ONE: Not So Fast. May 24, Corinthians 10:14-11:1

Transcription

1 ONE: Not So Fast May 24, Corinthians 10:14-11:1 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience-- 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 1 More study helps at

2 10:14 11:1 Idol feasts and the Lord s Supper 14 Paul s beloved converts must avoid eating in the temple because of the danger of idolatry. 15 An appeal is made to them to think further on the issue, and Paul uses two analogies. The first relates to the Lord s Supper, and the second to the eating of OT sacrifices. 16 The cup of thanksgiving was the third cup in the Passover. Jesus, on the night prior to his death, reinterpreted the significance of this cup so that it pointed to the shedding of his blood on the cross and was the means of establishing a participation in the benefits of his death. He did the same with the bread which was broken to express the same participation. 17 In the same way, the fact that Christians partake of one loaf at the Lord s Supper points to the fact that they all belong to Christ, that they are one body in Christ. 18 The fellowship of priests with the altar in the OT is cited as the grounds for establishing the relationship in vs (Lv. 3:3; 7:15) Paul explains that pagan sacrifices are offered to demons (Dt. 32:17), and that it is not possible to drink from the Lord s cup and the demon s cup. It is interesting to note in this context that some vessels and cups found by archaeologists in Corinth have the names of particular gods on them. 22 The high point of the argument is that the Corinthians will rouse the Lord to jealousy. Are they stronger than he to survive such a confrontation? Having exposed what is really taking place in the pagan sacrificial meals in which some Corinthians justified their participation, Paul uses their own argument to expose its unchristian character, (23 24). As in 6:12 13 the ethic that says that everything is permitted has been used as justification for the action of those who think they stand. 23 They argued Everything is permissible but Christian actions are based on what is beneficial to the person concerned. On this basis the conclusions in 10:19 22 show that what they have done has aroused the Lord to jealousy and failed to bestow any blessing on themselves. If everything that is done ought to build up others, then they have failed, in that they have been in danger of destroying their weaker brother ( cf. 8:10 12). The actions of a Christian are to be constructive with regard to others; this building analogy is unique to Christianity and reflects its demand that the needs of others determine conduct. In the same way God s actions towards us in Christ are for the purpose of meeting our needs. 24 The much-admired civic and personal benefactions and the patronage system of secular Corinth did not have the primary aim of meeting the needs of others; personal advancement came first, and any benefits to others were merely secondary. The radical Christian ethic is spelled out in terms of the good of others and never personal advancement. The Corinthians who insisted on their own right to eat in the idol temple regardless of the needs of other Christians, had failed to love their neighbour by putting his or her needs first. In vs Paul explains how to function in the midst of religious pluralism. Food sold in the meat market of Corinth could be eaten by Christians (25). The fact that it had been 2 More study helps at

3 offered in the temple before being sold was overridden by Ps. 24:1 which all pious Jews said before eating anything (26). If a non-christian was extended an invitation to dinner and accepted, then the principle was to observe the etiquette of eating whatever was served by the host. No scruple is involved, for the same reason given in the preceding verse (27). The exception to this rule is where any person present draws attention to the fact that the meat has been purchased in the meat market. If the person believes it wrong for the Christian to eat, then one must desist from doing so, both for his sake and for conscience s sake (28). Paul makes it clear that he is speaking about the other person s conscience (24), and thereby emphasizes the point that the scruples and needs of the neighbour determine the Christian s actions. The whole discussion is concluded in 10:31 11:1 giving the broad parameters within which Christians should operate in society. 31 First, whatever a Christian does, whether it is eating, drinking or any other action, it must be done to God s glory. 32 Secondly, neither Jews nor Greeks, i.e. those inside or outside the church, must be caused to stumble by the actions of any Christian. 33 Again Paul can draw attention to his own actions in support of this, for he seeks to please all, never looking for his own advancement, but the good of many, so that they may be saved. 11:1 He concludes with the command that the Corinthians must follow his example outlined in the discussion, which is an example drawn from Christ. The priority of others in terms of their need of the gospel and the concerns of the weaker 1 brother must determine the actions of a Christian. 10:14 23 Idol Meat Supports Demons Here Paul gives a religious argument against eating meat offered to idols. 10:14. Fleeing vices was a fairly frequent moral exhortation in antiquity (cf. 6:18). 10:15. Ancient speeches and letters of admonition often opened with a compliment designed to secure the favor of the audience. Paul s purpose is to persuade the Corinthians, not merely to rebuke them. 10: To honor pagan gods in Greek religious ceremonies, small libations of wine would be poured out of cups before people drank from them. But here cup and bread allude to the Passover meal, which was celebrated in the Lord s Supper (11:23 26). Not only at the Passover meal but at meals in general the head of the Jewish household would say a blessing (thanks) over a cup of wine. Commentators report that the last cup at the end 1 Carson, D. A., France, R. T., Motyer, J. A., & Wenham, G. J. (Eds.). (1994). New Bible commentary: 21st century edition (4th ed., pp ). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press. 3 More study helps at

