the place of love, and saints stoop to form cliques with a favourite leader, to help them on in the sorry work of jealousy and running others down. Is this the members having the same care for one another? Or is it not schism, against which God tempered the body together so that there should be none?

Every member has his own special place in the body, given to him by God… Knowing this for certain keeps us from self-occupation, pride, and envy. Suppose our place looks brilliant. Then, unless we are very watchful, the vanity of the flesh stirs. Instead of being tender and considerate toward others, and using what we have received to build up the body, we will most likely turn haughty, hard, and domineering. We will be an annoyance rather than a comfort to the saints. On the other hand, suppose our place is neither prominent nor brilliant. Then the tendency is to shrink from any service given us to do, and the whole body loses the ministry no one but ourselves can give.

…not a slavish subjection to hard "ecclesiastical" prohibitions and restrictions, to rules and regulations, but a tender care for every member of that one body… I believe this is part of what the Apostle means when he says, "when you come together to eat, wait for one another" (chapter 11:33). That means more than waiting until everyone has arrived. It means the spirit of patience, consideration and compassion that those bound together by such a bond should show each other as they gather in the fellowship of the Lord's death.

God has taken care that "there may be no division in the body." The strictest discipline of the house of God can never touch, in the most remote way, the unity of the body of Christ. That unity is absolutely indissoluble. A clear understanding of this would answer a thousand questions and solve a thousand difficulties.

Yes, God could not speak more plainly, not only about what He condemns, but also about what His will is as to what is right… Man says there should be sects, and would have me join one or help to grow it. God says there should be none, for the body is one. Shall I obey God or man? Judge for yourselves.

It is not said merely that they ought, but that they do. Whether it is good or ill, all that is according to God in one Christian goes out for blessing to all the rest. And when a saint on the other side of the world falls into evil or scandal, its shadow and its suffering reach every other one in these lands. We consciously suffer or rejoice, one may add, in the measure of our spiritual power. But the effect is real throughout the church. It is a body — the body of Christ — and as a whole it feels in joy or sorrow: otherwise it would not be a real organic unity. Its present condition, with denominational barriers that split the saints into independent groups, reduces spiritual sensibility to the lowest. Still, it survives these sad hindrances by its own life, which flows from the Holy Spirit of God who dwells in the church.

No part of the human body suffers in isolation; the suffering of any one part affects the whole body, and every individual part of it. It is the same where the truth of the one body in Christ is known and taken in. Any trial or sorrow that comes on one saint of God is felt by every other member of the assembly. We suffer with them because a divine unity binds us together. That unity holds us closer in life and affection than any other bond of fellowship in this world. The ties that bind people together here are bonds that death snaps. But in the one body the Holy Spirit binds the saints of God together in a unity of divine life that death cannot touch.

If one member is suffering spiritually — from lukewarmness, from backsliding, or through falling into temptation — all the members will be affected, though they may not know it. The state of the whole is the state of its individual members. Take a basin of hot water, and if you add only two drops of cold, the temperature of the whole will be lowered. It is so in the Church too. Let one person in the assembly be cold at heart, and the tone of the whole will drop. All suffer with the suffering member.

We must not lose sight of the truth of the one Body. Just before this verse, in verse 25, we read: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another." A member of the Church of Christ in Africa is just as truly linked with us as one we see every day.

It might be comparatively easy to suffer with each other; our compassion, our feelings and our hearts go out to those who suffer in whatever way the suffering is known. But it is a different matter to rejoice with each other. Someone is moving forward. Someone is being blessed. It is plain that the Lord has laid His hand on him and he is growing spiritually. How easy it is then for the seeds of envy to spring up in the heart and mind. "But," says Paul, "we are to rejoice with each other." Can I do that? Yes, we can all do it in the Spirit's power. It is the fruit of the Spirit.

We must not suppose that fellowship is limited to the privileges and blessings we enjoy when we meet together. It reaches into all the details of the state and circumstances of every member of the body… We are all urged to "rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep," and to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."

The word of God has settled the question. "God," says the Scripture — note it well: God, and not man — God "has set some in the church; first apostles, second prophets, third teachers." Well then! Let it be God, and not man, who appoints them, and we shall be content.

The church may be the sphere where the gifts are exercised, but never the source of the authority, any more than of the power — both come from Christ. It is He who gives the commission, He who sends labourers to sow or reap... There is therefore no real ministry according to God without a gift in the word; and where such a gift is exercised, that is ministry.

The gifts are placed here in the order of their value — numbered 1, 2, 3 — for a reason. The Corinthians were very full of their sign-gifts. They were very taken up with the man who had power to speak with tongues and the like. And they valued very little these other gifts, which were of far deeper importance and value for building up. The Lord comes in and puts things in their true place. He estimates the gifts at their real worth before Him, as made known by Him, and He puts "tongues" last.

"God set some in the church," not in a church. Viewed as separate churches, apostles could be in only a few of them. There were none in the church at Corinth when Paul wrote.

It is clear here that it is not a question of heaven, but of earth, of the church; for in heaven there are no healings, no helps.

Many take "helps" and "governments" to be the gifts needed for the offices of deacon and elder, in that order.

Why is a term covering such varied service used here as the name of one particular gift? We may well assume that the ambiguity is intentional. It was meant to encourage those who, with hearts true to Christ, are still small in their own eyes, and unaware of the qualities that win distinction in the sight of men. To such people it is a gift to be reminded that God's work has need of helpers, and that no work of love is without its effect in building up the body of Christ.

The apostles were persons given to the church. They had no successors. They were given for one definite purpose: to lay the foundation of the church. They passed away when this work was done. No others joined their number, because their particular service did not continue. The prophets of the church were gifted to communicate the mind of God about the truths and blessings that follow the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The teachers follow these two. They explained to God's people the instructions given to the early church through the higher gifts, and they explained the Old Testament scriptures in the light of the New.

All cannot be apostles, prophets, leaders, workers of miracles, and so on. God does not give all these different gifts to one individual. He distributes them as it pleases Him, to each member as He sees fit. The Corinthians in their puffed-up condition had a selfish ambition to have all these gifts concentrated in every member.

At the end of the chapter (vv. 29 and 30) Paul raises many questions. He gives no answer, because the answer is so obvious. "Are all apostles?" he asks. No. "Are all prophets?" No. "Do all speak with tongues?" Again, no. Are all Christians members of Christ's body by baptism of the Spirit? Yes. Do all the members speak with tongues? No.

