4317-THE COMMUNION

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Jun 16, 1914

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 41, No. 23.

4317—THE COMMUNION

Are the Lord's Supper and the communion the same? And what is the love-feast?

Yes, the Lord's Supper and the communion are the same.

The love-feast was a custom in the primitive church, an occasion at which all the members of a congregation, even a master and his slaves, partook together of a common meal. It probably grew out of the celebration of the Lord's Supper. And while a religious occasion, it was also a social symbol of the equality of the members of the congregation. They ultimately grew, in some places, into entertainments for the rich. In others the rich retired altogether from the meetings, and the love-feast sank into a kind of poorhouse institution. It finally disappeared altogether, about the beginning of the fifth century. Some of the churches in these times have a service that is termed the "love-feast," but it is not the same as the Lord's Supper.

4318—WOMEN COVERING THEIR HEADS

Please explain 1 Cor. 11:5, 6; also 1 Cor. 14:34.

1 Cor. 11:5, 6 reads: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

The custom in the times of the apostles demanded that women should be veiled. No woman but a "bold" woman ever appeared in public unveiled. And any woman who prayed or prophesied without her head covered dishonored her husband, who is "her head." The instruction to the Israelites was that a woman who had yielded her virtue should be shaved, and Paul's reference is to this rule. If she appears unveiled, it is just the same as if she were shaved. Customs have so changed in the New World that it is no longer a disgrace for a woman to go about without a head covering; and yet some understand the apostle's instruction to apply to our duty also, and that a woman should not appear in public without a hat.

For explanation of 1 Cor. 14:34 see "Questions and Answers," page 236, question No. 251.

4319—"EDEN," "TREES," AND "NETHER PARTS OF THE EARTH"

Please explain Eze. 31:18. What does "Eden," "trees," and "nether parts of the earth" mean? Some claim that Eden here spoken of was the garden of Eden, which was cast to the nether parts of the earth, or center of the earth, and that it was the Paradise of God where the souls of the saints are sent, as the Old Testament writers speak of going downward, New Testament upward, until Christ ascended. Then He took this Eden to heaven, or God's throne, to be there when He comes again.

This whole chapter is a prophecy against Egypt. Assyria is cited as a warning to Egypt. As Assyria was overthrown by the Chaldeans, so should Egypt be overthrown. The king of Assyria is likened to a lofty cedar. Verse 3. That the language is figurative is shown by the fact that the "trees of Eden" are said to have envy, and then in the sixteenth verse, where these same trees are spoken of, they are said to be "comforted in the nether parts of the earth."

The central theme of the chapter, as already stated, is the overthrow of Egypt. The prophet makes this matter very plain. It may be difficult to understand the definite meaning of all the figures he uses, but there is no difficulty in understanding the great lesson he is teaching. And here is where one of the great troubles comes in with so many people in the study of the Bible. They allow themselves to be side-tracked from the great lesson that is taught, into the consideration of things that may not be made perfectly plain. Study the plain, clear lessons, and get the depth of their meaning, but do not speculate upon that which is not so clear. For instance, when people begin to say that these trees of Eden were thrown into the nether parts of the earth, and that Christ took them therefrom at His ascension, they are indulging in pure speculation. All of that talk is an imagination of their own mind. They are wholly unwarranted by the Scriptures in making any such statements.