4 of the meal was called the cup of blessing. 10:18. The priests ate some parts of the offerings in the temple; other kinds of offerings (such as the Passover lamb, which Paul also considers a sacrifice 5:7) were eaten by the rest of the people. Sharers in the altar (NASB) means that Israel was bound together in their sacrifice to the one God. 10: Like Isaiah, Paul says that physical idols are nothing (cf. Is 44:12 20; 45:20 25; 46:1 11). But like most of the Old Testament passages that mention demons (at least in their Greek rendering Lev 17:7; Deut 32:17, 37 39; Ps 106:28, 37) and most subsequent Jewish and Christian literature apart from the rabbis, Paul believes that false gods seeking human worship are demons. 10:21. Pagans spoke of the offering tables of their gods (e.g., the table of Serapis); most ancient Near Eastern temples had been equipped with such tables. The expression table of the Lord occurs in the Old Testament as meaning the altar (e.g., Mal 1:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:13). Table fellowship connoted intimate relations. 10:22. Paul again provides a rhetorical objection against his own position, but his readers who are familiar with the Old Testament know that the Lord is a jealous God who allows the worship of no other gods (e.g., Deut 32:17, 21; see comment on 1 Cor 10:19 20). 10:23. Greek teachers used criteria like usefulness to determine whether to undertake actions. Paul raises a rhetorical objection ( Everything is allowed ) and then answers it ( But not everything is helpful ), as was common in ancient moral teaching. 10:24 11:1 Instructions for the Sake of Others 10: Whatever meat was left over from sacrifices was taken to the meat market in the large agora in Corinth (not far from where Paul had once worked Acts 18:3). Not all meat in this market had been offered to idols, but some of it had. In comparatively large cities, Jewish people were often allowed to have their own markets so they could avoid such food. In other cities, they would ask about the source of the meat. But Jewish teachers considered inadvertent sins light ; thus Paul can trust that the scrupulous will be satisfied with What you don t know won t hurt you. Because most people could not afford to buy meat, subsisting instead on fish and grain, Paul here addresses the well-to-do in the congregation. 10:26. Here Paul quotes Psalm 24:1, which extolled the majesty and greatness of God; he was the only true and living God, and everything belonged to him, not to idols or demons. Jewish teachers, possibly as early as Paul, used this text to prove the need to give thanks at meals. 10: Most temples had their own dining halls, and people were invited to meals at the table of Serapis and other pagan gods. The meat at these meals would obviously have been offered to idols. But people were also invited to banquets in wealthy homes, where 4 More study helps at

5 they could not be certain of the meat s source. Jewish people who avoided impure foods (like pork) were virtually excluded from such banquets, but they did not look down on Gentiles who ate pork as long as they abstained from idols. Jewish people had sometimes faced martyrdom to avoid eating impure foods, and they would expect Gentiles who claimed to believe in God at least to avoid food that had certainly been offered to idols. 10:30. Like Jewish people, Christians always offered thanks over their food before (and, at least in pious Palestinian Jewish homes, after) the meal. 10:31. Some Jewish teachers emphasized that everything should be done for the sake of God, as Paul does here; some philosophers argued that one should invest one s life only in that which is of eternal significance. In the Old Testament, God clearly desired his people to live wholly for him (Deut 6:4 5; Ps 63:1). Paul regards such convictions as appropriate and applies them to the credibility of the gospel (1 Cor 10:32 33). 10: See comment on 9: :1. Paul had already presented himself (chap. 9) as an example of this principle, which he articulates in 10:32 33; philosophers often used their own lifestyles as models for their 2 pupils. E. The incompatibility of Christian and idol feasts (10:14 22) 14. Therefore ( dioper ), a stronger particle than that in v. 12, indicates a very close logical sequence. My dear friends ( agapētoi mou, my beloved ) is not a common form of address; it indicates Paul s deep emotion as he counsels these dear friends to take the right course. He had urged them to flee fornication (6:18), and he now says flee from idolatry. Here, as there, the present imperative signifies the habitual practice. There is to be no leisurely contemplation of the sin, thinking that one can go so far, and be safe from going further. The only wise course is to have nothing to do with it. They must not try how near they can go, but how far they can fly (Robertson and Plummer; cf. Chrysostom, he did not say, simply, depart, but flee ). Paul has just assured them of God s help in time of temptation. But that does not give them licence to dally needlessly with it. They must flee from it. 15. The Corinthians prided themselves on their wisdom (2 Cor. 11:19); now Paul appeals to it. They are sensible people ( phronimos, not sophos as in 1:20ff.), and yourselves is emphatic. Paul does not need to demonstrate the point. They can see it for themselves. 16. The cup of blessing ( NIV thanksgiving ) is the name the Jews gave the cup at the end of a meal, over which a thanksgiving was said; it was also used of the third cup at the 2 Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (1 Co 10:14 11:1). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 5 More study helps at