Notice too how, in verses 29, 30, the apostle's questions assume that gifts are distributed among the members of Christ, and not concentrated either in one or in all. Neither do all have the same functions, nor does any one have all the functions which are expressly said to be distributed to each of the many members, to this one, and to that another.

Verses 29-30 show another important principle. All cannot be apostles, prophets, leaders, workers of miracles, and so on. God does not give all these different gifts to one individual. They are distributed as it pleases Him, to each member as He sees fit. Ministry in the body of Christ is the exercise of a gift. The Corinthians in their puffed-up condition had a selfish ambition to have all these gifts concentrated in every member.

The questions here match, in principle, the ones already asked about the natural body. Their clear aim is to check self-confident presumption, which might look for a chance to make a false display under cover of the general teaching of spiritual liberty. The Spirit does fill the whole body, but He gives out His gifts to each in a particular way. Freedom to act reaches only as far as the power God gives to act.

There are functions in the church, and the Master appoints people to them as He pleases… In the church of God there are special places of service. "Are all apostles?" Anyone who thinks that being a fellow believer leaves him free to take up any function in the assembly is seriously mistaken.

But it is the Lord who calls, not the church. The church may be the place where the gifts are used. It is never the source of the authority, any more than of the power. Both come from Christ. He gives the mission. He sends workers out to sow or reap… The Lord equips the servant He calls for the work He gives him to do. Scripture, and this chapter above all, shows that ministry is the use of a gift from the Lord for a set purpose.

The Corinthians were foolish to want every gift in every believer. The modern theory that claims all public ministry for one official is no better. The first was ignorant vanity, at a time before the truth stood written down in full. The second is a more guilty presumption, since it stands in the presence of God's acknowledged word, which condemns every departure from His principles.

Let us be thankful for the grace that has given us any place at all. Let us carry out with zeal the functions God has given us in the body of Christ. But let us value every other member and make the most of them — not least those whose place is completely different from our own. Let disdain be as far from us as discontent.

Many believe that unless someone can speak with tongues he has not received the Holy Spirit… The apostle Paul's questions in 1 Cor. 12:29-30 prove that not everyone spoke with tongues. Every member in the body of Christ has a place and a service. But members do not all have the same gifts, however useful they are… And note this well: the apostle is speaking to people who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

At the end of the chapter (vv. 29 and 30) Paul asks many questions. He gives no answer, because the answer is so obvious. "Are all apostles?" he asks. Clearly, No. "Are all prophets?" No. "Do all speak with tongues?" Just as clearly, No. Are all Christians members of Christ's body by baptism of the Spirit? Yes. Do all the members speak with tongues? No.

There would be no meaning in these questions if the fact had not been self-evident, that such places in the body were filled by but a few.

Their clear aim is to check the rise of fleshly pride, which might look for a chance at a false display under cover of the general teaching of spiritual liberty. The Spirit does indeed fill the whole body, but He gives His gifts to particular people, and freedom to act must stay within the measure of power He supplies. An apostle has his "signs." A prophet has his witness in the hearts of those who hear him. A teacher is approved or discredited by the word he claims to explain. And so with the rest. What God really gives, He also makes work.

All cannot be apostles, prophets, leaders, workers of miracles, etc. God does not give all these different gifts to one person. He hands them out as He pleases, to each member as He sees fit. Ministry in the body of Christ is the use of a gift. The Corinthians were puffed up, and they had a selfish ambition to see all these gifts gathered in every member.

This shows us how fully the truth stands: God, not man, arranged the assembly and the place each one holds in it. The same principle runs from the highest to the lowest, from apostles down to the least gift that shows the Spirit at work in it.

The One who confused human speech at Babel was able to give some in Jerusalem the power to speak languages they had never learned, and He did so. We say some, because even in the days of the apostles not all Christians shared in this display of the Spirit... At Corinth, where some had that power, it seems that not all did. At Philippi, Rome, Thessalonica and in Galatia we read of no convert receiving it. Paul himself spoke with tongues more than any of the Corinthians. He needed it for his work, and he tells us the purpose of it was to impress and to attract unbelievers.

They did not all have all the gifts he mentions, but he urges them to desire the greater ones. "Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts." The greater gifts were not miracles and tongues, but apostles, prophets and teachers. God gave these to establish the church in the great truths of its heavenly calling and its link with Christ on high. And since apostles and prophets have not remained to this day, we are not entitled to expect the miracles and tongues named in the same list to continue.

"The interpretation of tongues" means explaining what at least some people did not understand... Let us remember that every gift has in view the blessing of the body of Christ, and not merely the blessing of the person who has the gift.

In 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 1 Corinthians 14:39, the word is ζηλόω. It is quite different from the coveting that Scripture condemns. Revelation 3:19 translates it "be zealous." The passages in Corinthians can be translated the same way, or as "desire earnestly" the best gifts, and "desire earnestly" to prophesy.

We are to desire earnestly the better, or greater, gifts — gifts such as prophesying or teaching. The opening verses of 1 Corinthians 14 make this clear. These are better because they bring wider and more general profit. Each person receives his gift for the profit of all.

A reading of the Scriptures will show that "tongues" is one of those gifts they were not told to desire earnestly. As a gift, the apostle counts it one of the least, and he places it last in his list (1 Corinthians 12:28). On the other hand, he urges them to desire to prophesy. Prophecy built up and comforted the church, while tongues were only a sign to unbelievers.

I think this exhortation may be taken in two ways. Sometimes people take it to mean that a person may hold a holy ambition for some great gift in the church. No doubt this view is right, though very few such ambitions come true. But does not the apostle mean more than this? Does he not mean that all believers should want God to work among them by the greater gifts, the gifts that build others up?

This does not mean that each person should desire a gift to outshine others. Rather, the assembly was to desire earnestly that the best gifts be used in a godly way among them. But chapter 14:12 gives the rule for desiring gifts: seek to excel at building up the church. Gift is given for the good of others, not for my own satisfaction.

At the same time the saints are encouraged to desire earnestly the greater gifts, but these were for edification, not for show. And yet he points out to them a way of far greater excellence. It is surely not just a way, however good, to get these gifts, as some suppose. It is a way for souls to feel and think, to walk and worship, beyond all gifts. It is the way of love, which he opens out in the next chapter.

Still, there was something more excellent than all gifts. The gifts were displays of the power of God and of the mysteries of His wisdom. Love was the display of His nature itself.

We are told to "earnestly desire the higher gifts," and yet, "I will show you a still more excellent way." What is that way? To love one another. It may take talents and gifts to preach or teach. It may take a large income to give much to the Lord's work. But anyone can love with a full heart, even if head and pocket are both empty.