6 Passover feast. It is possibly this cup with which Jesus instituted the sacrament of Holy Communion (though Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok thinks that Jesus blessing was over the fourth cup and that Paul means simply the cup which Jesus blessed, NTS 27, , pp ). Bless does not mean that a blessing was somehow attached to the cup; it means that a prayer of thanksgiving was said over it (hence the translation of NIV ). Among the Jews the usual form of thanksgiving began, Blessed art Thou, O Lord, after which came the matter for thanksgiving. Paul is referring then to the prayer of thanksgiving said over the cup at Holy Communion. Chrysostom comments, he called it a cup of blessing, because holding it in our hands, we so exalt Him in our hymn, wondering, astonished at His unspeakable gift The cup is mentioned before the bread though when Paul comes to deal with the institution (11:23ff) the bread comes first. The order here may be due to a desire to stress the shedding of the blood of the Lord, or it may be due to the prominence of the cup and the insignificance of bread in the pagan sacrifices to which Paul is leading up. In Holy Communion there is a participation in the blood of Christ ( The basic idea is that of the atoning power of the blood, Conzelmann). Those who receive the cup rightly receive Christ. They are bound together in fellowship with Christ. The soul has as truly communion in the blood, as we drink wine with the mouth (Calvin). Such reception is, of course, a spiritual process, and therefore takes place by faith. Paul says that the faithful communicant receives Christ, but nothing about the how of it. Hodge points out that Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed all agree that a participation of the cup is a participation of the blood of Christ. But doctrines like transubstantiation or consubstantiation cannot be demonstrated from these words. All that the passage asserts is the fact of a participation, the nature of that participation must be determined from other sources. The statement about the bread is to be understood similarly: the broken loaf means a participation in the body of Christ. 17. This is a difficult verse to interpret in detail, but the stress on unity is clear. The one loaf at Communion symbolizes and brings about unity. Believers are many, but they are one body. The word for points to the place of Holy Communion in bringing about unity. Communicants are united to Christ and united to one another. 18. Paul develops his point from the example of the people of Israel ( Israel according to the flesh ). The expression distinguishes physical Israel from the true Israel, the church (cf. Gal. 6:16). Jews who eat the sacrifices by that very fact participate (the word is cognate with participation in v. 16) in the altar. Those who receive the food of sacrifice enter into fellowship with all that the altar stands for. 19. The problem before the Corinthians was a difficult one. To eat idol meat might be held to sanction idolatry; not to eat it might imply that the idol was real. Paul starts with vigorous questions that imply that the idol sacrifice and the idol are both shams. 20. No is the strong adversative alla. Far from the preceding, Paul affirms something that is nearly its opposite. He will not dispute the contention of the Corinthians that an idol is not a god at all. But he will not agree that therefore idols can safely be treated as nothing 6 More study helps at