We should covet earnestly the best gifts, but we should also remember the "more excellent way," even the way of love that ever hides itself and seeks only the profit of others. It is not that we value gifts less, but we value love more.

At the same time Paul tells the saints to desire the greater gifts eagerly, but these gifts were for building up, not for show. And yet he points them to a far better way. It is not merely a way, however good, to get these gifts, as some suppose. It is a way for souls to feel and think, to walk and worship, beyond all gifts. It is the way of love, and he opens it out in the next chapter.

To prove the supreme value of love, the Apostle names three things the Corinthian believers were boasting about: their eloquent speech, their spiritual possessions, and their activities. They may try to lift themselves up by these things. But he shows that these things count for nothing in God's sight if love is not the motive.

Today people usually take the word "charity" to mean kind feelings toward others, or gifts of money to the poor. But that is not what the Greek word agapee means, the word Paul uses all through this chapter. The Revised Version and all good modern versions translate it "love." In 1 John 4:7-12 this same word agapee appears several times, and there too it is translated "love." To say "God is charity" (the same word) instead of "God is love" would shock our ears, and rightly so.

Ancient musical instruments, made of metal plates struck together. On their own they made no tuneful sound, and they could only be played alongside other instruments… In Corinthians the cymbal is a picture of someone making a show in speaking without love in the heart.

Whatever the estimate of the value of tongues in modern days, the apostle rates them, whether of men or of angels, to be, in the absence of love, no more than "a mere instrument of sound without sense, dead, mechanical, devoid of moral worth." There is much clangour and clatter, but no true ministry of the Spirit bearing witness to the spirits of the saints. No edification results, for it is love that builds up, while tongues like knowledge puff up.

A brother stands up in the meeting and speaks words of rare sweetness and thrill, though we cannot understand a word of them. We find that he has given a message from God in a language of heaven, one that angels use. How wonderful! How we would stare at him! Yes. But if he has done this without love, he might as well have brought an old brass pan into the meeting and hit it with a poker. That is all the good he has done for the Lord's interests in the assembly.

Love is what God is. If I do not have it, I am not born of God, and so I do not share His nature… You say, I have no gift. Maybe so, but you can love. Every Christian can do that. And it is worth more than the brightest gift, because love is the nature of God and seeks the blessing of others. It thinks of everybody but itself.

Still, there was something more excellent than all gifts. Gifts were the displays of the power of God and of the mysteries of His wisdom; love was the display of His nature itself.

As this is what 1 Corinthians 12 sets before us, so the apostle goes on to remind the Corinthians that there was one thing even better than gifts. This was love. Looking at God's nature, He is certainly Light, but what is the energy of that nature? It is love. It is love that actively comes to us from God and blesses us. Love is the energy of the divine nature. It is what Christ showed us God to be, and what the Spirit would now work in us.

Of course, "all faith" in this verse has nothing to do with believing in the Son of God, for whoever believes has everlasting life. It means only faith as a miraculous power, which a man who is not born again might have (Matthew 7:22-23).

The Apostle is not speaking of faith in Christ, for this faith works by love. He is speaking instead of faith which enables people to overcome great obstacles and do great exploits. And he says it is possible to have such faith without love.

God's mysteries mean those secret things which are now revealed, in contrast with what Israel had of old (Deuteronomy 29:29). They are not, as most people suppose, things too deep to understand. They are truths God kept back in Old Testament times, now displayed in Christ on high and made known by the Spirit in the New Testament.

Saul the king could prophesy too. Balaam the prophet prophesied while loving the wages of unrighteousness. Caiaphas the priest prophesied while he was thirsting for innocent blood. Judas the apostle worked miracles while he carried the heart of a traitor. Each of them had received a new heart, or "another heart," as a gift for office, and in the Spirit they prophesied or worked miracles. But all this tells us that it is not gifts that make us what we should be, and that nothing will do if the heart is not with God.

He not only reaches the heart of divine things; through his gift of prophecy he can also tell others what he knows. He also has faith of an almost miraculous power. Yet he has not love! We are not told that he is like a clanging piece of brass. It is possible that we may gain some help and understanding from what he says, and some inspiration from his remarkable faith. What we are told is that he himself is nothing. If we are unspiritual ourselves, we might imagine him to be a giant. Really he is less than a pygmy. He is nothing.

Verse 1 deals with what I speak; verse 2 with what I have; and verse 3 with what I do. Where love is missing, the motive for using the gift is selfish; it is not genuine concern for others, or for the glory of God. So in my every effort to be something, "I am nothing."

This word appears often in the Authorised Version where the word "love" would be much better, and indeed the same Greek word is often translated "love." 1 Corinthians 13:3 shows that a person may be very charitable or benevolent but have no love.

We may readily admit that a man can talk well without love, and boast in his spiritual knowledge without love. We may tell such a person to talk a little less and do a little more. But the apostle further warns us that it is also possible to do much without love. He says a man's good works may rise so high that he gives all his goods to feed the poor, and gives his body as a martyr to be burned. Yet the motive may not be love, and so all his activities profit him nothing.

A philanthropist may give only to draw attention to how generous he is. Another may give freely to quiet a bad conscience, troubled because he did not gain his wealth honestly. But let the believer always be moved by love toward the Lord, and toward others.

Neither almsgiving nor self-sacrifice necessarily implies a living faith. Even the most lavish spending on causes that look "charitable" may spring from motives quite foreign to the life of God. In the same way, blind fanatical zeal may lead a person to die for a lie against the truth.

The lesson here is not that active zeal is a bad thing. It is that growing in divine love matters more than any single act.

So God may use words without love, knowledge without love and activities without love to do His own work. Yet they add nothing to the one who speaks and acts this way. Without love he will be nothing and profit nothing, whatever his words, his possessions and his activities.

Love was conformity to the nature of God. It was the living expression of what He is, and the evidence that a person has been made a partaker of His nature. It was acting and feeling according to His likeness. This love develops in relation to others; but others are not the motive, though they are the object. Its source is within. Its strength does not depend on the people it is occupied with. So it can act where circumstances would stir irritation or jealousy in the human heart.

Love must be the driving power, or nothing counts. But we cannot love in order to gain something for ourselves by it. There is only one way to get it: as flame lights flame. So love alone kindles love: "We love because he first loved us."

Next we come, not to a definition of love, but to its qualities as they appear in this world. They are described for our instruction. Here we see what Christ was on earth: active in love as well as patient under suffering, rising above evil… Patience in the middle of trial is the first mark of love mentioned. Love even shows real kindness instead of holding on to a wish for revenge.

"Love is patient." The flesh is always impatient. Love can bear long with others and wait for God's time. The flesh soon runs out of endurance. Love does not wear out.

First comes a positive feature. Love is patient and kind. Nothing can surpass the long patience and kindness of God's dealings with rebellious people. God is love. So the more we show the divine nature, the more we will show long patience and kindness — to everyone, and to our brothers and sisters.

The description is not so much of what love does as of what it does not do. That shows that the heart of love is self-denial and self-forgetting. How easy it is to take up active, demanding service instead of suffering. Yet the first thing mentioned is, "Love is patient and kind." We hate to suffer at the hands of others. We are quick to hit back.

Love has none of the ugly deformities of character and behaviour that come naturally to us in the flesh… (1) Envy of others. (2) Boasting about oneself, or vainglory, or as some translate it, being "insolent and rash." (3) Being puffed up, or swollen with one's own importance… The string that runs right through these eight things is love of self.

Love comes from God; envy comes from Satan. Envy was a main part of the first sin, and it drove Cain's murderous hatred of his brother… Envy can find no place in God's presence, though it often waits at the door of the place of worship. Moses was meeker than his helper Joshua, because Moses spoke with God, while Joshua only spoke with Moses. When the disciples argued over who was greatest, they did it behind the Master's back.

The flesh always wants a place above others. It is jealous when favour or position goes to someone else instead of to self. Love can delight, without a thought of envy, in honours given to another.

Self-importance is the inside version of self-display. Both are foreign to a love that forgets itself. It grows best where people know themselves least, and that is why there was so much of it at Corinth… Love is not like this. Love flows most freely from a heart that truth has first broken and then healed… Its best cure is to turn and look again at Him in the place His love has chosen for our sakes.

Four times the apostle speaks of the Corinthian believers as being "puffed up." In 1 Corinthians 4:6 he says they are "puffed up for one against another." In verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter he points to people puffed up in their speech, it seems against the apostle himself. In 1 Corinthians 5:2 he has to rebuke them for being puffed up when they should have mourned over what was going on among them.

Some of the beautiful traits of love have marked God's people in every age. We see the kindness of God in men like Joseph and David. We see unselfishness and meekness in Moses and Paul, and patience and endurance in men like Job… But Jesus showed every feature of love in perfection, blended together and expressed in everything He did.

Gift is something we may rightly desire. Even so, we can easily abuse gifts. Like the believers at Corinth, we can use them to exalt ourselves. So we are told there is a more excellent way of serving one another.

Love "does not behave in an improper way." The flesh can be rude and ill-mannered, even in people high in society. Love will lead the highest by birth, as well as the lowest, to be courteous.

Sincerity never shows off. Truth has its own sense of what is fitting, and love knows this well and never breaks it. Its boldness is not shamelessness.

"Seeks not her own." But nature does. This single attribute is enough to declare the origin of love. By this the inseparable connection between faith and love can also be clearly seen. The heart must have a satisfying portion of its own in Christ. Without that, this self-forgetting love is impossible. Self-seeking may often show itself in acts that look like works of love. Christ sought neither His own will nor His own glory; but, as the self-sacrificing Shepherd, He both seeks and finds His sheep.

If a man once makes self the whole of his aim, farewell to loving others or praying for them. Love cannot live in a house as narrow as the self-lover's heart. Indeed it is the opposite of it: "Love seeks not her own."

Love "is not easily provoked." It is not touchy. Love will put the best construction on what is questionable. For instance, you meet a brother in the Lord in the street. He takes no notice. Love would not take offence at what looked like a snub. It would believe that the brother had not seen you, and would not have acted that way if he had.

"Is not easily provoked." Love knows how hard its work is, and it expects both difficulties and obstacles. But its labour is not for itself, so personal disappointment does not ruffle it. Just indignation may go well with love; irritability does not. Jesus could feel the former on occasion, the latter never.

"Thinks no evil" does not quite express the clause. It means not keeping the evil in the mind and on the tongue. Here it is an actual evil done. It would breed resentment if love were not there — love, which is always above evil, always free and always holy.

"Does not impute evil," for its business is to hide sins rather than expose them. God in His righteousness did not do this to us, so we who are sinners should not do it to one another. And this virtue will never sit idle for lack of opportunity. Not a day can pass without some call on it. Besides the many real offences, there are unclear cases that constantly tempt us to criticise. But where a choice is possible, love chooses the favourable side. It does not shut its eyes to sin, but openly rebukes it as God's witness, while freely forgiving all that is against itself.

The religious teachers and Pharisees in John chapter 8 were very moral, religious people. They were shocked when they found this poor woman caught in open sin, and very angry with her. Justice and the law of Moses, they thought, demanded that she be made an example of — it was not right that such a sinner should live. It comforts and quiets the corrupt heart of man if he can only find a person worse than himself. He thinks that another's greater sin excuses his own; and while he accuses and fiercely blames another, he forgets his own evil. In this way he rejoices in iniquity.

Love does no wrong to its neighbour, so it cannot rejoice in what goes against its own nature. Being itself the child of goodness, it can only grieve when evil acts and prospers. Its only interest in wrongdoing is to help and befriend its victims. What hate hunts out, love will not see. It waits for no one to stumble, and twists no one's words. It does not say, "That is just how we wanted it," when the righteous fall.

Someone hears a report. It seems true, so they pass it on. Yet if anyone had taken the trouble to check it, they might have found it false. Christians above all should be careful here. Refuse every report that harms another person's name, unless proof you cannot doubt stands behind it. So the responsibility falls on the hearer as well as on the person who repeats the report. If people remembered this, they would stop many a slander at the start, expose many a gossip, and prevent many a break in fellowship. The cure is that love which thinks no evil, takes no pleasure in wrongdoing, and rejoices with the truth.

"Rejoicing with the truth," as the margin reads. It is in the truth, no doubt. The truth is there, and I rejoice with it and take delight in it. Suppose the truth is being preached; my heart goes with it and is delighted.

God's love in His people must either droop or rejoice along with the truth. That truth gave this love its life, and truth is its proper voice. Natural affection may use flattery, and often shows a practical indifference to truth. But love that is real hates both of these things. Its delight is in God, and therefore in the truth.

It is one of the marks of divine love that it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Divine love does not always say smooth things. It is always angry, and rightly so, when people trample truth in the dust and lift error up.