7 more than so many blocks of wood and stone. The demons use people s readiness to worship idols. Thus, when people sacrifice to idols, it cannot be said that they are engaging in some meaningless or neutral activity. They are sacrificing to evil spirits (cf. Deut. 32:16f.). Paul has shown from the usage of both Christians and Jews that to share food is to establish fellowship. Idol worshippers are entering into fellowship with demons. Paul does not wish this to befall his Corinthian friends. 21. He puts the alternatives in stark contrast. It is impossible for people to be participants in both the Holy Communion and idol feasts if they realize what they are doing. The one necessarily excludes the other. There is no room for compromise. The Lord s table reminds us that the Lord is the host at the sacrament. By parity of reasoning the table of demons indicates that there may be other hosts. But those who accept the Lord s invitation cannot in good conscience also accept the invitation of demons. If we are really in fellowship with the Lord we cannot also be in fellowship with demons. Some have thought that the reference to the two tables here shows that the Holy Communion is essentially a sacrifice (just as an offering to an idol is a sacrifice). But the inference is not valid. All that Paul is saying is that the Holy Communion, in one aspect, is a feeding at the table of the Lord, an enjoyment of fellowship with him. Similarly participation in an idol feast means having fellowship with demons. There may be many other aspects to either. Identity of principle is neither asserted nor implied. 22. Or at the beginning of the verse in the better MSS brings us to an alternative. Paul has been assuming that the Corinthians do not realize the significance of taking part in idol feasts and has therefore explained it. But suppose they did understand what they were doing? Then they would be wilfully provoking the Lord (Deut. 32:21). The second question brings home the weakness of us all before our Maker and therefore the incredible folly of the kind of action of which he speaks. F. The practical outcome (10:23 11:1) 23. Everything is permissible repeats a statement already made (6:12, where see notes). As before, Paul repeats it, but this time follows the repetition with not everything is constructive ( not all things build up ; for build up see on 8:1). Christian liberty is important, but there are some things that are not wise. They neither build the believer up in the faith, nor help other people (v. 24). It is more important to avoid such actions than to assert one s rights. 24. The Christian has a concern for the well-being, the good, of others. It is important to promote the best interests of other people, not selfishly to seek our own. 25. Paul has refused to countenance attendance at idol feasts. Now he turns to the meat market, where food of all kinds was sold. We saw earlier (on 8:1 6) that it would be difficult if not impossible to know for certain whether a particular piece of meat had or had not been offered to an idol. Paul sees no point in raising the issue: don t ask fussy 7 More study helps at

8 questions (Barclay). This is in sharp contrast to the Jewish approach. Jews were very scrupulous and made searching inquiries before they would eat meat. Paul s attitude was revolutionary. He took seriously the truth that an idol is nothing. This refusal to ask questions shows it did not matter to him whether a piece of meat had been offered to an idol or not. He discouraged over-scrupulousness. 26. The reason is that everything belongs to God (Ps. 24:1). Whatever the pagan may do before his idol, the believer knows that the meat comes from the goodness of the Lord and from no other source. Therefore, even though there may be some doubt as to what has happened to it on the way, its divine origin means that the Christian may eat it. 27. Paul gives a similar ruling about an invitation to a meal. A meal in a private home is meant, for eating in idol temples has already been dealt with. When invited by a pagan a Christian is at liberty to accept, and to eat whatever is provided without asking where it came from. That is his host s business. 28. The situation is different if someone expressly says, This has been offered in sacrifice. Earlier Paul has used the term eidōlothytos of meat sacrificed to an idol (8:1, 4, 7, 10); now he uses hierothytos, devoted, offered to a god (LSJ), the term a pagan would naturally use (Theissen, indeed, thinks only a pagan would use the word, p. 131). Paul does not say who would make this remark. Some think he means the host, some a pagan fellow-guest, some a weak Christian at the table. There is no way of being sure, but perhaps the last mentioned is most likely (who else would have a conscience about idol meat?). By whomever made, the remark alters the situation. Now the meat is not simply a good gift of God that has passed through unknown channels. It is the end-product of idolatry and known to be such. To eat under such circumstances, some would think, would be to countenance idolatry. The Christian must therefore not eat for conscience sake. 29. This means the other man s conscience. The strong Christian knows that offering meat to an idol cannot really alter its character, for the idol is nothing; his conscience is clear. But a pagan observer thinks the idol is a god, and thus sees the Christian who eats the meat as sanctioning his idolatry. A weak Christian observer will be in danger of being harmed in the way noted earlier (8:10ff.). Whatever the status of the informer, then, the wise and kindly course for the strong Christian is to abstain from eating. Godet explains the question at the end of the verse: For what advantage can there be in my liberty being condemned? The action, which to the strong is a simple exercise of freedom, must not be made the means of offence to another. 30. With thankfulness translates chariti, which may be understood as by grace ( AV ). Most recent translations agree with NIV, but Orr and Walther see Paul s declaration of his share in grace as the clue to the understanding of how he is consistent through this whole discussion. It is because of what the grace of God means that the strong Christian can give thanks for such meat and eat it. Paul does not want an action done in this spirit to be the occasion for evil-speaking on the part of people who do not understand. It is better to abstain. What the believer eats does not matter; that he avoids giving offence does. 8 More study helps at