Love "rejoices with the truth." The flesh is unholy and can find pleasure in being occupied with evil. Love is holy and finds its joy in being occupied with the truth. So love is not blind, for it knows and values the truth.

The negative qualities show the patient endurance of love. Notice the word 'not'. The positive ones show love in action, and that action leaves nothing out. Notice the word 'all'.

Love "bears all things". Our natural self can bear very little without showing resentment. Love can bear all things, and often in silence.

Love bears, or covers, all things. Of course it never approves of wrong. But it takes no pleasure in spreading news of what other people have done wrong.

"Believes all things" is not being suspicious. Love is quick to believe. It "hopes all things." It wishes no harm and does not think about evil. Evil tends to depress the soul, but God is above all that... Christ was here in the world with no suspicion in His mind. That is the spirit we should walk in. If you are always suspecting people, who will trust you?

Love is not irritable or resentful. Love believes all things — not the evil things, but the good ones. Where it cannot believe all the good it would like, it at least hopes all things. It hopes the good report is true and the bad one false.

Love believes all the truth it can find. It hopes that whatever is missing will be supplied in time. Meanwhile it puts up with every lack. Clearly the phrase "all things," repeated four times, must be read within its context. Someone who believed "all things" without limit would end up in a swamp of uncertainty and deception.

Love "endures all things". The flesh, assuming the worst, has no hope, and when hope is gone there is no power to endure. Love hopes all things, and that hope gives strength to endure when opposition and discouragement come.

So love bears every annoyance. It believes all the good it can. It hopes for everything, even when evil is plain to see right now. It endures all things, whether persecution or suffering, knowing this is what we are here for. Seeing God in Christ lifts the heart above the crushing power of evil, and above suspicion too.

Everything this wonderful chapter says love does, we have seen fully displayed in the Son of God. He bore all things and endured all. He put up with the weaknesses and failures of His disciples. He endured the hostility of sinners against Himself.

"Love never fails." It cannot fail or stop. It is the very life of God. Those born of Him will live that life for ever in His presence, once everything holding it back is gone. It is a nature, not a gift — except that life itself is the gift of Him who is the life-giving Spirit. But special gifts and displays of the Spirit must cease with the occasion that called them forth.

Prophecies and knowledge will end. Tongues will stop. But love lasts. They suit the time we live in now. They are only partial. They do not fit the perfect state, where no evil exists and love is fully at work. Love belongs in glory. Partial, passing helps end when glory comes.

Verses 8 to 13 now deal with love's permanence. It never fails. So it stands in contrast to prophecies, tongues, and knowledge. Prophecy is only for a condition in which people need building up, encouragement, and comfort. Even in the millennium, prophecy will no longer be necessary (Zech. 13:2-5).

Tongues attract the worldly mind of fallen human nature. But they will stop. In the new creation, when all things have become new, there will be only one language. Tongues are a reminder of the pride of man, when he set out to build a city and a tower with its top reaching to heaven. But God stepped in and broke the power of man… by confusing their language, giving them tongues to weaken them.

Knowledge, or the partial knowledge that we have at the present time, will be done away. The knowledge we have now is not full knowledge. It is something we keep adding to. That alone proves how much we do not know. However much we take in of the truth here, it always stays knowledge "in part".

The contrast is between the most shining gifts, which pass, and the lasting marks of divine life in believers. The more we live by our old nature, the more mere gifts dazzle us. The more we live by the Spirit, the more we value faith, hope, and love.

You say, I have no gift. Possibly so, but you can love. Every Christian can do that. And it is worth more than the brightest gift. Love is the nature of God. It seeks the good of others, and thinks of everybody but itself. What chapter 13 says of love is the divine nature showing itself again. It is the life of Jesus, and love abides for ever.

This again proves how far love rises above the rest. It will never be out of date. Prophecies and knowledge will end, and tongues will stop. But love stays. The gifts suit our present state. They are only in part, and they do not fit the perfection where no evil exists and love is in fullest exercise. Love belongs to a state of glory. Passing, partial helps come to their natural end when glory arrives.

What God tells us, the means He uses, and knowledge as we gain it down here — all of it is only in part. We grasp the truth in part only, even though God has revealed the whole truth to us. We take it in detail, so we never have the whole at once; our knowing takes hold of different truths one at a time. Everything that is only in part passes away. Love will not pass away. But a time was coming when believers would know even as they were known. Truth would no longer come piece by piece to a mind that grasps parts. They would understand it as a whole, in its unity.

ginōskō and epiginōskō appear together in 1 Corinthians 13. In verse 8 there is a knowledge (gnōsis) that will vanish away, and verse 9 explains it: "we know (gin.) in part." This knowledge is fragmentary now, so it differs from what will be "when the perfect comes" (verse 10). That leads to the contrast in verse 12: "Now I know (gin.) in part; then I shall know fully (epigin.), even as I have been fully known" (epigin.). The difference between the two words is the added force that the preposition epi gives to gnōsis, 'knowledge' (or its verb), making it 'a deeper and more intimate knowledge, and acquaintance.'

One writer even claims that "the Scriptures themselves protest against the traditional view of the Gospels that they are absolutely true," and the passage he points to is 1 Corinthians 13:9 and the verse after it. But that passage only speaks of what is true as far as it goes. It covers nothing that is in any way false. It concerns what still remains unrevealed.

Not one of us can see things as they truly are, from the viewpoint of God's perfect and complete knowledge. Our prophesying too is "in part." Remembering this should humble us, so that we never dare to make any man's ministry the set standard for doctrine or practice. We are only servants, limited to a very small sphere.

When we speak of "a truth" — a common way of speaking, but I think a wrong one, as though we had grasped something that stands on its own — it tends to puff us up. That does not happen when we see what we know as only part of one great whole, which exists for us in the mind of God. To pass off the little we know as the whole, and to feel superior to others because of it, is folly and pride.

Even if we become "Fathers" in the Christian family (1 John 2:13-14), we shall still be unable to understand down here as we shall in the Father's House. Full maturity can never be reached while we are on earth. There is always room for exercise and growth in the divine nature. Paul was mature in the things of God, and he received many wonderful revelations. Yet near the end of his journey here, he still desired one thing: "That I may know Him" (Philippians 3:10).

Love will go on in heaven, where there is no evil to think about. Prophecies will fail, tongues will cease, and knowledge will vanish away. "When the perfect comes" (v. 10) means the time of glory, when everything is perfect and these partial things will have ceased.

We can never reach full maturity while we are on earth. There is always room for exercise and growth in the divine nature. Paul was mature in the things of God, and God gave him so many wonderful revelations. Yet near the end of his journey here he still desired "that I may know Him" (Phil. 3:10).

He is speaking about the slow, hard and imperfect process of gaining knowledge — of "knowing." That process must end when the spirit is no longer shut up to reaching spiritual things by groping, for the most part, among material things. The things known will still remain known. But the knowing of things, in the partial way we need now, will be done away in the perfect grasp of spiritual knowledge.

Before long, in both knowledge and prophecy, perfection will come. When it does, all that is partial will fail and vanish away, just as the moon fails and vanishes in the light of the sun.

They suit our present state in time. They are only in part, and they do not fit the perfection where no evil exists and love is in fullest exercise. Love fits a state of glory completely, while these passing, partial helps end when glory arrives.

Nature completes itself by regular but slow stages. But the small beginnings of true knowledge will expand to perfection all at once, when the change from mortality to life takes place. Verse 11 shows this difference sharply. In nature a third state stands between infancy and manhood, and this account of spiritual growth takes no notice of it.

But Paul does not mention tongues in this connection. He says we prophesy in part and we know in part, but he does not say we speak in tongues "in part." Why does he change the wording? It must mean something. Does it not teach that the gift of tongues would lapse in the assembly's life as soon as the wisdom of God saw that the time had come when it was no longer needed?

It should humble us to remember this always. Then we will not dare to make any man's ministry a set standard for doctrine or practice. We are only servants, limited to a very small area.

Verse 11 pictures our present, immature condition as childhood. A child's viewpoint is completely different from a man's. It is limited to the small circle of what he has seen or been taught. He speaks as a child, and perhaps rightly so, in line with his knowledge. But that knowledge is very limited — and so is our own ministry of the Word of God. Yet just as a growing adult puts away childish ways, so in glory we will leave such limits behind.

A child must speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child. In fact a child has to do plenty of reasoning, and no one would make light of its imperfect condition. But it is imperfect, as we know.

The point of the passage is not to cast doubt on how much we know now. It is to show that our knowledge is only partial, compared with the fullness in glory... Our very learning now, no matter how much we have learnt, proves our ignorance. It will not be so then. The state that needs to grow, and the means that help it grow, will both have passed away. In that day we will know truth as a whole, not piece by piece as now.

A child learns. He also delights in things that amuse him. When he becomes a man, he needs things that match a man's intelligence. It was thus with tongues and the edification of the assembly.

People ask whether the contrast here between the child and the man means the difference between the believer's condition now and his condition when perfected in glory. We judge that it points instead to the childish way the Corinthians were priding themselves on the spiritual displays among them, and on the use of gifts like tongues, which tended to lift those who had them in other people's eyes.

In their fondness for the use of tongues, the Corinthians were acting as children, who delight in anything that makes a show. The Apostle urges them, and us, not to be children in understanding, but to be as innocent of all malice as a baby.

Nature completes itself by regular but slow stages. But the small beginnings of true knowledge will expand to perfection all at once, when the change from mortality to life takes place. Verse 11 shows this difference plainly. In nature a third stage stands between infancy and manhood, and this picture of spiritual growth takes no account of it.

Love is God's own nature. Everything else pales before it. It is that which will abide when not only prophecies, tongues, and knowledge are no more, but when faith and hope have given place to sight and realisation.

At present we see as through a mirror, in a riddle, but then face to face. Spiritual things now are learned with the help of reflections, types and symbols. Faith must of course be at work, to discern as far as it can what all these teaching aids mean. It is not like seeing the object itself, but its reflection as in a mirror.

The point of the passage is not to cast doubt on how much we know now. It is to show that our knowledge is only partial, compared with the fulness in glory… The way we see now must be imperfect, so what we see is more or less dark. Later it will be direct sight, and I shall know fully, as I was also fully known. The difference is not only one of measure, but of manner too.

Knowledge now is in degree, "we know in part"; all that kind of learning will pass away. Learning is a proof of ignorance, and this will not be then. Even in divine things we learn, and all that is testimony to ignorance. It shows how small man is in that respect. All these partial means of communicating will end when I know as I am known: which is, I believe, God's way of knowing.

But our partial knowledge of the truth will give way to knowledge in the measure in which "I am known." This is in no way omniscience (knowing all things). It is knowing all that relates to my position and condition as a man, as God knows it. This of course involves far more than we see on the surface. Then we will see it all in perfect perspective, no longer shaped by our present limited, unbalanced condition.

We shall yet know vastly better than we do know now but we shall still be finite. God cannot make us infinite, and only the infinite can comprehend deity.

In our bodies of glory, we will not be able to feel anything like fear or unhappiness. But when we are shown in the light, we will have perfect knowledge, according to the mind of Christ, of every moment of our past history. We will know the value He sets on it, and the praise He gives… We will leave His judgment seat in wondering praise at the patience that bore with our ways in the wilderness, and brought us safely to glory.

All who have eternal life "know Him." They know God, and Jesus Christ, whom God has sent — yes, even babes in Christ know Him. And yet the man who knew Him best could cry, Oh, "to know Him!"… Down here nothing will ever satisfy that craving. The better we know Him, the more we long to know Him better still.

So the apostle concludes from it all: "Faith, hope and love abide." He is not speaking here of eternity. He is drawing a contrast with gifts that will come to an end once they have served their purpose. Love abides, for it is the divine nature. Faith is the evidence of things we cannot see. So it must pass away when we see everything, with the perfect knowledge the apostle has spoken of. Hope, too, implies the imperfection which counts upon God, but does not see. It too must pass away in full fruition; but love abides.

In the perfect state faith will change into sight, and so faith will have its end. Hope will end in fruition. Love alone will abide. Faith and hope make very good travelling companions, but we part company with them at the door of heaven. We go in with one thing, love. Even so, the verse speaks of the present condition, and tells us that even now love is the greater quality. It must be so, for love is the very nature of God, and therefore love is eternal.

"Your faith has saved you," Christian! But what can it do for your brother? It does not reach him. It is a secret in your own breast. Its power is great, but it is the power of a root, not of a branch.

It is the nature of love to come out. Unless it acts, and acts on others, it cannot be. Love does not begin and end with the lover. Its essence is an outgoing. These three exercises of a human spirit have objects which they grasp, each its own. Faith fastens on Christ, hope on heaven, but love on humankind. It will not, it cannot leave the world alone. All the neighbours know it, feel it.