9 31. The principle is clear. The Christian is not concerned with his rights, but with the glory of God (cf. Col. 3:17). Eating, drinking, everything must be subordinated to this. 32. Paul urges his friends to have a tender concern for all, Jews, Greeks and the church of God. Their conduct might have repercussions in any of these groups, and they should try to give no offence to any :1. As elsewhere, Paul appeals to his own example. He is not guided by personal advantage but consideration for the good of many, specifically their salvation. He calls on his converts to imitate him, but in the very act of saying this he points them away from himself. The reason they should imitate him is that he imitates Christ. His example points 3 them to the Saviour. 14. Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. Therefore. That is, because such severe judgments came upon the idolatrous Israelites, because you as well as they are in danger of being involved in that sin, and because your distinguished privileges can protect you neither from the sin nor from its punishment any more than their privileges protected them. My dear friends. Paul addresses them in terms of affection, although his letter is so full of serious warning. Flee from idolatry. That is, avoid it by fleeing from it. This is the only safe way to avoid sin. Its presence is malarious. The only safety is keeping at a distance. This includes two things: first, avoiding what is questionable that is, everything that lies on the border of what is allowable or that approaches the confines of sin; and, second, keeping at a distance from everything that excites evil passion or that tends to ensnare the soul. 15. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Sensible people. That is, people capable of seeing the force of an argument. Paul s appeal is not to authority, whether his own or that of the Scriptures. The whole question was whether a given service came within the scriptural definition of idolatry. He was willing, as it were, to leave the decision up to them and therefore said, judge for yourselves what I say. That is, sit in judgment on an argument that I present. Should they differ from the apostle, that would not alter the case. The service was idolatrous, whatever they thought of it. But he takes this way of convincing them. 16. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Here it is assumed that sharing the Lord s Supper brings us into communion with Christ. If this is so, sharing the table of demons must bring us into communion with 3 Morris, L. (1985). 1 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 7, pp ). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 9 More study helps at

10 demons. This is the apostle s argument. It is founded on the assumption that sharing the cup is sharing Christ s blood, and that sharing the bread is sharing Christ s body. Thus far Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed churches agree in their interpretation of this important passage. They all agree that sharing the cup is sharing Christ s blood, and that sharing the bread is sharing Christ s body. But when we ask the nature of this sharing, the answers given are radically different. The Reformed answer, negatively, that it is not in a bodily way. That is, it is not by the mouth or as ordinary food is received. Affirmatively, they answer that it is by faith and therefore by the soul. This, of course, determines the nature of the thing shared or the sense in which the body and blood of Christ are received. If the reception is not by mouth, but by faith, then the thing received is not the material body and blood, but the body and blood as a sacrifice that is, their sacrificial virtue. Hence all Reformed churches (and even the Church of England) teach that Christ s body and blood are received elsewhere than at the Lord s Table, and without the reception of the bread and wine, which in the sacrament are their symbols and the means of communication, as elsewhere the Word is the means. Another point no less clear to the Reformed doctrine is that since Christ s body and blood are received by faith, they are not received by unbelievers. Roman Catholics answer the question by saying that the mouth is the means of reception; that the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ, into whose substance the bread and wine are changed by the act of consecration; and consequently, that believers and unbelievers are sharers alike. Lutherans teach that although the bread and wine remain unchanged, Christ s body and blood are locally present in the sacrament in, with, and under the bread and wine. The mouth receives them; the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ; and they are received both by believers and unbelievers. Unbelievers, however, receive them to their detriment and condemnation; believers receive them to their spiritual nourishment and teaching. Christ s body and blood are received in the Lord s Supper, but this is impossible elsewhere. These are the three great forms of doctrine that have prevailed in the church on this subject; and this passage is interpreted by each party in accordance with their particular views. The passage decides no point of difference. If the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation can be proved elsewhere, then, of course, this passage must be understood in accordance with it. And if the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation can be established by other declarations of the Word of God, then this passage must be explained in accordance with that doctrine. But if it can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture and from those laws of belief that God has impressed upon our nature that those doctrines are false, then the passage must be understood as teaching a spiritual, and not a bodily, sharing of Christ s body and blood. All that the passage asserts is the fact of a participation; the nature of that participation must be determined from other sources. The cup of thanksgiving. So far as the meaning of the words is concerned, this phrase 10 More study helps at