At the bottom you find faith and hope, the nourishing root and the supporting stem. They are alive and life-giving, but small and almost hidden from view. Love springs up, spreads out on every side, and fills the eye of anyone looking.

Nor is there any cause for jealousy in this sisterhood of grace. To make love great — to make love greatest — does not make faith less. The more precious we find the ripened fruit, the more we value the only root that bears it.

But Scripture cannot be broken. Faith is the evidence, or conviction, of things not seen. And hope that is seen is not hope. So faith and hope belong to the present state only. Love alone belongs to eternity as well as to the present. Of the three, love holds the first place. Not because it holds the root of the other two inside itself, but because they point and lead through Christ our Lord to love, as the end that has no end.

The greatest is love, for "God is love." Love, not faith and hope, will be the great mark of the eternal state. Faith will mostly turn into sight, and hope into glad realization. Yet even in heaven the believer will have full faith and happy hope that this scene of indescribable love goes on for ever.

If love had been at work in the assembly at Corinth, it would have escaped many serious disorders, even though it had not been taught God's order. Love, as the Apostle has shown, leads a person to give up self. So the call to follow love comes before the call to desire spiritual gifts and before the instructions about using them. Love keeps the motive pure, both in wanting a spiritual gift and in using it. Love thinks not of self but of the good of others. Because they lacked love, the believers at Corinth had been using the sign gifts of healing and tongues to exalt themselves.

Setting the gifts of the Spirit in this right relation to their purpose does not run them down; it proves their worth. So they are not to be despised, but wanted. Those who know God in His ways will always want what He gives. And if love is followed first, gifts will be sought with love as well as with eagerness. Then they will be in the Church not for show, but to serve the needs of love, each in its own way.

Who thinks of seeking spiritual gifts? If God has given them, their use may be allowed (within certain limits, sadly); but who thinks of asking God for gifts he does not have? If we seek them to glorify ourselves with them, then we are bound to seek in vain. So the two things are joined together — following after love, and desiring spiritual gifts.

The Authorized Version, like almost all others, adds "gifts" after "spiritual" in the first verse. But that is not broad enough. It leaves out the presence of the Spirit Himself, who matters far more than any gift and who is distinct from the gifts: they depend on Him, not He on them... The meaning is the whole range of what belongs to the Spirit.

Prophecy is not necessarily predictive. Prophets do predict, but that is not what makes prophecy. It is also a great mistake to think that prophesying is just building people up in a general way. Prophesying does build people up in the most important way... A man builds others up when he strengthens souls by holding up Christ and making His love better known, and so does the man who exhorts or teaches well. But none of these things is prophesying. Prophesying is that kind of truth which puts a person's conscience in the presence of God. It gives the soul the certainty that God's mind is in what is spoken, and it strips and lays bare thoughts, motives, feelings, everything.

"Edification" builds up. "Exhortation" stirs up. "Comfort" binds up. If the ministry is truly prophetic, it will build up and strengthen the Assembly.

Even where God's power was working in a tongue in a way no one could mistake, that gift is far from the highest place for the assembly... Prophesying, on the other hand, has the highest value. The one who uses this gift speaks to build up, encourage and comfort people. He builds up the church, which the speaker in a tongue cannot do unless someone also interprets. So God gave the better place to what His Spirit used for the profit of others. Power, though it is plainly God's, ranks below spiritual blessing, order, and love.

Verse 3 is the way in which prophecy works, rather than a definition of prophecy. It is speaking to people for their building up, encouragement and comfort. It can be that way now, of course. Knowledge and doctrine remain. But no one gives out fresh revelation now, because God has already revealed everything (that is, in the word).

Many people take this to mean that anyone who speaks encouragement and comfort is prophesying. That is to mistake him. You could not turn the sentence around and still have the truth. What the apostle means is this. The man who only speaks in a tongue does not build up, or encourage, or comfort. The man who prophesies does.

Much of an Old Testament prophet's work was bringing the mind of God to bear on the state of the people. He called them to repentance. It was not only foretelling but also forth-telling. So it was with the New Testament prophets. Special revelation has completely passed away with them. But we still have the prophetic character of their ministry.

It is not a question of opening up the future, but of bringing God and the soul together. We may see an example of it in the case of the woman of Samaria. What Christ said to her clearly brought God Himself home to her conscience, and she woke up at once to the conviction that the One speaking was a prophet. Prophecy is therefore the most intimate and direct communication of God in dealing with the soul. It gives a person the certainty that God is expressing His mind.

"Edification" builds up. "Exhortation" stirs up. "Comfort" binds up. If the ministry is truly prophetic, it will build up and strengthen the church. And there is more than that — "exhortation," which stirs us up. I ask anyone who looks over the scene today, do you not think the people of God need stirring up? I know I do, and I am always thankful to the man who stirs me up.

This is a challenge to each of us. Zeal in our own strength and human wisdom could never achieve it. So we ourselves need to be enjoying the "comfort of the Scriptures." We need to know, in reality and power, the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit of God, the Comforter. Then any service we give will encourage those we serve.

No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift. Theirs, they said, was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle boldly maintains that the failure to speak to men proves speaking in a tongue inferior to prophesying... He sets prophesying far above such a display, without reservation. It brings in not merely power but God — God at work building souls up, encouraging them and consoling them. This does not cast such a halo around man; but it really brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.

There is no love in it; and so, as he shows here, there is no comfort, nor anything that works on the soul to build it up. This is the effect of divine love. There can never be real edification without divine love in some way being what acts on the soul.

The phrase "unknown tongue" is unfortunate. It has led some people to think that the gift of tongues was a kind of meaningless gibberish. The King James translators added the word "unknown," where the text should read simply "tongue." Pentecost showed what the gift of "tongues" was: a person speaking a language he had never learnt, which those who knew it understood at once.

Someone who spoke in a tongue built himself up, because he understood; but he did not build up the assembly, because the assembly did not understand. The tongue here is a real language, as Acts 2:6 shows, but one the speaker did not normally understand. The wonder of the gift was that God gave him the ability to speak his own thoughts in this foreign language by the power of the Spirit, and he stayed in full control of his words. But in the assembly, where everyone understood Greek, other tongues were not needed.

In certain cases there was a kind of split. For example, people spoke in tongues, and the speaker did not always understand what he said. When that happened, the apostle says that this working of the Holy Spirit was of a lower order.