11 may be translated either the cup of thanksgiving (the eucharistic cup) or the cup of blessing (the consecrated cup). In the Paschal service the cup was called the cup of blessing, because a benediction was pronounced over it. The idea of consecration is necessarily included. Wine, as wine, is not the sacramental symbol of Christ s blood, but only when it is solemnly consecrated for that purpose. Even our ordinary food is said to be consecrated by the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:5) because it is set apart by a religious service for the purpose for which it was appointed. For which we give thanks. This is the explanation of the preceding clause. The cup of thanksgiving is the cup for which we give thanks. Compare Luke 9:16, where it is said that our Lord, taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven gave thanks and broke them. This also shows that giving thanks in such contexts means imploring God s blessing with thanksgiving. Therefore, the cup is blessed by the prayer in which we ask God to make it serve its purpose. A participation in the blood of Christ. Whoever shares the cup shares Christ s blood. This, of course, is true only of believers. Paul is writing to believers and assumes the presence of faith in the receiver. Similarly, baptism (portrayed earlier in the chapter) is said to picture the washing away of sin, and the Word of God is said to sanctify, not from any virtue in them, not as an external rite or as words addressed to the outer ear, not to everyone indiscriminately who is baptized or who hears the Word, but as means God has appointed when we receive them by faith and they are accompanied by the working of his Spirit. The believing reception of the cup is as certainly connected with sharing Christ s blood as the believing reception of the Word is connected with an experience of its life-giving power. The apostle s whole argument is based on this idea. He wishes to prove that partaking of the sacrificial feasts of the heathen brought people into real communion with demons, because sharing the Lord s Supper makes us really sharers in Christ. The word participation comes from the verb that appears in Hebrews 2:14, where it says Christ shared flesh and blood. In Romans 11:17 the Gentiles took part in the spiritual blessings of the Jews. Hence we have such expressions as fellowship with his Son (1 Corinthians 1:9), the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14), fellowship with the Spirit (Philippians 2:1), sharing in this service (2 Corinthians 8:4), and partnership in the gospel (Philippians 1:5). Of course, the nature of this participation depends on the nature of its object. Participation in Christ is sharing in his Spirit, character, sufferings, and glory; participation in the Gospel is participation in its benefits; and thus participation in the blood of Christ is partaking of its benefits. This passage affords not the slightest ground for the Roman Catholic or Lutheran doctrine of partaking of the substance of Christ s body and blood in the Lord s Supper. When 1:9 says we are called into fellowship with his Son, it does not mean that we partake of the substance of the Godhead. And when the apostle John says, we have fellowship with one another (that is, we are partners of one another ) (1 John 1:7), he does not mean that we partake of each other s bodily substance. To share in a sacrifice 11 More study helps at

12 offered on our behalf is to share in its efficacy; and as Christ s blood means his sacrificial blood, partaking of his blood no more means partaking of his literal blood than to say that his blood cleanses us from all sin means that his literal, physical blood does this. When we are said to be sprinkled by his blood (1 Peter 1:2), it does not mean his literal blood. And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? That is, by partaking of the bread we partake of the body of Christ. This is just a repetition of the thought contained in the previous clause. The cup is the means of partaking of his blood; the bread is the means by which we partake of his body. The body of Christ cannot here mean the church, because his blood is mentioned in the same context, and because in the institution of the Lord s Supper the bread is the symbol of Christ s literal, not his mystical, body. To partake of his body is to partake of the benefits of his body that has been broken for us. That we break. This evidently alludes to the original institution of the sacrament. Our Lord took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you (1 Corinthians 11:23 24). The whole service, therefore, is often called the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42; compare Acts 20:7). Therefore, the custom of using a wafer placed unbroken in the mouth of the communicant leaves out a significant element in this sacrament. 17. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. The apostle s intention is to show that everyone who comes to the Lord s Supper enters into communion with all other communicants. They form one body in virtue of their joint participation in Christ. This being the case, those who attend the sacrificial feasts of the heathen also form one religious body. They are in religious communion with each other, because they are in communion with the demons on whom their worship centers. Many distinguished commentators, however, prefer the following interpretation: For we, though many, are one bread and one body. Sharing the same loaf makes us one bread, and jointly partaking of Christ s body makes us one body. This is, to say the least, an unusual and harsh image. Believers are never said to be one bread, and to make the basis of comparison the fact that the loaf is the joint product of many grains of wheat is very remote. And to say that we are literally one bread because the bread passes into the composition of the bodies of all the communicants is to make the apostle teach modern physiology. The idea of joint participation lies in the word participation ( communion, KJV ) as used in the previous verse. The bread that we break is a joint participation of the body of Christ; because it is one bread, so are we one body. The thing to be proved is the union of all who share that one bread. Instead of connecting this verse with verse 16, as containing a confirmation of what is stated there, many commentators take it as an independent sentence introducing a passing remark: The Lord s Supper brings us into communion with Christ. Because this is the case, we are one body and should act accordingly. But this not only breaks the connection, but introduces what is not in the text. The idea is, Partaking of 12 More study helps at

13 the sacrament is a communion because we, the many, all partake of one bread. 18. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? The people of Israel. That is, the Jews as a nation, not the spiritual Israel or the true people of God. Do not those who eat the sacrifices? With the Jews, as with other nations, only a portion of most sacrifices was consumed on the altar. The rest was divided between the priest and the offerer. See Leviticus 7:16 and 8:31. To eat the sacrifices in the way prescribed in the law of Moses was to take part in the whole sacrificial service. You are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose (Deuteronomy 12:18). Therefore, the apostle says that those who eat of the sacrifices participate in the altar that is, they are in communion with it. They become worshipers of the God to whom the altar is dedicated. This is the implication and the effect of joining in the pagan sacrificial feasts. The question is not about the intention of the actors, but about the implications of the act and the interpretation universally put upon it. To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice in a holy place was an act of Jewish worship. Reasoning in the same way, to partake of a heathen sacrifice in a holy place was necessarily an act of heathen worship. As all who attended the Jewish sacrifices, to which only Jews were admitted, professed to be Jews and to be joint worshipers of Jehovah, and as they could not be in communion with the altar without being in communion with each other, therefore all who attended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen brought themselves into religious communion with idolaters. It need hardly be added that this passage gives no ground for the opinion that the Lord s Supper is a sacrifice. This is not the point of comparison. The apostle s argument does not imply that because the Jewish and heathen feasts were sacrificial feasts, therefore the Christian festival had the same character. The whole stress lies on the word participate. Because participation in Christian ordinances involves communion with Christ, participation in heathen ordinances involves communion with demons. 19. Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? This is evidently intended to guard against a false inference from this mode of reasoning. It was not to be inferred from what he had said that he regarded the professed objects of heathen worship as having the same objective existence as the God whom Jews and Christians worshiped, or that he considered the heathen sacrifices as having any inherent power. The idol was nothing, and that which was offered to the idol was nothing. This, however, does not alter the case. For although there are no such beings as those whom the heathen conceive their gods to be, and although their sacrifices are not what they consider them, still their worship is real idolatry and has a destructive influence on the soul. How this is so is explained in the following verse. 20. No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not 13 More study helps at

14 want you to be participants with demons. That is, I do not say the gods of the heathen have a real existence, that there are any such beings as Jupiter or Minerva; but I do say that the heathen worship is the worship of demons. This verse presents two questions for consideration. First, in what sense does Paul here use the word translated demons? Second, in what sense can it be truly said that the heathen worship demons? The words daimon and daimonion were used by the Greeks for any deity or god or spirit, and generally for any object of reverence or dread. The only case in the New Testament where they have this sense is in Acts 17:18 ( He seems to be advocating foreign gods ). Elsewhere these words always mean fallen angels. We must understand the apostle as saying that on the one hand the gods of the heathen were imaginary beings, and on the other, that their sacrifices were really offered to evil spirits. In what sense, though, is this true? The heathen certainly did not intend to worship evil spirits. Nevertheless, they did it. People of the world do not intend to serve Satan when they break the laws of God in the pursuit of their objects of desire. Still, in so doing they are really obeying and fulfilling the devil s plans. He is, therefore, said to be the god of this world. All sin is an offering and homage to him. We are shut up to the necessity of worshiping either God or Satan; all refusing or neglecting to worship the true God, or giving to anyone else the worship that is due to him alone, is the worship of Satan and his angels. It is true, therefore, in the highest sense that what the heathen offer, they offer to demons. Although their gods have no existence, yet there are real evil beings the rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:12), on whom their worship terminates. And I do not want you to be participants with demons. By participants the apostle means here what he meant by the same term in the preceding verses. We are said to have fellowship with those between whom and us there is congeniality of mind, community of interest, and friendly relations. In this sense we have fellowship with our fellow-christians, with God, and with his Son. And in this sense the worshipers of idols have fellowship with evil spirits. They are united to them so as to form one community, with a common character and a common destiny. They are brought into this state of fellowship by sacrificing to them; that is, by idolatry, which is an act of apostasy from the true God and of association with the kingdom of darkness. It was of great importance for the Corinthians to know that whether they came into communion with demons did not depend on their intention. The heathen did not intend to worship demons, and yet they did it. What help would it be, therefore, for the reckless Corinthians, who attended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, to say that they did not intend to worship idols? The question was not what they meant to do, but what they did; not what their intention was, but what were the implications and effect of their conduct. A person need not intend to burn himself when he puts his hand into the fire, or to pollute his soul when he frequents the haunts of vice. The effect is altogether independent of his 14 More study helps at