"The one who speaks in a tongue," the apostle goes on, "builds up himself." He does not, as people strangely imagine, have the idea that the speaker might not understand the tongue he was using... The apostle insists that there must be an intelligent grasp of what is heard, or there is no use and no building up... He has no wish at all to set aside speaking with tongues... The building up of others is what decides the greatness of the speaker.

When we think of the prophets of the Old Testament, we may want to limit prophecy to foretelling future events. But even in Old Testament days that was only a small part of the prophet's work. His great mission was to apply the word of God to the conscience and heart, and so build people up. That is still the prophet's service in Christian times, and in this sense the gift remains. From the place the apostle gives this gift here, we may gather that it is the greatest of all the gifts left to the church, and the one to desire most.

No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift, and that theirs was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle holds firmly that speaking in a tongue is lower than prophesying, because it does not speak to people... He sets prophesying above any display of power without reserve, because it brings in not merely power but God — God building up souls, encouraging them and comforting them. This does not throw the same glow around the man; but it truly brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.

The gift of tongues seemed to people the most wonderful of all, and the Corinthians loved to show it off. Instead of love seeking to build up everyone, it was vanity seeking to display its gifts. They were real gifts — gifts of the Spirit. And here is the solemn thing for us to weigh: a person may have the power of the Spirit for service, and yet not have the living guidance of the Spirit in using it.

Can anything be more solemn than for someone to take part in the assembly without any searching of heart, without judging himself again and again to see whether his motive comes from simple obedience to the will of God?

The Apostle at once contrasts the gift of prophecy with the gift of tongues. Tongues clearly attracted the Corinthian believers, because the gift was so plainly supernatural in origin. He does not cast any doubt on it. The "tongues" he referred to were a genuine sign of the power of the Holy Spirit, and under the control of the speaker. The Apostle spoke with tongues himself in larger measure than any of the Corinthians, but he did so in a controlled and restrained way. The point is that even when the gift of tongues is at its best, it is of less profit than the gift of prophecy.

We must remember that the earlier verse is not a definition of prophesying, but its contrast with speaking in a tongue. Prophesying has no necessary connection with the future, as some suppose. Nor is it preaching or teaching in general. It is forth-telling rather than fore-telling. It is speaking to a person so as to put him in the light of God — of God's dealing with his heart and conscience. It gives His mind.

Edification is to be the ruling principle. The keynote of God's Assembly is what will profit, what will help. If ministry is profitable, all right; if not, it is not to be allowed, it is condemned by the Spirit of God. The Assembly will soon know what profits it. If my ministry is not profitable, the kindest thing my brothers can do is to tell me so. It is a waste of time for any of us to go on with what does not profit. You might not be able to say much. But if God's Spirit gives you something to say to His Assembly, say it. You have that liberty in God's free Church, and the "five words" might help greatly.

He would be glad for each one to be built up on his own. But he would rather they rejoiced together in the Lord. A matching power of interpretation would place the "tongue" on a moral par with prophecy. Otherwise the gift was good and precious, but its place of use was not the assembly of the saints. The profit of many is better than the benefit of one. By that measure the speaker with tongues stood below the prophet in the honour that belongs to true service in the Church.

He begins with what the vain Greek mind was most taken with, speaking with a tongue, because it was so open and surprising a witness of divine power. It electrified people. But in an assembly, on its own, it did not build up. So if the man who had "a tongue" could not interpret, or no interpreter was there, he had to be silent and content with speaking to himself and to God: an excellent lesson, where there was a desire to display that gift.

The apostle was not dazzled, as the Corinthians were then and many have been since, by the display of power. He puts prophesying above such a display without any reserve. It brings in not power only but God — God building up souls, encouraging them and comforting them. This does not surround man with such a halo. But it truly brings in God in grace, and gives the sense of His presence.

When we think of Old Testament prophets, we may limit prophecy to foretelling future events. This, however, was a limited part of the prophet's work, even in Old Testament days. His great mission was to apply the word of God to the conscience and heart for edification. This still applies as the service of the prophet in Christian times; and in this sense the gift remains. See the place the Apostle gives it in this passage. From that we may gather it is the greatest of all the gifts that remain to the church, and the one to desire most.

This is the test he applies again and again. It was close to the faithful servant's heart, as it was to his Master's. To the spiritual mind, what astonishes matters far less than what builds up.

These gifts are to be used for the good of others. The test the Apostle applies is whether they build up everyone. If the use of the gift builds up, it is of profit. If it does not build up, it is of no profit.

He does not cast any doubt on this particular work of the Spirit. The "tongues" he spoke of were a genuine display of the power of the Holy Spirit, and they were under the control of the speaker. The Apostle spoke with tongues himself more than any of the Corinthians, but he did so in a controlled and restrained way. The point is that even when the gift of tongues is at its best, it is of less profit than the gift of prophecy.

The assembly is the sphere for the Spirit of God, not for human ability. So interpretation must be a gift, not a human power, if it is to be available there.

The assembly is built up only when someone speaks in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching... Knowledge means passing on to believers what has already been revealed. Prophesying applies the truth to the conscience, while doctrine, or teaching, gives instruction in a particular truth.

Revelation is what the Spirit of God makes clearly known to the person He uses at the time. It is not a mystery, but the opposite, because it is made known. Knowledge is truth learned earlier and passed on with understanding. Prophesying is the ministry of the truth that appeals to the heart and conscience, rather than mainly to the mind. Doctrine, or teaching, lays a solid foundation of truth, and it needs understanding.

There could be "prophecy" that was not a new revelation, though it held more than knowledge. It might apply the thoughts of God. It might be God speaking to the soul and the conscience. That is more than knowledge, but it is not a new revelation... When anyone teaches, the spiritual person gains by it. When someone prophesies, even the person who is not spiritual may feel it; he is reached and judged.

Knowledge and doctrine remain, though the giving of revelation does not, because everything has been revealed (that is, in the word). We speak of revelation in a lesser sense when someone gets something he did not have before. But even then it is only what is already in the word.

There would be no building up, nothing to stir love, holiness, wisdom or knowledge... Are you often on your knees asking God to speak through His servants to bring home His word in power to your souls? Are you asking Him to speak to you through the mouths of others? It may be through an ordinary believer, for the Lord can speak to your soul through anyone.

We do not distinguish the sounds of a language we do not know. The truths it carries may be very weighty, but an unknown language is only a confused jargon... In short, the trumpet-call must be understood... The point pressed is distinctness, so that people understand. It need not be easy to understand, but the speech must be distinct enough to make sense. Otherwise all is lost for the hearers.