15 intention. This principle applies with all its force to compliance with the religious services of the heathen today. Those who in pagan countries join in the religious rites of the heathen are just as much guilty of idolatry and are just as certainly brought into fellowship with demons as the nominal Christians of Corinth, who although they knew that an idol was nothing and that there is only one God still frequented the heathen feasts. 21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord s table and the table of demons. The cup of the Lord is the cup that brings us into communion with the Lord (verse 16); the cup of demons is the cup that brings us into communion with demons. The reference is not exclusively or specially to the cup of libation or to the wine poured out as an offering to the gods, but to the cup from which the guests drank at these sacrificial feasts. The whole service had a religious character. All the provisions, the wine as well as the meat, were blessed in the name of the idol and were thereby consecrated to him in a manner analogous to that in which the bread and wine on the Lord s Table are consecrated to him (compare 1 Samuel 9:12 13). The Lord s table is the table at which the Lord presides and at which his people are his guests. The table of demons is the table at which demons preside and at which all present are their guests. What the apostle means to say is that there is not merely an incongruity and inconsistency between a person being the guest and friend of Christ and the guest and friend of evil spirits, but that the thing is impossible. It is as impossible as that the same man should be black and white or wicked and holy at the same time. In neither case is this attendance an empty, ineffective service. A person cannot eat at the table of demons without being brought under their power and influence; nor can we eat at the Lord s Table without being brought into contact with him, either for our salvation or our condemnation. If we come thoughtlessly, without any desire for communion with Christ, we eat and drink judgment to ourselves. But if we come with a humble desire to obey our divine Master and to seek his presence, we cannot fail to be welcomed and blessed. Compare 2 Corinthians 6: Are we trying to arouse the Lord s jealousy? Are we stronger than he? Jealousy is the feeling that arises from wounded love and is the fiercest of all human passions. It is, therefore, used as an illustration of the hatred God has for idolatry. It is like when a bride transfers her affections from her lawful husband, in every way worthy of her love, to some degraded and offensive object. This illustration, feeble as it is, is the most effective that can be borrowed from human relationships and is often used in Scripture to show the heinousness of the sin of idolatry. See Deuteronomy 32:21, Psalm 78:58, and elsewhere. Are we trying to arouse? That is, is it our object to provoke the Lord to jealousy? The Corinthians ought not to attend these feasts unless they intended to excite God s displeasure against themselves in the highest degree. And they ought not to excite his 15 More study helps at

16 anger like this unless they are stronger than he. By the Lord is meant Christ, as the context requires. It was the Lord s Table that was forsaken, and the same Lord was thereby provoked to jealousy. Here again the relationship in which Christians stand to Christ is said to be like that in which the Israelites stood to Jehovah. Christ is therefore our Jehovah. He is our husband, to whom our supreme affection is due; and he loves us as a husband loves his wife. Your Maker is your husband the LORD Almighty is his name (Isaiah 54:5; see also Ephesians 5:25 31). Under What Circumstances It Was Lawful to Eat Meat Offered to Idols (Verses 23 33; 11:1) In the previous paragraph the apostle had proved that eating the sacrifices offered to idols, under circumstances that gave a religious character to the act, was idolatry. Now he comes to state the circumstances under which those sacrifices might be eaten without scruple. He begins by reverting to the general law of Christian liberty stated with the same limitations as in 6:12. The right to use things that in themselves are morally neutral is limited by expediency. We should be governed in this matter by regard for the good of others and for our own edification (verses 23 24). If the meat of sacrifices is sold in the market (verses 25 26) or found at private tables, it may be eaten without any hesitation (verse 27). But if anyone at a private table, from scruples on the subject, should let us know that a certain dish contained part of a sacrifice, for his sake, and not for our own, we ought to abstain (verses 28 30). The general rule of action, not only as to meats and drinks, but as to all other things, is first to act with regard for God s glory (verse 31) and, second, to avoid giving offense (that is, occasion for sin) to anyone (verse 32). In this matter Paul presents himself as an example to his fellow-believers (verse 33). 23. Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible but not everything is constructive. The apostle had already, in 6:12 and in chapter 8, conceded that eating the sacrifices offered to idols was in itself unimportant. But the use of unimportant things is limited by two principles; first, regard for the welfare of others; and, second, regard for our own welfare. The word beneficial expresses one of these ideas, and the word constructive expresses the other. Not everything is beneficial or useful to others; and not everything is constructive for ourselves. The latter phrase might indeed refer to other people as well as to ourselves, but as contrasted with the previous term it seems to be used here with this restricted application. In this view it corresponds to the clause, I will not be mastered by anything in 6: Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. That is, let everyone, in using his liberty, have regard for other people s welfare. The maxim is indeed general. Not only in the use of things that are morally neutral, but in all other things as well we should act not in exclusive regard to our own interests, but also 16 More study helps at